Sitting of 14 July 1884

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICES ESTIMATES—CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS—R.P.—Votes 4 to 10.
Resolutions [June 10] reported.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Third Reading—Ouse (Lower) Improvement, and passed.
PUBLIC BILLS.—Ordered—First Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Labourers Act) (No. 8)* [283].
Second Reading — Royal Military Asylum, Chelsea (Transfer)* [267]; Great Seal* [268]; Public Libraries Acts Amendment* [273]; Trusts (Scotland)* [279]; Reformatory and Industrial Schools (Manx Children)* [280]; Newcastle Chapter* [281]; Naval Discipline Act (1866) Amendment* [263]; Ulster Canal and Tyrone Navigation [244]; debate adjourned; Benefices (Tiverton Portions) Consolidation Amendment* [272]; Waste Lands Afforestation (Ireland) [40] [House counted out].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Salmon (Weekly Close Time) (Ireland) [37].
Committee—Prisons (Ireland) (Cost of Conveyance of Prisoners)* [275] — R.P.; Infants [14]—R.P.; Poor Law Guardians (Ireland) [22]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Strensall Common (on re-comm.)* [266]; Oyster Cultivation (Ireland)* [43]; Canal Boats Act (1877) Amendment (on re-comm.)* [282]; Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878 (Districts) [253–284].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Yorkshire Registries* [264], and passed.
Third Reading—Sheriff Court Houses (Scotland) Amendment* [245], and passed.

MOTION.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (LABOURERS ACT) (NO. 8) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board for Ireland, under "The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883," relating to the Drogheda Union, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND and Mr. TREVELYAN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 283.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  OUSE (LOWER) IMPROVEMENT BILL [Lords] (by Order.)

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read (Queen's Consent signified).
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
    MR. C. H. WILSONsaid, that on Tuesday last, when the Bill was before the House for consideration, he had moved an Amendment, the object of which was to exempt certain river craft upon the Humber which frequented the port of Goole from the toll of ½d. per ton which the Bill proposed to levy upon all vessels navigating the Ouse which were of more than 10 tons burden. If he had gone to a Division on that occasion he should certainly have had a large amount of support; but he did not consider it necessary to press the Amendment to a Division. Since then he had received a letter fully justifying his opposition to the Bill from the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the Hull Corporation. The reason assigned for objecting to his Amendment was that the Corporation of Hull had no locus standi to oppose the Bill. Now, the question appeared to him to be one of some public importance. The Corporation of Hull were the natural guardians of the trade of the port; and if they were not allowed a locus standi in cases of this kind, taxes could be proposed to Parliament of an arbitrary and even of an unjust character, and they would be passed by the House of Commons. He was told that, in the first instance, when the Bill was about to go before a Committee of the House of Lords, several witnesses left the town of Hull who were prepared to give evidence against the Bill, and representations were made by the Chamber of Commerce that the interests of owners of river craft, coal merchants, and others would be materially injured by the provisions of the Bill. Their locus standi, however, was refused. When the Bill came before the House of Commons the Parliamentary Committee of Hull again determined, if possible, to obtain a locus standi; and for that purpose the
    894
    Mayor, certain members of the Town Council, and himself attended the Court of Referees. They were heard by counsel, but were again refused a locus standi, the argument upon which the decision of the Court was based being that they were not the Conservators of the Humber. It was evident that more importance was attached to the interests of Goole than of Hull. The Bill was promoted by the Aire and Calder Navigation Company, who desired to improve the navigation of the Lower Ouse in order that a larger description of vessels might be able to go up to Goole. The improvements which the Aire and Calder Navigation Company proposed to carry out would be of no advantage to Hull, and would really be of no advantage whatever to the river craft which now went from Hull to Goole, and to the system of canal navigation owned by the Aire and Calder Navigation Company. Nevertheless, in spite of that, the present Bill proposed to impose a tax of ½d. a ton on all goods carried by these vessels from Hull to Goole. He was informed that within the last 12 months the Aire and Calder Navigation Company had considerably increased their dues upon vessels from Hull to the interior with goods for Leeds and other towns in the West. The advance of rates from Hull to Leeds since the year 1872 varied from 5 to 18 per cent, and from Leeds to Hull the advance of rates had been as much as 63 per cent within the last 12 years. That had all been done, he understood, by an agreement between the North Eastern Railway Company and the Aire and Calder Canal Navigation Company, and the result in regard to this water communication was that by a combination of the Railway and Canal interests higher rates were charged. A new Bill was now promoted which stood for a third reading that day, and the object of it was to impose additional taxation upon the river craft trading to Goole. Small though the tax was, it was still sufficient to weigh heavily on the owners of the river craft, who would be required, if the Bill passed, to pay ½d. a ton upon all goods they carried between Hull and the interior of the country. Now, it appeared to him that the Corporation of Hull were the natural guardians and protectors of the interests of a port like Hull, and he thought they were fairly entitled to a locus standi

    895
    to appear before a Committee of the House of Commons to oppose this taxing clause. If they could have been in that position they would have been able to lay a very strong case before the Committee.
    Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;—
    The House went; — and being returned;—
    Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to several Bills.

OUSE (LOWER) IMPROVEMENT BILL [Lords] (by Order.)
Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
MR. C. H. WILSON, in resuming his speech, said, the Committee of the House of Commons had disallowed the locus standi of the Corporation of Hull, on the ground that they were not the Conservators of the Humber, and were therefore not entitled to be heard on behalf of the traders of the river against the Bill promoted by the Aire and Calder Canal Navigation Company. The Aire and Calder Company were the proprietors of a very successful undertaking. He was told that their £100 shares were worth £500; and it was a matter of surprise that a Corporation like that should seek, by a Bill of this nature, to obtain the power of taxing the small river craft which traded on the River Humber up to Goole. He felt convinced that if the case of the Corporation of Hull on behalf of the owners of these small vessels could have been heard by a Committee of the House of Commons, this taxing power would have been struck out of the Bill. Having made this protest, he would end with an appeal to the Aire and Calder Navigation Company not to exercise their power of levying this toll, which would be a most serious tax upon the poorer class of traders, who were entitled to their sympathy and support for the amount of traffic they brought them, instead of being subjected to the imposition, of an unfair and unjust tax. Having made this protest, he would only add that, although he had placed on the Paper a Notice of his intention to move the rejection of the Bill, as an Amendment, he did not propose to put the House to
896
the trouble of a Division, and he would therefore refrain from moving it.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

QUESTIONS.

  LAW AND POLICE (ENGLAND AND WALES) — CLEATOR MOOR RIOTS, CUMBERLAND.
  MR. SEXTONgave Notice that to-morrow he would ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What information he had respecting the Orange riots in Cumberland; whether there had been more than one death, and how many persons were dangerously wounded; whether a large number of men had assembled armed with pikes and other weapons; and, what steps had been taken to prevent a collision between the Orangemen and the Catholics?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: With the permission of the House, I will answer the hon. Member's Question at once. I have received the following Report from the Chief Constable at Carlisle, dated the 13th of July:—
  "Sir,—I have the honour to report that about 1,500 Orangemen assembled in a field at Wath Brow, near Cleator, at 11 A.M. yesterday, the 12th instant, to hold a meeting by previous arrangement. Speeches were made, and a great deal of excitement existed during the day. The Orange party was armed with pistols, swords, spears, &c. They were dressed in the Orange costume, with flags, banners, and bands of music. Large numbers of the Orangemen were taken to Cleator Moor from Workington and other towns by special train. The Orangemen on their way back to the railway station were hooted by a large crowd of the Roman Catholic party. One of the Orangemen thrust a flag in the faces of some of the crowd, whereupon the crowd, which consisted of about 6,000, rushed in upon the Orange party. Several blows were struck on both sides. The Orange party fired several shots, and struck with their swords and spears. One young man, named Henry Tummilty, aged 17 years, who till recently was a letter carrier at the Cleator Moor Post Office, was shot dead on the spot; six others were wounded seriously by pistol shots. Several others were cut by swords and spears. No further deaths have occurred. The Roman Catholic crowd became furious on hearing of the death of one of their party. They made several attacks on the Orangemen with sticks and stones; many were cut and wounded, but this was after the firing, and the death of Tummilty.

  897
  The police succeeded in separating the two parties, and by forming lines across the streets the crowd attacking the Orange party were cut off from pursuing them. The Orangemen were at last got to the railway station without further fighting; but while at the station waiting for their train the attack was renewed by large numbers of men and women who had got there by circuitous routes. A body of police were moved on to the railway bridge, from which place the attack was being made. Several shots were fired by the Orange party from the railway station at the attacking party on the bridge, but no persons were wounded there. Two magistrates, Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Ainsworth, and 45 officers and constables of police were on duty to do everything that could be done to preserve the peace; and it was entirely owing to their great exertions that a most serious loss of life and destruction of property was prevented. I had previously applied to the Petty Sessions of the district to arrange for a magistrate to be present to read the Riot Act if necessary. The Riot Act was not read, as the peace was restored without resorting to that extreme measure. I was present myself during the latter part of the disturbance, and took command of the police. I kept a large body of men on special duty during the night, as it was feared that the houses of some Orangemen who reside in the district of Cleator would be wrecked; but up to 8 P.M. this evening all is quiet and orderly."
  That is all the information I have at present.
  MR. SEXTON: I would say from the Report that adequate measures were not taken. It appears that only about 50 police were opposed to a large armed party of Orangemen. I beg to give Notice that I shall call attention to the inadequate steps which were taken by the authorities to prevent this collision and loss of life.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRY: Arising out of this Question I beg to give Notice that I will repeat the Question which I have put to the Home Secretary on a former occasion—namely, Whether the Government will not consider the propriety of bringing in a Bill dealing with the possession of revolvers in this country as well as in Ireland?
  MR. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that this is not the time for Questions. These are Notices of Motion.

  CHURCH OF ENGLAND — CLERICAL FEES.
  MR. BUCHANAN (for Mr. WADDY)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Joshua Horsewood, an agricultural labourer at Donington on Bain, placed a headstone on his wife's grave in the churchyard,
  898
  and paid the rector the customary fee of half-a-guinea; whether the rector demanded a guinea, and told Horsewood that if he did not pay that amount the stone would be taken up again, and he must pay the guinea or take the consequences; whether the stone shortly afterwards disappeared, and was found in a neighbouring mill pond; whether inquiries have been made to ascertain who removed the stone; and, whether there is any legal ground why it should not now be restored to its place in the churchyard?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have received a good deal of correspondence with reference to this case. This is a matter in which I have no immediate jurisdiction; but thinking that the proceeding on the part of the clergyman had not been well advised, I wrote to him on the subject, and he has given an undertaking that the tombstone shall be replaced in the churchyard. I have communicated this to the parties.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—WESTMINSTER HALL (WEST FRONT).
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he can now state to the House how it is proposed to treat the west front of Westminster Hall?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I propose at once to lay on the Table of the House a very long and interesting Report by the eminent architect, Mr. Pearson, on this subject. I shall also place in the Library the plans which he has submitted for the restoration of the West Front of the Hall. In the event of these plans not meeting with serious objection in this House, I shall submit in the present Session a Supplementary Estimate for carrying them into effect. In the event, however, of there being much difference of opinion as to the expediency of carrying them into effect, the Government will not object to referring the subject to a Select Committee. The plans will be placed in the Library of the House.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE GAELIC AND IRISH LANGUAGES.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, with reference to the statement that the Department was not bound to

  899
  teach Gaelic, thereby directly traversing the Report of the Crofters' Commissioners on the point, Whether it is the case that, in the national schools in Ireland, the Irish language has been placed on the List of Special Subjects, or, as it is termed, Extra Branches, with a result fee of 10 s. attached; and, if so, why a different rule is presently followed, and apparently meant to be perpetuated, in those parts of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland where Gaelic is the mother tongue?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I do not know to what statement the hon. Gentleman refers; but it is true that the Irish National Board gives a grant for the teaching of the Irish language, and that no grant has ever been made under the Scotch or English Codes for the teaching of Gaelic or Welsh. But the Irish Board admits that all the evidence is against placing the teaching of Irish on the list of extra subjects. I have been making inquiries as to the best means of familiarizing Gaelic-speaking population with English, and as to the desirability of providing teachers who can speak Gaelic, with the object of the better instruction, in English, of Gaelic-speaking children. The question will be fully considered before a new Code is issued.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—SCHOOL BOARD DOCUMENTS.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether official documents can be withheld from a member of a School Board in Scotland; and, if not, whether a chairman is liable to removal who arbitrarily keeps back public documents; and, what is the practice of the Department in regard to supplying Copies of Letters or Papers addressed to the Department when such are asked for by a member of the School Board?
  MR. MUNDELLA: All official documents addressed to the clerk of a School Board are for the use of the School Board, and every member is entitled to have access to them. I am not aware that there is any power to remove a Chairman; but this is a question of law. It is not the practice of the Department to supply copies of letters or papers, addressed to the Department, to individual members of a School Board. Copies of any such letters would, if thought
  900
  expedient, be sent to the School Board for their remarks or information.

  MUSEUM OF SCIENCE AND ART, EDINBURGH.
  MR. BUCHANAN (for Mr. WADDY)asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Returns of the amounts received for admission to the Museum of Science and Art in Edinburgh on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays respectively during the last year; whether he is prepared to recommend that the charge for admission on Thursdays be discontinued, as that day is frequently a holiday in Scotland; and, whether free admission may be given on every day except to the comparatively small portion used by the students?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I shall be very happy to give the Return asked for, if the hon. Member will move for it. It is very important that there should be students' days during which the bonâ fide student can work quietly. The Trustees of the National Gallery have adopted our plan of admitting the public by payment on students' days. We will, however, consider how far we can meet the wishes of the hon. Member. We are only desirous that the Museum shall be of the greatest use to the greatest number.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)—THE PROCURATOR FISCAL IN LEWIS.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has yet been able to consider the case of the Public Prosecutor in Lewis, who is also land agent for the sole proprietor of the island; and, whether he proposes to take any step to carry out the recommendations of the Crofters' Commission that the Law Officers of the Crown in the district reported on should be placed in an impartial and independent position?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I have been requested by my right hon. and learned Friend to answer this Question. As I have had occasion to state in the House before, the Procurator Fiscal in Lewis is not land agent for the proprietor of the Island; he is only the local law agent for the proprietor, whose principal law agents are a firm in Edinburgh. The

  901
  Secretary of State has no power to remove a Procurator Fiscal from office unless for inability or misbehaviour upon a Report by the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Justice Clerk, and there is no suggestion of inability or misbehaviour in this case. Upon the general question I have nothing to add to the statements and explanations which have already been made during the present Session.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: Are we to understand that the Government do not intend to take any steps whatever on the recommendation of the Crofters' Commission with respect to the administration of justice in the Western Islands?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): It has already been explained that the whole matter is under consideration.

  PUBLICAN'S CERTIFICATES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1876.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether Robert Paisley has been granted a publican's licence by the Excise in respect of premises situated in Bellshill, Lanarkshire; whether Paisley's application to the Licensing Court under the Publican's Certificates (Scotland) Act, 1876, was for a new licence or for a renewal; whether he was granted a new certificate, and whether, on application for confirmation under the Publican's Certificates (Scotland) Act, 1876, confirmation was refused; if his certificate was a new one, and not confirmed, under what Law the Excise authorities granted him a licence; and, if no licence has been granted, why Paisley is allowed openly to carry on business as a publican?
  MR. COURTNEY: The Excise authorities in this case granted a licence upon a magistrate's certificate in the usual form. It is understood, however, that a technical point was raised at the Licensing Court, as to whether any confirmation was needed, as Paisley already had a grocer's certificate, and applied for a publican's certificate in respect of the same premises; but this does not concern the Inland Revenue.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, the hon. Gentleman had not answered the Question, whether Paisley applied for a new certificate, and was granted a new certificate, or whether he applied for an old one?
  MR. COURTNEYreplied that, as he understood it, Paisley had a grocer's certificate, and he applied for a publican's certificate.
  DR. CAMERON: A new one, or an old one?
  MR. COURTNEY: A new one, I presume.

  SPIRITS ACT, 1880—THE "SHIP" INN, DUMFRIES.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Inasmuch as it is enacted by section one hundred and fifty-one of "The Spirits Act, 1880," that every officer or person employed by the Excise who, by any wilful act, neglect, or default, does, or permits or agrees to do or permit anything in contravention or evasion of that Act, shall incur a fine of five hundred pounds, and shall thereafter be disqualified from serving Her Majesty in any office or employment, and, by section forty-six of "The Spirits Act, 1880 ts that—
  "If any person hawks, sells, or exposes to sale, any spirits otherwise than in premises for which he is licensed to sell spirits,"
  he shall, in Scotland, incur a fine of not less than twenty-five pounds, and the spirits shall be forfeited, and any person may arrest a person found committing an offence against that section; and, whether the "Ship" Inn, Dumfries, has for some months past been openly conducted as a public house without a licence; and, if so, why the Executive Government allow the officers or servants of the Excise in whose district Dumfries is situated, or those Excise officials under whose instructions they act, to permit this contravention or evasion of "The Spirits Act, 1880?"
  MR. COURTNEY: This is an extremely argumentative Question, and I reply to it under protest. The answer I have to give is this. In cases in which magistrates have practically granted a licence, and it is only withheld temporarily and for some formal reason, the Excise authorities do not think it part of their duty to refuse to accept the equivalent of the duty, or to take, or to allow their subordinates to take, any action for a breach of the Act of 1880, which is, in fact, not broken in spirit in such cases. If my hon. Friend or anyone else thinks that in any particular case the sale should be stopped and the

  903
  penalties sued for, they have the remedy in their own hands.
  DR. CAMERONasked under what Statute the Excise had powers to grant licences without the permission of the magistrates being had?
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, the officials had power to do anything for which there was no penalty, and in this case there was no official penalty.

  FISHERY PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)—AUGHRIS, CO. SLIGO.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If it is the fact that nothing has yet been done by the Irish Board of Works in the construction of a landing place at Aughris, county Sligo, although several months have elapsed since the estimate and plan were returned to the Board, with the sanction of the Commission on Piers and Harbours for proceeding with the work; whether it is the fact that the prospect of the prompt erection of the landing place has induced several of the fishing crews at Aughris to purchase new boats and nets; whether these boats and nets are now constantly suffering injury through the ruggedness of the existing landing place; and, whether, in view of the facts stated, the Board of Works will now immediately proceed to construct the landing place?
  MR. COURTNEY: The hon. Member has been misinformed in this matter, no sanction to a plan for this work having been received by the Board of Works. I hope the local fishermen have not been put to any inconvenience from sharing in this misapprehension.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—SUB-COMMISSIONERS SITTING AT KILDYSART.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it has yet been formally notified to the Clare Land Sub-Commissioners that the Kildysart Board of Guardians have placed their board room at the disposal of the Sub-Commissioners for the purpose of holding a sitting of their Court there; and, if the Sub-Commissioners intend to take advantage of the offer; and, if so, whether he can state how soon the Court will sit there?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Chairman of the Clare Sub-Commission reports as follows:—
  904
  "It has never been intimated to us, officially or otherwise, that the Guardians had placed their Board Room at our disposal. The cases for the Kildysart Union for the present Sessions have all been disposed of; but if the accommodation be sufficient, and the public convenience requires it, there can be no objection to sit at Kildysart for the hearing of cases in that neighbourhood."
  MR. KENNYasked the right hon. Gentleman, whether he was aware that such failure to do what he believed to be the duty of the Sub-Commissioners had occurred on several previous occasions; and whether it was the intention of the Local Government Board, on the representation made, to cause inquiry to be instituted?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will give Notice of this Question, and I shall then have inquiries made.

  FOREIGN BONDHOLDERS (EGYPT, &c.)
  MR. M'COANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, although in 1876 no fewer than seventeen Foreign States, including most of the South American Republics, Mexico, three of the United States, Greece, and Turkey, were in default for a total of nearly £400,000,000 of loans contracted mainly or altogether in England, any (and, if any, would he state what) diplomatic or other action was then or has since been taken by Her Majesty's Government on behalf of the British creditors of those States; whether, especially, any such action was taken by this Country and France against the Porte when, in 1876, the interest on £86,000,000 of its public debt was, by a stroke of the Grand Vizier's pen, reduced from 5 per cent, to 2½ per cent., even of which latter rate nothing has since been paid, or on the subsequent suspension of the payment of both interest and sinking fund on its other loans, amounting in all to above £100,000,000 more, nearly all borrowed in England and France; and, whether there is any precedent in international finance for the joint action of the British and French Governments on behalf of the bondholders of Egypt since 1876 to the present time?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The action of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the claims of foreign bondholders is regulated by Lord Pal-

  905
  merston's Circular Despatch of January, 1848. What has passed in regard to most of the loans alluded to by the hon. Member is recorded in the Papers which, from time to time, have been laid before Parliament. I do not admit that Her Majesty's Government have interfered in Egypt on behalf of the bondholders; but they have interfered in Egyptian finance, because it is impossible to separate the financial from the political condition of the country.
  MR. M'COANsaid, the noble Lord had not answered his Question, whether there was any precedent in international finance for the joint action of the British and French Government on behalf of the bondholders of Egypt? He would remind the noble Lord that the ex-Khedive was deposed for his refusal to assent to certain arrangements in the interests of the bondholders. ["Order!"]
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the whole of the Question on the Paper was of an argumentative character; and the hon. Member asked him to answer about matters relating to 13 different States. The only thing which he could do was to refer the hon. Member to information which was just as much open to his inspection as it was to that of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE—LOSS OF AFFIDAVITS.
  MR. MARRIOTTasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that last year no less than 523 affidavits, lodged at the Central Office of the Supreme Court of Judicature, viz. 86 used in the Divisional Courts, 2 in the Appeal Court, 237 in Judges' Chambers, 142 in Masters' Chambers, 46 in Masters' private room, and 10 in Judges' private room, had been lost; and, whether he would direct that some steps should be taken to prevent the recurrence of such carelessness on the part of some of the officials?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, it was true that a large number of affidavits had been lost, but that was not in any way due to the carelessness of the officials. He had inquired into the matter, and discovered that the loss only took place in the Queen's Bench Division. In the
  906
  Chancery Division, in the course of the year, 88,000 affidavits were used, of which not one had been lost. But in that Division, copies, and not originals, were used in Court; whereas, in the Queen's Bench Division, in order to save expense, the originals were used in Court, and handed to the Judge, and from counsel to counsel. The result was that out of 45,000 affidavits so used some 500, or 1 per cent, had been lost. The question was then, in reality, more a question of economy than anything else.

  PETTY SESSIONS CLERKS ACT, 1881—THE DOG TAX.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can inform the House the reason of the great diminution of the sums of money paid to the credit of the finances of counties in Ireland from the proceeds of the Dog Tax?
  MR. TREVELYAN: By the operation of the Petty Sessions Clerks Act of 1881, the salaries and pensions of Petty Sessions clerks became largely increased. The increased expenditure is met in the manner provided by Section 2 of the Act, which authorizes the Lord Lieutenant to make an order for the deduction of the required amount from the sums otherwise payable to local authorities. In this manner the balances of the Dog Tax available for payment to local authorities become greatly diminished.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, was it not singular that there should be so large an increase in the salaries in that particular branch of the Service since the passing of that Act?
  [No reply was given.]

  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES—MR. CORRY CONNELLAN.
  MR. HEALYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, When the arrangement was made with Mr. Corry Connellan that his pension should be paid through the Bank of Ireland; by whom was it made; is there any precedent for such a practice; if so, can cases be quoted; was the arrangement made in writing; if so, can the correspondence be laid upon the Table; is the pension paid quarterly or yearly; and, will the Trea-

  907
  sury ascertain from the Bank how and to where they transmitted the amount to Mr. Connellan?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, this arrangement was made in November, 1868, with the Bank of Ireland. The recipient holds a power of attorney, and there is no right to interfere. A power of attorney is a document which is popularly used, and the arrangement is a common one. Rather more than 3 per cent of the persons entitled get their pensions in this way. The pension is paid quarterly.
  MR. HEALYasked if the pensioners who applied for the pensions to the State were not supplied with forms with a place for the address on; and if the one in question did not appear with a blank for the address?
  MR. COURTNEY'Sreply was inaudible.

  SALE OF INTOXICATNG LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) ACT—BONA FIDE TRAVELLERS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is the fact that on Sunday week a party of bicyclists from Kilmallock, on arriving at Rathkeale (twenty-two miles off) about 5·30 p.m. were refused refreshment at the hotel by order of Captain Hatcell, R.M.; whether police were stationed to see that the order was carried out, on the ground that a meeting to be held earlier in the day had been proclaimed; whether the tourists then waited on Captain Hatcell, and begged of him to be allowed food and drink, as they had not come to attend any meeting; whether he at first refused, but, after being informed that they would report him, he detailed two policemen to allow them to get what they wanted; and, whether this stipendiary has any instructions to override the bonâ fide traveller clause of the Sunday Closing Act; and, if not, what notice will be taken of his conduct?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have received a telegram from Captain Hatcell stating that, when the tourists referred to waited upon him and explained their case, he at once desired that they should be allowed to get the refreshment they wanted. It is not the fact that they were treated with any discourtesy, or that they threatened to report the magistrate. The telegram does not make quite clear the circumstances as to the order with regard to the public-houses
  908
  which was issued by the magistrates, and I have called for further particulars on the subject.
  MR. HEALY: As the right hon. Gentleman has not had sufficient Notice, I will put the Question down for Thursday.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have had quite sufficient Notice; but that point has not been made clear.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—MR. GEORGE BOLTON IN BANKRUPTCY.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether, as the 345th sec. 20 and 21 Vic. c. 60 ("The Irish Bankrupt and Insolvent Act, 1857") provides that—
  "Such petitioning trader (or debtor) shall, ten days before the date appointed for the private sitting, file in court, and in such form as may by any order to be made in pursuance of this Act be directed, a full account of his debts, and the consideration thereof, and the names, residences, and occupations of his creditors, and also a full account of his estate and effects, whether in possession, or reversion, or expectancy, and of all debts or rights due to or claimed by him, and of all property of what kind soever held in trust for him, and shall therein set forth such proposal as he is able to make for the future payment, or the compromise of such debts or engagements;"
  and the first private sitting was, in George Bolton's bankruptcy, appointed to be held on the 1st instant, the prescribed account was not filed; whether, therefore, the debtor was in default; whether he got an extension of ten days to file it; if so, on what grounds; whether Bolton petitioned the court for protection some two or three months ago; whether the ordinary rule or practice is that the statement of affairs shall be lodged in court within three, or, at the outside, four weeks after the protection was granted; why was this rule departed from in Bolton's case; whether the statement of affairs, according to the practice of the court, should have been vouched, in the presence of any creditor wishing to attend, by the official assignee, and a written report, if required, made by him thereon to the court; whether those necessary proceedings have been suspended and postponed; and, if so, if he would explain the cause; whether the statement of affairs, if filed and vouched, would disclose facts which would be taken as evidence in any court; and whether these have been delayed in view of the pending trial of Bolton v. O'Brien?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): Mr. Bolton petitioned the Court as an arranging debtor on the 3rd of May, and the first private sitting was fixed for the 3rd of June. The practice is that the accounting statement should be filed 10 days before the time fixed for the first private sitting, or such extended time as the Court shall grant. The debtor was allowed an extended time—namely, to the 4th of July—to file it, and the first private sitting was ultimately fixed for the 11th of July. Those extensions were granted on affidavit. I am informed by the Court officials that such extensions are frequently granted in arrangement cases, and that there was no exceptional ruling in Mr. Bolton's case. No creditor opposed the extension to the 11th of July. The statement of affairs, according to the practice, is vouched in the presence of any creditor who wishes to attend. It is not the practice to make a Report in arrangement cases to the Court, unless there is a special order obtained for the purpose. There has been no suspension or postponement of the vouching. It will take place in due course. I should say the accounting statement could be equally used in cross-examination of Mr. Bolton, whether it was vouched or not.
  MR. HEALYasked whether the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman had been called to the proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court on the 11th of July, when Mr. Bolton got a further extension of time, in order to put the hearing of his Petition off until after the trial of his action against Mr. O'Brien at Belfast?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)replied, that he saw the statement referred to in the newspapers only. He had merely to say that the Judge of the Bankruptcy Court had exercised his discretion in the matter.
  MR. HEALYgave Notice that he would call attention to this proceeding, and show that, in spite of the opposition of creditors, this extension of time was granted to Mr. Bolton.

  AFRICA (SOUTH)—THE CAPE COLONY—TRANSFER OF EXTRA COLONIAL NATIVE TERRITORY.
  MR. A. M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whe-
  910
  ther Her Majesty's Government have received any communication from the Government of the Cape relative to the proposed transfer of the extra Colonial Native territory from the direct control of the Crown to that of the Colony?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: No, Sir; we have received no communication of that sort from the Cape Government.

  THE WESTERN PACIFIC—THE REPORTS.
  SIR WILLIAM M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table the Reports concerning the state of affairs in the Western Pacific which they have received from Deputy Commissioner Romilly during the last twelve months?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The Reports we have received from Mr. Romilly during the last 12 months have been but few; but they shall be laid on the Table immediately.

  THE DEPARTMENT OF EMIGRATION—PROPOSED REVIVAL.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, in view of the rapid increase of population, and the consequent overstocked condition of the labour market in the Metropolis and elsewhere, Her Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of reviving the Department of Emigration, established by Earl Russell in 1840, but discontinued in 1877?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The Department of Emigration, to which the hon. Member refers, was established when our principal Colonies were without responsible Government, when their public lands were still held by the Imperial Government, who, out of the proceeds of sales, conducted emigration from home, and when the administration of the Passenger Acts—now transferred to the Board of Trade—rested with, the Colonial Office. Owing to the change of circumstances in all the foregoing respects, such a Department would now have nothing to do; and Her Majesty's Government would be unwilling in any way to interfere with the successful Emigration Agencies of the Colonial Governments.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOT: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the

  911
  Colonial Governments are extremely anxious that a union for the purposes of emigration should be made with the Government over here, so as to facilitate emigration?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Certain proposals of that sort have from time to time been made; but nothing bearing on the Question of the hon. Member.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND) ACT, 1878 — SECTION 7 — COLLECTION OF WATER RATES.
  MR. BIGGARasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether Towns Commissioners, in towns under 6,000 inhabitants, can legally strike a rate divisible between landlord and tenant for supplying such town with water, and for other sanitary purposes, upon their being appointed an Urban Sanitary Authority by the Local Government Board, under the seventh section of "The Public Health Act, 1878," as if the same was done by the Board of Guardians as Rural Sanitary Authority?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): Town Commissioners of towns having less than 6,000 inhabitants who are made an Urban Sanitary Authority under the special powers conferred by the 7th section of the Public Health Act, 1878, must pay the expenses referred to out of a borough or town rate, or the borough fund, and not, as in the case of a small authority, out of poor rate divisible between landlord and tenant.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND)—MR. J. D. ELLIOTT, RATE COLLECTOR FOR THE BLACKROCK TOWNSHIP COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the committee appointed to investigate the accounts of Mr. J. D. Elliott, rate collector to the Blackrock Township Commission, have yet made any report to the Commission; and, if so, whether he can state the purport of the report; whether the Commission has made any, and, if so, what reply to the letter recently addressed to them by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, inquiring whether the realisation of Mr. Elliott's securities had been resorted to because of any defalcation in his accounts with the Commission; whether the Irish Local
  912
  Government Board has yet come to any decision as to the continued employment of that department; and, if no such decision has been arrived at, whether an undertaking will be given that it will be come to and announced before the House is asked to vote the Estimate for the Salaries and Expenses of the Irish Local Government Board?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I learn from the Secretary to the Commissioners of Blackrock Township that it is hoped that the final Report of the Special Committee will be ready and submitted for consideration at the next meeting of the Commissioners—on the 23rd instant—and that the Commissioners have deferred replying to the letter addressed to them by desire of the Lord Lieutenant. Until the Local Government Board have authentic information in regard to the alleged defalcation by Mr. Elliott, they are not in a position to determine whether or not he should be continued in the Poor Law service. They are fully alive to the importance of not retaining in any office of trust under them any person who might be proved to have misapplied funds intrusted to his charge in other capacities.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—SANITARY CONDITION OF THE THAMES.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the alarming sanitary condition of the River Thames; whether he is aware that, in addition to the sewage of the Metropolis being poured into it in a crude condition at Barking and Crossness, there are over one hundred sewer outfalls sending sewage into the river above London; and, what steps, if any, the Local Government Board propose to take to prevent danger arising to the public health?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Board are aware of the representations which have been made with regard to the sanitary condition of the Thames. With respect to the sewage of the Metropolis poured in at Barking and Crossness, I may refer to the reply given by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) on Friday last. We are informed by the Metropolitan Board of Works that the whole of the sewage is now completely deodorized

  913
  before being discharged into the river, and that this deodorization will be continued during the dry and hot weather, and that special attention is being given to the flushing of the sewers. With respect to the sewer outfalls above London, there is no doubt that in the district of the Lower Thames Main Sewerage Board there are a large number of sewers discharging into the Thames without any purification of the sewage. The House are aware that a scheme of main sewerage and sewage purification was proposed by the Joint Sewerage Board, and that a Provisional Order for the purchase of land required for the scheme was submitted this Session for the confirmation of Parliament. The Bill was referred to a Select Committee. That Committee have not yet made their Report; but it is understood they have determined to accept the grave responsibility of reporting altogether against the Bill. If so, the difficulties which will result will be of a most serious character; but I must await the Report of the Committee before expressing my opinion.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had observed that the Engineer of the Metropolitan Board of Works stated that one of the causes of the condition of the river was the diminution of the amount of the land-water owing to the quantity taken by the Water Companies above Teddington Lock; and that, consequently, the sewage was not so diluted as it used to be, and it did not amalgamate with salt water?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that as the river was so low this year he was having it measured at various points by Mr. Harrison, one of the Inspectors of the Local Government Board, and in a short time he should be more fully aware than at present of the effect of the abstraction of this land-water.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS, SHILLELAGH UNION.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the election of a Poor Law guardian for Shillelagh Union was declared void, as the result of an inquiry held in June 1883; whether, on that occasion, the Local Government Board considered that the returning officer did
  914
  not take sufficient trouble to inform himself, and "cautioned him that he must discharge his duties with more care in future;" whether it is the fact that the same returning officer in the elections this year received a greater number of votes in favour of the Conservative candidates for Tinahely and Ballinglen than he should have done; whether he is aware that, at the counting of votes for the new elections rendered necessary by the conduct of the returning officer, that officer refused to allow professional assistance to Mr. E. J. Byrne, the popular candidate, and when Mr. Byrne's solicitor appeared adjourned the proceedings, although he handed in a written protest against the adjournment, offering to withdraw from the Board room if the business was proceeded with; and, what course he, as Chairman of the Local Government Board, will take in the matter?
  MR. TREVELYAN: So far as this Question relates to the election of 1883, and to the original election in the present year, I have already more than once answered it, and explained that although there was some error on the part of the Returning Officer, there was no reason to doubt that he acted in good faith. With regard to the adjournment of the casting up of the votes at the recent supplemental election, the facts are that a solicitor attended on behalf of the candidate on one side, and the opposing candidate applied for an adjournment to afford him time to procure legal assistance also. The Returning Officer complied with this application, because he considered that professional representation on one side only would be calculated to interfere with the impartial discharge of his duty. In adopting this course the Returning Officer exercised a discretion which is vested in him by the rules governing such elections, and the Local Government Board see no reason to think that he exercised it unfairly.

  PARLIAMENT—"INTIMIDATION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS."
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked Mr. Attorney General, If his attention has been directed to the following words in The Pall Mall Gazette of July 9th 1884, describing the object of the agitation set on foot by the Birmingham Caucus and kindred Liberal Associations:—

  915
  "Our immediate duty is to organise the intimidation of the House of Lords. That is the fact in all its naked brutality, and we hope it will be taken to heart by every Liberal in the three Kingdoms;"
  and, whether such an organised attempt at intimidation is in accordance with Law; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take to deal with this huge avowed conspiracy against one branch of the Legislature?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): In consequence of the Question placed on the Paper by the noble Lord, I have referred to The Pall Mall Gazette of Wednesday last; and although, of course, the words put by the noble Lord in turned commas are correctly quoted, I do not find them so immediately connected with the agitation said to be set on foot by any Association as the position they occupy in the Question would cause most persons to think. Apart from the construction put on the words by the noble Lord, it is not for me to express any opinion whether the writer has chosen the most happy words he could in order to express his meaning. Certainly it is due to the writer to say that the words ought to be read with the context, and not separated and isolated as they appeared in the Question. If I am to express my opinion—and I suppose the noble Lord wishes me to do so—whether there has been any offence against the law committed by writing those words in connection with the context, it does not appear to me that a prosecution of the writer could lead to any practical or satisfactory result. If the noble Lord will refer to the same journal of this evening he will see an explanation of the words, which, I am sure, will be so satisfactory to him that he will be anxious to relieve me from the further consideration of this question.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered my Question. I wish to know whether an agitation, the object of which is to organize an intimidation in order to prevent certain persons from performing duties legally intrusted to them, is not an illegal combination?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): It is only an act of courtesy to answer the noble Lord. But this Question is, in one sense, a hypothetical Question; it depends entirely upon the sense in which the word "intimidation" is used—whether it is used
  916
  in the sense of physical violence to overawe either House of Parliament. Such might be alleged to be an offence. But if it should happen to be used in reply to a challenge from a distinguished person, that no action shall be taken in legislation until "great and violent public pressure" is placed upon Parliament, then it may be an answer to such an invitation, and would not cause the person who accepted it to be guilty of any criminal offence.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I wish to give Notice that on Thursday next I will ask the Prime Minister, if we are to understand from the answer of the Attorney General that his Government, which put Irish Members of Parliament in prison for using language which was supposed to be of an intimidatory character, are disposed to aid and abet the use of similar language in England when it is likely to promote their own ends?

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—GENERAL GORDON.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Has the Government yet heard whether General Gordon has received either of the Government Despatches of 23rd April or 18th May; has the Government recently made any effort to communicate with General Gordon; what is the date of the last despatch sent to General Gordon, and of the last Despatch received from him; and, what is the present position of General Gordon?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No, Sir; I have already, on several previous occasions, stated in this House that the last despatch to General Gordon was dated from London on the 17th of May, while that received from him bore date the 10th of April. Her Majesty's Government have not yet heard whether General Gordon has received the despatches to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers, and it is impossible to state exactly what his present position is. Every possible endeavour by means of messengers has been made to communicate with him; and I have already informed the House of the steps which have been taken with that object. Certain other attempts have also been made to communicate; but it is not desirable to enter into details. A report has reached Wady Halfa to the

  917
  effect that M. Cuzzi had proceeded to Khartoum after the fall of Berber, and that General Gordon was making constant sallies.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Has the noble Lord any news respecting Dongola?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have nothing to add to the statement I made the other day—that the news from Dongola is dated the 10th of June.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—THE OFFICE OF LAND REGISTRY.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Secretary to the Treasury, What is the number of new titles which have been placed in the year 1883, upon the Register in the Office of Land Registry, for which a Vote of £5,442 is demanded in the Civil Service Estimates?
  MR. COURTNEY: A full Return of the transactions in the Land Registry for the years 1882 and 1883 was presented on the 8th, on the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport. In answer to the specific Question of my hon. Friend, I am informed by the Registrar that 272 new titles have been placed upon the Register in 1883.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked whether the Government intended going on this year with the Middlesex Land Registry Bill?
  MR. COURTNEY: I am afraid it is rather late to think about making further progress with the Bill.

  SOUTH AFRICA—BASUTOLAND.
  MR. R. T. REIDasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been drawn to the following paragraph, appearing in The Standard of the 11th July:—
  "The Basutos have attacked and burned Thaban-Chu, which was a mission station within the borders of the Free State;"
  whether the statement is true, and whether it is not the fact that the British Resident in Basutoland has no means at his disposal of preventing such attacks by British subjects on a friendly State; and, whether the President of the Orange Free State has repeatedly warned Her Majesty's Government of the likelihood of such occurrences, and protested against the insecurity in which the frontier is left?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: My hon. Friend's Question seems to imply an at-
  918
  tack by Basutos invading the Orange Free State from British territory. I think he will find on further inquiry that it is a case of inter-tribal quarrel within the Free State. As to the second Question, the British Resident has a police force with which to maintain order; and though the President of the Orange Free State has, from time to time, made representations to Her Majesty's Government, there is no reason to believe that he complains of the manner in which Her Majesty's Government are carrying out the obligations devolving on them.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES—REGISTRAR'S REPORT, 1883.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTasked the Secretary to the Treasury, When the Report of the Registrar of Friendly Societies for the year 1883 will be circulated; and, whether he can take any steps to insure the earlier publication of these Reports?
  MR. COURTNEY: The Report will be laid on the Table before the Prorogation; but as the Returns upon which it is based are only due on the 1st of June, and a large number of them are always in arrear, it is impossible to expedite materially the publication of the Report and Appendix.

  ARMY—GRATUITY TO TROOPS IN THE SOUDAN.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended to make any payment, as extra pay or gratuity or war batta, to the troops engaged in the recent operations in the Eastern Soudan; and, if so, when the Estimate for the purpose will be submitted to the House?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The gratuity has already been issued to the troops employed in the operations around Suakin. I cannot yet state whether a Supplementary Estimate will be required for this and other extraordinary expenditure arising from the state of affairs in Egypt and the Soudan.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—LIEUTENANT COLONEL DIGBY, J.P.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether it is a fact that the Crown sent up a bill to the Grand Jury of the county of West-

  919
  meath, at the present Assizes, against Colonel Digby; and, whether the Grand Jury threw out this bill; and, if so, whether the Crown will now proceed against Colonel Digby by information in the Court of Queen's Bench?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is the fact that the Crown sent up a bill to the Grand Jury of the county of Westmeath against Colonel Digby, and it was thrown out. A proceeding by an ex officio information would be inapplicable to such a case as referred to in the Question and without precedent.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked whether the circumstances of the case were not without precedent; whether it was not the fact that two local magistrates refused to receive information against Colonel Digby, who was a member of that local Bench; and, whether, in view of these novel circumstances, the Attorney General would take proceedings?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): The ordinary proceedings have been adopted, and there is no ground for an exceptional course.
  MR. HARRINGTON: Are we to understand that, if the local magistrates refuse informations for theft the law is completely paralyzed?
  MR. SEXTON: What is the Attorney General for?
  MR. HARRINGTON: This failure of justice has arisen with regard to one case. I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether there is not evidence that in a second case Colonel Digby attempted to cheat the Land Commission; whether there is not a third case in which he actually did succeed in cheating them, and did receive the money; and, whether the hon. and learned Gentleman will not now proceed in regard to these cases?

  NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION OF STOCK) ACT.
  MR. FRANCIS BUXTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Treasury, or the Bank of England as their agents, have yet issued, or are contemplating the issue of a Circular to holders of Consols and other Government Stocks, drawing their attention to the proposals for a scheme of conversion; and, if not yet issued, whether he will be so good as to inform the House when he is likely to do so?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Yes, Sir; it is contemplated, as my hon. Friend rightly anticipates, to issue a notice to holders of Consols and other Three per Cent Government Stocks, in pursuance of the National Debt Conversion Act. I had originally hoped that we might name a day in August as the last on which Stocks might be converted; but I have determined to defer this for a few weeks. Full notice of the day finally fixed will be given.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—THE APPEAL COURT.
  MR. MOOREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, consequent upon the abandonment of the Land Purchase Bill, the Government are prepared to submit to the House any proposal to deal with the arrears of work in the Appeal Court of the Irish Land Commission?
  MR. TREVELYAN: No, Sir; we do not intend to submit to the House any proposal, except that we shall ask the House to enable the Government to appoint a fourth Commissioner in place of Lord Monck, whose appointment expires in August.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—JAMES ELLIS FRENCH.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that, in the Constabulary Lists issued on the 1st of January and 1st of July in each year, the circumstances under which officers, during preceding six months, have ceased to be members of the force are duly recorded; why this rule has not been adhered to in the case of James Ellis French; and, why it is not stated in the List last published, whether he has been dismissed, compelled to retire without pension, or superannuated?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Constabulary List is not a publication for which the Government or the Constabulary Authorities are responsible. It is a private undertaking, and has no official character beyond this—that its proprietor has the permission or authority of the Inspector General to publish it for the convenience of the Force. He is under no obligation to publish all or any portion of it. With regard, however, to what the hon. Member regards

  921
  as an omission, there is no objection to state that the explanation is that County Inspector French was discharged on medical certificate of unfitness for further service, and with an intimation that the question of pension would pend, and that as this question was still undecided when The Constabulary List for July was sent to press, the compiler thought it better to postpone the insertion of the case.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART—THE TAPESTRY AT HAMPTON COURT.
  MR. MONTAGUE GUESTasked the First Commissioner of Works, If he is aware that the tapestry at Hampton Court of "The Triumph of Time" is part of a set representing the "Six Triumphs," written by Petrarch, of which three others were secured most fortunately last year by the South Kensington Museum; whether it would not be desirable that this very valuable and interesting national possession should no longer be allowed to hang, and rot with decay, on the walls of the withdrawing room of the Palace; and if he can give an assurance that it shall at once be cleaned and restored?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, in reply, said, these tapestries were not the property of the nation, but of the Sovereign, and were under the charge of the Lord Chamberlain, who was considering the question of their repair.
  MR. MONTAGUE GUEST: The right hon. Gentleman gave me a similar answer a year and a-half ago. I may inform him that, whether the question of the repair of these tapestries is under consideration or not, they are now hanging and rotting on the walls at Hampton Court to no public advantage.

  CORRUPT PRACTICES (SUSPENSION OF ELECTIONS) BILL.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, in the present state of public Business, he adheres to his recently-expressed intention to introduce a Bill for the suspension of writs in the constituencies in which a Royal Commission has reported that corrupt practices extensively prevailed; and, in such case, up to what date he proposes to suspend those writs?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, that the Bill would be introduced in the usual
  922
  way. The hon. Member could obtain information on the subject if he referred to the legislation of the last three Sessions.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS, SHILLELAGH UNION.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state, with reference to the counting of votes in the new election for the Tinahely division of Shillelagh Union, consequent on the annulling by the Local Government Board of the previous election, in which a number of Conservative votes were received by the Clerk of the Union in excess of the legal number; on what grounds the returning officer adjourned the inquiry, as no one objected to its being proceeded with, either on the part of Mr. Haydon, the popular candidate, or his opponent?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have already, in reply to the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. W. J. Corbet), explained the circumstances in which the adjournment of the casting up of the votes in the election for Tinahely division took place.

  RAILWAYS (INDIA)—THE HARNAI RAILWAY.
  MR. DALRYMPLEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that the Harnai line of Railway is being made out of revenue, and that it is reported that it will not be completed for five years to the Amram range; and, if so, whether the advantage of this extension of the frontier Railway system is not rendered nugatory by such leisurely and protracted construction?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Yes, Sir; it is intended to charge the cost of the Harnai line to Revenue; but I know of no report "that it will not be completed for five years to the Amram range." Indeed, as the Government of India inform us that measures have been taken for as speedy a prosecution of the work as the nature of the country and the trying changes of climate will permit, we expect that there will be no time lost in completing the line to Quettah as rapidly as possible.

  SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND BILL.
  MR. DALRYMPLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Why the Secretary for Scotland Bill,

  923
  which had reached the stage of Third Reading in "another place," and was, in its new form (so far as is generally known), unlikely to meet with opposition in the House of Commons, was made the earliest victim in the "slaughter of the innocents;" and, by what interpretation that Bill was reckoned among contentious business, which, for causes understood only by Her Majesty's Government, it was determined to withdraw?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am very glad to welcome—for I think the first time—the support of the hon. Member to this Bill. I value his posthumous affection; but I would have valued it more when the Bill was alive. I regret, like the hon. Member himself, that this Bill has come to a premature end; but it shared the fate of many other little Bills which we thought it was necessary to sacrifice in order to promote a measure to which we attach great importance.
  MR. DALRYMPLE: I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether any effort was made to ascertain the feeling of this House as to the Bill; and, if not, how it is reasonable any blame for its abandonment should be laid at the door of "another place," where the Bill was to be read a third time?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It is not my object to attach blame to anybody, but to state the cause why the Bill was withdrawn.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—QUARANTINE AT SMYRNA.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he is aware that the Turkish Government is compelling all British vessels trading between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea (although not communicating with the shore) to perform quarantine at Smyrna; and, whether, in conjunction with other Maritime Powers, he will endeavour to secure the appointment of an International Commission, for the purpose of mitigating unnecessary quarantine regulations?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I conclude the hon. Member is correct, for in a telegram received to-day from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, His Excellency states that passenger and cargo ships from French
  924
  Mediterranean ports must undergo quarantine at Smyrna, Beyrout, or Tripoli. Passenger ships from the Black Sea or the Adriatic are also subjected to quarantine. There is no information as to the other Mediterranean ports. The details of the Turkish quarantine arrangements will appear in the next London Gazette. As regards an International Commission on Quarantine, it is open to doubt whether such a proposal would at present be advantageous or possible.

  STRAITS SETTLEMENTS—THE RAJAH OF TENOM—CREW OF THE "NISERO."
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is aware that intelligence has been received of the death of another of the crew of the Nisero, that others are suffering from fever, and that the whole require addional clothing; and, when he anticipates being able definitely to inform the House the result of the negotiations with the Dutch Government for the purpose of promoting active measures in order to obtain the immediate release of the men still alive?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The latest news of the crew is dated the 4th instant, in a telegram from C. Buhlor, dated July 11. Four deaths are reported; but the epidemic is said to have ceased, and the remainder of the crew were well. Medicines have been supplied by the Commander of Her Majesty's ship Pegasus, who has made arrangements for the transmission of letters fortnightly. The reply of the Netherlands Government to the last proposal of Her Majesty's Government is expected on Wednesday, and further Papers will be laid on the Table.
  MR. GOURLEY: Will the noble Lord say what the arrangements are which have been made with the Netherlands Government for the release of the men?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Until the answer of the Netherlands Government, to which I have just alluded, is received, I cannot make any statement; but directly that answer has been received the Papers will be laid before the House, and they will show the full state of the case.
  MR. GOURLEYsaid, he would put another Question on Thursday on this subject.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. JOHN STACK, CO. KERRY.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH (for Lord ARTHUR HILL)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. John Stack, T.C. Listowel (county Kerry), who has been recently appointed to the Commission of the Peace for that town, is the same person who, in the month of November last, not only attended, but presided over a public meeting held in a graveyard near Listowel, for the purpose of commemorating the anniversary of the execution of the Fenians, Allen, Larken, and O'Brien; and, whether that meeting had been proclaimed by his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant; and, if this new magistrate, in his capacity as chairman, on the said occasion unveiled a stone cross to the memory of those "Manchester martyrs?"
  MR. SEXTON: Before the Question is answered, I should like to ask is it not the fact that the noble Lord in whose name the Question stands (Lord Arthur Hill), and a number of his friends who hold the Commission of the Peace, lately waited on the Lord Lieutenant and told him to his teeth that they refused to comply with his suggestion with regard to counter Orange demonstrations, and that they would stand upon their right to hold these meetings at the same time and place as the Nationalists?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I should also like to ask the Chief Secretary, whether the noble Lord is not the same noble Lord who went to shopkeepers in Belfast, previous to the recent visit of the Lord Lieutenant, and requested them to take down the flags which they had put up to welcome His Excellency?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, he must take these Questions separately, and with Notice. Mr. John Stack, the Chairman of the Town Commissioners of Listowel, was, on their application, selected as Town Justice under the Towns Improvement Act on the 7th of June. The Lord Chancellor was entirely unaware of any of the allegations contained in the Question. It was right to say, in relation to those allegations, that on reference to the Constabulary Reports made to the Government at the time, it would appear that no meeting was held in violation of the Lord
  926
  Lieutenant's Proclamation, and that no speeches were delivered. A few persons, about a dozen in number, did, on the morning of the 25th of November last, quietly unveil the cross. But as to this and every other matter connected therewith, the Lord Chancellor would make inquiry.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—VACCINATION IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  MR. HOPWOODasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether he is aware that the Sanitary Committee of Hackney are proceeding to visit the Elementary Schools, to inspect the children, with a view to vaccination; and, whether the Education Department, or the managers, have any authority by Law, without the consent of the parents, to allow such a proceeding?
  MR. MUNDELLA: On inquiry at the Local Government Board, Dr. Buchanan had furnished the following statement:—
  "I have examined, as a Medical Inspector of Her Majesty's Privy Council, tens of thousands of children in public and private elementary schools. My custom was to inform the master or mistress of my object—namely, to get information as to the efficiency of the local vaccination—and to ask if they had any objection to my examining the arms of the children and noting the vaccine scars. I never but once met with any refusal, either in London or the country. Having examined the children's arms (usually to their great amusement), I gave a list of the unvaccinated to the master, and asked him to call the attention of the children's parents to the fact that they were not protected against small-pox."

  THE PUBLIC SERVICES—COMPULSORY RETIREMENT.
  MR. HOPWOODasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Admiralty or War Office, in compelling efficient public servants to retire because they have reached sixty years, are authorised to do so by any Statute or Resolution of this House?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): My hon. and learned Friend should have addressed this Question to the Secretary of State for War, or the Secretary to the Admiralty, rather than to me, as the duty of the Treasury in these matters is to award the pension of an officer reported to them by the Head of his Department as retiring from the Service. But to

  927
  save time I have made inquiries on this subject, and I am not aware of any Statute or Resolution of this House which would prevent the Heads of either of these Departments from acting as my hon. and learned Friend's Question implies that they have acted in the case of a public servant holding office during the pleasure of the Crown.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND) — NEWTOWNARDS BOARD OF GUARDIANS—INSTRUCTION OF ROMAN CATHOLIC CHILDREN.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state what has been the result of the correspondence between the Irish Local Government Board and the Newtownards Board of Guardians with respect to the religious instruction of Catholic children who are inmates of the Newtownards Workhouse; whether it is the fact that there is no Catholic guardian, either ex-officio or elected, on the Newtownards Board; whether, in consequence of a resolution adopted by the Board on the 5th of April last, the Catholic children are sent daily into the schoolyard, where they spend the time in idleness, while the rest of the children are receiving religious instruction; whether the schoolmaster and schoolmistress superintend the morning and night prayers of the Protestant children, give them religious instruction every day, and direct their religious exercises on Sundays, while there is no instructor appointed for the Catholic children, and if these latter every night are put outside the dormitory while the rest of the children are engaged in prayer; whether the Presbyterian chaplain is allowed to interrupt the secular business of the school for the purpose of religious instruction, whereby an hour of secular instruction is lost to the Catholic children; whether it has been the practice of the guardians to send Catholic orphans into the employment of persons of other religious creeds, and that numerous cases of proselytism have resulted; whether the salary of the Catholic chaplain is much less than that of either of the other chaplains; whether the guardians have refused to furnish requisites for Catholic religious worship in the workhouse; and, whether the Local Government Board will use their power to equalise the salaries of the chaplains,
  928
  and take measures to secure due decency of Catholic worship, and such religious instruction and protection of conscience for Catholic children as are extended to children of other denominations?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, the Board of Guardians had declined to make any additional arrangements for the religious instruction of Roman Catholic children in the workhouse. They stated the Roman Catholic chaplain was afforded the same facilities as the chaplains of other persuasions; that the number of Roman Catholic children is very small; and that some few years ago the chaplain's salary was increased, partly because he was required to attend to religious instruction. Under these circumstances, there were no grounds for further correspondence with the Guardians on this matter. There was no Catholic Guardian on the Board; no Roman Catholic had offered himself for re-election for some years past. The resolution referred to was that if the Roman Catholic chaplain did not feel it necessary to be present during the half-hour for religious instruction the children of that persuasion should not be required to be present. It was not the case that there was a distinction made in regard to religious instruction of the children either on week-days or Sunday. The schoolmistress and master did nothing but read a portion of Scripture daily under the rules of the National Board without note or comment. With regard to the alleged interruption of secular instruction by the visits of the Presbyterian chaplain, he attended for an hour once a-fortuight, and this was compensated for by an additional hour's secular instruction in the evening. He had been furnished with a list of the Roman Catholic children sent to the employment of persons of other religious creeds since 1871. There were eight cases in all. The facts did not appear to warrant the statement as to alleged cases of proselytizing. The Board of Guardians said that in a population in which the large majority of employers of labour were Protestants they could not maintain healthy young persons in the workhouse simply because masters could not be found of their own religious persuasion; but they invariably obtained from these masters promises to send them regularly to Sunday school or places of worship.

  929
  This was a matter in which the Local Government Board had no power to control the Guardians, even although they might consider the action of the Guardians as not in all cases judicious. The salary of the Catholic chaplain was less than the salaries of the other chaplains; but the number of inmates he attended was also very much less, and much less than the difference between their respective salaries in proportion. There appeared to be a dispute of long standing as to the supply of requisites for Catholic worship. So long ago as 1859 the then Poor Law Commissioners issued a sealed order on the subject; but the Guardians refused to comply with it, and on application to the Court of Queen's Bench a mandamus was obtained. The Local Government Board did not consider it necessary to equalize the salaries of the chaplains.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882, SEC. 16 — THE TUBBERCURRY CONSPIRACY—MRS. GANNON.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If members of the Constabulary Force in the county of Sligo recently compelled Mrs. Gannon, an aged woman, whose two sons are lying in Sligo Gaol awaiting trial on a charge of conspiracy, to leave her home, and go with them to the town of Tubbercurry, and there submit to a secret interrogation with reference to her sons; and, whether this course was taken in regard to Mrs. Gannon with the sanction or knowledge of the higher authorities?
  MR. TREVELYAN: During the holding of an inquiry under Section 16 of the Prevention of Crime Act, Mrs. Gannon was examined with reference to the firing at and wounding of Sub-Inspector Doherty, which occurred about two years ago, and to the fact that after the firing a man from Tubbercurry went to her house to remove firearms there-from. Mrs. Gannon was not compelled by the police, but was merely served with a summons in the usual way. She is a strong, hale woman, and declined the offer of a car from her house to Tubbercurry, a distance of three miles, saying that she preferred to walk. In summoning this and other witnesses, the Resident Magistrate exercised the jurisdiction expressly conferred upon him by Section 16 of the Act.

  INDIA—EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS—THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, When he proposed to make his annual Financial Statement?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: As soon as I can get an opportunity.

  PARLIAMENT — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Mr. WAUGHIn reply to Mr. WAUGH,
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he very much regretted the position of this Bill along with that of many other measures; but it was an independent Member's Bill, and the Government could not interfere with these measures except under very peculiar circumstances. He did not think there were any circumstances existing at the present moment which would justify the Government in offering exceptional facilities for the passing of this particular independent Member's Bill, and they must leave the matter in the hands of the House.

  PARLIAMENT—ORDER—ENTRIES IN THE ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I wish to put a Question to Mr. Speaker upon a point of Order in reference to the Orders of the Day. I observe that the first line upon the Orders which relates to Supply is printed in italics, and, as there is no number opposite to it, it appears to be rather in the nature of a suggestion. The first Order in the ordinary type is the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill; and I wish to ask you, Sir, whether that Bill does not stand, at this moment, as the first Order upon the Paper?
  MR. SPEAKER: According to the usual understanding, and, I may say, the uniform practice of the House for the last 20 years, the form has been adopted as it now stands upon the Paper.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Then, Sir, I will ask you, further, whether the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill does not stand as the first Order?
  An hon. MEMBER: No, Supply.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) appears to be under some misapprehension. Supply will be the first Order

  931
  immediately it is resolved that Committee of Supply shall be set up.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Yes, Sir, that is the point I am coming to. It will be the first Order; but at the present moment I submit that it is not the first Order, and, that being so, I will ask you whether the Standing Order of November, 1882, does or does not at present apply—I mean the Standing Order which says that when Supply stands as the first Order on Mondays and Thursdays, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without any Question put?
  MR. SPEAKER: The same course which the hon. Gentleman is finding fault with was adopted on Monday last.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I am not finding fault with anything.

  EGYPT—THE CONFERENCE.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Has any day been fixed by the Plenipotentiaries to resume the business of the Conference?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): The "Commission," consisting of the Financial Experts of the several Powers, over whose deliberations I have been requested to preside, is still sitting; and until the business which that Commission has in hand is completed, it will be impossible to say when the Conference will meet.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I will ask the Question again on Thursday. I will also ask the Prime Minister, whether it is intended to keep Parliament sitting until the Conference has concluded its labours?
  [No reply was given.]

  PUBLIC HEALTH (METROPOLIS)—THE CHOLERA.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE: I would ask the President of the Local Government Board a Question of which I have not been able to give him private Notice—namely, Whether with regard to several cases of cholera reported in London in the last Returns to the Registrar General the doctors refused to certify that they were cases of the ordinary type; and if there was any reason to believe that they were cases of Asiatic cholera?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I do not know about doctors refusing to certify. If there had been such refusal, no doubt I should have been at once informed. There has not been reported any case of the Asiatic type in London, or in any part of England.

  PARLIAMENT — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE — MERCHANT SHIPPING LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. MACIVERasked the Prime Minister, Whether he had observed as the first Order of the Day on Wednesday a Bill for the security of life and property at sea, drawn on lines entirely different from those of the Bill of the President of the Board of Trade, and how it happened that the Government had lost all interest in the subject?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have not observed that the Bill to which the hon. Member refers is the first Order of the Day on Wednesday, and the reason that I have not observed it is that it is not so. The first Order for next Wednesday is one with respect to which I may say that if it came on it would be morally certain to occupy the whole of the Sitting—I mean the Bill relating to compulsory vaccination.

MOTION.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE — SETTING UP OF SUPPLY.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I beg to move "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. HEALY: A question of very great importance and of considerable interest to the House was raised a short time ago by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). We all know that Supply became a dropped Order on Friday, owing to the fact that the House was counted out. That, however, was the fault of the Government, who might have kept a House, if they had chosen to do so. The Standing Order of November, 1882, only applies to a case where Supply is the first Order; and, clearly, that is not the case on the

  933
  present occasion. Supply is not the first Order, and it can only be put as the first Order by this Motion. Seeing that a Motion is made to place Supply as the first Order, it is evident that at the present moment Supply cannot be the first Order. The matter would be still further accentuated by a Division being taken against the Motion; but I presume there is no intention of taking a Division. But what I would impress upon the Government is, that while we assent to the Motion, we are fully aware that there is other Business, and very important Business, on the Paper, and that tomorrow we shall expect from them a definite statement as to what they propose to do with the important Irish Business which still remains on the Paper. I need only refer to the Poor Law Guardians (Ireland) Bill, which the Government have already given a guarantee to press forward. If so, I want to know whether it is to be at a Saturday Sitting, or how the Prime Minister proposes to manage it?
  MR. GORST: I should like to make one or two observations on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, in order to point out to the Government the extreme inconvenience of allowing the Order for Supply on Friday to become, as it too frequently does, a dropped Order. I am certain that considerable progress might have been made with Supply on Friday evening if the Members of the Government had made any exertion whatever to keep a House. But, unfortunately, in order to get rid of some inconvenient subject which happens to be on the Notice Paper, they are in the habit of allowing the House to be counted out. I think there is nothing more detrimental to the progress of Public Business than these constant "Counts-out," because when a Motion is down upon the Paper, and is discussed and decided upon by the House, it is done with for the Session; whereas, if the House is counted out, and no opportunity is afforded for taking it on Friday, the discussion usually takes place upon the Estimates themselves, and no time whatever is saved. I may give, as an illustration, the important Motion which was put down for a Friday, some time ago, by my hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), in reference to the present state of Zululand. The House was counted out before that Mo-
  934
  tion could be brought on, and, although it may not have been counted out at the instance of the Government, the Members of the Government made no effort to keep a House. In that case there was a distinct loss and a waste of valuable time, because, instead of the question being discussed then, the question of Zululand will now be discussed upon the Estimate itself, and probably will delay Supply for an entire night. The same thing happened again on Friday last. The Government, by neglecting to keep a House, prevented private Members from having an opportunity of bringing important questions forward which must be discussed at some time or other. The Motion for Supply became a dropped Order, and the House is experiencing the inconvenience at this moment. As to the precedent which has been established to-day, I may remark that you, Sir, have allowed the Motion "that the House will immediately resolve itself into Committee of Supply" to be debated. I am now making the second speech which has been delivered on that Motion. Therefore, there is a clear precedent for debating the Motion that Supply shall be made the first Order of the Day, and I assume that, as the Motion itself can be debated, an Amendment can be moved upon it. Therefore, by being compelled to put down the Motion "that the House will immediately resolve itself into Committee of Supply," the Government are really laying themselves open to any Amendment which any hon. Member may choose to move. I suppose that it would be perfectly competent for me, or any other Member, to bring forward a Motion now on the subject of Zululand or any other subject it might be considered desirable to discuss on the proposal that Supply be again set up.
  MR. SPEAKER: I cannot allow that a general debate of that kind would be permissible. According to the practice of the House, it has been the custom, at any rate since 1866, to allow this Motion to be put as a purely formal Motion for the purpose of setting up Supply.
  MR. GORST: I was not intending to take any such course. I am only pointing out the inconvenience which might arise from taking such a course for the purpose of urging on the Government not to allow the Motion for Supply to become a dropped Order on Fridays. I

  935
  do not know that you, Sir, have ruled that such a Motion would be out of Order. It is perfectly obvious that this Motion is capable of being debated, and I assume that some Amendment would be in Order which would give rise to a debate. Friday is now to be the only opportunity left to private Members for moving Amendments on the Motion for going into Supply; and if the Government become lax in the matter, the only effect of their laxity will be to deprive private Members of Friday nights, which I feel might be profitably preserved for the discussion of private Members' Motions. At present it appears to be the practice to count out, if there happens to be a question on the Paper that is likely to prove disagreeable to the Government, in order that such question may be got rid of. But questions constantly arise which, whether or not they can be discussed on a Friday night, must be discussed in some form or other.
  MR. MONK: I do not think the protest should come from one side of the House only. I think that both sides have good reason to complain that on Friday nights the Government make no efforts whatever to keep a House, or, at any rate, to prevent it being counted out at so early an hour. It is most unusual, when the House meets at 4 o'clock, that it should be counted out on the first Amendment to the Motion that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair. On Friday last I had the honour of bringing forward a Motion which interests a considerable number of Members on this side of the House—more, perhaps, than on the other side—and I certainly was surprised that the Government took no steps whatever in order to keep a House, seeing the early hour at which it was counted out. I think it is only right to make a protest against this unfortunate practice, on this side of the House as well as the other.
  LORD RICHARD GROSVENOR: With reference to the remark of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) that no steps were taken by the Government to prevent the House from being counted out on Friday night, I must say that every possible step was taken by those who usually serve under my command. But on Friday night, when the House has been sitting until very late hours during the rest of the week, it is found almost impossible, sometimes short
  936
  of using physical force, to keep Members in the House. Every possible effort was made by us on Friday night to keep a House; but I regret to say that the stream was so strong against us that we were obliged to give way. Indeed, we were almost carried away with it.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: On the point of Order which has been raised, I think, Sir, the House entirely concurs with you as to the practice which previous to the passing of the new Standing Orders in November, 1882, prevailed. As you have properly said, when this Motion was made it was assented to as a matter of course; but the form in which it was put was to enable a debate to take place. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister now asks the House immediately to resolve into Committee of Supply, and the Motion is made for the purpose of setting aside Amendments to the Motion for going into Committee, so that a debate might take place with you, Sir, in the Chair in the same way as if the Motion was the ordinary one for going into Committee of Supply, and the original Motion had not fallen through from unforseen circumstances. That was the practice up to 1882, and I think, Sir, that you have quite correctly seated that the Motion was made as a matter of course, and simply took the place of the old Motion "that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." The Motion stood practically on all fours with the original Motion. As we all know, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister can draw exceedingly subtle distinctions in matters of this kind; but I think it will be generally admttted that practically the two Motions were on all fours. The new Standing Order passed in November, 1882, provided that when the Committee of Supply stood as the first Order of the Day, Mr. Speaker should leave the Chair without any Question put. The point now taken by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) is, that Supply does not stand as the first Order of the Day on this occasion, and that therefore the new Standing Order does not apply, but that a preliminary debate may take place. I understand that there is no intention of raising a discussion now, but that the right has been waived. That I quite understand; but in case it should be necessary on any future occasion to take advantage of the Stand-

  937
  ing Order, I wish to draw attention to the fact that prior to 1882 it was the immemorial practice for a debate to take place on the Motion that "this House do forthwith resolve itself into Committee of Supply," and that practice was in no way affected by the passing of the new Standing Order.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I wish to corroborate what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther). I gathered from you, Sir, that you stated the Motion was purely a formal Motion, and that it had been so regarded for many years. Now, it has been my fortune since I have been a Member of the House to have heard it debated over and over again. It has been the invariable practice, when the Government has wished to set up Supply after an Amendment had been carried against the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, to move "that this House do forthwith resolve itself into Committee of Supply," thereby giving the hon. Member who had the next Motion upon the Paper the right to raise a fresh debate. Now, I think it most important that, as this discussion has taken place, the reasons for it should be placed on record—namely, that a "Count-out" having taken place on Friday night, and the Order of the Day for Committee of Supply having become a dropped Order, the usual rule does not now apply. It is perfectly clear that this is so, because you, Sir, have now allowed a prolonged debate to take place on the Motion "that this House will immediately resolve itself into Committee of Supply," so that it is evidently a Motion that can be debated. And if a Motion can be debated, then, by the immemorial practice of the House, an Amendment can be moved to it, and therefore I apprehend that, unless the Motion be at once assented to, it can be debated even on a Monday, and an Amendment moved to it. In consequence of what has taken place this evening, whenever, in future, a "Count-out" occurs on a Friday, and it becomes necessary to set up Supply on a Monday, it will be competent, I presume, not only for a debate to arise, but for an Amendment to the Motion to be moved.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I think, Sir, the discussion which has taken place suggests, in view of the possibility of
  938
  having "Counts-out" on Friday and debates on the Motion for setting up Supply on Monday, that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister should include the whole of Friday in the Resolution he proposes to move tomorrow, as well as Tuesday and Wednesday. The Government would then have possession of the entire day, and there would be no fear of the House being counted out. At the same time, I am not prepared to say that that is the view which is entertained by all hon. Members on this side of the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: In regard to the practice of the House, I believe that for the last 18 years, at least, the Motion for setting up Supply has been agreed to without debate.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Upon the point of Order may I ask if it has not been perfectly competent for any hon. Member to set forth his reasons why any one of the Orders of the Day is more worthy of consideration than Supply itself?
  MR. SPEAKER: That would be quite an unusual course for the House to take. It has been so generally recognized that the Motion for setting up Supply is for the convenience of the House at large, that, as I said before, as a general rule, there has been no preliminary debate upon it.
  MR. RYLANDS: I should like to be allowed to give my recollection in regard to Motions of a similar character to the one now before the House. The practice, previous to 1882, was that the proposals to set up Supply on Monday by a Motion such as that which has now been proposed by the Prime Minister were not debated; but I will tell the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) what took place. Supply was set up and then all the Motions which stood on the Paper for going into Committee of Supply were discussed, so that although the formal Motion "that this House do forthwith resolve itself into Committee of Supply" was not debated, the reason was because it was understood that it would be followed by the ordinary Motion for Committee of Supply upon which private Members had then the right of bringing forward such Amendments as they had placed upon the Paper. The circumstances have been altered since, and we now know that the Motion "that this House

  939
  will immediately resolve itself into Committee of Supply" may lead to a debate which may be of inconvenience to the Public Service. I should, therefore, feel inclined to support the view which has been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), that under the extraordinary circumstances of the present Session, private Members would be glad to give up their right of proposing Motions on going into Committee of Supply on Friday; and I am satisfied that if the Government were to ask that Friday night as well as Tuesday and Wednesday should be appropriated to Government Business, the majority of private Members would be willing to give way in their favour, so that on every day in the week the Government should have an opportunity of going at once into Committee of Supply.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: I can only go so far with the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) as to express a hope that on this occasion hon. Members will not take advantage of the Motion of the Prime Minister to bring about an interminable debate. On the point of Order, it appears to me that the operation of the new Rule when it is necessary to set up Supply on Monday has brought about a novel state of circumstances. It has been the immemorial privilege of the House to discuss preliminary Resolutions on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, and, therefore, the effect of the new Rule ought to be construed strictly. The Government, whenever they allow the House to be counted out on Friday, propose this Motion on Monday as a matter of right; but they ought not to be in a position to take advantage of their own wrong. If we were to adopt the proposal of the hon. Member opposite we should still further curtail the privilege of private Members. Therefore, whenever the House is counted out on Friday, it should be the duty of the Government to set up Supply again on Monday, and it cannot, in my opinion, be regarded as the first Order within the meaning of the new Rule.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not prepared to admit that the Government are responsible for the "Count-out" on Friday. What the right hon. Gentleman seems inclined to recommend is that now, at a time when the House is ex-
  940
  tremely anxious to go forward with Business, we should mark our sense of the wrongful conduct of the Government by imposing something upon them which may lead to inconvenience. I must add my recollection to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). I think he is perfectly correct in the account he has given of the practice of the House as to setting up Supply. I think, Sir, your statement in the Chair requires no confirmation from me; but another hon. Member having confirmed it, I am bound to say that the view which has been expressed is in entire conformity with my own. As to the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), although there is, no doubt, a great deal to be said in favour of taking Friday, still I wish to observe that it has never been the practice for the Government to ask for Friday nights. I should, therefore, be very sorry to depart from the recognized practice.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman says the Government are very anxious to get on with Business; but I am afraid, bearing in mind the way in which they have mismanaged their opportunities in the course of the present Session, that it would not do much to expedite Business if we were to hand over Friday nights to them.
  MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member has already spoken in the course of the debate.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: No, Sir, I only addressed you on a point of Order. I merely addressed a question to the Chair, and did not address the House. I was calling the attention of the House to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had stated that he was anxious to get on with Business. Now, my observation of the mode in which Business maybe best expedited is not to hand over the whole of the time of the House to the Government, because the Government appear hitherto to have mismanaged their opportunities. For some time they have taken possession of the days usually appropriated to private Members, on the ground that on those days "Counts-out" occurred. But how can the Government monopoly be defended when they allow such "Counts-out" to take place as that which occurred on Friday evening? The noble Lord the Member for Flintshire

  941
  (Lord Richard Grosvenor), with so many persons under his command, tells us that he was unable to keep a House for effective Supply. Yet we are now asked to take Supply when there is much more important matter on the Notice Paper. The third Order, for instance, is the Medical Act Amendment Bill. We have had an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of that Bill (Mr. Mundella) that he will not proceed with it after 11 o'clock, and I think the only chance of making progress with it is to take it on some such occasion as to-day, when it might easily have been reached at a reasonable hour. But, unfortunately, the "Count-out" on Friday, among other inconveniences, resulted in the dropping of a number of blocks which were then on the Paper. Order No. 25 is the Ulster Canal Bill, to which I, for one, am strongly opposed. In consequence of the "Count-out" I have been unable to renew my block, and the Bill now stands on the Paper without anything to prevent it from being taken at any hour of the night or morning. That is another result of the conduct of the Government at the last Sitting of the House. What I wish to obtain from the Government is an assurance that they do not intend to proceed with such Bills as the Ulster Canal Bill and the Tyrone Navigation Bill, which were blocked last week, but which, by reason of the "Count-out" on Friday, now appear on the Paper without a block against them. If the House agrees to allow the Government to go into Supply without further delay, the Government might reasonably give an assurance that they will not go on with any of the Bills which had blocks against them on Friday.
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: I have once had the misfortune this Session to be counted out on a Friday night—when I proposed to bring under the Notice of the House the state of affairs in Zululand. I was therefore glad to hear the Prime Minister state that he intends to adhere to the present arrangement in regard to Friday Sittings, and that private Members will still have a chance of bringing Motions forward. With a view, principally, of saving time, I would ask the Prime Minister whether he can arrange to take Class V., Vote 7, on which the question of Zululand is raised, at the beginning of some evening? That
  942
  would save a separate discussion upon Zululand upon a Motion of which I have given Notice. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the question is one of very great importance.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I will see what can be done to comply with the request of the hon. Baronet.
  MR. BRYCE: With reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) and the noble Lord the Member for Flintshire (Lord Richard Grosvenor) as to the "Count-out" on Friday, I believe there were only 27 Members in the House at the time it happened, and that there were only two or three Members on the Treasury Bench. I myself was in the Lobby before the "Count-out" happened, endeavouring to induce a number of Gentlemen to stay, but they told me they had not been asked to stay. I think that, considering the importance of the question proposed to be brought under the notice of the House, Her Majesty's Government might have been fairly expected to keep a House.
  MR. PARNELL: It is true that in times past the present Motion used not to be debated; but in view of the alteration of the proceedings of the House by the 21st Standing Order, passed in November, 1882, the Motion at present under the consideration of the House partakes of a considerably wider character than it formerly did, because, as the consequence of the adoption of the Motion by the House, you, Sir, would at once leave the Chair, without any hon. Member being entitled to propose any preliminary Resolution. That is distinctly laid down by the 21st Standing Order. It therefore becomes a very much more important Motion than it used to be in the days when, according to the practice of the House, no debate took place upon it. In those days Motions upon going into Supply were not interfered with by the passing of a Resolution similar to that which we are now considering, but, after it was agreed to, it was competent for hon. Members to bring them on in the usual course. Private Members did not lose their right; whereas, if the present Motion is adopted, the Government will be at liberty to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair without debate, and the House will at once proceed to discuss the Estimates. Consequently, I think it may fairly become a subject for inquiry by

  943
  private Members — perhaps it is not exactly a matter of inquiry by Her Majesty's Government—as to how far they may expect the Government, in the future proceedings of the House, to facilitate private Members in the passage of certain Bills which have already received a second reading. The Prime Minister has given Notice that he will to-morrow move to take for the Government the only remaining days of the week except Friday, and to make the 21st Standing Order apply to them. The consequence, in regard to private Members, will be that they will be entirely shut out from forwarding the stages of Bills which stand in their name on any day except Friday. I do not propose, at the present moment, to discuss the nature and bearing of the Prime Minister's Resolution; but I merely take this opportunity of saying that, when the right hon. Gentleman moves that Motion, I shall certainly urge upon him very strongly the fairness and justice of affording us some little portion of the time of the House in order to enable us to pass the Poor Law Guardians (Ireland) Bill through Committee. It is a Bill which is highly approved of by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and it will remove a great deal of hard work from the Local Government Board. I may further remind the Government that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has practically pledged himself to endeavour to pass it into law in the course of the present Session. I have merely referred to the subject now, not with the view of opposing the present Motion, but to give Notice that I shall certainly press very strongly on the attention of the Government to-morrow, when the Motion of the Prime Minister is brought forward, the desirability of giving a few minutes of the Government time for the purpose of taking the Committee stage of the Bill to which I have referred.
  MR. COURTNEY: I am unable to say anything in reply to the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary happens to be away; but I can say a word in reply to the appeal of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) in reference to the Ulster Canal Bill. I should be unwilling to take advantage of the removal of the block against that Bill, considering that
  944
  it has only been removed in consequence of the "Count-out" on Friday. But what I propose to do is to hear anything the hon. Member may have to say this evening, and if I find there is any serious objection to go on with the Bill, it will not be persisted in. I hope we may be able to come to an understanding as to what the objection of the hon. Gentleman is, either to-night or any other night he likes, so that we may know what he wants.
  MR. ASHMEAD - BARTLETT: I should like to ask the noble Lord the Member for Flintshire (Lord Richard Grosvenor) a question as to the interesting statement which he has made to the House in the course of this discussion. He gave us to understand that tremendous efforts were made by the Government to keep a House on Friday last; and I think it would be useful to know who the Members of the Government were to whom he has referred?
  [No reply was given.
  Question, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply," put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
  (1.)£63,113, to complete the sum for Home Office.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he was glad to see the Home Secretary present. He wanted to know whether the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been called to certain articles which had appeared in The Freeman's Journal and other Irish newspapers concerning a lady who was said to be a female emissary sent over by the Home Office to that country? He wished to know if that lady was still in the service of the Home Department?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTwas sorry to say that he was not as conversant with the Irish papers as, perhaps, he ought to be. He had read a good many of them, and he had seen in them a number of extraordinary statements, most of which he found to be inaccurate,

  945
  He had not, however, seen the statement to which the hon. Member referred. He could, however, assure the hon. Member that he had no emissary whatever, and, above all, no female emissary. That was the only answer he could give to the hon. Member.
  MR. HEALYremarked, that a telegram to this person from the Home Office was in the possession of a friend of his.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: All that I can say is that I know nothing about it.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £46,474, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTbelieved it was within his right to call the attention of the Committee, in some detail, upon this Vote, to Her Majesty's foreign policy. He did not, however, propose to go into full details at that moment, as he had no desire to occupy the time of the Committee unnecessarily. He wished, however, to draw the attention of the Committee to the want of information which had been displayed in both Houses, but especially in that House, on the part of Her Majesty's Foreign Office; and he should be obliged to refer to various matters with which the Foreign Office had recently had to deal. He did not wish to be understood to blame the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for the course he had pursued in that House. He believed the noble Lord was suffering from the company into which he had been thrown. He was satisfied the noble Lord would be disposed to give more accurate information if he were in a position to do so; but, of course, the noble Lord, in these matters, acted under the direction of the Cabinet, and especially of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who was not a Member of that House. Therefore, any remarks he had to make in reference to want of information would apply more particularly to the Cabinet and to the Secretary of State, than to the noble Lord. The first point to which
  946
  he would refer was the extraordinary want of information possessed by the Government with regard to the critical position of affairs in Egypt. He had endeavoured, over and over again, to obtain some information as to the progress and the movements of the Mahdi. It was quite clear, from all the independent testimony that came to this country, that the position of Egypt was extremely critical, and that at the close of the Ramadan, which he believed would last about a fortnight longer, everybody in that country expected a serious disturbance.
  MR. RYLANDSrose to Order. The Vote related to the salaries of the officials in the Foreign. Office; and he submitted that the hon. Member was out of Order in raising upon that Vote a general question as to the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that before the Chairman gave a ruling upon that point, he wished to call attention to the statement he had made—that he was not going to enter into details, although it was entirely within his right to do so; but he was endeavouring to point out the special cases in which the Foreign Office had failed to afford information. He proposed to conclude by moving the reduction of the Vote.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is very difficult to say where a limit should be put to a discussion upon a Vote which involves the salary of the Secretary of State; but I may point out to the hon. Member that, by the long practice of the House, the convenience of the House would be best consulted by not importing into the consideration of the Foreign Office Vote questions which involve the foreign policy of the Government.
  MR. HEALYwished to point out, on the point of Order, that on the Vote for the salary of the Chief Secretary for Ireland it was the custom to raise the whole question of the policy of the Irish Government. He wished to know if the Irish Members were to be stopped and prevented from entering into that discussion when the Vote for the Chief Secretary was reached?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) is in possession of the Committee, and may continue his remarks. When I think the hon. Member is out of Order, I will stop him.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARLETTsaid, he was surprised at the interruption of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), who had himself been distinguished by raising discursive discussions upon almost every question for many years. He believed he was entirely within his right in entering upon a discussion of the Egyptian Question upon this Vote. But, without entering into details, he merely desired to point out, in general terms, the critical condition of Egypt, and to show how little information they were able to get from the Government. Before he was interrupted by the hon. Member, he was proceeding to point out how the movements of the Mahdi had extended, and how an invasion of Lower Egypt was expected by persons of the very highest authority on the spot, both English and Egyptian. The Government had been asked for information over and over again in reference to Berber, Dongola, and Assouan; but the House could obtain no reliable information whatever. It was said that if Dongola fell, there must be an invasion of Egypt; and yet the Government were unable to state what the position of affairs was. Although they had agents only 200 miles away, at Wady-Halfa, and although this uncertainty had been going on for two months, Ministers had been unable to obtain any information as to the position of Dongola—whether the Mudir was faithful or not, or whether the Mahdi had obtained possession of the place or not—notwithstanding the fact that very valuable British lives were at stake. There were a dozen British officers scattered over the deserts, and there were no reliable troops until Assouan was reached. At that place, he believed, there was an entire battalion; but it might find itself suddenly surrounded and overwhelmed. So imperfect was the information of the Foreign Office with regard to Egypt that they did not know what was taking place at Dongola. He would have thought that they could have sent spies in order to find out the position of affairs there. [Laughter.] Hon. Members did not understand the importance of this, and he did not very much care for the ridicule they attempted to cast upon him, because the time would undoubtedly come when the importance of these places would be fully demonstrated—the importance of other places had been
  948
  demonstrated in the past. He only raised the question now to urge on the Foreign Office the importance of obtaining reliable information in regard to this dangerous fanatical movement, which was now spreading onwards towards Egypt, and which, in the opinion of many, if not of all, well-informed persons in that country, might cause our small garrisons there, before very many weeks elapsed, to be fighting for their lives. There was another point from which he thought the House suffered owing to the want of information—a question which had been raised by the late Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Bourke), who was not, however, at that moment, in his place to deal with it—namely, what was going to happen with regard to the police arrangements in Egypt, and how far the old system was to be resorted to? He would now go to another part of the world, in which the interests of this country, although not so great as those in Egypt, were really very considerable. He had asked the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to give the House some reliable information in regard to what was going on in Madagascar; but he found it impossible to obtain accurate intelligence as to what was going on in that remote Island, although it was well known that there were large British interests at stake. Their trade, which had been destroyed by the French operations, amounted to nearly £1,000,000 a-year, and many of Her Majesty's subjects had suffered grievous injury. A considerable sum of money had been voted by the French Assembly for the conquest of the Island. He had received many complaints from private individuals and others, showing how their interests had been neglected. They were told that a Consul General had been sent out to Madagascar last February or March. The noble Lord said he had no information, and yet the newspapers that morning informed the public that large reinforcements had been sent to the Island, which were about to march on different points. They knew what would happen when that took place. The French hold, once gained, would never be relaxed. It must be remembered that the people of Madagascar were our friends; that they had been largely Christianized; and that we

  949
  carried on a considerable trade with them which amounted to atleast £150,000 per annum, but which would be permanently destroyed. Under these circumstances, it was lamentable that they were unable to obtain any information from the Foreign Office with reference to Madagascar. If he went to another part of the world—namely, China, he was equally unable to obtain information. He found, from the statements in the public newspapers, that war between China and France was imminent, and if war did break out it must necessarily cause great injury to British commerce and British trade. When they asked if any mediation was being undertaken, they were told that Her Majesty's Government had made no attempt at mediation, and that they did not believe they would succeed if they did. No one would deny that the interests of this country were largely concerned in China. He believed there was no barbarous or semi-barbarous country in which their interests were greater than in China; and yet, in the face of so injurious a prospect as that of war between France and China, the Foreign Office was unable to give the House any information. They heard, on good authority, that the unfortunate encounter between the Chinese and the French troops arose out of a misunderstanding occasioned by want of notice on the part of the French General to the Chinese Commander at Lang-son; but surely that afforded a ground for the Representatives of the Foreign Office to offer mediation. Yet, because Her Majesty's Ministers were embarrassed by these unfortunate diplomatic failures elsewhere, they dared not stand up against French aggression upon China. That was the third allegation he made against the Foreign Office. The last point he would mention had reference to the financial proposals which had been laid before the Powers of Europe who were taking part in the Conference. He was sorry the Prime Minister was not in his place, because the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State might not feel himself entitled to give information without the authority of the right hon. Gentleman. It was, however, a point on which Parliament ought no longer to be kept in the dark. On the 28th of June, proposals, in reference to Egypt, were made on the part of Her Majesty's
  950
  Government by the Foreign Secretary of a grave financial character to the European Powers. It was understood that the House would be put in the possession of the whole case in regard to the proposals before they were submitted to the Conference, and yet the very point on which the House had a right to have the fullest, the earliest, and the most ample information was the only point now withheld from them. The proposals had been communicated to the Powers of Europe 16 days ago, and yet no information in regard to them had been conveyed either to this or the other House of Parliament. He held that that was a remarkable dereliction of duty on the part of the Ministers of the Crown. He submitted that the House of Commons had an absolute right to know the financial proposals submitted by the Foreign Office to the European Powers as soon as the European Powers received them, if not sooner. Certainly, they ought to have them submitted to the consideration of the House, and to the consideration of public opinion, some time before the debate upon those proposals, which was expected, took place. They were told that it was disrespectful to the Powers to reveal those proposals to the House before they had been considered in the Conference, yet it was not thought disrespectful to submit the proposals for the neutralization of Egypt, for the withdrawal of their troops, and in favour of a Multiple Control. At the time of the bombardment of Alexandria, they were told that it would be disrespectful to the Powers to land 1,500 men to catch Arabi Pasha; but it was not considered disrespectful to cause the destruction of Alexandria, and to fight the battle of Tel-el-Kebir. Although it was held to be disrespectful to the European Powers to submit the financial proposals to the House of Commons before they were considered by the Conference, it was not held to be disrespectful to submit all the other proposals before they had been adopted by the Powers. He hoped that hon. Members would admit that he had kept within the four corners of his promise, and that he had only briefly discussed matters of grave importance, in respect of which information had been withheld from the House. In order to mark his sense of the unjustifiable secrecy pursued by Her

  951
  Majesty's Government, and the want of information and general knowledge of which he complained in the Foreign Office, together with the neglect of the interests of the country by Her Majesty's Government, largely due to their astonishing ignorance of what was taking place abroad, he moved that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £45,474, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."—(Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett.)
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, that, of course, he did not wish to dispute the right of the hon. Member to raise a general discussion of this kind. It might show to the country that hon. Members were doing their duty in criticizing the efficiency of the Foreign Office. It was the right of any Member, before voting money, to ask questions, or to raise objections, on the ground of the alleged inefficiency of any particular Department. But, at the same time, on a Vote of this kind it was not desirable to enter into general questions of foreign policy simply because the salary of the Foreign Secretary was included in the Vote, because he ventured to say that it was utterly impossible for any Minister to make a reply. If the hon. Gentleman was proposing to reduce the Vote because he disapproved of the foreign policy of the Government, it was hardly a sufficient ground; but he understood the hon. Member to say that he objected to the Vote because the Government were inefficient apart from their general administration of foreign affairs. It appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman was dissatisfied because the Government seemed always to be behindhand in obtaining information. Now, that had been the case during the whole of his (Mr. Rylands's) experience of Parliament. He had invariably found that the Foreign Office was always the last to know anything about foreign matters, although they were communicated to other nations, notwithstanding that they had a most lavishly expensive system for putting themselves in communication with foreign countries, with a view of obtaining information. He had always
  952
  contended, and he contended now, that the amount of money this country spent on the Foreign Department was altogether in excess of any advantage they derived from that Department. The whole of the expenditure of the Foreign Office was conducted on the most lavish scale. The officials were all very highly paid; and not only so, but he thought it would be found on inquiry that the total number of them might be permanently reduced. There were two or three items in the Vote which had always been objected to. He saw an hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. Lowther) look at him, probably because the hon. Member remembered the old controversy in regard to the charge for Foreign Office messengers. He found in the present Vote an item of £6,780 for Foreign Office messengers, in addition to which the country was called upon to pay £10,000 or £11,000 annually for travelling expenses. He did not hesitate to say that this country paid three times as much for Foreign Office messengers, or messengers connected with the Foreign Department, as any other first-class Power in the world. There could be no doubt about it. The Foreign Office messengers of the other Great Powers had nothing like the salaries which were paid to those of this country, nor were there as many of them as we employed for the purposes of the Foreign Office. He believed a large amount of the expenditure would be saved, if, under the great advantages they now possessed in the Postal and Telegraph system, they reduced, not only the number of Foreign Office messengers, but the salaries and expenditure charged in this account. The appointment of Foreign Office messengers had always stood upon an objectionable footing. Gentlemen were appointed who had some claim upon the official persons connected with the country, or with the Foreign Office—perhaps half-pay officers, or other gentlemen—the object being to place them in a comfortable position. They travelled through Europe under the most luxurious circumstances, from which they derived a handsome income in addition to their pay, and they had provision made for their travelling expenses on a very liberal scale, far different from what was done in other countries. He ventured further to say that the necessity for the employment of these gentlemen was much less

  953
  now than it was a few years ago. Before the telegraphic system came into operation there was a greater necessity for communicating by direct means between the Foreign Office or Downing Street and their Embassies abroad; but under the new state of circumstances the services of some of these gentlemen might be advantageously dispensed with. He sincerely hoped that the old traditions and the antiquated forms of the Foreign Office would be to some extent done away with. He did not believe there was any Department of the State which was so antiquated in its ideas as the Foreign Office. He believed that telegrams would do the work much better than these Foreign Office messengers. At present, the latter occupied themselves in conveying despatches, which anybody who read the Blue Books would see took up a considerable amount of the attention of the Government officials, and led to a considerable amount of expenditure. What he wanted to see was that the Foreign Office should get rid of these old forms, which only tended to increase expenditure and occupy time, and that they should devote themselves to the acquisition of a more businesslike style, which would place them in a position to obtain better information abroad. He could not support the proposal of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) to reduce the Vote by the sum of £10,000.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, the hon. Member was mistaken; he only proposed to reduce it by £1,000.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he would vote a reduction of £1,000 as a protest. He had no objection to that at all, because he considered that the Vote was altogether excessive, and beyond what was necessary for the purposes of the Foreign Office. There was another point he desired to mention—namely, the continued charge of £300 a-year paid to the Secretary of State for the management of the Secret Service Fund of the Foreign Department. He had been in hopes, when the late change took place in the Permanent Secretaryship, that this item would have been got rid of. The sum formerly paid to Lord Hammond was £500, and it was paid, without the knowledge of Parliament, out of the Secret Service money. The fact, however, was ascertained from a former Under Secretary of State for Foreign
  954
  Affairs that the sum of £500 was paid to Lord Hammond, and that it came out of the Secret Service Fund itself. It was then arranged, as he understood, that, while it would be continued to the then holder of the Office, there would be a reduction when Lord Hammond's successor was appointed, with a view to the ultimate removal of the charge. When Lord Hammond ceased to be Permanent Under Secretary, the amount that was paid to his successor was reduced to £300 a-year; but he felt that to be an excessive amount, considering the duties the Permanent Under Secretary had to perform in connection with this service. He thought the Committee was entitled to have some information upon the subject; and he regretted to see that, although there had been another change in the office of Permanent Secretary, Her Majesty's Government had not got rid of the charge altogether.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he would not follow the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) in his attack upon the salaries of the officials connected with the Foreign Office, because he considered it useless and a waste of time. The hon. Member, as well as other hon. Members, every year, attacked the salaries of the Foreign Office officials; but, as far as he could make out, they never took any steps to inquire into the working of the Office, or even to ask for a Committee of Inquiry into it. He (Sir Henry Holland), as an old official, protested against these general attacks on the salaries of the gentlemen who performed these duties, unless they were followed up by a distinct proceeding—such as asking for a Committee of Inquiry into the working of the system. He agreed, however, in the views of the hon. Member as to the last item to which he had referred; and he had intended to put a question to the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as to the payment of this sum of £300 for the management of the Secret Service Fund of the Foreign Department. He had understood that Lord Hammond, who was Permanent Under Secretary before Lord Tenterden, had received this sum out of the Secret Service Fund, partly in consideration of his long and able services, but that the payment was to be discontinued on the retirement of Lord Hammond. He could not understand why there

  955
  should be a claim of this kind put forward by the Foreign Office, and why, if any duties were to be performed in connection with the Secret Service Fund, they were not discharged without any special payment, as they were at the Home and Colonial Offices. The Assistant Secretary of the Colonial Office received no additional pay because he had to manage this fund; and he (Sir Henry Holland) could not for the life of him see why the Foreign Office Secretary should get this sum when it was not paid in connection with any other Department.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, there was one observation which had fallen from the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) which he confessed he had listened to with very great interest. The hon. Member said that the unfortunate difficulty between France and China had arisen from want of Notice. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had often expressed an opinion that a great number of unfortunate encounters which took place between the hon. Member and himself arose from want of notice. In this particular case he was inclined to think the Committee would not be willing to enter into all the topics which the hon. Member had raised. It would only lead the Committee into a prolonged discussion which it would not be convenient to enter into. He would remind the hon. Member, in regard to his complaint of want of information, that he would find on inquiry that there had been very few Sessions of Parliament in which such an amount of information had been given to the House by the Foreign Office in the shape of Blue Books. He would also remind the hon. Member that he had undertaken to lay on the Table, next week, Papers on one of the subjects to which the hon. Member had alluded—namely, Egypt. In regard to the Conference, the hon. Member himself had pointed out that it would be almost impossible to expect from him (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), or his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, any statement while the Conference was still sitting.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he only wished to know what the financial proposals were.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the financial proposals were part of the matters now before the Confer-
  956
  ence. The hon. Member complained of want of information in regard to Madagascar. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had over and over again stated to the House that the Foreign Office, since last year, had taken special means to obtain full and accurate information in respect of that Island by sending out a gentleman of great ability as Consul, and by appointing Vice Consuls in different parts of the Island; and, although he did not give any pledge, he thought it would be possible at an early date to lay Reports on the Table which would give the House further information. The hon. Member also complained of the want of information in regard to China. He had already alluded to what was happening between the French and the Chinese, and he confessed that in his view—and he had always understood that that view was generally held in the Housa—the information laid before Parliament by the Foreign Office in regard to the transactions between this country and Foreign Powers ought to be such as directly affected this country. The Foreign Office was not a Department for what might be called the mere collection of news. Information was placed by the Foreign Office before Parliament when it became evident that it was necessary to inform Parliament as to what was going on. It was also necessary that the information should be of an authentic character, and not made in a haphazard fashion from day to day—simply containing the news with which the public was at present admirably supplied by the newspapers. He thought that if the Foreign Office were to take up any new attitude in the relations between France and China, they would be justly incurring blame, and, to use the expression of his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), would be guilty of "a fussy intermeddling with other people's affairs when there was no necessity for it." Certain events had arisen between the French and the Chinese—whether they had arisen from want of notice or not he did not know—and if the time came when the relation between those Powers assumed such proportions as to render it necessary that information should be laid before Parliament, such information would be produced; but that moment had not yet arrived, and it was the hope of Her Majesty's Government that arrange-

  957
  ments would be made between France and China which might prevent the breaking out of further hostilities, or any necessity for the intervention of this country. He would remind the hon. Member that it was only on Friday last that he had said that an arrangement was made last year by the Powers, under which neutrals were to be protected.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked if the arrangement included France?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEwas understood to reply in the negative. The arrangement was for the protection of neutrals, and was actually in force. He wished to say before he sat down a few words in answer to the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland). He thought his hon. Friend had forgotten that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had, on a former occasion, taken an active part in securing the appointment of a Committee for inquiring into the condition of the Diplomatic Service. Although those who occupied the Office he now held were sometimes adverse to such inquiries, as taking up a good deal of time, he was glad to acknowledge, nevertheless, that this inquiry had been of great use. He believed his hon. Friend had succeeded in bringing out a considerable amount of useful information; and if it had enabled the Foreign Office from time to time to touch various matters which they had previously found it difficult to deal with, it was because they had the advantage of public opinion in support of the changes they had introduced. He could not agree with his hon. Friend in saying that no changes had been made as the result of that inquiry. In consequence of the inquiry, various changes had been made from time to time, and last year he had been subjected to complaints for some of the reductions which had been made. When the Diplomatic Vote came on, hon. Members would see for themselves that the Estimates this year had been reduced, and he was making careful inquiry with a view to further reductions in the same direction. He would remind his hon. Friend that the very point he had touched upon—namely, the Foreign Office messengers—had been considered, and that a reduction was going on at that moment. No further appointments would be made until the number of messengers receiving the
  958
  higher salaries had been reduced to four. That was an arrangement decided upon three or four years ago, and was gradually being brought into operation; but it could only be carried out as vacancies occurred. In regard to the question of Secret Service money, the Committee would be aware that in the past there had been a great deal of discussion upon the salary paid to the Permanent Under Secretary in respect of this fund. He was inclined to think the arrangement was that the existing state of things was to terminate on the retirement of Lord Hammond, when there was to be a reduction; and, as a matter of fact, upon the retirement of Lord Hammond the payment was reduced from £500 to £300 a-year. The reasons for retaining the salary were explained on the 24th of July, 1871, by the present Prime Minister, who said—
  "Secret Service money constitutes a completely distinct and special fund, and the administration of it is necessarily a duty, not only of very high responsibility, but also of considerable labour, because it is necessarily kept in the hands of a very high and confidential person, who cannot receive in the administration of it the kind and degree of assistance which he receives in the discharge of the ordinary duties of his Office. For these reasons, it has been for a long time held in the Foreign Office that a special allowance ought to be made to the Permanent Under Secretary for this difficult, responsible, and laborious duty."—(3 Hansard, [208] 161–2.)
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked if the same conditions prevailed now?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he thought they did to the same extent; the duties of the Foreign Office were very often of a grave and difficult character, and this had been the position of things. At the same time, he was inclined to think that the change, brought about, to a great extent, by the action of his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), was a very wise change, and the public were under a great obligation to his hon. Friend for having called attention to the question. The hon. Member was really the father of the arrangement which had since been carried out.
  MR. RYLANDSwished to say a word by way of personal explanation. He did not entertain the opinion that no change had been made, and he did not intend to use language which might convey that impression. He was quite aware

  959
  that changes had been made within the last few years which were all in the right direction; but he should like to see more of them carried out.
  MR. MACIVERremarked, that if the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) went to a Division, he (Mr. MacIver) would vote for the reduction the hon. Member suggested, but not upon any of the grounds which had been put forward by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). He thought the public servants of the Foreign Office, like other permanent officials, were seldom over-paid for the important duties they had to perform. His complaint against the Foreign Office was rather of a different kind. He found that, under the guidance of the present Administration, it had been a most unsuccessful Foreign Office. He did not blame the noble Lord who represented the Office in that House. He was sure the noble Lord did his best, and, perhaps, he had rather a rough time of it; but he did blame the Foreign Office for their inaction in regard to such matters as the crew of the Nisero. He blamed them for not having obtained the release of these men at a time when they might have done so much more easily than now. He blamed them for not having been able to fulfil their promises in regard to the commercial arrangements with Spain. His real complaint, however, had reference to the policy of the Foreign Office as administered by Her Majesty's present Advisers, and he thought their policy would completely justify the Committee in supporting the proposition of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) for the reduction of the Vote. He did not blame the noble Lord or the Government for any deficiency—so far as quantity was concerned—of information, because, as regards Blue Books, there were plenty of them, and there was an abundant supply of printed matter. But what he did complain of was that most of the so-called Foreign Office information, as given in the Blue Books, was of a misleading and confusing character. He had himself been referred to Blue Books in regard to statements said to be contained in them, which, as a matter of fact, were not contained in them. There were plenty of Blue Books of one kind and another, but it was quite a mistake to suppose that they necessarily contained
  960
  the information which the Foreign Office ought to give. He contended that hon. Members representing important constituencies, when they put reasonable questions to the Government, ought to be able to obtain the information they wanted. For these reasons he should support the Motion which had been made for the reduction of the Vote.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had no doubt that, if the Conservatives had been in power, all the terrible things of which hon. Gentlemen opposite complained of would not have happened; but he thought that a great deal more money would have been spent upon the Foreign Office than the Committee were now called upon to vote. He had risen, however, to call the attention of the noble Lord to a statement which had fallen from him with respect to Foreign Office messengers. His hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) complained that too much money was spent upon those Foreign Office messengers. The noble Lord replied that the salaries of some of the Queen's Home Service messengers were about to be reduced; but he had always observed, no matter whether a Liberal or Conservative Ministry was in power, that if anybody's salary was to be reduced, it was not the men who had large salaries, but those who had small ones. If hon. Members would look into the Estimates, they would find that Her Majesty's Foreign Office messengers—namely, those who were required to go abroad—received £400 a-year, whereas the Home messengers received only from £200 to £250. The House complained that too much money was spent upon these messengers; whereupon the Government said—"Let us reduce the salaries of some of them; but we will reduce the salaries of those who receive £200 and £250 a-year, and leave the men with £400 alone." Very often these gentlemen were sent abroad—at a very large cost to the country, for no practical object whatever. They went on a certain route, and the business was made up for them as they went. He had had the honour to serve at one time under Sir Henry Bulwer at Constantinople. Now, Sir Henry Bulwer was always ill; and on one occasion he remembered making a calculation that a box of pills, Sir Henry was anxious to obtain, and which was sent

  961
  out by a Foreign Office messenger, cost the country from £200 to £300. Probably the pills did Sir Henry good, and pills were much more useful than a good deal of the stuff sent out by the Foreign Office. Perhaps the noble Lord would not condescend to answer that point; but he would get up and tell them that telegrams cost so much, and that unless they employed these Foreign Office messengers they would have otherwise to send cipher telegrams on a very large amount of their business. Now, he (Mr. Labouchere) was in the Diplomatic Service for 10 years, and he had spent a good deal of his time in ciphering and deciphering telegrams; and he did not remember half-a-dozen of them that any man, woman, or child in the whole world would have taken the trouble to decipher for any information they could have derived from them. The cost of telegrams, therefore, was no excuse. These messengers were sent out by particular routes, and at particular times. He had known them sometimes arrive with nothing more than a letter from Her Majesty to her relatives in Germany. Of course, Her Majesty's relatives received the letters that were sent out in that way; but surely it was absurd to send a man from this country to Germany for the simple purpose of carrying some formal letter. He hoped the noble Lord would look into the matter. He quite admitted that the Foreign Office was at present acting economically in regard to the Diplomatic Service; but he thought there was a good opportunity for reducing the number of Foreign Office messengers, and the number of their journeys. £10,000 spent on journeys was really too large a sum.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he could not agree with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) in his statement that if the Conservative Party had been in power more money would have been spent upon the Foreign Office. That was directly contrary to all the facts of the case. It was well known that within the last few years the Liberal Government had expended £5,000,000 more than the late Conservative Government, not upon the Foreign Office, but altogether. The noble Lord excused the want of information supplied to the country by the Foreign Office by an appeal to the large
  962
  quantity of Blue Books which were furnished. But no one who had examined the Blue Books issued by the Foreign Office this year and last year would find in them any excuse for a want of general information, for a more extraordinarily confused and misleading collection of miscellaneous information, for the most part wholly beside any point upon which they might have been useful, he had never seen issued by any Department, public or otherwise. An immense quantity of Correspondence had been published; but it contained very little information of value. Nevertheless, in spite of the suppression of an immense amount of information which ought to have appeared in the Blue Books, it had been possible to establish a strong case against the Government out of their own Blue Books. The noble Lord told them he had given them the best information he could in regard to the affairs of Madagascar. He would remind the noble Lord that he had somewhat jeered hon. Members for calling attention to statements which had appeared in the newspapers. It was not a habit of his (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett's) to do so; but he must say that the information which had appeared in the newspapers during the last four years had, when carefully sorted, been very accurate. Very often it had been made use of for the purpose of obtaining information from Ministers; and, although Ministers had ridiculed the information, and denied its accuracy, they had generally admitted it to be correct in the end, the denial of the Foreign Office being the only thing that was inaccurate. That had been established in a dozen cases. He was not satisfied with the reasons the noble Lord had given for the absence of information in regard to the financial proposals now before the European Powers. The noble Lord said it was not possible to do so in the absence of the Prime Minister.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I said that it was undesirable to give it while the Conference was sitting.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, it was to the latter reason that he took exception. If the noble Lord would recall to mind what had recently happened with regard to the Conference, he would remember that information had been given to the House upon three out of the four great matters submitted

  963
  to it—namely, the withdrawal of the troops from Egypt, the neutralization of Egypt, and information in regard to the Debt Commission. The noble Lord, nevertheless, considered it unreasonable to expect the Government to give the House information as to the financial proposals, which were the very essence of the deliberations of the Conference. He proposed to ask a question of the Government shortly, in order to obtain more information. Before he sat down he would venture to express a hope that the Foreign Office would endeavour to obtain accurate information with regard to the state of affairs at Dongola. That was a point to which the noble Lord had not referred in his answer at all. It was a point which ought to be pressed upon the Government; and before Vote 5 came on for discussion, full and accurate information ought to be placed before the House.
  MR. MOOREsaid, he thought the Committee had a right to expect full information from the noble Lord with regard to the Foreign Office messengers. Nobody would object to their employment, or to incur any expense for the objects of diplomacy in averting a great war, or on any occasion of that sort; but the impression currently entertained was, that these messengers were despatched at fixed intervals to different European capitals whether they had anything to say or not, and whether they had any despatch of importance to carry out or not. The question was not whether important despatches were sent out as occasion required, but whether those Foreign Office messengers made their journeys at fixed intervals—once a fortnight or once a month. That was a point upon which the noble Lord might give the Committee some information. The impression was that on the recurrence of particular periods each messenger departed on his round. It was supposed that by the time he went he had a bag-full of despatches on the different questions which were always arising between the various European Governments. If there were any occasion of importance there could be no objection to these messengers being despatched so as to make it perfectly sure that the despatches would reach their destination; but what was complained of was that an old-fashioned and antiquated system was kept up which was
  964
  of no practical use in the present day, when they had the telegraph and the postal arrangements and many other facilities for sending news. The question was, did they really require these messengers to be sent off at periodical intervals; and he would ask the noble Lord whether or not it was the fact that Foreign Office messengers were despatched at regular fixed intervals to the principal European capitals?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, it was not necessary to answer in detail the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). The fact in regard to these Foreign Office messengers was this—there were certain circuits to the principal capitals of Europe—namely, Paris, Constantinople, Berlin, and St. Petersburg, and the messengers were sent at fixed intervals according to a rota. It had been stated that these messengers were sent when there was no occasion for employing them; but he was bound to say that during the last two years he did not think there had been any period when it had not been necessary to employ the services of these messengers. After the discussion which had taken place he would promise that the matter should be carefully inquired into, and if it was found that any reduction could be made an attempt would be made to effect it. He wished now to correct the misapprehension under which the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) appeared to labour in regard to the information contained in the newspapers of this country. Everyone at the Foreign Office was under great obligation to the newspapers for the information they supplied; but it was one thing to read the information which appeared in the newspapers and to attach credence and value to it, and quite another thing for the Secretary of State to come down to the House and give that information to hon. Members. The Government were obliged to be exceedingly careful, and they could not, the moment they saw a report, or a rumour, which it might be perfectly right to insert in a newspaper in the largest type, come down to the House of Commons and repeat that information until they became certain of its accuracy.
  MR. MOOREsaid, he thought the Committee would like to have a little

  965
  fuller information as to the messenger question before proceeding to a vote. Was the messenger sent every fortnight to St. Petersburg, or was he the same person as the messenger who went to Berlin, or were there two separate messengers sent once a fortnight—one to Berlin and one to St. Petersburgh, passing over much of the same ground?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, there was one messenger stationed between Paris and Calais who kept up a constant communication with the Embassies mentioned. One messenger was despatched once a fortnight to Berlin, and another once a fortnight to St. Petersburg.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for Eye move the reduction of the Vote?
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Yes; by the sum of £1,000.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 109: Majority 90.—(Div. List., No. 158.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (3.) £27,411, to complete the sum for Colonial Office.
  (4.) £33,309, to complete the sum for the Privy Council Office.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that having seen the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) in the Lobby, he trusted he would be in his place on the Treasury Bench to reply to one or two questions which he should have to address to him on the subject of this Vote. With regard to the new Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, he should like the right hon. Gentleman to state the action, if any, which had been taken under it by the Privy Council; whether any additional foreign countries had been scheduled in accordance with the powers given by Parliament to the Privy Council, or whether there had been no necessity since the passing of the Act to put those powers into force? Then there was an inquiry which he would address to his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury with regard to the Vote, in which he observed a considerable increase as compared with the amount of the Estimate of last year. He did not know whether his hon. Friend was
  966
  aware of the items which made up the increase; but, amongst others, he would point out that there was a large advance beyond the amount charged last year for copyists. The pay of these persons was at the rate of 10 d. per hour, and the charge for the work this year was £1,250, as against £750 for last year. No doubt there had been some considerable increase in the number of Returns, yet he did not know that that ought to account for so much of the increase in this particular Vote. Then he would ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the Irish boats had been properly dealt with in respect of disinfection? It was promised that that question should be very carefully considered, and he was satisfied that it would be a great satisfaction to the Committee to know whether the Irish cattle would now be imported into this country without let or hindrance, and that there was no cattle disease in Ireland. There was also the subject of agricultural statistics on which he would be glad to receive some information. He was rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman was not in his place, because he must have been quite certain that when the Vote for the Privy Council came forward these questions would be entered upon. Perhaps, under the circumstances, it might be possible to postpone the Vote until the Chancellor of the Duchy came in to reply to the inquiries he had made.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was willing, if necessary, to postpone the Vote until the arrival of the right hon. Gentleman.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT, on the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster taking his place, said, he was glad that his right hon. Friend was now present, because the present was in all probability the last opportunity they would have of obtaining an explanation on agricultural matters. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to state whether anything had been done with regard to the Act passed this year; whether any fresh foreign countries had been scheduled, and whether he had found it necessary to put the Act into force? He would also ask particularly what was the present condition of the foot-and-mouth disease in the country; and whether there was any ground for hoping that it was at that moment nearly, if not quite, extinguished? He would like to

  967
  hear whether the outbreaks mentioned the other day by the right hon. Gentleman had undergone any alteration; whether the number of cattle infected had or had not decreased? Then, with regard to the Irish boats, he asked if the arrangements for having them properly cleansed had been carried out; whether cattle might now be shipped in them without fear of their becoming diseased; whether in Bristol the cattle were detained after landing, or whether that portion of the country was now free from disease? Finally, he wished to know whether the Agricultural Statistical Returns were sent in as effectively, efficiently, and regularly as the right hon. Gentleman could desire, or whether it was not the case, as he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was led to believe, that a certain number of those Returns had not been sent in?
  MR. DODSONsaid, he felt flattered by the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite giving him credit for the possession of so excellent a memory as would enable him to reply at once to all the statistical questions he had just put to him. However, he would do his best to satisfy the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He was happy to say that they had not had to schedule any fresh countries. It was now more than 12 months ago—14 or 15 he believed—since, excepting in one special case of the Ontario, a head of cattle affected with foot-and-mouth disease had been landed for slaughter on these shores, and eight months since any sheep or swine so affected had been landed for slaughter. Under those circumstances, they had not thought it necessary to prohibit importation from any country under the new Act. There had, therefore, been no action under that Act. He was sorry to say, with reference to foot-and-mouth disease in the country, that it had recently increased. There were at that moment five herds diseased in different parts of the country, one of them being in Yorkshire, and three others in the counties of Norfolk, Cheshire, and Surrey, while the name of the county in which the remaining case had occurred had escaped him. An hon. Member suggested Kent; but that county was now free. The fact, however, was as he had stated—there were five counties in which there were at the moment infected places, and he was sorry to add that in each case there were a con-
  968
  siderable number of animals on the farm which it was to be feared had come in contact with the animals diseased. In each case precautions had been taken to insure isolation, which he hoped would be strictly enforced, and the Privy Council recommended the Local Authorities to have the places watched by the police, which, so far as he was aware, had been done. The Privy Council also advised that provision should be made for the disinfection of persons in attendance upon diseased animals and moving in and out of infected places. With regard to Ireland, he was glad to say that there had been no disease since April last, so far as was known to the Privy Council; and, therefore, no detentions had taken place either at Bristol or elsewhere. With regard to the Irish boats, they were subject to the legal precautions. But the Irish Privy Council, further, had requested the proprietors of the vessels trading between the two countries to take extraordinary measures to insure disinfection; and that request, he believed, had been willingly complied with, with the result, which he had stated, of there having been no disease brought from Ireland since April last.
  MR. A. F. EGERTONasked if the right hon. Gentleman had any information as to the existence of pleuro-pneumonia in Lancashire?
  MR. DODSONsaid, he was glad to state that there was no reason to believe that pleuro-pneumonia was increasing in the country. There were, however, a few cases.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to call attention to the sale of poisons in connection with the Pharmacy Act. Believing the public health to be of some concern even to a Liberal Government, he had urged this question upon them year after year. Two years ago an official who, as he believed, was a subordinate in the Home Office, stated, in reply to a Question on his part, that the subject had then reached maturity for legislation; and, believing that to be the case, he (Mr. Warton) ventured to bring in a Bill on the subject of the Pharmacy Act, for which a good place on the Paper was obtained, the Bill being set down for early in March. It was simply a Bill for the purpose of trying to remedy some of the evils arising out of the sale of poisons as medicine, and in support of it he quoted numerous authorities to

  969
  show the extensive sale, as patent medicines, of drugs that were highly poisonous; he showed that although a person could not, as was supposed, buy poisons without going through a certain form, yet that any quantity of poison could be bought in the form of patent medicine; he proved from medical evidence that there were many poisons contained in these patent medicines; and, finally, that a number of deaths had resulted from that cause; and upon that occasion the Government promised that if his Bill were rejected in the House of Commons another Bill should be brought forward in "another place." Now, until four months ago, he believed that the Government were to be trusted in this matter; and, therefore, he put two Questions on the subject, and the answer was that there was a doubt as to whether Ireland should be included in the measure or not, and, after a fortnight had elapsed, he was told by the Vice President of the Council for Education that they had not yet communicated with the Irish authorities on the subject. Looking at the fact that a number of deaths had occurred through the sale of these medicines, and that he had brought in a Bill to deal with the matter, and having regard to the time which had elapsed and the promise given that a Bill should be introduced in "another place," it seemed to him that there was really serious ground for complaint against the Government. He could not move the reduction of the Vote, because he wished to see it increased; but, looking at the matter from the Government's own point of view, he said that they had been guilty of scandalous neglect. With their increased knowledge on this subject, they had only put down the paltry sum of £120 for the purpose of carrying out the object in view. The Lancet, a perfectly impartial and respectable paper, contained an article which had been sent to him by the editor, strongly urging legislation in this direction, in which it was complained that the Government stamp was put upon these medicines, which led the public almost always to imagine that there was some guarantee for the goodness of the medicines themselves. There were numbers of poor and uneducated people who, when they saw a packet with the Government stamp upon it, were always ready to believe that the
  970
  contents were good. He wished that stamp to be made a reality, to show whether the medicine was good or bad, and not to remain, as it was at present, something delusive. While the revenue from that source amounted to £140,000, £120 was all that the Government gave for the purpose of carrying out an important part of the Pharmacy Act. Let the Committee contrast the large amount derived from this dishonest, this dirty source, if he might say so, with the small item of £120, and let them bear in mind the promises made in judging the conduct of the Government in this matter. He had no doubt that the excuse that it was too late would be made now as it had been made before; but he said it was not too late, even at that period of the Session, to endeavour to save the lives of Her Majesty's subjects. He saw on the opposite side of the House hon. Gentlemen who always stood up on questions of this kind, amongst them the hon. Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons); and he appealed to him as to whether it was not the case that these patent medicines did a great deal of harm, and that the stamps were the cause of a great deal of the mischief? The vendors of the medicines traded on the Government stamp; it was the means of increasing their sales; the words "with the Government stamp," were made a prominent part of their advertisements, and were by poor and ignorant people looked upon as an official guarantee for the goodness of the medicines they were invited to purchase. Seeing that 100 ridiculous Bills were brought in annually, many of which destroyed the rights and crippled the privileges of the people, it was a hard thing that when a private Member endeavoured to do his duty to the country by bringing in one reasonable and wholesome measure he should receive no support. He said it was really too bad on the part of Her Majesty's Government to promise to introduce a Bill in the House of Lords and then not bring it in. There had been plenty of time to settle the question as to whether the measure should be applied to Ireland; and in view of what had occurred he humbly begged leave to doubt that the Government ever had the smallest intention of bringing in any Bill at all. He would like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman opposite whether

  971
  it was the intention of the Government to bring in the Bill; and whether the obstacle with regard to Ireland still existed, or had been overcome?
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he hoped the Committee would not give the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken any assistance in this matter; and he thought that if Her Majesty's Government had fulfilled their promise of giving him facilities for legislation, they would have called forth a strong protest on the part of a large number of Members. After the course followed by the hon. and learned Member for a number of years, it was impossible that they should ever permit him to legislate in that House. The whole proceeding of the hon. and learned Member in that House had been to prevent any private Member carrying forward any measure good, bad, or indifferent; and if ever he (Mr. Labouchere) were to see on the Paper a Bill of the hon. and learned Member, no matter how good that Bill might be, he would never lose the opportunity of blocking it. That sort of revenge was a virtue in the House of Commons. There was a very general feeling amongst hon. Members on the subject; and he could assure the hon. and learned Member for Bridport that he might give up all hope of ever having an opportunity of getting the second reading of any Bill introduced by him.
  MR. MACIVERsaid, after the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton, it was perhaps desirable that hon. Members should recall their minds to a more serious view of the matter. He was not aware that the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) had been in the habit of blocking any other than those mischievous measures which were from time to time put upon the Order Book of the House by private Members, and much more frequently by Her Majesty's Government. But in the Bill to which the hon. Member referred they had a measure of universal acceptance. They had had many promises from Her Majesty's Government which for various reasons had not been fulfilled. But the promise made to the hon. and learned Member for Bridport would have been easy of fulfilment; and there was no reason whatever, as far as he could see, why the excellent Bill proposed by the hon. and learned Member for the more effectual prevention of the sale of poisons
  972
  should not have been passed that Session. He had no scruple in expressing a doubt that it was ever the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce the Bill in "another place," because he felt that the House was no longer the same House of Commons as that which in old times deserved and secured the respect of the country. He could not help expressing a hope that it would not be long before they had another House of Commons, which would forward legislation such as that proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport, and one which would be less disposed to listen to the mischievous proposals which were put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he had never promised to bring in any measure dealing with the stamp on patent medicines. That was a question beyond the powers of the Privy Council. The only question which the Privy Council had to deal with was that relating to the sale of poisons; and it was not a very easy thing to discriminate as to whether the Government should interdict the sale altogether, or to what extent they should allow these medicines to be sold. All he could say was that the Lord President of the Council had undertaken to deal with the question at the earliest opportunity. The matter had been under consideration by the Pharmaceutical Society, and had been referred to Ireland, and the answer would in all probability would have reached the House before, but for the circumstances of which the hon. and learned Member was very well aware. The hon. and learned Member might think the question was a very easy one; but if so he could assure him that he was entirely mistaken. He would merely add that Her Majesty's Government were very anxious to deal with the subject, and that they would do so at the earliest opportunity.
  MR. WARTONsaid, if there were no common design against the Bill on the part of the Members of the Government then the statement of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down did not at all agree with the promise made by the hon. and learned Attorney General. The distinct promise made was that the Bill should be introduced in the House of Lords, and it was curious that the right hon. Gentleman should now be speaking on an entirely different point, seeing

  973
  that three weeks ago he had said that the real difficulty in the matter was with respect to Ireland. There was a distinct difference between the statement of the right hon. Gentleman and that of the hon. and learned Attorney General; and nothing had been said by way of explanation of the wilful neglect, as he must call it, of Her Majesty's Government. The promise made was that the Bill should be introduced in the House of Lords; but the right hon. Gentleman said or appeared to know nothing about that, and he had simply spoken of its being put into the hands of the Pharmaceutical Society of the United Kingdom. If the information of the right hon. Gentleman was so misty and shaky, then the probability was that in the next Parliament, if they were in Office, it would be found that the Government had forgotten all about the matter.
  Vote agreed to.
  (5.) £555, to complete the sum for the Privy Seal Office.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked who was the holder of the Office of Lord Privy Seal?
  MR. COURTNEY: Lord Carlingford.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsuggested the advisability of removing the item of £2,200 for the salary of the Lord Privy Seal from the Vote. He understood that a Bill which had made some progress either in that or the other House proposed to take away a number of those nominal functions which were at present discharged by the Privy Seal Office; and if that proposal were carried out there would be less reason than before for this salary of £2,200 being charged for a sinecure.
  Vote agreed to.
  (6.) £79,033, to complete the sum for the Board of Trade.
  MR. MACIVERsaid, he thought there was no institution in the country which stood more urgently in need of reform than that which was called the Board of Trade. He proposed to ask the Committee to reduce the Vote asked for, by omitting the item for the salary of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. The Committee, he thought, would readily believe that in making that proposal he was not proceeding on any personal
  974
  grounds whatever so far as the President of the Board of Trade was concerned, because it was not alone to the salary of the right hon. Gentleman that he asked the attention of the Committee. His intention was to propose that the salary of the Permanent Secretary to the Department should be also omitted, as well as the salary of the Wreck Commissioner, Mr. Rothery, and that of Mr. Giffen, the head of the Statistical Department, although he had not put down a specific Motion to that effect. He did not wish to be understood as at all opposed to the other officers of the Board of Trade. He admitted the usefulness of much of the work done by the Department. But with regard to the item particularly referred to, he should, in opposing the Vote, raise the question whether or not in point of law the President of the Board of Trade was entitled to the salary which he received. Looking back to the Statutes on which the constitution of the Board of Trade was supposed to rest, it seemed to him that there was nothing in the Statute passed in the Reign of George III. to warrant the existence of such an establishment as that over which the right hon. Gentleman presided. It was perfectly true that an Act was passed in the Reign of George IV. which enabled a salary to be paid to the President of the Committee of Privy Councillors who might be appointed in relation to matters of commerce and trade; but there was no legal warrant or justification for making any payment whatever to a Gentleman dubbed President of the Board of Trade, who, as a matter of fact, presided over no such Committee. This Office of President of the Board of Trade was not in itself created by Statute, but by Order in Council. His contention was that the Statute of George III. had not been complied with at all in this century, and that the sort of Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presided had no justification for its existence. This Department of, as he thought, more than doubtful legality as regards its own position, was, nevertheless, so arbitrary in its dealings with the various interests which came in contact with it, that he thought it only right to consider what the Board of Trade really was. He would, with the permission of the Committee,

  975
  refer to the words of the Statute upon which he understood the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) based his claim to the salary which it was now proposed to omit. The words of the Statute of 22 Geo. III. c. 8 were to the effect that—
  "Whereas His Majesty, for the better security of the liberty and independence of Parliament, has been pleased to order that the Office commonly known by the name and description of the Board of Commissioners of Trade and Foreign Plantations shall be utterly abolished and suppressed; wherefore be it enacted from and after the passing of this Act.…"
  He would quote from the Act the general meaning, only omitting certain words which did not affect the sense. In Section 15 he found that the duties formerly carried on by this Board were thenceforward to be conducted—
  "By any Committee or Committees of His Majesty's Privy Council which His Majesty shall be pleased to direct and appoint by Order in Council during His Royal pleasure without any salary, fee, or pension to the Members thereof for holding and exercising the same."
  Further on there was an ample and full description of what this Board was to be. The names of the Members of the Board of Trade were stated, as well as the Offices which they held; and there was a special reference to Ireland and special mention in the Statute of certain Offices held by Members from Ireland. No one could refer to the Statute of Geo. III. without seeing that the intention was that there should be an actual representative Board for the consideration of all matters relating to trade and foreign plantations. Every interest that had then to do with commerce of any kind was especially provided for by this Statute. What had occurred since then? The very last Order in Council by which any persons were appointed to form this Committee was dated September 16, 1786. There were sub-sections in the Statute which enabled this House, if it pleased, to vote a salary not exceeding £2,000 to the President of this Committee; but, as a matter of fact, there was no such Committee of Privy Councillors appointed for the consideration of matters relating to foreign trade and foreign plantations as the Act of Geo. III. provided for; the President of the Board of Trade did not preside over any Committee of Privy Councillors; such a Committee had never met in recent years; and, in point of fact, there had been no pro-
  976
  perly constituted Board of Trade at all during this century. If there was no Board of Trade in point of law, how could there be a President of that which did not exist? It seemed to him that although there was no doubt about the actual physical existence of the right hon. Gentleman, yet as there was no Board of Privy Councillors over which he presided the right hon. Gentleman had really no right to existence in his official capacity as President of this nominal Board. There was this old Statute which evidently contemplated the continued existence of a representative Board; but no such Board was in existence. Its Members were to be Privy Councillors. That Statute was the law of the land; but there had been no compliance with it in the present century. The duties of the Department, nevertheless, had been greatly increased, and the right hon. Gentleman was himself alone the Board of Trade. There were those who thought he was at the head of the administration of a good deal of political patronage. That might or might not be; but at this moment there was no Board of Trade such as the Statute required, and under those circumstances Parliament would be perfectly justified in refusing to pass the salary asked for for the President of the Board of Trade. He wished it to be clearly understood that not only was there no personal motive actuating him in this matter, but there was no political reason. Those who were in the last Parliament would remember that when Sir Charles Adderley was President of the Board of Trade that Gentleman hardly regarded him (Mr. MacIver) as a supporter of his policy. Then, as now, he complained that the Board of Trade had conspicuously failed. He need not go further than this Session to remind the House how the Board of Trade had failed in its legislation with regard to shipping—not obtaining the support even of any section of the seafaring or of the shipping community, or, indeed, of any persons liable to be affected by its proposals; or how it had failed in its legislation with regard to railways. There were those who thought the Board had not been so successful in its bankruptcy legislation as the right hon. Gentleman had anticipated. Then he (Mr. MacIver) thought there were duties which the country reasonably expected from the

  977
  Board of Trade, and which the country would receive from the Board of Trade if that Board were to-day what the Statute of Geo. III. said it should be. If it were what the old Statute contemplated he did not think the House of Commons would have to complain of the way in which their Commercial Treaty negotiations with foreign countries had been mismanaged. The country expected, and reasonably, that the Board of Trade should be able to give information to the Foreign Office; able to take part in negotiations, such as would procure markets for those who produced the manufactures of this country. The country had a right to expect that the Board of Trade should be a Department which would really do something for the good of the trade of the country; but he did not think that was likely to be the case under the administration of gentlemen such as those whose names he had mentioned to the House. The individual views of the President of the Board of Trade; Sir Thomas Farrer, the Permanent Secretary; Mr. Rothery, the Wreck Commissioner; and Mr. Giffen, were of a character such as those who had real interests at stake in regard to trade and commerce would hardly consider to be for their interest. The right hon. Gentleman, as well as the Department over which he presided, had been and was in a position of illegality; and he hoped this Royal Commission would have the scope of its inquiry extended, and that before the House broke up they would know who were to be upon it. They should have referred to them not only narrow questions, but the whole question of the constitution and functions of the Board of Trade itself. He thought he had established a case against the supposed legality of that which at present passed by the name of the Board of Trade, but for whose continuance in its present form there was no warrant either by Statute or by Order in Council.
  MR. MOOREsaid, he wished to call attention to a matter of somewhat less magnitude than the legal question as to the Department, but yet a matter of pressing importance. On previous occasions he had repeatedly asked the right hon. Gentleman to obtain more information as to the imports of oleomargerine and butterine than was at present possessed. He did not wish to enlarge on
  978
  the mere question of the importance of the matter to Ireland, for it was of great importance to every county in this country. What was complained of was that the Board of Trade had not sufficient jurisdiction, and no adequate information could be obtained, no matter how much the country was being flooded with those spurious commodities. He did not wish to exclude butterine, if it was sold upon its merits and so valued. That was perfectly just, and the first step towards the attainment of that was to have the exports carefully examined, so as to know what was to be dealt with. The Custom House officers collected the information; but they said they could not distinguish between oleomargerine and butter. It was probably only the retail dealer who sold it without committing himself to the proposition that this was butter. It was, perhaps, one-fourth butter, and was ordinarily sold at 1s. per pound. The frauds took place with the wholesale dealer, and the Custom House officers did not choose to give the slightest information as to these large imports. There were several classes of oil—mineral oil, fish oil, and so on; but they would not take the least trouble to give information which had been asked for year after year. It required a very strong Minister to control this matter. Permanent officials were against reforms; but there was a strong President of the Board of Trade—and a very able administrator—who could certainly obtain this reform. Everyone had heard of the interest he took in agricultural matters. The imports to Hull were 3,000,000 lbs. a-week, and every effort was made to force this spurious butter upon us in a fraudulent manner. No ingenuity was wanting to make the deception complete, and this practically meant ruin to farmers, because it tended to deprive them of their chief means of existence. This was a very serious grievance, and the Board of Trade were not merely a party to fraud by allowing these commodities to be disposed of; but there was no check on the consumption of those most obnoxious and deleterious ingredients. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee some information, and that these Custom House officers would be brought to their bearings and made to do their duty. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh and

  979
  St. Andrew's Universities (Sir Lyon Playfair) said it was almost impossible to distinguish between these things and butter; but, if that was so, that was no reason why the Custom House officers should allow these cans of oil to come into this country from Holland as they did.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he was very glad to find the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. MacIver) raising this important Constitutional question as to the Board of Trade, and he thought the time had almost come when the subject should be thoroughly investigated. He did not think there was any adequate authority for calling this Body the Board of Trade at all, because the real Body was a Committee of the Privy Council upon matters of trade. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was assisted in his deliberations by any other Member of the Privy Council? He was disposed to think there was no other Privy Councillor on the Board but himself. There was no Committee of the Privy Council with him, and the Board was a more farce, for the right hon. Gentleman had, with charming frankness, admitted, in reply to a Question, that he was the Board of Trade. He was, in fact, the Chief Director of this Body; but he was not saying this in hostility to the right hon. Gentleman himself. Some of his actions might or might not be approved of, but that was not the point; the real question was, whether it was desirable that one right hon. Gentleman should monopolize all the functions of a number of Gentlemen, who ought to be looking after a variety of interests all over the country? The President of the Board of Trade was necessarily a despot. He had to take upon himself a great responsibility, and he often performed his duty very well; but it was not in human nature to understand all the different departments of trade. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman had very great ability; but he held that there ought to be a real, and not a sham Committee of the Privy Council. With regard to what the right hon. Member opposite (Sir Lyon Playfair) had stated some time ago, he did not think that what the right hon. Gentleman said was that it was difficult to distinguish between butterine and butter, but between the chemical ingredients. They might be the same, but they were differently made up.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he agreed in the main with the remarks of his hon. Friend (Mr. Moore). He did not concur in the denunciation of this product, which was, to a large extent, very useful; but he thought his hon. Friend was entitled to have the fullest information in regard to it. Nobody could be injured by that. He was most anxious that all the information required by his hon. Friend should be given. He quite understood that there was an indisposition to give some of the details by which the difference between butter and butterine might be distinguished in every case; but he thought the person who most largely prepared this butterine would have no objection to describe it truthfully. It was a recognized article of sale, and, not being hurtful to health, he did not believe that in the large majority of cases there would be any refusal to describe the article by its proper name. He must, however, point out that he had no authority in the matter. The control of the matter was vested in the Customs Department, which was under the Treasury; and it was to the Treasury, and not to the Board of Trade, that his hon. Friend must look. Of course, it was the duty of the Board of Trade, when matters of this kind were brought before them, to make representations to the proper Departments, and he had made strong representations to the Treasury to induce them to bring their authority to bear upon the Custom House in obtaining statistics. His hon. Friend had not told him that he was going to raise the question, and therefore there had been no recent communications on the subject; but he was under the impression that the demand which his hon. Friend had made upon the Board of Trade had already been submitted to the Treasury, and had been acceded to. There was, he believed, a distinction made between these products and butter. He had not, however, had much time to investigate the matter; and if he were assured that that was not the case he would be happy to look into it again, and make a further application to the Treasury, if he found that the previous application had not been attended to.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he would not go over the ground which had been occupied by his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. MacIver). His hon.

  981
  Friend had called attention to the nominal constitution of the Board of Trade, and had pointed out that it consisted of the old Privy Council Committee, which was not responsible for the work the Board of Trade did. He would put it to the Government whether it was not worth while to consider the possibility of altering the constitution of the Board of Trade, as the matter was so constantly brought before the House? He was quite sure that it did not lead to any great inconvenience in the work of the Department; but there were many reasons to justify, and, indeed, to demand, that there should be some alteration in the constitution of the Committee of Privy Council on Trade, even to the extent of abolishing that Committee, so that the responsibility might be brought home to the real parties, and people might know that it was the President of the Board of Trade who was called to account, and not any Member of that curious Committee known as the Committee of Council on Trade. He fully recognized the difficulties the Board of Trade had to deal with, especially in connection with merchant shipping. Those difficulties were, no doubt, enormous, notwithstanding the best intentions and the hard work which he knew had been done by Members of the Department connected with merchant shipping. Nevertheless, somehow or other, under whatever administration it might be, the Marine Department of the Board of Trade had not managed to gain the confidence of the shipowners. It was undoubtedly the fact that the shipowners were constantly complaining of the administration of the Board of Trade; and he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had consented to the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the constitution of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, as it was impossible for anything but good to result from such an inquiry. There was another point upon which he desired to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman, and it had reference to a matter which was felt very strongly last year. He desired to protest against the novel feature which had been recently introduced by the constant distribution by the Department of arguments of a polemic character in the Papers issued by them. He had always understood that all the Government Departments
  982
  were totally outside mere political life, and that the statistics were fairly and impartially drawn up for the purpose of giving every side of a public question, and not for the purpose of aiding any particular Government in an attack upon their adversaries. He now found, for the first time, that there was a totally new departure in this respect in the mode of conducting the business of the Board of Trade. He did not say that the permanent officials of the Board of Trade did not entertain the views contained in these Memoranda, nor did he say that the objectionable passages had been put in by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board.
  MR. NORWOODasked what Memoranda the hon. Member referred to?
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he was referring to the Memoranda issued as statistical Papers by the Board; and he contended that there were passages in those Memoranda which were intended to reflect upon the political opponents of the Government. Hon. Members would, no doubt, have read the Memoranda; and he would ask them whether they were not perfectly satisfied that they constituted a departure from the ordinary method of conducting the business of a public Department? He could point to passages which could have no other object than to tell the public that another Government had not conducted the Business of the country as it ought to have been conducted; but that now there was a model Department in existence, headed by a model official, who was going to put all things right. Certainly, that was not the way in which a business Department of the State ought to be conducted. He had the highest respect for Mr. Giffen, whom he esteemed as being an important head of the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade; but he also protested against Mr. Giffen writing letters of a polemical character to the newspapers. It appeared that Mr. Giffen had been attacked by certain persons out-of-doors, and charged with stating things which he said he had not stated. He would not enter into the merits of the complaint, because he knew nothing about it; but what he would say was this—that the ordinary custom, when a permanent public officer was attacked, was for the Head of the Department to take up his defence, if he found he could properly justify the course

  983
  which had been pursued. The Parliamentary Chief was the person to whom the House looked for the justification and defence of the action of the public officials of his Department; and it was very unwise and altogether a new departure to find a permanent official of a public Department writing letters of a controversial character to the newspapers, in which he attacked particular individuals in the strongest terms. If such attacks were to be made at all, they ought to be made by the Head of the Board of Trade on his own responsibility. The permanent official should entrust his defence to his proper Parliamentary Representative; and they should not have a permanent official in any Department writing letters to the newspapers of a political character, which could only have the effect of bringing an attack upon such permanent official in a manner that must tend to diminish instead of advance the efficiency of a Department.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down must be regarded very much in the same light as an attack upon himself as it was upon a permanent official connected with his Department; and, under the circumstances, he held it to be his duty, accepting, as he did, full responsibility for all that was done, at once to answer the statement of the hon. Gentleman. But, before doing so, he wished to take note, in passing, of the suggestion of the hon. Member that the constitution of the Board of Trade should be altered in order that the President of the Board of Trade should be solely entrusted with the administration of the Department, the same as a Secretary of State. He would, however, point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Board of Trade was not alone in its present position. The Local Government Board was in precisely the same position, and the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. MacIver) was not strictly correct in saying that the Committee of Council on Trade had ceased to exist. It had ceased to exist just as the Local Government Board had ceased to exist; it actually existed, but it never met; and the management of the Department, therefore, rested with the individual who happened to be its President. The hon. Gentleman expressed an opinion that under the circumstances of the case the
  984
  position of the President was of doubtful legality, and he had suggested that he ought not properly to draw his salary. Now, at all events, in its present form, the institution was respectable from its antiquity, inasmuch as the President of the Board of Trade had drawn his salary for 60 years, and nobody had discovered the illegality of the process until the hon. Member for Birkenhead suggested it. If, however, there was anything illegal in the constitution of the Department, it was a question to be determined by a Court of Law rather than by a discussion in that House. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman opposite that it would be better if all the anomalies connected with the Department were to be abolished, and the Department itself plainly and distinctly established on what was really a permanent and definite footing. But if they were to have recourse to legislation it was out of the question that the Government would undertake such legislation unless there was some real and practical object to be gained by it; and, as the hon. Gentleman himself said, no practical inconvenience had hitherto resulted. He now came to the Memoranda and Correspondence to which the hon. Gentleman took exception. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope) said that when a controversy arose it was the practice of the Board of Trade to publish Memoranda in defence of the person holding the Office of President. He denied that absolutely. He assured the hon. Gentleman that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, there was not one word in the Memoranda to which the hon. Member referred which reflected either directly or indirectly upon the political opponents of the Government. The Memoranda was intended to be an exhaustive examination into the practice of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, the state of the law, and the remedies which had been from time to time suggested. Having read the whole of that document, and he had read it very carefully, he was ready to declare most positively that throughout the whole of it there was not a single word which was intended by any possibility to be converted into an imputation upon any political opponent. It could not be said that it was an unusual thing for a permanent official of a Department, with

  985
  the consent of the Chief, to publish Memoranda which gave important information. That was done under the late Government, and it was done by other Departments; and, indeed, he believed it was a common practice in almost every branch of the Public Service. It was a practice that had great advantages, and it could only be objected to if, as the hon. Gentleman appeared to assume, it was done for political purposes. Then the hon. Gentleman had referred to a different point—namely, a letter which appeared in The Times, written by Mr. Giffen, the Assistant Secretary of the Commercial Department, complaining bitterly of the attacks to which he had been subjected. He was sorry that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) was not present. He had been told that the hon. Gentleman desired to call attention to the matter, and in the absence of the hon. Member he would merely state to the House what the circumstances of the case were of which Mr. Giffen complained. Mr. Giffen was summoned by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, who was Chairman of a Select Committee, to give evidence with a view of informing the Committee, in his capacity of a public official, on certain matters connected with the sugar question. Mr. Giffen went to perform a public duty as an official of the Board of Trade, and did not appear before the Committee as a volunteer. Certain questions were addressed to him with reference to certain remedies for the bounty system. He was asked whether, as a matter of fact, if the bounty were continued, it was not certain that the trade would be destroyed, and whether the effect of the bounty could be countervailed in any way except by a duty. Mr. Giffen said—
  "Yes, it could in various ways, such as cheapening the manufacture or by the reduction of wages."
  Thereupon he was asked a further question, and he gave an answer which was understood by certain people outside to mean that he himself thought the reduction of wages was a feasible way by which these bounties might be met. The moment, however, that that was publicly stated, and within a few days after the evidence was given, Mr. Giffen wrote a letter to The Times repudiating in the strongest manner any intention of
  986
  making, or having made, such a recommendation. He thought every hon. Member would feel that a public servant was justified in explaining what his suggestions were, and that his statement on such a point ought at once to be accepted. It had ceased to be an object of importance what Mr. Giffen said in Committee, and what was of real importance was what he meant. Mr. Giffen's letter was written three or four days after the evidence which had been misinterpreted was given. In spite of that contradiction on the part of Mr. Giffen, charges had again and again been made that he had recommended the reduction of wages in order to meet the bounties. Only the other day a public meeting was held in the Tower Hamlets, and presided over by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), at which a resolution was passed denouncing Mr. Giffen for his alleged recommendation, and going on to say that Mr. Giffen had made repeated and deliberate recommendations to the Board of Trade of this extraordinary character. He could not conceive a more unfair mode of warfare than that. No attention was paid to Mr. Giffen's repudiation of the charges, and to his emphatic denial; but a new charge was made against him as far as "repeated and deliberate recommendations" were concerned. That resolution was forwarded to Mr. Giffen by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets; and thereupon the Board of Trade wrote to the hon. Member asking how it was that, being the Chairman of the meeting at which these resolutions were passed, he had not explained the matter, and expressing regret and astonishment that he should have allowed the resolution to be passed without explaining to the meeting what was within his own knowledge, that Mr. Giffen, at all events, had denied the construction which had been put upon his evidence. Regret was also expressed that the hon. Member should have forwarded the resolution to the Board of Trade without any further observations. He would make no further comment upon the matter. He had stated, as fairly and clearly as he could, the circumstances of the case. The public servants of this country were always in a delicate and difficult position. It was true, as the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope)

  987
  said, that the Heads of Departments would, in all cases, endeavour to defend them against anything like an unfair attack. Not merely should the Heads of Departments do that, not merely those who now occupied such positions, or those who had occupied them in past years, but everybody who held any responsible position in the country was bound to show some regard to those public servants, who were the honour and glory of the Civil Service, and should be ready to defend them when their acts were misrepresented. He hoped, in the absence of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), he had not carried his remarks further than would be considered necessary.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, he shared, to a considerable extent, the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope), in regard to the sensational manner in which the Board of Trade had made public their views upon the subject of the Merchant Shipping Bill. He thought there had been some departure from the old official rule which had prevailed as long as he had had the honour of a seat in the House; and he did not find that the Board of Trade, on this occasion, in connection with the Merchant Shipping Bill, had approached that great public question with the disposition and in a spirit which had usually characterized the proceedings of Government Departments. There had been, from time to time, a succession of pamphlets and other literary communications, which were certainly of a novel and sensational character. In November last, when he read the Memorandum in The Times, communicated by the Permanent Secretary of the Board of Trade, to which reference had been made, he had felt so strongly on the matter that he had not hesitated to express his opinion, both in writing to the papers and in public speeches. He thought the tone of the Memorandum was exceedingly objectionable, and it, undoubtedly, contained insinuations, and even a direct attack, not only upon shipowners generally, but even upon the ability and integrity of Judges of the Supreme Court, and of the juries who had refused to convict on the prosecutions instituted by the Board of Trade. He had never before read a State Paper of that kind emanating from a public
  988
  official connected with any Department whatever. He had not got the document before him at that moment; but he recollected that, towards the close of the second part of the communication which appeared in The Times, there was a direct sneer at the Conservative Party for the manner in which they had wasted the time of Parliament by pushing forward the Imperial Titles Bill. That, however, was a question he did not care to go into. He did not think it right that an attempt should be made to introduce irritating and sensational incidents into a question of grave national importance, such as the position of their Mercantile Marine in reference to the loss of life. He repeated that the manner in which the Merchant Shipping Bill of this Session had been treated was much to be deprecated. He was unable to understand how any Minister of the Crown could think it right to call together an unauthorized body of gentlemen at his private office to discuss and amend the details of a Bill introduced in that House which ought to be discussed in that House and before the country. If a different course had been pursued from the first he was quite confident that a Select Committee might have gone fully and completely into every disputed point of the measure, and they might have had a Bill passed, which, to a certain extent, would have been satisfactory to all parties concerned. He now wished to call the attention of the Committee to the understanding which he understood had been given that a Royal Commission should be appointed to take evidence both as to the constitution of the Board of Trade and also upon the position of the Mercantile Marine; and he wished to press upon the attention of the Board of Trade that it was most important, before the House rose, that they should have laid before them not only the names of the Gentlemen who were to compose the Royal Commission, but also the actual terms of Reference to the Committee. The way in which the Merchant Shipping Bill had been handled had been most unsatisfactory to those connected with the Mercantile Marine of the country, and to hon. Members who represented that interest in that House. The Bill had been mentioned in the Queen's Speech; the Bill itself was introduced very early in the Session, and the second

  989
  reading was proposed a few weeks ago by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in a speech of nearly four hours' duration, but a speech of such a character that it was utterly impossible it could be answered at the moment. What had happened since? No attempt had been made, on the part of the Government, to give hon. Members who were interested in the question a chance of continuing the debate on the second reading, and now the Bill had been withdrawn, so that the only possible opportunity that existed for those persons who had been attacked to defend themselves was now gone. The country had a right to know the whole truth of the matter, and it was only an act of justice to the many individuals whose character and reputation the right hon. Gentleman had more or less directly attacked that they should have an opportunity afforded for replying to the attack. The only way in which justice could be done now to those individuals and to the country was that there should be a complete inquiry before a Royal Commission. He, for one, would not be satisfied until the whole matter had been fully gone into. It would be most unjust for the Board of Trade to make an insufficient Reference to a Royal Commission in the course of a few weeks hence, or to appoint Gentlemen upon it in whom the shipowners could have no confidence. They were entitled as a right, having been placed under a certain amount of disadvantage from the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman himself, to have this information before a Commission was actually appointed. The Royal Commission ought to be empowered to investigate the present constitution and functions of the Board of Trade, instead of having its inquiry limited to the practice of the Marine Department. They did not care about an inquiry into the Marine Department of the Board of Trade only. The Marine Department of the Board of Trade was a Department specially presided over by the Assistant Secretary of the Board of Trade; but what they wanted was a full and satisfactory inquiry into the constitution of the Board of Trade itself. He wished the House for a moment to listen to a very incomplete list of the important functions committed to the Board of Trade which he had pencilled down. The point to be determined was, whether the Board of Trade was com-
  990
  petent to manage the vast amount of business which was now brought before it? Whenever new functions were to be discharged, and the question arose as to what Department they ought to be given, it was invariably the custom to throw the business upon the Board of Trade. In addition to questions affecting the great Mercantile Marine, the Board of Trade had the regulation of all the railways of the country, with their immense mileage, enormous capital, and vast interests. The regulation and control of the tramways, harbours, lights, foreshores, trade marks, patents, the electric light, and recently the enormous subject of bankruptcy, together with several other important questions, all came within the Department of the Board of Trade. What, he ventured to say, the Royal Commission ought to inquire into was this—whether it was possible for the President of the Board of Trade—and he believed the present President was as able and acute a man as they could expect to obtain—within the short period during which a political officer held power in a Government in this country, to make himself acquainted with all these complicated details and important functions. It was not to be expected that the President of the Board should be able to make himself conversant with one tithe of the intricate technical details of a complicated subject such as their Mercantile Marine. One-half of the difficulties and friction which existed between the Board of Trade and the Merchant Shipping interest arose not from any desire on the part of the Board of Trade to act unfairly; but from the ignorance which prevailed, and which, to some extent, must necessarily exist in that Department in regard to the Merchant Shipping interest. If there was to be an inquiry by a Royal Commission, it must enter into all the questions which were at present relegated to the Board of Trade. Above all, the Royal Commission must consider whether the constitution of that Board was sufficient to enable them to grapple with all these subjects; and they ought to consider whether or not this large question of Merchant Shipping should not be consigned to some special Minister who should have personal knowledge and a direct personal responsibility in regard to it. He had never been what was called an uncompromising opponent of the Bill

  991
  of the right hon. Gentleman. He confessed that he did not like the Bill; he saw that ignorance on the subject was revealed in almost every line of it, and would make it unworkable; but he was one of those Members who had not been content to criticize, but who had endeavoured to construct; and he himself had laid upon the Table a Bill for the reform of Marine Insurance, which the right hon. Gentleman himself had admitted went a great way in the direction he desired. The next point was, who were to be the Members of the Commission, and what were to be their functions? He contended that the Members of the Royal Commission should be selected with great care, and that it should be a Commission in which everyone should have confidence. The public were entitled to know the true facts of the case, and whether they were really as bad as the President of the Board of Trade had stated. At any rate, the Mercantile Marine of this country were not to be condemned on insufficient evidence. He had no wish to see the Commission crowded with shipowners; certainly not; but he appealed to the President of the Board of Trade to select men of wide experience and practical knowledge, who would take a broad view of the questions submitted to them, untainted by personal considerations and interests. When that was done the inquiry must be as wide as the circumstances of the case demanded. The Commission must enter into questions of Marine Insurance, wreck inquiries, and the Commissioners' Court, the loading of ships, the management of the lights, the constitution of the Trinity House, the Commissioners of the Northern Lights, and the Irish Lights, and, above all, into the position and condition of their seamen. That, he believed, was really a point which demanded more careful attention than any other part of this great subject. Let them be willing to do their seamen all possible justice; let them protect them to the best of their ability; but they had a right to know, when a demand was made upon the shipowners for seaworthy ships, that they could get seaworthy men to look after them. The shipowners were anxious that the whole question should be thoroughly examined into, and if it were found necessary to introduce sweeping legislation they would raise no objection. He would not trouble the Committee with further remarks upon those points. What he
  992
  would add was, that, unfortunately, much friction existed now between the Department presided over by the right hon. Gentleman and the Mercantile Marine—more friction than ever existed before during his time. It existed throughout the length and breadth of the country. No confidence was felt in the Board of Trade, and there was a universal demand for careful and exhaustive inquiry. Great disgust was felt at the proceedings of the Board during the present Session, as respects the hostile attitude assumed by the Board of Trade in reference to great trading interests, and this feeling was experienced throughout the entire railway world as well as in the Mercantile Marine. They had this extraordinary position of things—that the proposed legislation and administration of the Board of Trade was as much objected to by the Railway Companies as by parties whose interests were generally antagonistic to those of the Railway Companies. The fact was that the Board of Trade, as at present constituted, was too doctrinaire by far. There were too many preconceived and antiquated ideas prevalent among the officials, for whom, personally, he had the highest respect. The time had now arrived when a greater sense of responsibility and a greater accord between the vast mercantile communities of the country and the gentlemen who presided over their destinies must be created. He trusted he had said nothing which reflected upon the private character of a single individual connected with the Board of Trade, for all of whom he had personal regard; but he had felt that he could not do otherwise than express his opinion that the position of that Department was not satisfactory, and that it was impossible for the country any longer to continue under the control of a number of doctrinaire and practically irresponsible officials. There must be an inquiry. That inquiry must be thorough and complete, and the confidence which the country would have in it must depend upon the Members who were to constitute the Commissioners and upon the scope of the inquiry itself. He, therefore, trusted that the Government would, at a very early date, give the names of the Gentlemen they proposed to appoint upon this Royal Commission and the extent of the questions that were to be submitted to them.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he rose immediately after the right hon. Genman the President of the Board of Trade, because he thought it desirable that the discussion should be concluded. He wanted to say a word or two with regard to the correspondence referred to; and, in the first place, he was bound to say that he had not complained of the conduct of Mr. Giffen from the point of view that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had put before them that night. He had no doubt that Mr. Giffen had a good defence to make. He might have been charged with having made accusations which he did not intend to make; but the objection he (Mr. Stanhope) had raised was that permanent officials who were receiving money from the public purse placed themselves in an anomalous position when they made attacks upon Members of that House. No member of the Civil Service had a right to put himself in the position of Mr. Giffen in these controversies. He would pass to another point—and he very much regretted the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was not present—he thought the discussion which had taken place on the other subjects he had mentioned would be of some service, for the reason that he had made no attack upon the permanent officials of the Board of Trade. What he had said was, that he held the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade himself personally responsible for these memoranda. If there had been polemical literature, the right hon. Gentleman was personally responsible. The right hon. Gentleman told them that no literature of a polemical character was produced, and that he did not mean to make an attack on his political opponents. He (Mr. Stanhope) quite accepted that assurance, though the complaints were not limited to the personal letters which had been referred to that night, but extended to matters relating to Free Trade and the memoranda which had emanated from the Board of Trade. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to take care that, for the future, the affairs of the Board of Trade should be conducted in the spirit of the assurance the right hon. Gentleman had given that night. He (Mr. Stanhope) confessed, for his own part, that the connection of the perma-
  994
  nent Civil Service servants of this country with the public Press was a thing to be most carefully watched. He had a very strong opinion against Civil servants of this kind writing in the public Press on subjects connected with their Departments. All he could say was, if one man was allowed to write on subjects connected with his Department, there was no reason why all the remaining permanent servants of the Crown should not be allowed to write, possibly in a contrary spirit to that which had been exhibited in the present instance. He thought that no Head of a Department, if he had the interest of the country at heart, could encourage this practice of writing for the Press, which at times appeared to be growing. It required very careful restriction and watching.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, that with regard to the complaint against the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) that he had put the resolution which had been referred to to the meeting over which he presided, it must be remembered that, as the chairman, he could not help putting any question or resolution formally submitted to him. It was most unfair that, both in the Press and elsewhere, he should be taken to task by the Permanent Under Secretary to the Board of Trade for putting a resolution to the meeting which the hon. Member had no power to refuse. There was nothing in the letter from Sir Thomas Farrer to explain why he should not have put it to the meeting; but the complaint was simply that he had put it, and that in addition to the complaint a demand was made for the names of the persons who were held responsible. It was due to the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets to say this much.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITHwas of opinion that after the amendments which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had made in the Merchant Shipping Bill, in deference to the opinion of shipowners, the measure would, have served as a good basis for legislation. The right hon. Gentleman was, he thought, to be strongly commended for taking the trouble to obtain the opinion of the leading shipowners in the United Kingdom, and he did not agree with previous speakers in condemning the action of the right hon. Gentleman on that ground. He com-

  995
  mended the right hon. Gentleman, and it was to be hoped that every hon. and right hon. Gentleman presiding over Public Departments would imitate this valuable example. [An hon. MEMBER: What example?] Why, of consulting with the private members of the trade throughout the country which was to be affected by legislation, so as to ascertain the opinions entertained by the most enlightened traders. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had taken a great deal of pains in connection with this merchant Shipping Bill, and he deserved the greatest commendations from members of the commercial community. He was extremely sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was not in his place, as he wished to make some inquiries in connection with the appointment of the Royal Commission. [Mr. CHAMBERLAIN here entered the House and took his seat on the Treasury Bench.] He was very glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade now in his place. He wished to impress upon him the desirability of including amongst the subjects to be dealt with by the Royal Commission an inquiry into the condition of the merchant seamen. There could be little doubt that the loss of life at sea, which they all deplored, was owing very largely to unseaworthy sailors, and not in all cases to unseaworthy ships. He (Mr. Smith) spoke as one thoroughly impartial on this matter, because he had no personal interest whatever in shipping. He, however, had conferred with large numbers of shipowners on the subject, and was bound to say that the opinion of the majority was that the condition of their merchant seamen was quite as worthy of inquiry by a Royal Commission as was the condition of their merchant ships. It was to be hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would include that subject in the inquiry. He only wished to repeat his regret that the vast amount of labour which had been bestowed on the Merchant Shipping Bill had been thrown away, and to state that if the amendments to be made in it had been carried, and the Bill had passed, it would have served as a very acceptable basis for legislation.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid, he could not agree with the statement of his hon.
  996
  Colleague (Mr. S. Smith) that the Amendments would have rendered the Merchant Shipping Bill satisfactory. No doubt, in the opinion of the shipowners of the country, some of them would have made the Bill better, but others would have failed. With regard to the question as to what was to be done for the future, no doubt, as the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) observed, a great deal of friction had arisen, and a great difference of opinion, to say the least of it, between the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade and the shipowners generally; and it was quite in the interest of the Chamber of Commerce and the shipowners, as well as of the public, that a Royal Commission should be appointed to consider it. He (Mr. Whitley), for his own part, felt very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade for suggesting this Royal Commission. He believed, if it was rightly constituted, and embraced the whole of the subject, it would meet the case. He regretted the failure of the Merchant Shipping Bill if it could have been made acceptable to the shipowners, and very much regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not seen his way at the commencement of the Session to refer the measure to a Select Committee. Unfortunately, the whole thing had collapsed through that; but now he did think that, as there was a solution of the difficulty presented, if the Commission was constituted fairly, as he believed the right hon. Gentleman was willing to constitute it, and if it went into the question of the constitution of the Board of Trade, as affecting shipping and the whole subject of the work and science of shipping, and of ships' crews—if all these subjects were investigated by the Commission, he believed they would soon see a satisfactory settlement of this very difficult problem. He hoped and trusted that they would soon see the names of the Commissioners announced. If they could have them before the Prorogation, the mercantile community would be satisfied. He would strongly press upon the right hon. Gentleman to give them the names of the Commissioners as soon as possible, and also the scope of the inquiry. Let him give this to them before the Prorogation, in order that they might see that none of the matters which

  997
  should be included were left out from the scope of the investigation, and also that the mercantile community might see that the Commissioners to be appointed were competent to investigate these matters. It was to be hoped that the country would soon see this very much-vexed question disposed of.
  MR. D. JENKINSdesired to say one or two words on this question of the Merchant Shipping Bill referred to on the other side of the House. One would suppose, from the debates of the last few months, that the Act of 1875–6 had entirely failed. He (Mr. Jenkins) denied that. He believed the Act had done, and was still doing, good work, and that if it was a failure it was a Departmental more than a Legislative failure. He was almost afraid that they had expected too much from the Board of Trade. His own impression was, that if they left the merchant shipping alone altogether for the present, and left the Board of Trade to deal with cases of unseaworthiness, they would do well. For his own part, he regretted that the Bill of the present Session had fallen through, as it would have done away with over-insurance and over-loading, which were great evils. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade proposed to deal with these questions, and his amended Bill had met the case very fairly. He had appointed a Departmental Committee, and that Committee, no doubt, performed very satisfactory service; but he did not see what the Royal Commission was to inquire into. He maintained that the merchant shipping of the country was never in a better condition than it was to-day. There was never less preventible unseaworthiness than there was at the present time; and if the Board of Trade would simply carry out the powers given to them by the Act of 1875–6, he believed it would still do more good, and realize that which they were all desirous of realizing—namely, the prevention of loss of life, and the safety of property at sea. The risks of navigation of late years had greatly decreased. In spite of all the statistics put before the House and the country by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, he believed that loss of life was decreasing in the Mercantile Marine. The hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) had referred to the seamen.
  998
  Well, they knew that the character of merchant shipping in this country had changed very much within the last 10 years. They had advanced from sailing ships to steamers, and it was not to be expected that they would get the same class of men to man their steamers as they used to get to man their sailing ships 20 years ago. With regard to the Royal Commission which had been referred to, in his judgment there was no necessity for it; and he believed that if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would content himself with dealing with the questions of over-insurance and over-loading, he would meet the abuse which existed at the present time. As to procedure, he thought the present mode of inquiring into casualties at sea might be improved; and he did not think that where they could prove against a captain or other officer of a ship charges of drunkenness during the navigation of that ship, that two or three months' suspension of certificate was sufficient to meet the gravity of the case. He trusted the President of the Board of Trade would early next Session introduce a Bill dealing with these two or three abuses. By so doing—by introducing only a short Bill—he would cover the whole question and satisfy the whole country.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that seeing the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) had come in, it was perhaps hardly necessary for him to make more than one or two remarks on the question referred to a short time ago, as the hon. Member would be able to put forward with much greater knowledge and ability arguments against the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in reference to this matter. It appeared to him that the mistake the permanent officials of the Board of Trade were now making was in not confining themselves to, the duties of their Department, The right hon. Gentleman said they ought to be careful how they spoke of permanent officials, because those gentleman ought to be kept in the back ground. That was, in general, a sound principle; but when these gentlemen forced themselves forward and made themselves political partizans, it was inevitable that their action should be inquired into. In the present instance, the permanent officials of the Board of Trade had departed to a

  999
  great extent from the proper position of permanent officials. They had made themselves partizans, and had come forward in the public Press and otherwise as the supporters of the policy of the political Head of the Department. Mr. Giffen himself was in a peculiar position, because he did not pretend to be a mere official of the Board of Trade. He occupied some position in connection with The Times newspaper. [Mr. COURTNEY: Nothing of the kind.] At any rate, Mr. Giffen was allowed to write long letters in The Times, and put forward his views in a manner in which the permanent officials of no other Department were able to do. As to the sugar bounty question, Mr. Giffen, when driven into a corner, declared that the only mode other than by countervailing duties of dealing with the system of bounties would be to effect a reduction of wages and to make smaller profits. He had been made to admit that, and his admission had been quoted against him, and of that he now complained. This was not a case of quoting any supposed inference from his words; his actual words were literally quoted. Mr. Giffen, however, said—
  "You are garbling my evidence, because you do not bring forward the whole of what I said—you only take a part of my cross-examination."
  Surely, a Court of Justice would not consider a quotation from cross-examination a garbling of evidence. If a man came forward to give evidence, and was cross-examined on it, and was brought to make an admission in that cross-examination, such admission they were entitled to quote against him. That was the case of Mr. Giffen. On the question of foreign bounties, it certainly appeared to him that those who supported the principle of countervailing duties had a right to quote an admission they had extorted from a Government official in cross-examination, and which they believed to be of great importance.
  MR. GOURLEYsaid, there was, to his mind, no Department of the Government Service which required more overhauling than the Board of Trade. When the late Government were in Office he had moved for a Return, which had been promised by Viscount Sandon, to inform the House as to the names of the Board of Trade, and the constitution and duties of the various officials of the Depart-
  1000
  ment. Well, owing to the Dissolution in 1880, the order that was given for the preparation of the Return naturally lapsed. He had again to move for the Return—he had asked his right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) to grant it, and the reply he had got was that he would find all the information he wanted in the Library. He (Mr. Gourley) had said that he would move for the Return, and had given Notice of Motion; but to his astonishment the right hon. Gentleman had asked a friend of his to block the Notice. This hon. Member, a friend of the right hon. Gentleman, had himself informed him (Mr. Gourley) of the request which had been made to him to block the Notice. From that day to this there had not been an opportunity of bringing the Notice on. He was glad the attention of the Committee had been called to this question that evening. With regard to the members of the Board of Trade, oddly enough, one of them was the Bishop of London. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, what duties were performed in connection with the Board of Trade by that right rev. Prelate? He (Mr. Gourley) had not heard all the speech of his right hon. Friend, and therefore he did not know whether he had gone into the matter; but, so far as his (Mr. Gourley's) knowledge went, he did not know of any Bishop of London who had over taken any interest in the work of the Board of Trade. The duties of the Department were of a very important character, and could not be dealt with in an off-hand manner. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade declared that since he had held his present position, he had endeavoured to discharge his duties fairly to all classes with whom he came into contact. Well, that was what all gentleman in official positions who were recognized as possessing a certain amount of ability invariably did; but some gentleman did not possess the technical knowledge required in regard to the various duties they had to perform. The gentlemen under the President of the Board of Trade, no doubt, endeavoured to discharge their duty fairly; but had they all the technical knowledge necessary? The Committee would perhaps pardon him if he gave it an illustration of what he meant—an illustration as to

  1001
  the manner in which the marine duties were performed by the Board of Trade. Very recently they had seen a type of vessel called the "well-decked." Well, the Board of Trade had the power to fix the load-line of all ships. In the case of the "well-decked" ships the Marine Department, in some of the vessels, had fixed the line—which was the depth at which vessels should be loaded—without taking into consideration what was known as wood sheathing for the decks. The load-line was much higher than that which was allowed in the case of a ship with an additional weight placed on the iron decks. What he meant was that vessels of the type he was describing were built with bare iron decks and wooden sheathing over it. It so happened that the Marine Surveyor of the Board of Trade, in fixing the load-line, gave a larger freeboard to the bare iron deck than he gave to the vessel that had an addition of wooden sheathing over the deck, whereas he ought to have given a smaller freeboard to the former. Again, he would call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to the fact that there was no regular system as to the lighting of lighthouses. Some of them were lit with the electric light, others were lit with oil, and others with the lime light. [Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Hear, hear!] The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade said "Hear, hears!" but it seemed to him (Mr. Gourley) that the right policy would dictate the adoption of one universal system—either the electric light, the lime light, or the oil light. His own opinion was in favour of the electric light. It was much more powerful than any other, and to his mind all lighthouses should be lit with it. Then, again, the Board of Trade had no system as to buoyage. There was one system appertaining to England, another to Scotland, and another to Ireland. He thought the Board of Trade would do well if they would carry out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee in this matter.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: They are being carried out.
  MR. GOURLEYsaid, if that were so, the right hon. Gentleman should inform the Committee as to what was being done. Certain it was that at the present time there was no uniform system of buoyage in the United Kingdom, though
  1002
  an uniform system existed in France and also in Germany. It might be true that the Board of Trade were introducing a reform; but he wished to impress upon the Department the desirability of adopting an uniform plan as soon as possible, and of not proceeding in such a matter in a piecemeal style. The reforms should be carried out with despatch and rapidity. As to the Royal Commission which was proposed in regard to the constitution of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, he trusted that there would be nominated upon it not shipowners only, but men who technically understood the various questions with which the Commission would have to deal. A class of men very largely interested were their sailors; and he would press on the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade the desirability of having on the Commission seafaring men who had been at sea all their lives—such a man as the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. D. Jenkins), who was a practical sailor. At any rate, they ought to have the advantage of the views and opinions of seafaring men on the Commission. For his own part, he did not believe their sailors were deteriorating; but, on the contrary, that they were as good as ever they were. To his mind, with their present system of education, their seamen as a rule were more superior, more attentive to their work, and more ready to embark on board ship than they were at any former period. He did not believe that so much of the deplorable loss of life which had been referred to, and which all, he was sure, lamented, was to to be laid at the door of their seamen, as some hon. Members supposed. He did not agree with the views of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith). Their seamen were just as good now as they were 50 years ago, and he, therefore, hoped their interests would not be neglected.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he must apologize for not being present when the discussion arose with regard to the answers given by Mr. Giffen before the Sugar Bounties Committee. He (Mr. Ritchie) had not expected the question to come on so soon, or he should have made a point of being earlier in his place. He was at a disadvantage through not having heard the preliminary discussion which he understood

  1003
  had taken place, and, therefore, if he said anything which had already been explained to the Committee, no doubt, under the circumstances, they would excuse him. This was a matter with regard to which he had intimated, he was afraid with very short notice to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, that he should say a few words when the Vote came on, if he happened to be in the House at the time. He had been out of town, and had only come back to London just before the House met, and did not think the subject was coming on so soon; and that must be his apology for not giving a longer notice on the subject. The matter was one somewhat personal to himself; therefore, he felt some difficulty in adverting to it before the Committee. If it were merely a personal question, however, he should venture to put up with what he considered the insolence of the officials of the Board of Trade to himself personally without troubling the Committee with it; but it was not altogether a personal matter—it was much more. Therefore, he thought he was fully warranted in mentioning it to the Committee. The question arose out of some evidence given by Mr. Giffen before the Select Committee on the Sugar Bounties, over which he (Mr. Ritchie) presided. It had been stated, though he did not think it had much to do with the case, that Mr. Giffen was a witness who had attended before the Committee at his (Mr. Ritchie's) personal request. This was quite a mistake. The Committee were very glad to have that gentleman's evidence; but, so far as his recollection went, he believed Mr. Giffen was a witness tendered by the late Lord Frederick Cavendish, and that he appeared essentially as an official of the Board of Trade, to give certain statistics and other information which was only in the possession of that Department. Mr. Giffen was a gentleman for whom he had always had the very greatest respect, so far as his abilities and personal character were concerned. He was quite sure the public had no more valuable servant in their employ than Mr. Giffen. Mr. Giffen had given some exceedingly valuable information to the Committee, and in the course of his examination he had given the following answers to three questions put to him. One question put by himself (Mr. Ritchie) was—
  1004
  "Q.—Supposing pretty equal conditions, one man gets £2 a-ton and the other gets nothing, the man who gets nothing would hardly he able to compete with the man who gets £2 a-ton on an article of £22, would he?
  "A.—I do not know but that he might be able to do so if he lowered the profits and wages in his trade. There are many conditions under which a great many people could compete. You might reduce the rent of a great deal of property which was growing cane sugar, so that you might have a large amount of competition still."
  Then the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Thornhill), in cross-examining Mr. Giffen, put the following question:—
  "It is your opinion, in answer to Question 283, that export bounties must be met by a reduction of wages?"
  And the answer was—
  "Yes; that was suggested in reply to a question which was put to me, and I said that when two men were competing, if one of them got a special advantage of that kind it did not necessarily follow that the other man was put out of the trade, but that he might meet it by reducing his wages or profits."
  The next question put was—
  "You think reducing the wages of the working men and keeping on the bounty is better than taking off the bounty and keeping the wages as they are?"
  and Mr. Giffen's reply was "Yes." Now, those were the three questions and answers upon which the whole point rested. He wished to be perfectly candid with the Committee upon this subject, and he was bound to say he felt that Mr. Giffen, in making the answers he did, committed a great indiscretion. He did not believe that Mr. Giffen, as the witness of the Board of Trade, could seriously put it forward that this bounty should be met by a reduction of wages, and therefore he made no allusion whatever in the Report he laid before the Committee to this suggestion as being one means of meeting the bounty. More than that, he had studiously avoided in anything he had over written or said on the subject of the sugar bounties making any allusion to those answers of Mr. Giffen, simply because, as he had already said, he did not believe that Mr. Giffen, on consideration, could seriously put forward such a proposal as that as a reasonable means of meeting export bounties. But, while that was his (Mr. Ritchie's) own feeling, it was impossible for him to regulate the feelings or to alter the opinions of other people who had formed a different view to his of the answers

  1005
  Mr. Giffen made. He was perfectly well aware that it had more than once been put forward by the working men who were mainly interested, that Mr. Giffen, in making those answers, had laid down a means by which, in his opinion, those bounties might be met. Well, that being so, Mr. Giffen had met the contention by more than one contribution to the Press, and, of course, he (Mr. Ritchie) could not for one moment blame him. He had a perfect right to put what interpretation he thought proper upon the answers he gave. He had more than once made out that he did not intend to put this forward as a means by which the bounties should be met, but he did not attempt to deny that he actually used the words which had been more than once quoted in circulars and in pamphlets which had put forward the views of the working men upon the question. Now, the question of the sugar bounties was one, as the Committee might be aware, in which he (Mr. Ritchie) for many years had taken a very considerable interest, because it affected very materially a large number of his constituents. He was asked a short time since to preside at a meeting to be held at the East End of London upon the subject of sugar bounties, and he consented to do so. In his opening remarks, which indeed were the only remarks he made at the meeting, he spoke upon the sugar bounties and upon bounties in general; but not one word fell from his lips in reference to Mr. Giffen, or in reference to the resolutions which were put into his hand, and which he was told were to be moved. Hon. Gentlemen were well aware, from their personal experience, that Members of Parliament were called upon to preside at meetings of different kinds, and that it would be giving a new turn to affairs if chairmen of public meetings were to be held responsible for every word of every resolution which was put before the meetings over which they presided. Well, one of the resolutions adopted by the meeting over which he presided—he had not got a copy of it with him, but he thought he could describe it pretty accurately—was a resolution which deprecated the proposal made more than once by an official of the Board of Trade that bounties should be met by a reduction of wages. That was, practically, what the resolution
  1006
  amounted to. Well, that resolution, along with other resolutions, was put to the meeting by him and carried, and two or three days afterwards the resolutions were sent to him to sign as having been carried. He signed the resolutions, and made a note at the foot to the effect that they were carried unanimously at the meeting over which he presided. Now, that was the beginning and end of his connection with the meeting or with the resolutions. Judge of his astonishment when he saw, in a recent number of The Times, a letter, a column and a-half in length, signed by Mr. Giffen, and much of which consisted of personal abuse of himself (Mr. Ritchie) and his hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Thornhill). The charge against himself was that he had presided at the meeting at which the resolution in question was carried, and he had been guilty of misconduct. He was bound to say that it was, at least, inconvenient when an official of the Board of Trade, who was well known to be in such, intimate relation with the Press as Mr. Giffen was, took advantage of that connection to get inserted in the leading journal a long letter, in which he made a personal attack upon a Member of Parliament who performed a duty which he considered it was incumbent upon him to perform in the middle of his constituency. Even if there had been any ground whatever for that personal attack upon himself by Mr. Giffen, he was a Mcmber of that House, and Mr. Giffen and the Department was very adequately represented by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain), and it was in that House he ought to have been called to account, if he had said or done anything which he was not justified in saying or doing.
  MR. COURTNEY: It was done in the Tower Hamlets.
  MR. RITCHIEmaintained that made no difference whatever. There were scores of instances in which statements had been made in one part of the country or the other by hon. Gentlemen affecting some individual Members of the House, or some Department of the State, and it had been thought necessary to bring the matter before the notice of the House of Commons. And they were not statements merely confined to the House which were brought to the Bar of the House. Over and

  1007
  over again, statements made outside the House were brought to the Bar of the House for examination and discussion; and therefore he said distinctly that the proper mode of proceeding, if any fault had to be found with him, was to charge him with it in the proper place—namely, in the House of Commons. But to show the further inconvenience and the disadvantage which one was placed at by an attack of this kind, made by a gentleman who had such relations with the Press as Mr. Giffen had—["What relations?"] Well, it was notorious. He did not know that Mr. Giffen had any absolute connection with the Press at that moment; but it was perfectly well known that Mr. Giffen had for years had a very honourable connection with the leading journal, and with other journals in the country. But he was not going to make any attack upon Mr. Giffen on that account; he was merely pointing out the inconvenience and injustice which hon. Gentlemen suffered in consequence of the advantage sometimes taken of connections with the Press, and he would show what that inconvenience and injustice was. The Times inserted an article, nearly two columns in length, composed very largely of an attack upon himself and another Member of the House; but when he wrote to The Times a very modest letter, containing an answer to the charge made against him, it did not gain admission to the colums of the paper. He waited anxiously from day to day, and his letter did not get admission to The Times until a letter appeared in another London journal from his hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Thornhill) containing a copy of a letter which he also had written to The Times in answer to Mr. Giffen, but which was not published there, and which he asked another London journal to print for him. The day after his hon. Friend's letter appeared in The Morning Post, his (Mr. Ritchie's) answer appeared in The Times; but it was a week after it ought to have appeared, and no date was affixed to it. Well, the matter did not end there. Shortly after that he received a letter from the Board of Trade, making a most innocent inquiry of him as to whether he knew to whom the resolution passed at the meeting over which he presided referred. Well, now, looking to the fact that the Board of Trade were in
  1008
  possession of all the information which, they asked of him, he thought it was somewhat disingenuous and misleading of them to ask him for the information. Why did he (Mr. Ritchie) know the information was in their possession? He knew it because he had seen it in the paper, because Mr. Giffen himself had referred to it in his long letter to The Times, and because the Board of Trade were at that moment in correspondence with the Workmen's Committee, in reference to the very subject about which they asked for information from him. In his reply he expressed surprise that they should ask information from him, and not from the gentleman who sent them the resolution, because the Committee would bear in mind that his connection with the matter terminated with the end of the meeting. The meeting was held under the auspices of the Workmen's Committee for the Abolition of the Sugar Bounties, and he supposed the resolutions adopted were forwarded by the secretary or some other official of the Organization to the Board of Trade. He very naturally said that in his opinion the Board of Trade should apply to the gentleman with whom they were in communication for any information on the subject; but he did not wish to be disingenuous himself, and therefore he said he understood the resolution referred to Mr. Giffen, and to the answers which he gave before the Select Committee on the Sugar Industries. And then, in a few days, he got another violent letter from the Board of Trade, and that letter, in order to give impressiveness and increased dignity to the communication, was signed, not by the Assistant Secretary, but by Sir Thomas H. Farrer himself. That letter informed him (Mr. Ritchie) that the reason why the Board of Trade applied to him for the information in question was that he was chairman of the meeting at which the resolution was passed, and that the copy of the resolutions forwarded to the Board of Trade was signed by him. That would seem to imply that it was the opinion of the Board of Trade that the chairman of a meeting was personally responsible for all the resolutions which it was his duty to put to the meeting. That he absolutely denied. But he would have the Committee bear in mind that there were two points in that question—firstly, whether the words which

  1009
  were used in the resolution misrepresented what Mr. Giffen said; and, secondly, whether he (Mr. Ritchie) was responsible for them if they did? He fully granted that if a resolution had been put before the meeting containing words which purported to be a quotation from any evidence given before him, but which he knew to be false, it would have been his duty to point out to the meeting that the words were false, and not to put them. But that was not the question. The question was not whether Mr. Giffen made these replies, but what interpretation was to be placed upon them, and he (Mr. Ritchie) maintained that that was an altogether different point. Mr. Giffen did not deny that he used those words; but he said—"Oh, they could not mean what the workmen say they understood they did mean, because my object was to defend against a most insidious attack that Free Trade system by which the condition of the working men of this country has been so much advanced during the last 30 years." That was the explanation which, he presumed, Mr. Giffen was angry with him for not having given to the meeting; but it was no portion of his duty to give to the meeting Mr. Giffen's explanation of his own words. Mr. Giffen's words spoke for themselves, and he (Mr. Ritchie) ventured to say that quite as large a number of people thought that the only interpretation to be put upon them was the interpretation put upon them by the Workmen's Committee as there were who thought the opposite. And then, forsooth, because he did not take up the cudgels for Mr. Giffen, and explain to the meeting over which he presided what Mr. Giffen meant, he had been insolent enough to charge him (Mr. Ritchie) with misconduct. Although they had been informed by him (Mr. Ritchie) that he took no part in the denunciation of Mr. Giffen, and although they knew perfectly well he never had said one word against Mr. Giffen, the Board of Trade, in their second communication, endeavoured to fasten upon him the responsibility of the interpretation which was put on Mr. Giffen's words by a public meeting over which he (Mr. Ritchie) presided. They said—
  "Mr. Giffen has always warmly repudiated the construction you place on the answers he gave," &c.
  1010
  He (Mr. Ritchie) had informed them that he had placed no interpretation on the words in question; that he had never referred to them in any shape or form in anything he had ever said or done concerning the Sugar Bounties; and yet they presumed to attack him again, and to talk about the interpretation he had placed upon them. And then the Board of Trade wound up their letter by saying—
  "They cannot understand"—they read him (Mr. Ritchie) a lecture—"you joining in a resolution which imputes to a witness who gave evidence before you in the course of his official business," &c.
  His joining! He appealed to every Member of that House whether it could be said fairly and honestly that the president of a meeting joined in everything that was said and done at the meeting? He would like to ask the President of the Board of Trade, or any other Member of the Government, whether, in any speeches which they considered it their duty to make, they were careful to explain, not only their own interpretation of what had been said by their political opponents, but the interpretation which their political opponents attached to them themselves? He ventured to say that if some of the Ministers were to look through the files of newspapers even of recent times, and examined the interpretation which they had put on the words of their political opponents, they would very plainly see that the interpretation was not such as those who spoke the words would desire to put upon them. He maintained that his position did not require to be defended from attack. He had never said one single word which he desired to retract, either about Mr. Giffen or any other official of the Board of Trade. He denied, in the first place, that it was any portion whatever of his duty to give Mr. Giffen's explanation to the meeting; and he denied, in the second place, that he was to be held responsible for any resolution passed at the meeting. He could not help saying he considered that a gross and unwarrantable interference by the officials of the Board of Trade between a Member of that House and his constituents, between a Member of the House of Commons and the discharge of what he considered his duty to his constituents. He felt he owed an apology to the Com-

  1011
  mittee for detaining them so long upon a matter which was very much of a personal character. He trusted, however, that the Committee would consider that the personal attack upon himself, and the public importance of the question whether it was right and proper that officials of the Board of Trade should interfere between Members and their constituents, was sufficient to warrant his bringing the matter under their notice?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) has spoken of the public importance of the question he has thought it necessary to raise at considerable length; but I confess I have heard very little in the arguments he has addressed to the Committee which has dealt with the public importance of the question. It appears to have reduced itself, so far as I have been able to observe, to a personal difference between the hon. Member himself and an official of a Public Department, with whom he is very indignant for having, as he says, attacked him in an unwarrantable manner. I think it is very much to be regretted that the hon. Member was not in his place when the matter was first raised in the early part of the evening, because, if he had been, he might have, to some extent, spared me the necessity of repeating what I have previously said. I do not contest the general accuracy of the greater part of the statement made by the hon. Member. There are only two subjects of controversy, as it appears to me, between us in this matter, because I will not admit for a moment that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to raise as a matter of controversy between the two sides of the House that the administration of The Times newspaper had not thought fit to insert his communication until a week after it was written. At all events, the Board of Trade is not responsible for the administration of The Times newspaper. The two points which I say are the only points of controversy between us, are these. In the first place, here is the acknowledged fact that a witness, who was himself a public servant, giving evidence before the Committee of which the hon. Member (Mr. Ritchie) was Chairman, was misunderstood. I will grant, if you like, that his answers were not sufficiently clear and that the misunderstanding was natural, but that does
  1012
  not in the least affect the argument. It is a fact that he was misunderstood, and that within two or three days of the publication of the evidence and the comments upon it, he repudiated in the strongest possible terms the interpretation that was sought to be affixed to his words. My first point is this. Under these circumstances, is it honourable or fair controversy, is it creditable, that any party or person should, time after time, attribute to a witness opinions which he has deliberately repudiated? I say it is not. I say it is dishonourable and discreditable to any party or person to do anything of the kind. Well, now, the second point of the controversy is this—and this is the only point which touches the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Ritchie)—that the hon. Gentleman, having occupied the position of the Chairman of the Committee on Sugar Industries, having heard the evidence of the witness, being perfectly conversant with the fact that Mr. Giffen had repudiated the erroneous interpretation which had been put upon his evidence, was now acting as chairman of a public meeting, and in his presence men got up and denounced Mr. Giffen on the ground of his having given this evidence, and they moved and seconded a resolution which accused him—the hon. Member said he was not in a position to state the exact words of the resolution—of having made to the Board of Trade deliberate and repeated recommendations that workmen's wages should be reduced in order that the bounty on sugar might be taken off—["Read!"] I am speaking from memory; but I pledge myself that the words of the resolution were "that he made deliberate and repeated recommendations."
  MR. RITCHIE: I do not remember that the words were "deliberate and repeated recommendations to the Board of Trade."
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I really do not see any importance in that.
  MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Giffen made three distinct and separate answers before the Committee all in the same sense. He had an opportunity of correcting his evidence, or explaining when he came before the Committee subsequently, but he did not avail himself of it. The deliberate and repeated recommendations were not, as I understand, made to the Board of Trade, but to the

  1013
  Select Committee in three separate answers. That is what I understand.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: It is necessary the matter should be clearly understood. The hon. Member called upon me to read; but how is it possible for me to read the resolution? The hon. Member has already said he only gave me Notice a short time ago of his intention to bring the question forward, and accordingly I have not the papers with me.
  MR. RITCHIE: I did not call upon him to read. The only words I object to in what he has said is that the resolution stated that deliberate and repeated recommendations had been made to the "Board of Trade."
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I am speaking from memory, but, at the same time, I am prepared to pledge myself to certain words—they are the words of which Mr. Giffen complains. He complains that this resolution denounced him, or denounced an official of the Board of Trade, because he had made deliberate and repeated recommendations. The hon. Member lays stress on the other words — namely, "to the Board of Trade." To those words I should not like to pledge my memory, but I believe they appeared in the resolution. I, however, attach no importance to them at all. I put it to the hon. Member, whether he can possibly sustain the position that it was a fair representation of the evidence of a witness given in answer to three successive questions, to describe them as repeated and deliberate recommendations to reduce wages, in face of the fact that within two or three days the witness repudiated the construction placed upon his words?
  MR. RITCHIE: One answer was given on the 14th of June, and the other two answers on the 18th of June.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I accept the hon. Member's statement as to the dates on which the answers were given. I was not a Member of the Committee. But the statement of the hon. Member does not touch the question at issue. The answers of importance were the second and third. I will grant, for the sake of argument, that the words used by Mr. Giffen are consistent with the interpretation placed upon them by the Workmen's Committee; but I ask, seeing that within two or three days of that interpretation having come to Mr.
  1014
  Giffen's knowledge, he said, after full deliberation, "I do not mean that," and that he explained what he did mean, whether it is fair and honourable again and again to tax Mr. Giffen with having meant that which he repudiated? The hon. Member was well aware that Mr. Giffen repudiated the interpretation placed upon his words; nevertheless, he allowed a resolution which embodied that interpretation to be passed in his presence—he allowed it to be put from the chair. I do not think the hon. Member meant to do Mr. Giffen the great injustice of attributing to him that which he had distinctly repudiated. The hon. Member, however, never explained to the meeting that they were misrepresenting a public servant. If he had said—"You are aware that Mr. Giffen denies the interpretation which is placed upon his words," there would not have been any blame attaching to him in the matter. If, however, under the circumstances, the hon. Member felt he was not bound to protect a public servant who was not present, and who could not defend himself, then I can only say that I differ altogether from him in regard to what is the duty of a chairman of a public meeting. Then the hon. Member complained that Mr. Giffen wrote to The Times, and thought that the matter should have been dealt with by the House. The offence, if it were an offence, was not committed in that House, but outside of it; and, as far as I can see, there was nothing unjustifiable or improper in Mr. Giffen making a reply to the attack made upon him. Does the hon. Member contend that I should get up in my place and use the public time in making a statement or in moving a Resolution in reference to this matter? I think such a proposal would be really too absurd. I began by saying that I have always found the hon. Member fair towards his political opponents. I think he would especially desire to be fair to an opponent who hardly met him on equal terms. The position of a Member of this House is one of great responsibility, and such as imposes upon him the duty of not attacking a public servant except under grave necessity. The hon. Member, therefore, ought not to be a party to an attack upon a public servant without grave necessity; and I hope the hon. Member, on reflection, will consider that his conduct justified the

  1015
  serious complaint of Mr. Giffen, and that he will not consider there was any insolence in the language which Mr. Giffen employed. I would point out that when the question of the sugar bounties comes before the House, there will be an opportunity of considering the circumstances of the case; and until that time I venture to deprecate any further discussion of the matter. I now wish to say a few words with reference to the Marine Department of the Board of Trade and the proposed Royal Commission in relation to commercial and other similar matters. With regard to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood), I can say that there is no one in this House who regrets more sincerely than I the fact that the discussion on the second reading of the Merchant Shipping Bill was not continued. I desired that discussion to be continued, above all things, in order that what the shipowners wished to say on the question should have been heard in this House as elsewhere; and, in the second place, I was anxious that the question should be sifted, not only by a discussion, but also by a Division, in order that it might have been seen who were opposed to and who were in favour of the measure. I considered myself most unfortunate in the circumstance that the Government could not afford the time necessary for the completion of the discussion, and that the Bill had to be withdrawn without any decision of the House being obtained upon it. As regards the Royal Commission, and as regards some of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, I may tell my hon. Friend that, while I hear with regret that the Board of Trade has not altogether secured the confidence, as he calls it, of, or popularity with, the whole of the shipowning interest, that is not the business of the Board of Trade. We were not established simply as representatives of shipowners; we were established to hold the balance between the shipowners, sailors, merchants, and others—in short, between the different interests concerned in this business. I do not think it would be a defence of the Board of Trade to say that we never got into any differences of opinion with the shipowners; we are bound to supervise them, and, to certain extent, to interfere in their operations; and although that, of course, must involve a certain degree of friction,
  1016
  I trust that mutual respect between the Board of Trade and the shipowning interest will remain unimpaired. It is, however, no accusation against the Department that there should at times be some amount of friction of the kind I have indicated. Then my hon. Friend said that the shipowners were entitled to demand that such and such things should be referred to a Royal Commission, and that the Commission should be of such and such a character; and, further, my hon. Friend asks me for a pledge with respect to the Commission that the persons composing it should be stated to the House. As to the last point, I may say that I should be very glad if it were in my power to make such a statement; but negotiations are going on, and my hon. Friend knows how very difficult and delicate a matter it is to create a Commission of this kind which will command general respect, and he must not be surprised if the process of constructing it takes a considerable amount of time. My object will be to have, what will be recognized by everybody whose opinion is worth anything on this question, a strong and impartial Commission. It is not to a Committee of shipowners that these questions should be referred. If I were, however, to comply with the demands made in letters addressed to me from the various ports, there would be 24 shipowners upon a Commission which should not exceed 12 members. The Commission should be, of course, constituted in such a manner that the shipowners have fair play. At the same time, it is necessary that the interests of underwriters, merchants, officers of the Mercantile Marine should be represented, as also the mechanical and engineering interests concerned. There are, besides, legal points involved; and there must, therefore, be members whose position and character will secure a belief in the general impartiality of this Body. All these are matters which will be carefully weighed; and I can promise my hon. Friend that it will be my anxiety to recommend for appointment on such a Commission men who will command the assent of all impartial and reasonable persons. Finally, I may say that I shall be glad, as soon as it is possible to do so, to state to the House the names of the Commissioners, as well as the terms of the Reference.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, with reference to the constitution of the Commission, he thought that hon. Members who acted with him would recollect that he had himself protested against the Commission being composed entirely of shipowners, and that he had said that the Commission should include men of high character and position, who were entirely unconnected with the Mercantile Marine, in order to prevent anything like dissatisfaction. His right hon. Friend, therefore, made a great mistake in supposing that it was desired that the Commission should be composed entirely of shipowners. On his own behalf, he might observe that he had assumed no dictatorial tone in speaking on this subject; he had simply said that, as the shipowners had had no opportunity of answering in that House the long and able speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, it was absolutely necessary that the investigation, which alone would be satisfactory to those interested in the Mercantile Marine, must be thorough and complete.
  MR. COLERIDGE KENNARDsaid, he had to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade on having grappled, perhaps too thoroughly, with this important question in the interests of human life. Last Session, when he ventured to introduce into the House a short Bill to deal with a portion of the question, he had been treated with remarkable courtesy by the right hon. Gentleman, who said he would take care that the subject should be considered. He was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman had not lost sight of his proposal, which referred more particularly to the loss of life resulting from collisions due to rock-less conduct at sea. He believed it had been ascertained that off their coasts there occurred, on the average, throughout the year, one collision per diem; and for his own part, he was convinced that if shipowners gave more stringent directions to their captains not to race home, nor make the passing of other vessels the subject of wagers decided, so to speak, on the Books in Lloyd's Rooms—if those directions were enforced by a penalty, he believed that much loss of life would be prevented. He, for one, was very grateful for the thorough manner in which the right hon. Gentleman
  1018
  had grappled with this most important subject; and he hoped, that if a Royal Commission were appointed, the scope of the inquiry would include collisions at sea.
  MR. MACIVERsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had paid the President of the Board of Trade a compliment wholly undeserved. He said this for the reason that there was not a single word about collisions at sea in the defunct Shipping Bill. Upon his own individual knowledge, not as a matter of opinion, but upon proofs which he should be ready at any time to submit to the House, he said most emphatically that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, and the position of the Board of Trade generally as regarded the seafaring and shipowning community had not the approval of any single class in the Kingdom. On the contrary, he said that seamen, officers, and shipmasters mistrusted the Board of Trade quite as much as shipowners and others. He had been invited to attend a meeting of seamen within the last two days at Shields. The complaint of the seamen was that they were unfairly competed with in their calling by foreigners and other persons who were not sailors. That was one of the questions which the seamen wished to be inquired into, and on which they did not trust the Department. Even officers and shipmasters had written to him from Liverpool and from other ports in such terms as made it clear that it was not the shipowners alone who mistrusted the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken on one occasion of having received some support from Liverpool, and the junior Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith) was referred to as representing the opinion of that great constituency; but he omitted to say what particular section of opinion he represented there. As far as he (Mr. MacIver) was aware, there were three persons who approved the proceedings of the Board of Trade in this matter. One was a Greek gentleman—Mr. Basilio Papayanni—whose opinion could not be said to be identified with English interests; another was a gentleman—the present Chairman of their local Steamship Owners' Association—of whom he might also say that his views and interests were not those either of English shipowners or English sailors, as most of

  1019
  the ships that he had to do with sailed under the Spanish flag, and were manned with Spanish crews. There remained only the name of one gentleman who had any kind of prominent position, and he was the brother of the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone), who sat on the opposite side of the House, and was one of the supporters of the right hon. Gentleman's legislation. That gentleman never had anything to do with the practical management of ships, and it was only because, as he had said, his brother was a prominent Member of the Liberal or Radical Party that the right hon. Gentleman was able to obtain from him any kind of support. With regard to other gentlemen in Liverpool with whom the right hon. Gentleman had been in communication, they were not persons who had any special connection with the particular class of vessels likely to be affected by the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. He had to say, however, that there was a universal complaint coming from all the seaports of the Kingdom of the hole-and-corner negotiations which had gone on respecting this proposed legislation. The reason why the right hon. Gentleman obtained the support of any shipowners at all was because those who gave him such support, and met him in consultation in London, were persons connected with those Companies whose fleets, and whose methods of doing business, were such as he would describe as being a little out of date—persons whose business was being competed with on more modern principles, who feared competition, and who hoped to see the law put in such a form as would discourage shipbuilding. Such was the only support which the measure of the right hon. Gentleman had received from the shipowning community. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman had had the opposition of the whole of the shipowning interest, and of the sailors themselves. He begged to assure the Committee that sailors had a very real grievance which they wanted to be redressed—that was to say, they wanted an end to be put to the way in which their honourable profession was disgraced by the competition of persons, not sailors at all, who brought that profession into disrepute. With regard to Mr. Giffen, then, he (Mr. MacIver) was certainly one of those persons who believed, in common with most people, that he had
  1020
  at that moment a very close connection indeed with The Times. He believed that to be the case, and he had reason to believe that the Board of Trade knew perfectly well that it was so. It was, moreover, the general impression. ["No, no!"] If that could be contradicted, he should like to hear a more specific contradiction than a word from the President of the Board of Trade across the Table. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee that Mr. Giffen had not at that moment any close relation with The Times? [Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes; I can.] Could the right hon. Gentleman say that within the last few months or years Mr. Giffen had not enjoyed a dual position with regard both to the Board of Trade and The Times?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member asks me a question with reference to a contradiction which I gave across the Table. Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to say that Mr. Giffen's connection with the Press terminated when he accepted a permanent office in the Board of Trade.
  MR. MACIVERsaid, it would have been more satisfactory, and certainly clearer, if the President of the Board of Trade had put that contradiction forward at an earlier period of the debate. He accepted the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, as he was bound to do; but, at the same time, he wished to point out that his statement did not contradict the fact that there was, at all events, a close indirect connection between Mr. Giffen and The Times. Indeed, in one of the Board of Trade proposals, published last summer, officially, by the Board of Trade in The Times, there appeared the words—"In our columns there appeared…" which, he ventured to think, would only have been used by a person accustomed to contribute to The Times. At all events, it was very obvious that there was a close connection between the Board of Trade and The Times, which gave the Department an opportunity of putting forward their own views, held, no doubt, with perfect sincerity, and at the same time prevented replies.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he was glad that this question as to the connection of a public official with the Press had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. MacIver). It had led to an interesting discussion between

  1021
  the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. Having listened to that discussion carefully, he was quite sure that anyone who did the same must have felt that the right hon. Gentleman had been obliged to labour immensely to make out his case. He thought it was perfectly clear that in the evidence given by Mr. Giffen before the Committee he repeatedly and distinctly referred to the lowering of wages as being the best way of meeting the sugar bounties, and that he had done so in the interests of so-called Free Trade, notwithstanding that one of their most important industries was being ruined by the action of Foreign Governments. The Board of Trade, however, had such Free Trade tendencies that they refused to propose countervailing duties, for fear of the cry of "Protection" being raised against the Government. Mr. Giffen gave it, as his reason for that policy, that he wished men to understand Free Trade. That was his object; and he availed himself of the Committee for the purpose of saving interests which he knew were perishing; and he repeated what he knew to be false, and bowed down before the idol of Free Trade as understood by the Board of Trade. There was no excuse for Sir Thomas Farrer, in his position as an official of the Board of Trade, sending his pamphlets on Free Trade all through the land. He had published an important pamphlet on Free Trade; and he maintained that it was most indecent for an official of the Government to do that. He ought to hold himself free from all economical theories; and it was not his duty to disseminate his views on political economy throughout the land. There was no justification for Mr. Giffen running away; and there was none for Sir Thomas Farrer publishing pamphlets as an official of the Board of Trade.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwished to say a few words on the observations of the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood). The hon. Member had remarked that the multiplicity of the functions of the Board of Trade interfered with the efficient discharge of the duties of that Department. In connection with one of the branches of business—the Board of Trade Mercantile Marine Fund—a very interesting Parliamentary Paper
  1022
  was furnished in August last year. In that Paper he found that in connection with this Fund there were certain Commissioners of Northern Lights, and, among others in the 25 named, the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor General for Scotland, the Provosts of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and other towns, as well as the Sheriffs of a number of Scotch counties. But they no longer did the work they used to have in hand. The change was introduced from the 1st of April last year; and by this Paper it was stated that their total income was only £130 a-year. But it appeared that they had an annual dinner, which for the 25 gentlemen, including the Lord Advocate, cost £150, or £6 a-head. That was, apparently, defrayed out of an income which fell short of the expenditure by £20. A great deal had been heard about the dinners of London Vestries and Local Boards; but he was certain that nothing of this kind was ever exposed in connection with Boards of Guardians or Vestries in any part of England; and he regretted that the President of the Board of Trade was not present at that moment to explain how it was that when such reports as this appeared in the Papers issued by his Department nothing whatever was done to remove so gross a scandal.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, he wished to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,820, and that for two reasons. In the first place, there were five Assistant Secretaries, each of whom had a maximum salary of £1,200 a-year—or £6,000 in all. He saw by the Note that one of these Secretaries received a salary of £300 for acting in another position; and another of them received nearly as much again. He would like to know how much of the Government time was given up to their other offices, because, if that time was occupied in these other offices, if it was given up to enable these gentlemen to fulfil their other duties, it was unfair that the nation should have to pay £1,200, just as if the whole of their time was given up to the work of the Government. He should like to have an explanation of this matter, because it was scarcely proper that they should be paid the same salaries as those gentlemen who gave up the whole of their time to the Government. Then he wished to call attention to an item of £520, consisting of

  1023
  14 s. a-week for a charwoman; that was £38 8s. a-year; and, besides that, there was a sum of £483 12 s. a-year allowed for an office-keeper and servant. That was too much for an office-keeper and servant. Next, he wanted to know why the salary of the solicitor in the Legal Branch had been increased from £1,500 a-year to £1,800? The solicitor was also allowed to have a clerk, with a salary ranging from £485 to £505, and three clerks and copyists, for whom he was allowed £1,700 a-year—that was £450 a-year each, not including the copyists. Some explanation of both these matters ought to be given; and, unless some satisfactory answer was given, he should move the reduction of the Vote by the sum he had mentioned.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the hon. Member had given Notice of a Motion to reduce the Vote by £1,850; but he did not find any sum of £1,850 in these Estimates, and he was quite unprepared for the particular questions to which the hon. Member had called attention. With all respect for the hon. Member, he had found two mare's nests. One of his complaints was as to an item of 14 s. a-week for a charwoman; but that depended on the assumption that there was only one charwoman, whereas, if the hon. Member would read the Estimates, he would see that the item was for "charwomen."
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, he could not be responsible for the misprints in the Estimates. He could only take the words as he found them.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that the hon. Member had no right to assume that "charwomen" was "charwoman;" and he hoped the hon. Member did not wish that the President of the Board of Trade and all the servants should be kept in dirt rather than pay for charwomen to brush the carpets. That was the first complaint of the hon. Member. His second complaint was of a similar kind, and it was also a mare's nest. He said the Legal Branch had an allowance for the solicitor's three clerks and copyists. The hon. Member there assumed that this was for three clerks and three copyists; but it was for three clerks who were permanently on the Civil Service as clerks to the solicitor, and for an indefinite number of copyists who were employed from time to time owing to
  1024
  the nature of the work—at one time there might be 100 copyists, and at another one. At all events, this was the estimate of what, according to past experience, was necessary for copying clerks who were put on from time to time owing to the pressure of work. Then, with regard to the item as to clerks who received additional sums for other work, that was inserted in accordance with a pledge the Government gave years ago that any extra receipts by public servants should be stated. It was not a new thing, and he believed that, as a matter of fact, the Assistant Secretary to the Finance Department of the Board of Trade was Auditor to the Water Works Companies; and he understood that the whole of that work was performed ont of office hours. It was well known that the demand on public servants was not a demand which would preclude them from devoting some extra time to other work. Then he understood the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) to call attention to the Commissioners of Northern Lights; but that was outside the Board of Trade. He had nothing to do with them; but, as he understood the matter, there was no longer any public money received from any public source for these Commissioners. There seemed to be some private income, amounting to £130, which was spent upon the Commissioners' dinner; but that was not a public matter.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, this was reported to the House in an official communication, signed by a Board of Trade official, whose name he believed was Mr. Evelyn Stone.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that was not so. The Report he supplied was ordered by the House, and it was signed by the Commissioners of Northern Lights, or, rather, by their Secretary. This was a private matter over which the Board of Trade certainly had no control.
  MR. HARRISsaid, the President of the Board of Trade had stated that the complaint of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) was of no public importance; but he thought it was a matter of the greatest public importance when a Member of that House was attacked by a public servant. It was eminently a matter which required some attention. The right hon. Gentleman said Mr. Giffen repudiated the evidence; but if that repudiation was a

  1025
  substantial repudiation it ought to have been made to the Committee, and not written to a newspaper; and his hon. Friend (Mr. Ritchie) would not necessarily be conversant with that repudiation, unless it had been personally sent to him. Then the President of the Board of Trade said he objected to the words "deliberate and repeated" in the resolution which was passed by the workmen. In the first place, he maintained that a gentleman of Mr. Giffen's standing, when he took the oath and gave evidence before a Committee, did so in a deliberate manner. Secondly, there was no doubt that the evidence was repeated, because it was given four times afterwards; and he therefore re-asserted that the Working Men's Committee were perfectly justified in using the words to which the President of the Board of Trade made so much objection—namely, "deliberate and repeated." During the cross-examination of Mr. Giffen Mr. Courtney asked the following question:—
  "If we suppose what we may call a normal condition, of things, and that trade is going on without any disturbance from bounties, and that from some cause or another the commodity which we consume is supplied on cheaper conditions than we can supply them, does that involve a disturbance of the industry at home?"
  Mr. Giffen replied as follows:—
  "It seems to me that it does not involve a complete disturbance of the industry at home. The industry may go on with less profits and with less wages to the people concerned, but the industry itself is not destroyed; and in any case, if that particular industry was weakened and diminished, the people engaged in it might go into some other industry, and the loss to the country would be the difference between the profit and the loss to the industry."
  He did not wish to speak longer on the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade; but it meant this—that if one after another of our industries were injured for the sake of our import trade there would soon be very few of them for the displaced workmen to find employment in. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that Mr. Giffen's repudiation was made within two or three days. He had his doubts whether that was so; he believed it was not made for a considerably longer period; but, at all events, the evidence was so distinct that he thought nine out of ten people would admit that the construction put upon it by the Working Men's Committee was the proper construction, and he wished to end his re-
  1026
  marks by saying that it was extremely inconvenient for any servant of the Crown to get into the habit of writing to newspapers instead of writing directly to the persons concerned, and more especially so if they were hon. Members of that House.
  MR. WARTONpointed out that there was an increase of £300 in the expenses of the Legal Branch; and he asked why the salaries of the three clerks were not stated so that the cost of the copyists might be seen?
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he thought there was something in the question raised as to the Legal Branch. It was not for him to cut down appointments in the Legal Profession; but the Committee must remember that some years ago the question was considered whether the Legal Branches of the different Departments should not be consolidated and the different Departments refer their legal business to one common centre—namely, to the Solicitor to the Treasury. It was proposed to give the Solicitor to the Treasury a sufficient staff, so that the other branches of the Government might refer their legal business to that Office. He saw there was a separate Legal Branch for the Board of Trade; but what its objects or its duties were he did not know. It might be that there was sufficient legal business to occupy that branch; but he could not help thinking that this was one of those instances in which Offices might be consolidated, and the legal business proper be referred to the Solicitor to the Treasury.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the Board of Trade had an enormous amount of legal work even before the passing of the recent Acts, and it would be impossible to refer that to another Department. It would have been impossible for the Board of Trade to refer the legal matter arising out of the administration of the Merchant Shipping Act and the Railway Act, and the Board had had to consider whether they should appoint a separate solicitor for each branch of the administration of those Acts; but he quite agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory) that it was desirable to consolidate, as far as possible, and put all the Legal Branches under one principal solicitor. They had asked the Treasury for a moderate increase of £300 a-year—which had been readily

  1027
  granted—for the extra work had been very large. A great number of difficult and complicated cases had arisen under the Bankruptcy Act, and it was important to have a solicitor on the spot to act at once.
  MR. TOMLINSONasked whether the Committee were to understand that the bankruptcy clerks included in the Vote had still bankruptcy work to do?
  MR. CHAMBERLAINreplied that those clerks had been connected with the London Bankruptcy Court; and the duty had been imposed on the Board of Trade of finding employment, as far as possible, for clerks who had been in that Court. The two gentlemen separately mentioned were employed in connection with bankruptcy work, and they were mentioned separately because they were not new appointments, but were appointments transferred.
  Vote agreed to.
  (7.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,677, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for meeting the Deficiency of Income from Fees, &c. for the requirements of the Board of Trade, under 'The Bankruptcy Act, 1883.'"
  MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he proposed to reduce this Vote by £500, his object being to call attention to a charge which he considered hardly right under the circumstances. When the Bankruptcy Bill came before the Grand Committee, a clause with reference to the banking department was so worded as to provide that all the accounts should be sent to the Bank of England, unless the Board of Trade should order otherwise. That was objected to by a majority of the Members, and after considerable discussion the clause was so worded as to provide that the permission of the Board of Trade must be obtained to sending the accounts to a local bank. It was purely a formal application. The scale of fees had been framed by the Lord Chancellor under the Act, and had received the sanction of the Treasury; and as regarded all the former applications specified in this scale of fees they were—namely, 2s. 6d. 5s. or 1s., or something of that kind. When they came to a formal application on the part of the Committee of Inspection to the
  1028
  Board of Trade to open an account at a local bank £1 was charged for the Order to the Board of Trade, and then a general charge of £2 was made when the arrangement was carried out, making a total of £3 for the application. Judging from his recollection of what happened before the Grand Committee—and he had taken a very prominent part in the discussion—he might describe this arrangement as practically a breach of faith with the Committee, because these fees were in reality intended to discourage the opening of these local banking accounts, and to draw as much business as possible to London to the Bank of England. He was not a member of a banking firm, and therefore he had no personal concern in the matter; but he was connected with the monetary world and took great interest in the question, as he looked upon himself as having been a party to the arrangement made in the Committee. Certainly, if they had any idea in the Committee that these fees were to be charged objection would have been raised to it at the time, and they unquestionably would have carried the Committee with them, because it was clear that as a whole the Committee strongly agreed with him in the matter. So strongly, in fact, did the Committee agree with him that the proposal he made was agreed to without a division. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had conducted the work of the Committee in a very courteous and conciliatory manner. When he saw the Committee was against him he invariably gave way at once. In this matter he had given way immediately, and the whole thing was arranged on the footing he (Mr. Fowler) had mentioned. He strongly objected to the imposition of these charges, although it was only in keeping with the practice which was very common at the present time—namely, a practice of endeavouring to get as much business as possible up to London. Each Department desired to have as much business as possible put into its hands. In opposition to that principle hon. Members in the Grand Committee had objected to the clause as originally drawn. They had mentioned that the business of winding up a bankrupt's estate should be conducted as much as possible in the locality, and that as a matter of course, where practicable, the banking arrangements should be

  1029
  conducted in the locality, if it could be done without injury to the estate. After much care and consideration, and with the assistance of the Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell), the clause was drafted as he had indicated; and he maintained that the spirit of that clause had not been carried out in the fees which had been imposed. The spirit of the clause had been entirely broken by imposing what was practically a very large charge in cases where resort was had to country banks, while in other similar cases, when the business was done through the Bank of England, no such charge was made. After the discursive debate they had had, he desired to confine his remarks within the shortest possible compass, and not to waste a moment of the time of the Committee. He thought he had made his meaning clear. His object was not in any way to embarrass the proceedings of the Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade. They had settled by law that the Board of Trade was to arrange the bankruptcy business—they had settled it so—rightly or wrongly. He did not wish to disturb that settlement; but he did object to anything which seemed like a breach of faith on the part of the officers of the Board of Trade in imposing these fees. He therefore, in order to raise this question, moved to reduce the Vote by the sum of £500.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,177, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for meeting the Deficiency of Income from Fees, &c. for the requirements of the Board of Trade, under The Bankruptcy Act 1883.'"—(Mr. William Fowler.)
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not complain at all of the way my hon. Friend has introduced this matter, and I should be very glad to have the decision of the Committee upon it. Generally I agree with the accuracy of the statement he has made; but I think he has a little forgotten the circumstances when he says a final settlement was arrived at by general agreement, because I think he will bear me out when I say that, as a matter of fact, the discussion occupied the time of the Committee during two days of its sitting; and, on the second occasion, there was a Division
  1030
  taken, the form of the clause as it now stands in the Bill being then decided by a considerable majority. I believe in that majority the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) voted; and that, no doubt, gives him a right to express his opinion of the intention with which the arrangement was supported. The majority of those interested in the banking business, however, voted against the arrangement; at least, the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) did. So also did the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Dixon-Hartland), the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), and other hon. Members representing the banking interest. They voted against the arrangement finally come to, as they had voted against the original proposal. Let me point out to the Committee what this proposal was, and why it was this difference of opinion arose. The original proposal of the Bill was that the banking accounts of bankrupt estates should be carried on at the Bank of England. To that the objection on the part of the bankers was raised that it was centralization of the worst kind, and that it was desirable, on the contrary, that in every case where a Committee of Inspection desired it, a local banking account should be opened. We objected to that on behalf of the Board of Trade—in the first place, that under such circumstances many of the creditors would run a certain amount of risk, the Returns of the past showing that there had been heavy losses in connection with balances left at private bankers, and that it was very desirable that these estates, which are in the nature of trust funds, should be placed in the Bank of England, where they would be absolutely safe; and, in the second place—and we attach greater importance to this—we said it was impossible for the Board of Trade to exercise that sort of control and supervision which it was intended that they should exercise over these estates unless they had the management of them. The feeling of the Committee was very strong in favour of the opening of accounts in private banks; and, finally, the proposal was made on behalf of the Government that the Committee of Inspection should be allowed to open a local account in certain well-defined cases. That was put to the vote, and carried by a con-

  1031
  siderable majority. Now, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) says that, that having been decided, the Department is wrong in now demanding a fee for the opening of these accounts. He goes so far as to say that that appears to him to be a breach of faith. Let me say at the outset of this discussion that I protest against the expression "breach of faith." Those words mean something dishonourable. I am sure the hon. Member does not mean anything offensive; but, as a matter of fact, the words in their general sense signify something dishonourable. There may have been a mistake, and that is for the Committee to decide; but, at all events, there has been no intention of a dishonourable proceeding on the part of the Board of Trade or its President. Suppose my hon. Friend had carried his original Resolution, and it had been left open to every Committee of Inspection to open a private account if they wished, would that have prevented the Board of Trade from charging a fee on the opening of the account? Certainly not. It would have been possible for the Board of Trade to charge it, and it is most certain that it would have been charged in every case. That being so, how can it be said to be a breach of faith because we charge the fee in the limited number of cases to which the operation of the rule was ultimately confined? I am now dealing with the argument that owing to what is sometimes called a compromise—owing to the final decision of the Grand Committee, we are precluded from charging this fee. I say we are not precluded from charging it, because we should not have been precluded even if the original Motion had been carried. Now, why do we charge the fee? That is a very simple matter, and I ask the attention of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) particularly to this, because the whole importance of the matter depends upon it. The expenses of the administration in bankruptcy are provided in two ways—first, by the interest on balances of estates in the Bank of England; and, secondly, by fees. Now, if an estate has a balance at a private or Joint Stock Bank it gets an advantage in the shape of interest, and it does not contribute in that way to the expense of a bankruptcy administration, and consequently the administration of these
  1032
  estates will have to be conducted by increasing the charges on other estates unless you provide for it in some way, and that is why we charge a fee. We have to compensate for the loss of interest that would be otherwise derived to the advantage of the bankruptcy administration in the country. I am prepared to accept any decision the Committee may think it right to come to; but I wish to point out that if the Committee accept this suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) it will be increasing the charges upon small estates which do not keep a separate banking account, in order that these other insolvent estates may be wound up at their expense. It is a question of justice and fairness as between the different classes of accounts with which we have to deal. It is not a question of general policy, but, as I say, of justice and fairness between the different classes of accounts. When the matter was first explained to the Lord Chancellor, a strong representation was made to him that the charge should be in the nature of an ad valorem fee, and that £3 was too little. Well, I am bound to say that, for my own part, I do not think it is sufficient to cover the expense or loss of interest. It was felt, with regard to the proposal for an ad valorem fee, that it would cause too great a complication, that we, therefore, fixed the general fee of £3; and the result is, wherever there is an account with any considerable balance, a considerable profit is made out of the transaction by the particular estate—that is to say, if the banker pays interest on the balance. If there is any balance, it is much more likely to be worth more in the shape of interest than the £3 charged as fee. As regards the matter of principle, the only thing to consider is whether the Committee thinks it fair that these accounts at local bankers should be especially favoured at the expense of other accounts—that smaller accounts should pay not only the expenses of their own administration, but that of these favoured accounts.
  MR. R. BIDDULPH MARTINwas of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had made out a very weak case in this matter; so much so that he thought that the weight of his argument cut at the very root of his own Act. The object of

  1033
  the Act was to do away with the accumulation of balances, and yet the right hon. Gentleman hoped to make a considerable income out of such accumulations. The right hon. Gentleman was far too shrewd a man to do this knowingly or willingly, though he could not help admitting that there would be a tendency on the part of the Department to pay its own expenses and make a surplus revenue, just as the Post Office did. For that reason it was that he (Mr. Martin) so strongly objected to anything like an accumulation of balances by the Government. The Government might answer—"Possibly there might be an accumulation of balances, and possibly there might not," and those who were likely to be able to form an accurate opinion upon the question, whom he had consulted, held divers opinions. They had not had long enough experience of the Act to be able to tell what the result would be. Therefore, he did not wish to make any comments upon the Act itself; but he certainly did think that if they were to pay the expenses of the Act out of the fees and accumulated balances there would be a tendency on the part of the Board of Trade to accumulate them and to prevent the distribution of estates. In one or two small bankruptcies, in which he had been personally interested, he had not found that the division of the estates had been in the slightest degree expedited by their being in the hands of the Official Receivers of the Board of Trade. If the Committee remembered the circumstances as they transpired before the Grand Committee—he had not himself the honour of being a Member of it—they would recollect that on the day when this discussion was first brought before them, it was deliberately talked out by the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Barran), avowedly for the reason that it would be better to postpone a judgment upon it. Well, he (Mr. Martin) believed that when it was brought forward at the next Sitting a compromise was effected that accounts should be opened at the Bank of England, unless there was reason to the contrary. That was an admission that if the Government were not to have these balances they were not to make a profit out of them that they would otherwise make. He, therefore, thought it was not fair to the Committee, or to the House, that the right
  1034
  hon. Gentleman should get over that advantage given to estates dealt with in the country by a side wind. It was not his duty to say how the Government were to find funds to enable them to manage estates, whether by an ad valorem charge or by any other means. The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that the Act must break down if the charges were too heavy. There was no fear of the charges being made too heavy. He could only say that, so far as private bankers were concerned, it was much more to their interest to get estates wound up quickly than to have them delayed for any benefit they might derive from having the balance in their own hands. He did not, therefore, think the pocket interest could be much considered on the one side or the other. The total amount expected to be held by the Bank of England was about £1,000,000 sterling, and the total deposits held in the Joint Stock Banks, exclusive of the Bank of England and of private banks, was something like £670,000,000. However, he did not think it should be made a banking question. This charge was made under a misapprehension—he had not the slightest wish to say that it was a deliberate arrangement. He, however, had no doubt that it would cause a large amount of unnecessary ill-feeling, and make the country bankers believe that the Board of Trade was working against them. Whatever money the Board of Trade might require to enable them to defray the cost of working the Act should be provided from other sources. He believed the Board of Trade had considerably over-estimated the cost of working the Act. As to the books required for this bankruptcy business, so far as he had ascertained, the total would amount to something enormous; and as they would have to be kept for five years at least he calculated that 142 miles of book shelf space would be required—that was, 100 times more than they had in the Library of the House of Commons. He did not suppose the books would be placed in book shelves; but they must be kept at the Board of Trade for the purpose of winding up the estates. He trusted the Board of Trade would find some more expeditious method of winding up estates than that at present adopted in the interest of those concerned.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, that as it was through his action that a Division was taken in the Grand Committee on the clause as it originally stood in the Bill, he might be allowed to say a word or two on the question. He wished to protest against the idea stated by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that this was a question of the interest of the bankers. The question raised before the Grand Committee was whether the State had a right to the interest accruing from the funds of bankrupt estates, and the Committee had come to the conclusion that each estate had the right to the interest on its funds, and that they ought not to go to swell the sum in the hands of the Board of Trade in order to disguise the cost of the working of the Act. When the matter was first brought before the Grand Committee the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade opposed his (Mr. Dixon-Hartland's) Amendment in the strongest way; and on the first occasion, as the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. R. Biddulph Martin) had hinted, the feeling of the Committee was so strong in favour of the Amendment that it would have been carried if it had not been talked out by the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Barran). During the time that elapsed between the Thursday afternoon when the subject was first discussed, and the Monday morning when it came up again for consideration, negotiations took place between the Gentlemen interested in the matter and the President of the Board of Trade, the result being that a distinct compromise was arrived at. If it had not been for that compromise his Amendment would certainly have been carried instead of being defeated by the majority the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned. The result of that compromise was the arrangement which had been referred to. He could not agree with what the right hon. Gentleman had said that the first three items required the consent of the Board of Trade. He (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) maintained that they required none. It was certainly a breach of the Act of Parliament to impose any fee at all for carrying out a part of its provisions. It was only under the 4th section that the consent of the Board of Trade was required. There it stated that if from any other cause the Com-
  1036
  mittee of Inspection could show the Board of Trade that it was desirable that an account should be opened at the local bank in that case they had to get the consent of the Board of Trade, and in that case alone the Board of Trade would have power to charge a fee. Surely, there could be no power to fine for doing that which an Act of Parliament stating what was the right thing to do. As to cases having been brought before the Committee where losses had occurred through funds being in the hands of private bankers, he entirely denied that such was the case. The oases brought before the Committee were as to losses which had occurred through money being left in the hands of Trustees. At the beginning of the Session he had asked the right hon. Gentleman as to these fees, and the right hon. Gentleman had denied that any compromise had been arrived at. He (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) quite admitted that he had declined to accept any compromise, because he did not believe that any compromise which was arrived at would be carried out, and what had happened clearly showed that he was justified in his belief. He was too much accustomed to Liberal compromises which were never carried out to accept any suggestion of the kind. If those who complained of the conduct of the Board of Trade had simply stuck to him (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) on the second day of the discussion they would not now have had to raise this question. He distinctly stated that he considered the action of the Board of Trade a breach of faith with the Grand Committee. It was understood that the whole of the balances in the three first items should be given up, and that the Government should in return have all the small accounts under £300. That was the compromise which he considered had been arrived at, and he distinctly maintained that unless it was carried out a breach of faith had been committed.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, one reason why they should support the Amendment was, because it was undesirable to incur a large expense under the Act until they were quite sure that it would work well. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. R. Biddulph Martin) had said it was, perhaps, too early to judge whether the Act would work well or not. The part of the Bill which dealt with the debtor was, indeed, he

  1037
  thought, very valuable; but as regarded the realization of the assets, he (Sir John Lubbock) had grave doubts with regard to it, as he had always held that the proper way of dealing with the estate of a bankrupt was to allow it to be managed by the creditors. He could not think that any Act was a good one which took the management of such property out of the hands of those to whom it really belonged. It was said that the Act of 1869 had given power to the creditors, and that that measure had not worked well; but, for his part, he denied that it had ever given powers to the creditors. Under that Act, creditors could not call meetings, insist on having accounts, or change Trustees. Many systems had been tried in the country; but the simple plan of allowing the creditors to look after their own affairs, which to his mind was the right one, had never yet been adopted. Under the present Bill, however, they had still less power. It was practically vested in Mr. John Smith, who was called the Board of Trade. He had a great respect for Mr. Smith, and he was not quarrelling with him or with the appointment. He believed Mr. Smith to be able, conscientious, and efficient. It was the system which he distrusted. Mr. Smith told them in his Report that there were symptoms that creditors now insisted on compositions in preference to insisting on bankruptcy. Symptoms, indeed! Why, the number of bankruptcies used to be 10,000 a-year; it had suddenly fallen to 3,000; and his own impression of that remarkable change was, that creditors were unwilling to allow estates to go into bankruptcy, because when once an estate got in bankruptcy they lost all control of the property. Under such circumstances, the Committee would do well to hesitate before incurring a great expenditure in creating a large staff which they might hereafter find was not required. No doubt, however, the main reason for the Amendment which had been moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) was, as stated, that it was thought that the Resolution adopted by the Grand Committee, and confirmed by the House, was not being carried out. It might be said that £3 was not a large fee; but they must remember that the great bulk of the accounts were small ones, and in their very nature
  1038
  only temporary; and, once the principle was admitted that the Board of Trade could charge £3, why should they not be able to charge a larger sum? It appeared to him that the Board of Trade were really attempting, by charging these fees, to override the Act. That Act said—
  "If it appears to the Committee of Inspection that, for the purpose of carrying on the debtor's business, or of obtaining advances, or because of the probable amount of the cash balance,.… it is for the advantage of the creditors that the Trustee should have an account with a local bank, the Board of Trade shall authorize the Trustee to make his payments into and out of such local bank as the Committee may select."
  The Act really said they might have these accounts; but if they availed themselves of the power the Board of Trade fined them £3. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) came down and said—"Oh, they may do it; but if they do I shall charge them £3." Let them suppose that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) carried his Resolution, and that everybody was allowed to have local accounts under any circumstances whatever, the right hon. Gentleman argued that he could still charge the fees. What they complained of was, that the right hon. Gentleman charged fees in some cases, and did not charge them in others. Then the right hon. Gentleman said—"Oh, but the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London did not accept the compromise, but voted against it." It was true he (Sir John Lubbock) did not, in the first place, accept the compromise. He did not think it was a satisfactory one, because he thought people ought to do what they liked with their own funds; and, therefore, in Committee he did not vote for it. But when the Committee had arrived at it he accepted it, and did his best to carry it out. Certainly, if there had been any idea that the right hon. Gentleman would charge these fees, the compromise would not have been so easily come to. He did not wish to occupy time by dwelling further upon the question. He disavowed making any charge against the right hon. Gentleman. He was persuaded the President of the Board of Trade had acted with every desire to carry out the Act in a proper manner; but, still, there was no doubt a general feeling amongst bankers that the Board

  1039
  of Trade had not kept faith with them, or with the Grand Committee in this matter. He earnestly hoped that, on further considering the question, the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to remove these fees, of which there was great reason to complain.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he had no desire to follow the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) as to the merits of the Bankruptcy Act. He ventured to think that every indication up to the present showed that the hon. Baronet's prophecies would not be fulfilled. The Act was working well, and it was giving the greatest satisfaction to every branch of the community interested in it. He should like to say a word or two upon the actual position of the question. His recollection of what transpired in the Grand Committee did not bear out the statement of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler), and the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Dixon-Hartland). He certainly did not remember that any compromise of the nature they indicated was entered into. There was no doubt that the banking interest was exceedingly strong in the Grand Committee; and he was rather amused that night to hear hon. Members stating that they were exceedingly anxious that creditors should have the advantage of their own funds, particularly when the arguments by which they supported that proposition were entirely banker's arguments. As to the allegation that faith had not been kept with the bankers, he might be permitted to state the position of the question. When the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Evesham was proposed notice was given to him that the subject would be re-opened in the House, and an hon. Member who was not now present put the case very strongly. The hon. Gentleman said—"You have in this Bill dealt with other interests—local accountants and solicitors — why is the banking interest to be held sacred; why are we to specially legislate in the interest of bankers?" The President of the Board of Trade proposed, in the first instance, that the whole of these funds should be paid into the Bank of England; and he gave a very substantial reason for it—namely, that the Bank of England would allow such sum in the shape of interest as would materially reduce the cost of working the
  1040
  Bankruptcy Act. It was true the President of the Board of Trade accepted the clause as it now stood; but it came to this—that, having given the creditors the option of opening private banking accounts, the creditors should derive the advantage of the interest paid. Why should those estates not pay their contribution to the Consolidated Fund, out of which the expenses of the working of the Act were paid? Though the estates which banked in the Bank of England got no advantage in the shape of interest, the Consolidated Fund was benefited, inasmuch as it received a contribution towards the expenses of carrying out the Act. Let them suppose two estates of £1,000. The one had a private banking account for 12 months, and received interest at the rate of 2½ per cent. The other estate paid its money into the Bank of England, who allowed interest at 3 per cent, by which the Consolidated Fund got £30. The President of the Board of Trade was certainly acting in the interest of the public; and therefore he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) was surprised the right hon. Gentleman had not the sympathy of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). The President of the Board of Trade argued that they could not recognize private bankers in this transaction, because it was a question between the creditors and the public; and he very reasonably stipulated that estates which received the interest on the money banked privately should pay a fee of £3 to the Consolidated Fund towards the expenses of the Act. He (Mr. H. H. Fowler) hoped that all Gentlemen interested in economy would endeavour to cut down the cost of working the Bankruptcy Act as much as possible; and he knew of no more fair or legitimate requirement than that those estates, which took to themselves whatever interest was obtainable, should pay some contribution to the Consolidated Fund.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he was surprised that a Gentleman of the position of his hon. Friend (Mr. H. H. Fowler) should advance such arguments as the Committee had just listened to. Surely if there was any money in an estate the creditors were entitled to the full advantage of it. His hon. Friend (Mr. H. H. Fowler) quoted two estates, one of which paid £1,000 into a local bank, and the other paid a similar sum into the Bank

  1041
  of England. Because the one sent its money to the Board of Trade, and did not get any interest, the estate which had the good sense to send its money where it could get interest must be made to pay a fee of £3. Such an argument was altogether untenable. It was argued that estates with a private banking account ought to pay a fee, in order to relieve those estates which were not similarly situated; but he altogether disputed the soundness of such a doctrine. It appeared to him that creditors ought to have the full advantage of any interest which accrued to the estate. It had been said that the President of the Board of Trade had been guilty of a breach of faith; and the right hon. Gentleman very naturally resented that expression of opinion. He (Mr. Rylands) did not wish to indorse that opinion; he did not believe the President of the Board of Trade would willingly be guilty of any breach of faith. But while he did not consider there had been any breach of faith, he was of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman had taken the Members of the Grand Committee by surprise. It did seem that to charge persons who desired to open private bank accounts a fee had the effect of preventing them from opening such accounts. At any rate, he trusted that the fees already imposed would be sufficient to meet the expenses of the Bankruptcy Act. Like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), he was by no means disposed to take an unfavourable view of the working of the Act. He was very reluctant to believe that the Act would not be a success; at all events, they had not had sufficient experience to force them to the conclusion that it would not succeed.
  MR. W. FOWLERsaid, it was evident that the estates with a local bank account were in a more fortunate position than those estates which had no such, account; and what his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade contended was that the estates which were in the fortunate position in question should pay this additional fee. If they did not pay this fee, the right hon. Gentleman must charge money in other directions. He (Mr. W. Fowler) did not see why that should be. He appealed to the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) whe-
  1042
  ther, when the compromise was accepted by the Committee, and the hon. Gentleman wished to raise the question in the House when the Report was brought on, he (Mr. W. Fowler) did not come to him and beg him not to disturb the arrangement made by the Committee, because he considered the President of the Board of Trade was anxious to meet the matter fairly, and that he (Mr. W. Fowler), for one, was prepared to accept the compromise as an arrangement which he thought, on the whole, fair. He certainly did not consider it was open to any considerable objection.
  MR. BARRANsaid, certain hon. Gentlemen had somewhat reflected upon him for having on the first day of the debate in the Grand Committee talked out this question; but he felt rather proud of the position he then took up, because he afforded a fair opportunity to the Committee to consider the question, and he gave the President of the Board of Trade an opportunity of considering how he might best meet the wishes of the Committee as far as they had been expressed. He took it that the discussion that night had proved, if proof were at all needed, that this was a bankers' question; it had been a bankers' question from the very first. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade framed the Bankruptcy Act with the view of the whole of the bankrupt estates passing through the hands of the Board of Trade and being deposited in the Bank of England. The right hon. Gentleman made his calculation as to the income which would be derived from the capital invested with the Bank of England in relation to the probable cost of the working of the Bankruptcy Act; and he (Mr. Barran) believed, and other Members of the Grand Committee believed, that if the whole of the funds of bankrupt estates passed through the Bank of England, in all probability the trading community generally would benefit thereby. But there was a very strong feeling in the Committee in favour of creditors being allowed to use private banks for the purpose of working bankrupt estates. The President of the Board of Trade considered he might meet the demand that was made upon him by a compromise. That compromise was accepted, and it had been kept up to the present time. Objection was now raised by bankers to the charge of a fee of £3,

  1043
  which was made for permission to work the estates of bankrupts by means of provincial bankers. The President of the Board of Trade had clearly proved that if bankrupt estates were to be worked through private banks, either the private banks or the estates would get the benefit of the interest accruing from the sums of money lying in the bank; and that being so, unless the estates paid something for the advantage they got, the other estates not similarly situated would have to pay considerably towards the working of the Act. In the interest of the trading community, he thought the Board of Trade were bound to make some charge from private banks for the advantage they got in working bankrupt estates. If the private banks paid £3 in fees, the amount would be repaid to them, because the expense of working the estates must fall on the creditors and not on the banks. But while the expenses of working the estates would fall on the creditors, he believed that the estates which were worked through private banks would benefit considerably by the advantage they got. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that the amount of money accruing from these fees might not be large, but a principle was involved.
  MR. ECROYDsaid, that, having been a Member of the Grand Committee which had this matter under consideration, he desired to say a few words upon the question at issue. It so happened that he was one of the minority on this question, who had no interest, direct or indirect, in any bank, private or joint stock. The objection which many Members of the Committee felt to this arrangement for impounding the funds of bankrupt estates, and making the interest accruing the chief means of providing the expense of working the Bankruptcy Act, was that it was utterly unsound in principle, and contrary to the interests of the estates. It was felt that in many cases it would be necessary to work bankrupt estates in the localities in which they were situated, and most convenient, indeed requisite, to obtain temporary advances from private banks, and that great advantage would accrue to the working of such undertakings, if every facility were afforded to open accounts with private banks. In the next place, he and others objected, because they saw
  1044
  that to adopt the principle proposed by the right hon. Gentleman was actually to give a premium to the Board of Trade to prolong the working of the accounts in order that as much interest as possible might accrue. Besides that, many Members of the Committee knew from experience that a larger amount of interest could often be legitimately obtained from local banks than from the Bank of England. He did not wish to restate all the arguments which were used in the Grand Committee; but, without making any accusation of bad faith, a term which, perhaps, ought not to be used in the House in this connection, he would make bold to say that if the right hon. Gentleman had frankly stated that it was his intention in framing the Rules to attach such penalties as these to the privilege of opening accounts with private bankers, the compromise would never have been passed by the Committee. He was perfectly certain that had a Division been taken on the evening of the first discussion, the Act would never have been passed in its present form. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) must now feel that it would have been better to have stuck to his guns and supported those who, though totally disconnected with the banking interest, were prepared, on public grounds, to stand firm in the position they had assumed. He (Mr. Ecroyd) would certainly support the hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. Fowler), if he went to a Division.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he thought the action of the Board of Trade was perfectly just in reference to the case now before the Committee. It also seemed to him that it was not only too soon to consider the operation of the Act, but that it was not the occasion on which to consider its general policy. The question at that moment before the Committee was a very narrow one. The fees complained of did not constitute a charge made by the Board of Trade upon bankers; it was a charge made upon each bankrupt's estate; and it must be borne in mind that there was no ad valorem fee, and that the highest tax put on a bankrupt estate was £3. All he could say was, that if the interest on the estate was not worth more than that, he was sure that no banker would want to keep open an account of such a character. The Department said, and

  1045
  said rightly, and the provisions of the Act declared, that, as far as possible, bankrupts' estates should bear the whole expense of the administration of the Act; and it was not fair that the Consolidated Fund should be called upon to bear the charge or any considerable portion of it. It was but a small question as to whether the charge should be made on the estates. One part of the charge was in the form of fees, and the other part was in the form of interest on money in the Bank of England belonging to the bankrupt estates. Well, his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said that some estates would contribute specially to the expenses under the Bankruptcy Act—namely, those which had deposits in the Bank of England; and he (Mr. Illingworth) was obliged to admit that it was only right that those estates which had not should, in some form or other, pay a fair equivalent. The charge was one from which local bankers did not suffer in the slightest degree; and he undertook to say that if this £3 was the whole tax for a local banking account—for keeping open the local banking account—it was not too much. There was no injustice on the part of the Board of Trade in saying to the creditors—"If you do not contribute to the expenses in the shape of interest, you must do so in another form." He was surprised that it was not proposed there should be an ad valorem charge in proportion to the amount of money turned over in the administration of the estate. That he certainly thought would be a fair thing, because it would be an equivalent to the amount received in the shape of interest. He denied that there was any favour shown to the Bank of England or any tax upon local banks; the fee was put on the bankrupt estates in order that the Board of Trade might not suffer pecuniary loss. For these reasons he was bound to admit that justice in this matter lay with the Department.
  MR. BULWERsaid, he should be glad, if possible, to receive from the right hon. Gentleman a satisfactory answer to the question put by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), as to what power the Lord Chancellor had to impose the fee in question under the
  1046
  Act of Parliament? The words of the Act were to the effect that if it appeared to the Committee of Inspection that for the purpose of carrying on the debtor's business, or of obtaining advances, or because of the probable amount of the cash balance, or if it were for the advantage of the creditors that a Trustee should have an account with a local bank, the Board of Trade should authorize the Trustee to make his payment into or out of such local bank as the Committee of Inspection might select. That did not give any power for the Committee to make any charge. A charge, under some circumstances, might be reasonable enough; if it were a matter of merely making an entry in a book kept by a clerk, the small sum, say 5s., as had been suggested by his hon. Friend, might be made to cover the whole charge. With reference to the merits of the Bankruptcy Act, he was sorry to hear that there was no difference of opinion as to that. His own opinion was that the Act was likely to turn out an absolute failure. He agreed with all that had been said by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), that the Bankruptcy Actinterfered too much with the management of the bankrupt's affairs by his creditors; and that, he thought, was the very worst form that an Act could take. He would go further, and ask what was the use of a Bankruptcy Act at all? He thought there would be less fraud and much more honest dealing in the commercial world if persons were left to trust to the honesty of those with whom they dealt. However that might be, he saw no reason why the creditors of an estate should be mulcted for carrying on their business in the way most convenient to themselves—namely, by having a banking account in the immediate neighbourhood in which the business was to be transacted. The only reason attempted to be set up in favour of the charge in question was that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade wanted money. It was for that reason the right hon. Gentleman said that the creditors were to pay this fee. But that did not get rid of his objection to the charge. The matter having been fully discussed, he would not occupy the attention of the Committee further than to say that he should be glad to hear from the right hon. Gen-

  1047
  tleman an answer to the question put by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, with reference to the point raised by his hon. and learned Friend, it was clear that the Lord Chancellor had power to establish a scale of fees with regard to any proceedings under the Act. Anyone might present a Petition under the Act, and the Lord Chancellor had power to order a fee to be paid. With regard to the policy or propriety of the payment in question, he would like to recall to the recollection of the Committee the position taken up in relation to this matter by the Government when the Bill was introduced, and throughout its whole progress in that House. Hon. Members would know very well that there was a great deal of work to be done under the Act on behalf of the creditors by the Board of Trade; that the Department had to see that the conduct of the debtor had not been improper; that there was a thorough investigation of the estates in order that a proper amount should be secured to the creditor; and he would point out that no secret was made that the foes for that work were to be provided by the estates of the bankrupts. That was the position taken up and maintained throughout the whole of the discussions which took place upon the Bill during its passage through Parliament. He had had much experience of the working of the Act, and from what he had heard and seen he was bound to say that his own view of it did not accord with that of the hon. and learned Member opposite. Thus he was in a position to say of his own knowledge that the Act was beneficial, because he knew of more than one case in which, the creditors having agreed to a composition of a small amount, the officials of the Board of Trade discovered that there was a great deal more money for them; in one ease, instead of receiving 7s. in the £, they received 17 s. in the £. There were many cases of that sort, and, apart from other considerations, they constituted a perfect justification of the Act as well as a strong confirmation of its value. From the beginning to the end of the discussions on the Bill, it was clearly stated that the bankrupt estates should be paid into the Bank of England, and, that
  1048
  being paid into the Bank of England, they would yield in that way some 3 per cent on the general ordinary amount of the balance, and that that would provide a very considerable fund towards the meeting of the expenses under the Act. That was part of the scheme. Objection was made because it was said that it would not be permitted to open a local banking account for the purpose of winding up an estate; it was said that there was an advantage in having a private banking account, and that that advantage might be needed for the benefit of the creditors. That was the position taken up by those who objected to every account being sent to the Bank of England. Well, that was met by a provision that, in such cases, there should be a local banking account. But when it was said that the creditors would be deprived of a great deal which came to them under the old Act, when they kept their own banking accounts, he would refer the Committee to the Returns, which showed what was the total amount realized under the old Act. The total amount of the estates recovered under the old Act was about £4,220,000, and what did the Committee think was the total amount of the interest received upon that enormous sums of money? £31,000. That was the amount of interest for the whole time during which those estates were in the hands of the bankers. Some accounts, of course, extended over a longer and some over a shorter period; but £31,000 was the whole amount received, and did not represent more than ¾ per cent upon the capital. [An hon. MEMBER: Over what period?] He had stated the interest upon the whole amount; he cared not whether it was for a day or for a month, or six months. He had taken the total sum received, and the amount he had stated was all the interest paid upon the capital sum of £4,220,000. From that it would appear that the arrangement under the old Act was not a very valuable one for the creditors; but under the new Act the proposal was that the money should all be paid into the Bank of England. Of course, it was said that that would realize a considerable amount of money for the purpose of working the Act, and that the balance of cost could be made up by fees upon smaller matters. The expenses of the Bankruptcy Act would, of course, have to be met in

  1049
  some way or other. When the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) said that the Board of Trade did nothing with regard to local banking accounts, he quite agreed with him; the fees were not wanted for working the banking accounts. But the Board of Trade did as much, or more, for the estates which had a local banking account than they did for those who paid their accounts into the Bank of England, and they did this without making any charge. [Sir JOHN LUBBOCK: I beg pardon, there is a charge.] The Board of Trade did not charge for the work he had referred to. Did not his hon. Friend see that if they had to supply by fees the amount now received from the Bank of England they would have to increase the fees? The work must be paid for in some way or other; and if it was not paid for by the interest from the Bank of England the fees must be increased. The expenses were met by the fees, plus the interest, if the money in the Bank of England and the fees were so much less than they would otherwise be because of the money which was in the Bank of England. And if no charge at all was made by way of fees on accounts which were with local bankers, the result would be that those estates which paid money into the Bank of England would be bearing the expense of those estates which paid the money into local banks. The matter was as plain as could be. The money came from various sources; but if the £30,000 a-year was not realized from the accounts in the Bank of England the fees must necessarily be increased. On the other hand, the receipt of that sum would allow the fees to remain as they were at present. The money which came from the Bank of England only diminished the fees every estate had to bear. Was it so unreasonable a thing that the creditors, who received the benefit of the work done by the Department, should be asked to make some contribution to the cost? He thought not. Well, let it be what it was, a reasonable contribution. It was not a question of banking at all, although it seemed to be made a banking question by hon. Members who had spoken on the Vote. He had seen the Manifesto from the banking interest on the subject; but he contended that it was not a banking question, and that
  1050
  the Board of Trade had not treated it as a banking question. The Department had to consider whether they were dealing fairly as between different classes of creditors. He could see nothing unfair in there being an uniform scale of fees. There was a fee paid by the creditors whose money went into the Bank of England, plus which he had to contribute the interest on the money paid in; whereas the creditors, who had a local banking account, paid the same fees, but had nothing more to pay. That seemed to him the most fair way of dealing with the matter; and it appeared to him that if the arrangement were open to criticism on any ground, it was that the local banks were dealt with too favourably. Could it be seriously contended that any body of creditors, or a committee, to whom it would be worth while to have a private local banking account, would abstain from having it because this fee had to be paid? The question the creditor had to consider was this, whether he should pay his money into the Bank of England or into a local bank? He would say to himself—"If I put the money into the Bank of England the Board of Trade would get the interest; but if I put it into a local bank, although I get the interest I shall have to pay the fee of £3." That seemed to him to be a very small matter, and one which it was difficult to conceive as interfering with any estate. The arrangement was not framed in any spirit of hostility to bankers; it was simply a question of dealing fairly with this class and with that. It was a question of seeing that the one did not contribute more than its proportion to the common expenditure which had to be incurred in the case of all classes of estates.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKpointed out that the meaning of the Solicitor General was that the expenses of working the existing Bankruptcy Act was to be obtained by keeping a large balance at the Bank of England.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL): I did not say that. I said it was the opinion that there would be always a certain balance at the Bank of England.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, it was clear to some hon. Members, when the Bill was before the Committee, that there would be a temptation to the Board of Trade to keep the money in

  1051
  the Bank of England, and upon that ground a compromise was arrived at. The words of the Act were as follows:—
  "If it appears to the Committee of Inspection that for the purpose of carrying on the debtor's business or of obtaining advances, or because of the probable amount of the cash balances, it is for the advantage of the creditors that a Trustee should have an account with a local bank, the Board of Trade shall authorize the Trustee to make his payments into and out of such local bank as the Committee may select."
  If the right hon. Gentleman placed a fee upon the creditors who made use of a local bank, it was not really carrying out the compromise arrived at in the Committee.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, his hon. Friend spoke for the Committee; but it was hardly fair that he should do that. He was, of course, entitled to speak for himself; but there were certain matters upon which the Committee differed. His hon. Friend was wrong in supposing that it was to the interest of the Board of Trade to keep the proceeds of estates in hand; and it must be borne in mind that the Department was bound to declare a first dividend within four months, and a second dividend within six months, a period much earlier than had been known under previous Acts. The conclusion was that the small floating balances which must necessarily remain in hand would provide for about half the expense of administration. In the Estimate before the Committee they had assumed that they would get £15,000 in the shape of interest from the floating balances, and £20,000 from the fees; but if they were not to receive that amount of interest they must make an additional charge to cover the £15,000 in the shape of fees. In the majority of cases the balances were so small that no interest was paid by private banks, and the question was whether the estates would benefit by the change proposed.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 58; Noes 80: Majority 22. — (Div. List, No. 159.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked whether it was to be understood that there would always be a Vote in the Estimates in respect to Bankruptcy; and said it would be possible for the Department to get
  1052
  rid altogether of Parliamentary control. It was difficult to find out from the Estimates what the real cost was; but he hoped that Parliamentary control would be preserved, and that there would always be a Vote for Bankruptcy.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINreplied that it was intended always to put some Vote in the Estimates in order that the administration of the Department might come under the notice of Parliament.
  MR. WARTONwished to know whether it was possible to change the language of the Vote, which he thought was not so good as it might be? It was quite clear from what had just passed that the legal description of what was called the Board of Trade was Committee of the Privy Council; but they had got into the habit of speaking of the Board of Trade just as they spoke of a Cabinet Council, which was unknown to the Constitution. Would it be possible to alter the terms of the Vote, and, instead of saying Board of Trade, say Committee of the Privy Council, so as to keep the Constitutional description and make the two Votes agree?
  THE CHAIRMAN: No doubt it is not impossible to change the language of the Vote; but that is an unusual thing to do. "The Board of Trade" is a term which is generally accepted, and it does not seem to me to be a matter of importance.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, he had the next Amendment, and in proposing to reduce the Vote he wished to bring forward the whole question of the success of the Bankruptcy Act. A great many Members seemed to think the time had perhaps hardly come for discussing that question—
  THE CHAIRMAN: I understand that the hon. Member proposes to move to reduce the Vote by £500?
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, he would make the amount £100 to put himself in Order. It was his intention to bring forward the question of the working of the Bankruptcy Act; but several Members seemed to think it was too soon to discuss the whole question, and therefore he proposed to postpone the matter for another year. He had no doubt in his own mind that whatever the right hon. Gentleman might say the Act had been a failure. It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to come there with a quantity of figures

  1053
  as to the reduction of the number of the Bankruptcy cases; but he thought the argument turned greatly against the right hon. Gentleman. These cases had fallen from 10,000 a-year to about 3,000, and he had no hesitation, having a practical knowledge of the subject, in saying that there were more cases of private arrangement than there had ever been before, and he was afraid that the feeling as to the expense was so strong in the country, that unless the scale of fees was altered the Act would not be a success. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider the question before the end of the year came; and he believed that if the scale of fees was regulated there would be more chance for the Act than there was at the present time.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he was glad the hon. Member had postponed the general discussion of the Bankruptcy Act until there had been some real experience of its working. Up to the present time they had only the Report of the Inspector General for thee months; but he had not the slightest doubt that the Act would be a striking success. In the first place, a very important element was the fact that the number of Bankruptcy cases had been so greatly reduced, and anybody who would read the elaborate, and careful, and able Report of the Inspector General would see that there was no reason to believe that as the hon. Member had said, there had been an increase in the private compositions. He had taken great pains to obtain information on the subject, and all the resources of his Department had been directed in the same direction; and, so far as he could judge from the accounts of private Credit Societies and County Court Judges and Bankers, there was probably no increase at all in the number of private compositions. He believed that a very short further experience of the Act would confirm this opinion, and that the number of private compositions would tend to decrease rather than increase, as creditors began to find that under the new Act they were sure to have the most advantageous distribution of an estate. Never since the passing of the Act of 1867 had the distributions been so prompt and the costs so small.
  MR. WARTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that there had
  1054
  been an increase of £300 a-year for the Solicitor to the Department; and what he wished to know was, how much of that increase was in respect of bankruptcy business? He would suggest that that part of the £300, whatever it might be, should be put under this Vote—the Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, it was impossible, in dealing with different Departments under one Vote, to allocate with absolute accuracy the cost of particular cases. In the present instance the salary of the Solicitor to the Board of Trade was charged to the proper Vote. He received £1,500 a-year until last year, and then that amount was increased by £300, partly because his duties in connection with the Board of Trade had been greatly increased, and partly because, in consequence of the supervision of Bankruptcy and Patents, he had other duties thrown upon him in connection with the two Departments. Now, the hon. and learned Member asked him to say how much of this increase was due to increased duties in the Board of Trade, how much to Patents, and how much to Bankruptcy. He must express his entire inability to make a division of that kind; and as the whole sum was only £300, he hoped the hon. and learned Member would not press any objection to it.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £22,811, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Charity Commission for England and Wales."
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

EAST INDIAN UNCLAIMED STOCKS BILL.— [BILL 269.]
(Mr. J. K. Cross, Mr. Courtney.)
EAST INDIAN UNCLAIMED STOCKS BILL.— [BILL 269.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Courtney.)
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: The Bill is blocked.
  MR. COURTNEY: It is a Money Bill.
  MR. SPEAKER: This being a Money Bill, the Blocking Notice will not prevent its being taken.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he would submit that this was a Bill for plundering the possessors of dividends in the East India Railways of what belonged to them. It was not a Money Bill, but a Plunder Bill. He had another objection to it, and the Prime Minister had stated that if any serious objection were taken to any measure it would not be proceeded with.
  MR. COURTNEY: I recognize the propriety of the observation which has just fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman. The Prime Minister did say that if a serious objection were taken to the Bill it would not be gone on with. Under the circumstances, I propose that the second reading be deferred till tomorrow.
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

ULSTER CANAL AND TYRONE NAVIGATION BILL— [BILL 244.]
(Mr. Courtney, Mr. Herbert Gladstone.)
ULSTER CANAL AND TYRONE NAVIGATION BILL— [BILL 244.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. COURTNEY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he wished to ask for the opinion of Irish Members upon it. A Commission was appointed to consider Navigation in Ireland in 1882; and with respect to the Ulster Canal it reported that, in consequence of the lack of traffic, the Canal was worked at a loss of £1,000 to £1,100 a-year. The Government desired to get rid of it, and advertised it for sale in the Northern papers; but, unfortunately, no one responded to the invitation. The existence of the Canal was believed to operate as a check on the conduct of the Railway Companies which came in competition with it; and, therefore, he did not think it wise that it should be altogether given up. Ultimately, an agreement was come to with the Lagan Company, by which the Company agreed to take over the Canal if the Treasury would undertake to put it in order. The sum of £12,000 was proposed to be expended for that purpose, and would be repaid by an annuity. This
  1056
  agreement would be an advantage to the Treasury, inasmuch as it would relieve it from loss. As he had said, it would not be wise to abolish the Canal, and there would be a great deal of objection to such a course in the North of Ireland. He was ready to receive and carefully consider any suggestions made by hon. Members from Ireland, and he trusted they would accept the second reading.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Courtney.)
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he was not going to keep the House for any length of time in discussing this question; but, as neither of the Members from the North of Ireland who were on the Royal Commission on Irish Navigation was present, he should like to say a word or two on this important matter. It was said that the Irish Members were continually asking for money. Well, in this case no money had ever been asked for by the Irish Members, that he knew of. The majority of Irishmen, Peers and others, on the Commission, were in favour of abolishing the Canal altogether. The Government were afraid of the extravagance of giving up the Canal, so they sent over an Indian hydraulic engineer to Ireland to report upon the subject. This officer reported that it was worth while to make some attempt to keep up the Canal, and the Government had therefore become anxious to sell it and hand it over to another Company. There was an important omission from the Bill in regard to lowering the waters of Lough Neagh, which annually flooded the adjoining lands. The farmers in the district complained of this flooding. Some of the Commissioners doubted as to whether they could deal with the matter; therefore there was no specific Report as to whether the Lough should be lowered or not, though they alluded to it in the Report, and said they had obtained sufficient evidence to show that a great tract of country was periodically flooded by it. If this Canal were sold to the Lagan Company without provision for lowering the Lough, and the Lough were then lowered, they would be bound to compensate the Lagan Company. Unless some provision were made, the Treasury would not find the money for lowering

  1057
  the Lough, and, consequently, they would go on flooding the property of the farmers in order to keep up this navigation. Lough Neagh very much required to be lowered, and now they were about to put a great obstacle against it in the shape of this Bill. The only other navigation which interfered with Lough Neagh was the Lower Bann, which had been condemned as utterly useless. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had given them a promise that he would make it his duty to take an opportunity of seeing that the Bill was drawn up so as to cover the Lagan Company for any injury inflicted on them by the lowering of the Lough. If the Government would spend a few thousands in putting the Canal in order, he had no objection to the Bill being passed, though he certainly believed they would be wasting the money.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he had an objection to the Bill, because he believed it would not only involve a useless expenditure of money, but continue a very bad system, which had been doing a great deal of harm in Ireland for a large number of years. The Royal Commission to which reference had been made had been a very strong one, having upon it Peers, Members of Parliament, and other persons capable of forming an opinion on the subject. Their Report was very emphatic, indeed, in regard to the Canal. There was one Member of the Committee, Colonel Dickens, who dissented from the recommendations of his Colleagues as to this particular Canal; but even he did not go so far as to propose that the Government should part with the Canal and put it in the hands of a private Company. He said it was undesirable to let the property or the Canal pass altogether out of the hands of the Government, and had said that if nothing else was done with the Canal the Government should retain it in their hands, with the prospect of obtaining a little return for their former outlay. The story of this Canal was a story of a most extraordinary waste of public money. The House would be surprised to learn that the Canal was started, first of all, in 1825. It took 17 years to complete, at an estimated cost of £160,000, the money being obtained by loan from the Public Works Loan Commissioners. This money had never been repaid. Indeed, further
  1058
  sums had from time to time been advanced, always on much the same grounds as had been advanced by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that night. The Public Works Loan Commissioners, failing to obtain any repayment, took the Canal into their own hands, as mortgagees, in 1851, and then they leased it to a man named Daniel, who could not make anything out of it. It was handed over to the Dundalk Steam Navigation Company, and on the expiration of the lease it was vested again in the Public Works Loan Commissioners. It had been in such a bad condition that it had become thoroughly derelict. Between 1865 and 1873 the Public Works Loan Commissioners had laid out £22,000 on restoration. In spite of that, the Canal had never paid. It had never made so much as would pay the wages of the lock-keepers; and the Lagan Company, to whom it was now proposed to hand it over, was only paying a dividend of 1½ per cent. The Canal had only a depth of five feet six inches, and the Ulster Canal had only a depth of four feet. The work of deepening the latter would be very costly and troublesome, and it would have to be undertaken, otherwise the Lagan boats would not be able to float in it. The Lagan Canal was 16 feet wide, and the Ulster only 12 feet. Sir John M'Neill, in 1861, had reported that the only plan by which a return could be obtained from the undertaking would be to take off the lock gates, drain the Canal, and let the land for grazing purposes, and let out the locks and the basins in the Canal, which were, some of them, of considerable extent, for purposes of tillage. This was the precious concern which was to be handed over to a Company to deal with on the chance of their being able to get it into working order. There was not the least prospect of the Canal ever paying its expenses. He complained of the injury which was done by these navigation schemes to the agricultural interests of Ireland, not only in connection with the Lagan Canal, but also in connection with the Shannon navigation. In order to keep up the connection between Limerick and other towns, an enormous amount of land in Ireland was flooded, and a great deal of property injured every year. To test the value of these navigation schemes, he had last year gone from Athlone

  1059
  nearly as far as Limerick, in order to find out the amount of traffic which was on them, and the result of his investigation had been that he had found that there was not as much traffic on the whole of the Shannon during the day he was on it as passed the building in which they now were on the Thames in the course of half-an-hour; whilst the amount of damage done to the property of the farmers in the previous four or five months was incredible. People had been obliged to leave their houses for weeks together, and to go into such towns as Athlone, because of the floods; and people living along the line of the river had for many miles had their crops and houses injured; and this was of almost annual occurrence. If the Canal this Bill dealt with were treated as Sir John M'Neill recommended it should be, there would be some prospect of seeing an end, or, at any rate, an abatement, of the floods which annually did so much damage in the neighbourhood of Lough Neagh. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had not told the Committee whether he proposed to take the Vote of £15,000 this year.
  MR. COURTNEY; NO; only the first instalment of £3,000.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that £3,000 would be the first instalment of the total of £15,000 to put this thing in order. There would be a further sum of £12,000 to be taken. It was to be repaid to the Government by the Company, if the Company could do so; but the Government could not have much expectation that there was any chance of the Lagan Company being able to pay the money, for there was a provision made in the Bill for mortgaging the property to the Government, and over and above that there were special powers given to the Company for the extension of their borrowing powers. He did not know what might be the personal and private interests which were promoting this Bill; but he was certain that no national interest could be served by the Bill. It certainly might bring about a large outlay of public money. It would involve the throwing of more money after the hundreds of thousands which had been already thrown into the bog in connection with these undertakings. In conclusion, he wished to move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he could not entirely agree with everything which had fallen from the hon. Member who had just sat down, in regard to the Ulster Canal. There were so many different opinions given on both sides that it was a matter the House could not be expected to into at such an hour as 10 minutes to 2 o'clock in the morning. He did know something about this Canal, and what he knew was that it was perfectly useless. He (Colonel King-Harman) represented a barony which had to pay a great deal of money for keeping up the Canal system, and he was thoroughly convinced of the uselessness of a great deal of that expenditure.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must call the hon. and gallant Gentleman's attention to the fact that the subject before the House is the adjournment of the debate.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he was trying to give his reasons for supporting the Motion for the adjournment of the debate. His main reason was that, so far as he could see, this Canal business was not sufficiently known or understood to be discussed in the House at that moment. For that reason, he took leave to second the Motion for Adjournment. He did not think the House was in possession of sufficient information to enable it to vote this large sum of money for this measure.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, the Motion for Adjournment was very cleverly put, as it prevented anybody from saying anything about the Canal; but he might perhaps be permitted, by the courtesy of the House, to say that the course which hon. Members seemed to be in favour of—that was to say, the retention of the Canal by the Government—would simply leave them in the possession of that which cost them £1,000 a year.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Why not abandon it?
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that the Government could not abandon it. In order to do that, they would have to introduce another Bill, which would be opposed by another section of Members. The system proposed was the cheapest way of getting rid of the Canal.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: You are the mortgagees under the Bill.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was aware of that. The cheapest way to get rid of it would be to sell it to a Company that was solvent, and in a position to carry it on. The Government were in possession of a Canal which was a constant drain upon them; and they therefore thought it desirable to get rid of it in the manner proposed in the Bill, believing that the Company which was about to acquire it was perfectly capable of carrying it on.
  Motion agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

  PRISONS (IRELAND) [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the Expenses incurred in the maintenance, and removal of prisoners from one place of confinement in Ireland to another, from the period when the order for committal to prison is made, under the provisions of any Act of the present Session to amend "The General Prisons (Ireland) Act, 1877."
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

INFANTS BILL.— [BILL 14.]
(Mr. Bryce, Mr. Davey, Mr. Henderson.)
INFANTS BILL.— [BILL 14.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, that at that hour he would not ask the House to do any work in Committee on the Bill. He would merely move that they should go into Committee, and immediately report Progress. The measure had been debated at great length on a Wednesday afternoon. It had occupied nearly the whole of the day, and had been carried by a large majority.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Bryce.)
  MR. GIBSONsaid, it was perfectly true that the Bill had been debated at considerable length two or three months back; but on that occasion a great number of objections to the Bill were pointed out. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in replying to those objections, certainly conveyed to him (Mr. Gibson), and he believed, also, to many other Members of the House, that he was not in a position to say that he would adhere, or ask the House to ad-
  1062
  here, to the draft as it then stood. Well, the hon. and learned Member had taken no steps to indicate that he was not prepared to amend the measure. There were several Amendments on the Paper, one in his (Mr. Gibson's) name; but the hon. and learned Member had not intimated that he was willing to accept any of them. It was competent for the hon. and learned Member to say whether he was willing to drop Clause 2, as to which there was grave objection in debate, and in regard to which he (Mr. Gibson) had received a great many communications from people interested in the subject, expressing rooted objection to what was proposed to be done. To the points in the Bill to which he referred he should certainly give the most strenuous opposition. The hon. and learned Member could, by permission of the House, answer the question; and he (Mr. Gibson), therefore, desired to ask him whether he was prepared to accept the Amendment to exclude Clause 2, which clause, if it remained as it was, would introduce litigation into a great many households which were disposed to any opposition or squabbling, and leave the husband and the wife in a position to the last extent undesirable, and also leave the children in a position which could not be desired for any children on the face of the earth? Was the hon. and learned Member prepared to support the Amendment which stood in his (Mr. Gibson's) name? Was he prepared to omit Clause 2, and was he prepared to support the Amendment, which would leave the father the power to associate with his wife who survived him other trusted friends? At present the Bill, as it was drafted, excluded the power which both husbands and fathers at present desired to avail themselves of, and which would meet with the sanction of every sensible wife—namely, to appoint the wife and the mother guardian of the children, associated with other trusted friends of the family in whom the father and mother had confidence. The hon. and learned Member had not given a satisfactory answer to these inquiries; but he was a most sanguine man if he thought the Bill would pass into law, even if it got into Committee.
  MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, he was glad to hear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman intended to offer the

  1063
  Bill his most strenuous opposition—and his opposition was always strenuous—but he thought the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) would be better dealt with in Committee, when he would have an opportunity of explaining his Amendments. As he understood his hon. and learned Friend, personally he would desire to pass the Bill with certain Amendments; but if the House or the Committee took a different view, he would not, therefore, drop the Bill. He thought it would be best to go into Committee, and then the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to give his reasons for objecting to the hon. and learned Member's Amendments.
  MR. A. F. EGERTONurged that 2 'clock in the morning was too late to go into Committee, and he therefore moved that the debate be adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. A. F. Egerton.)
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he should not vote for the adjournment; but he entertained just as strong an objection as the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) to the 2nd clause. The majority of Members, he was sure, would rather see the Bill thrown out than passed with that clause; but there were real grievances, and he should vote against the Motion, because there were provisions in the Bill which it was very desirable to pass.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, this matter was fully discussed on the second reading. His objection had been mainly with regard to Clause 2; but although he had tried to learn what concessions the hon. and learned Member would make, the hon. and learned Gentleman had studiously maintained his position of silence, and given no satisfaction to the House. He was satisfied, from what had fallen from the hon. and learned Solicitor General, that the Bill had very little chance of passing into law that Session, unless some concession was made.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. BRYCEdenied the right of the right hon. and learned Gentleman oppo-
  1064
  site (Mr. Gibson) to put a pistol to his head at that stage of the Bill, and to insist that he should state now what concessions he would make. If they would go into Committee, the arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman would, no doubt, weigh with the Committee, especially as the Solicitor General seemed to take a similar view.
  MR. FINDLATERsaid, he had supported the Bill on the last occasion; and he thought it was unfair for the hon. and learned Gentleman to ask the House to go into Committee at such a late hour, and place himself in a better position than he would otherwise be in.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

POOR LAW GUARDIANS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 22.]
(Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Gray, Mr. Mayne, Mr. O'Sullivan, Mr. Marum.)
POOR LAW GUARDIANS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 22.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. GIBSONsaid, it was not his intention to divide the House at that stage; but he might point out that, as he thought, it was to be greatly regretted that last Session, when they had practically arrived at a point at which there was no difficulty as to passing the Bill into law, a course had been taken which might now seriously affect the chance of the Bill becoming law. Last year a compromise was agreed to with the consent of the Government. It enabled a person who had votes to have a vote first in any one Union; and then, under certain well-defined restrictions, to vote elsewhere. That proposal was not now on the Paper; but if it was put on the Paper again and adopted, it would be reasonable in itself, and would facilitate the passing of the Bill. He did not wish to detain the House at that hour; but he thought it well to throw out the suggestion for consideration.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he thought the House had a right, before going further with this matter, to ask the Chief Secretary what had caused the changes that had taken place since last year. On the 23rd of June, when the Bill was discussed, the Chief Secretary spoke strongly on the question of proxy voting, and brought forward many objections. He allowed that proxy voting was essential, and was a just right on the part of owners of land. He alluded to the small number of voters, and acknowledged the justice of the remarks he and other Members had made, to the effect that owners of property in different parts of the country must be absolutely unable to give their votes in different places at the same time. The right hon. Gentleman said proxies were a right which owners ought to possess; and yet he now placed on the Paper an Amendment, which left out every word about proxies, and left in Clause 8, which was an utterly objectionable part of the Bill, as it stood, without any amendment. No one had expected that the Bill would come on that day; and, therefore, Amendments were not on the Paper; but he thought they had a right to expect that the right hon. Gentleman would place on the Paper the same Amendment as he put down last year, and that, as he had not done so, he would explain the reason for the change.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had explained on the second reading, at some length, the reasons which had induced him to think that the final and ultimate settlement of this question would not include proxy voting. He had come to that conclusion strongly as to Ireland; and he was inclined to think they would unduly hamper any alteration of the system of local government in England by giving sanction to the system of proxy voting in Ireland. The principal arguments in favour of proxy voting had been met by other provisions which, in accordance with his promise on the second reading, he had introduced into the Amendments. Hon. Members would find a provision making the election of Guardians triennial instead of annual, so that persons living at a distance from Ireland would only be obliged to go there once in three years, instead of every year; and, at the same time, power was given to the Local Government Board to arrange the dates of
  1066
  election, so that the whole of the owners might have reasonable time for voting. He did not propose now to repeat the arguments he had previously given at some length, and he hoped the House would go into Committee on this important Bill.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Local Government Board to frame rules for the conduct of poor law elections).
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 10, after the word "the," to leave out the word "first," and insert the words "thirty-first."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Voters to vote in person).
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he had an Amendment to propose as to proxies; but his Amendment did not raise the question exactly in the way he wished.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he intended to move the rejection of the clause altogether.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he was not going to interfere with the hon. and gallant Gentleman at all; he was only going to say that he thought it was desirable to make some amendments, and on the Report stage he would present his Amendment in a manner more satisfactory to himself.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANmoved the rejection of the clause. The Bill, he said, had been brought forward when none expected it. The Front Benches were better informed than other Members, and it was an extraordinary thing to see at that late hour the Government Bench so compact as it was now. The only thing that seemed to produce a compact Government Bench at 2 in the morning was some measure for the spoliation and disfranchisement of loyal men.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Lists of voters to be prepared).
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 5, to leave out from beginning of line to "before," and insert "at the prescribed time."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 10 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Poor law election may be questioned by petition).
  On the Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, the following Amendment made:—
  In page 5, line 3, leave out from "by," to end of Clause, and insert—
  "Undue influence, corrupt practice, or illegal practice, within the meaning of those expressions as used in 'The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883.'"
  COLONEL KING-HARMANmoved to amend the said Amendment by inserting the word "intimidation" before "undue influence."
  Amendment proposed to said Amendment, before the words "undue influence," to insert the word "intimidation."—(Colonel King-Harman.)
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)explained that undue influence included intimidation.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANthought if that was so there was no reason why the word should not be inserted.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)thought there was an objection to that, and pointed out that the hon. and gallant Member would find that intimidation was included.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he was quite satisfied that the Government wished to allow intimidation.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 14 to 23, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 24 (Ratepayers entitled to only six votes. No minor entitled to vote. All ratepayers qualified to be guardians. Fresh election to be ordered forthwith on vacancy. Number of ex-officio guardians not to exceed one-third of elective guardians. Justice of peace not to be qualified as ex-officio guardian unless a ratepayer).
  Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 21, to leave out sub-section 1.—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
  MR. GRAYsaid, the principle involved in the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to leave out the first section of the clause was so important that he certainly thought it required some amount of explanation. The words of the sub-section which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to omit were as follows:—
  "No ratepayer shall be entitled at any poor law election to more than six votes for each of the number of candidates to be elected in any electoral division."
  Now, surely six votes were sufficient for any individual to have in the election of Poor Law Guardians. Under the present system a man might be able to poll in his own person 18 votes for each electoral division; a fact which gave him very large control over the election of Guardians. He (Mr. Gray) thought that the interest of property was sufficiently guarded by giving the wealthy man six votes as against the poor man's one. The right hon. Gentleman should remember that the functions of Poor Law Guardians had changed very much since the last Act was passed. When that Act was passed the functions of Poor Law Guardians were directed to the single purpose of giving relief to the poor; but since then other functions had been vested in them of a most important and it might be said of a most arbitrary character. For instance, they had power over the dwellings of men, power over their persons, power over their individual liberty of action, and power to tax them for a variety of purposes. The functions of Poor Law Guardians had changed so largely that it might be said that their present functions were more important than those which they were originally constituted to discharge. Under those circumstances, he and his hon. Friends were of opinion that not only should the wealthy man be represented but the poor man also. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not re-consider his determination to omit this sub-section from the clause, because the omission would emasculate the clause so completely as to render it of very little value indeed. The retention of these words, in his opinion, was exceedingly

  1069
  important; and he thought the right hon. Gentleman should show some cause why six votes for a wealthy man were not a sufficient protection for his interest as against the one vote of the poor man.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on the second reading of the Bill he did not expect to see Amendments to leave out these sub-sections appearing in his name on the Notice Paper, because those Amendments, if sanctioned by the Committee, would deprive the Bill of almost all its value. Last year the Bill introduced by Irish Members was so whittled down by the right hon. Gentleman that they were obliged to place on the Paper a Notice of opposition to its going into Committee; that was to say, they were obliged to block their own Bill, in order to prevent its passing in an imperfect and altered state. Although the present Bill was somewhat different from that of last year it was, in reality, very little better. The provision with regard to the abolition of proxy voting was very little compensation indeed for what had been almost promised by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech on the Motion for the second reading of the Bill; and he did not suppose that that speech would have been made if the right hon. Gentleman had believed that in a short time he would place on the Notice Paper a Notice of Amendment to omit these very important sub-sections. Considering the advance made with respect to the possession of the property vote since the Poor Law Acts in regard to Ireland were finally settled, he did not think it was asking too much that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in a Radical Government should stand by his original proposal, and that he should at least modify or mitigate this very excessive power which owners of property had in Ireland of voting by proxy. At present a landowner owning perhaps half a county in Ireland, who never went over there for a single year, might in every one of the triennial elections go from one election to another and spread his votes over the county, swamping the votes of those who lived in the county, and who were most interested in carrying out the multifarious enactments of the Poor Law. He thought, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman should not press his Amendment, but should at least agree to the
  1070
  suggestion of a compromise which he would throw out, and which he thought ought to commend itself to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). It was most important that the Bill should pass that Session. The Local Government Board in Ireland had been reduced to a state of chaos by the large number of appeals, which he believed amounted to 200; and it would be almost impossible for that Body to maintain its efficiency unless this Bill was passed. In view of its great importance, then, he suggested that they might take 12, instead of six votes prescribed in the Bill, and that he proposed to move as an Amendment to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 22, to leave out the words "no ratepayer shall be entitled at any poor law election to more than six votes."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. GIBSONpointed out that hon. Members below the Gangway took up an entirely different position at Clause 24 from that which they assumed on a former clause of the Bill. The landlord had the luxury and the privilege of paying half the poor rate in the majority of cases, and in a great many cases he paid the whole rate, and it was only right that he should have a corresponding influence in the election of Poor Law Guardians. The Bill took away from the landlord the power of voting by proxy, so that a landlord who might have property in several unions might be obliged to vote only in one, although he would have to pay the poor rate in all of them. He would be practically disenfranchised, except for the place at which he was to vote personally. The Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was one which had for its object the abolition of plurality of votes, which was recognized all through the Poor Law system. To take away that right in Ireland would, he said, only intensify the injustice that had been done. The object of the Amendment was to prevent representation and taxation going together. If the landlord continued liable to pay the poor rate, as at

  1071
  present, to deprive him, to a great extent, from having a substantial and real voice in the election of those who spent the money constituted a very great injustice.
  MR. HEALYsaid that, in reality, the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork would not be of that great advantage to them which the right hon. and learned Gentleman supposed. Although, however, the Amendment would be of very slight service, they considered it rather better than the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. They knew very well that the landlords in Ireland had long ago had the rates included in the rents. That was obvious, because the rents had increased 50 per cent since the Poor Law Act had passed. The previous clauses of the Bill were of much less value than the 24th clause, which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to amend by omitting sub-sections 1 and 2. It was too bad, after all the time that had been occupied on the Bill, that the Government should propose to deal with Irish Members in this way.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that his argument on the second reading of the Bill was that in England 12 votes was the maximum allowed, and he had said that that was in a country where the entire rate was paid by the occupier. But the case was very different in Ireland. He was not prepared to say that if the whole system of the three countries was to be re-arranged some of these points of difference would not be open to argument; but if this Bill was to have any chance of passing, as he earnestly hoped it would, he thought that the great changes introduced into the first and second portions had better not be weighted with changes, which he called minor changes, in the third part, although he was willing to allow that two changes were proposed which were not minor changes, but changes of a very important kind. On the whole, he thought that very little would be gained, and considerable disturbance caused, by passing the first sub-section of the clause as it stood in the Bill.
  MR. GRAYsaid, he had been in the hope that the suggestion of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) would have been acceptable both to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and to the right hon. and
  1072
  learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). It did not often occur that an individual had more than 12 votes in any one district; and he should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would have been willing to agree to the insertion of that number in the clause. The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that he understood 12 votes to be the maximum in England for the election of Poor Law Guardians; but he (Mr. Gray) knew that evidence had been given before a Select Committee that, under certain circumstances, one individual might have 18 votes. Therefore, he said, that to bring down the maximum of votes in Ireland to the same number as in England—namely, 12—was not an unreasonable thing, and one which might be agreed to by right hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he was quite willing to assimilate the number of votes which an individual might give at an election of Poor Law Guardians in Ireland to the number which was said to be the maximum in England, provided that the arrangements for the payment of the poor rates were the same in both countries.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 38: Majority 8.—(Div. List, No. 160.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 8, to leave out sub-section 3. — (Mr. Trevelyan.)
  Question proposed, "That the subsection stand part of the Bill."
  MR. HEALYsaid, the Committee were entitled to some explanation on this point also. In his opinion, there could be no greater mistake than to suppose that the best Guardians were to be found amongst the higher strata of society. It did not follow that the most intelligent men were to be found amongst that class. His experience was contrary to that, and he believed that a better class of men could be got from a lower stratum of society, although he was quite aware that the Government thought from that

  1073
  source could be obtained only persons who would be a scandal to the system of public representation. He trusted that the Government would, at least, lower the present very high restrictions upon candidates for the office of Guardians; and he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman was not making some proposal to equalize the franchise. If he was not going to accept the proposal in this Bill, would he not bring the franchise down to £10 to equalize it all over the country? The subject was so mixed up now that absolutely a man who was living in one Union, and then moved into another, could not tell whether he was qualified or not.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he thought the hon. Member had not informed the Committee correctly. His opinion was that the property qualification was £30; but as to its being reduced to £18, he had known it reduced as low as £12; and where it had been so reduced the representation had been bad. One of the grievances was that the representation was too low as it stood now.
  MR. GRAYargued that it was for those who paid the rates to judge whether a man was competent to represent them, and that the mere fact that he was upon his own property was no guarantee of his fitness to represent them. It was marvellous that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to retain this property test for elected Representatives. In the Reform Bill which had passed through that House a property test was proposed for Members; and yet, when revising the Poor Law system, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to retain a provision which, though a general provision at one time, had long since been discarded as utterly useless where it was not mischievous. In many cases this provision might include very excellent persons—intelligent artizans and farmers; many men who had considerable pecuniary resources, but who might not be rated at £30, and this would create much soreness in their minds. A property qualification to ensure having the best men was utterly useless, and it would be better to abolish it altogether. But if that could not be done, then it should be equalized.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he did not pretend to be very familiar with the subject; but
  1074
  he saw enormous difficulty in making this uniform with regard to Ireland, because the districts might vary considerably. That difficulty had been found to prevail to a large extent in preparing Jury Acts; and anyone who looked at the Jury Acts in Ireland would find that immense care was required to see how many people could be got at a particular rate in some of the counties.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Hibbert) was a great authority on this subject; and while his hon. Friend agreed with him that it was essential to keep this qualification for Guardians, for reasons he had explained on the second reading, and which weighed with him extremely, he still thought that a minimum might be fixed in some Unions. There were a few Unions in Ireland where Guardians were taken under £20, and a certain number where they were taken under £25. He should be prepared to fix it at £20, and not go below that. As to fixing a uniform qualification, he thought that could not be entertained for a moment if the figure was kept at £20; because there was, at any rate, one Union in which the amount was £6. On Report he should be prepared to propose to bring up words altering the maximum qualification from £30 to £20; but further than that he was afraid he could not go.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he could not regard the answer of the Chief Secretary as generally satisfactory. There was one point to which he wished to draw attention. A man might be rated at £20 or £15 in one division, and yet have a farm of £150 in another district. An enterprizing man who had got on in the world, and taken a farm in another district, might be placed in that position, and this proposal would do him great injury. This was no imaginary case, for in the electoral district in which he lived there was no one to serve, and they had to take people from outside the division, and that they felt as a considerable grievance. He hoped the Chief Secretary would attend to that point.
  MR. GRAYasked why, in Dublin City, he could exercise all the powers vested in a member of the Town Council without any kind of qualification; but if he was a member of the Poor Law

  1075
  Guardians in the same city, he must have a qualification of £18? The duties were very similar—namely, carrying out the Sanitary Acts. In the revised Bill the right hon. Gentleman had put his imprimatur on the principle of proxy voting for elected members. But now that principle was exploded, and applied to no bodies, except as to Poor Law Guardians. When the right hon. Gentleman named £20 as being the maximum concession he could make, he seemed to forget that at the present time, in many of the Poor Law Unions, the qualification was not £20. He was under the impression that it did not go below £18; but he understood from the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman) that it went as low as £12. When the President of the Local Government Board recognised £12 as proper, how could he justify £20 as a maximum? The Local Government Board, recognizing the necessities of the case, had itself reduced the qualification to £12; and why, then, should the House stamp every man who had not that qualification of £20 as unfit to be a Guardian in the opinion of the House? He did not see how the right hon. Gentleman could justify his position; and he would suggest that he should leave the clause as it was now, and re-consider the whole subject before the Report stage, and then amend it. That would be much better than endeavouring to settle it now.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought it would really be well for the Government to consider the question raised by the present Amendment, and also the further question which would come up on the subsequent proposition to omit the 5th clause. He was inclined to think that with these three sections out of the Bill the Bill would be scarcely worth having, and it would be well to allow it to stand over until the new Parliament. In order to give time for the Government to consider the matter he would move that Progress be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

SALMON (WEEKLY CLOSE TIME) (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 37.]
(Mr. M'Mahon, Mr. Blake, Mr. Leamy, Sir Joseph M'Kenna, Mr. O'Shea, Mr. Barry.)
SALMON (WEEKLY CLOSE TIME) (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 37.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. BLAKE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he should not occupy much time, as the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman) had dropped his opposition, and his own constituents would be benefited by the Bill. It affected Ireland very largely, and would be a great boon to anglers, by removing restrictions on trout fishing and also restrictions on the trawlers of Sligo and Gal way which worked very unjustly.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Blake.)
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he looked on the Bill with a considerable amount of doubt. He came from a county where the fishing was in the hands of one great proprietor. This was worth thousands of pounds a-year, while in the upper waters there was a lot of rod fishing. He believed this Bill would operate injuriously upon a great number of people in Galway, and he should oppose it on the present oocasion; but if he got some more satisfactory explanation that might affect his position.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, there were a great many Notices of opposition from different parts of the House, and therefore he would move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Gibson.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 37: Majority 13.—(Div. List, No. 161.)
  Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked whether he could not move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months?
  MR. SPEAKER: It is not competent to the hon. and gallent Member to do so; having spoken on the Motion for the second reading.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he had not spoken on that Motion.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. and gallant Member says he did not I will accept his word.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, said, this was a Bill which, he did not think the Government intended to allow to be read a second time, and which proposed to upset a question which was carefully debated and dealt with in that House in 1868. In that year the salmon fisheries in Ireland were reduced to a very low ebb, and after considerable debate the present Act was brought in. Since that time the fisheries in Ireland had increased in value nearly 10 times; and the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) was perfectly aware that what he was stating was substantially correct. The statement that the salmon fisheries in Ireland were overstocked was a ridiculous statement; and as to poor fishermen being injured by the present Act and benefited by this Bill, he held that the fact was exactly the reverse. The Bill was simply a proposal to upset the Act, which had increased the value of the salmon fisheries in Ireland ten-fold. He did not think he had ever seen a Bill more absolutely ridiculous and more decidedly not wanted. From every quarter he had received communications—from poor and rich alike, conservators, anglers, and net-men—on this question. He had received instructions to move the rejection of the Bill.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "this day three months."—(Colonel King-Harman.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he would point out in one sentence why this Bill should be passed. He represented a sea-board constituency, and had received the strongest appeals from fishermen on the coast of Sligo to support the Bill. These men wanted to have a chance of fisting on Saturdays; and he submitted to the House that their desire was a very natural one, and one which should be acceded to, both for social and moral reasons. At present, not only were the men deprived of a working day, and of the opportunity of earning their livelihood on one day in the week in addition
  1078
  to Sunday, but they were kept idle on the day when there was great temptation around them, and the natural result was that they resorted to the public-houses.
  MR. TREVELYANstated that the Government had come to the conclusion, after such consideration as they had been able to give to the Bill, that the system which had been in force during recent years, and which had been productive of so much good to the fisheries of Ireland, should not be altered without very careful inquiry. They considered that it would be very dangerous to do so. The Government would be unwilling to consent to the Bill being read a second time, unless it were decided to refer it to a Select Committee; because the last time the matter was gone into the conclusion was arrived at that a close time, at least of a longer period than that in force, was requisite, and a Bill to that effect passed into law. The result of that Act on the fisheries of Ireland had been gradually to raise them from a state of decadence, and to place them in a much improved position. To undo that work without a fresh inquiry into the probable effects, not on the fisheries, but an inquiry of a collateral kind, into the feeling existing amongst the classes interested in the fisheries, would certainly be open to objection. He thought that some such inquiry as this was a necessary preliminary to such a change as that proposed. For these reasons the Government had made up their minds to consent to the second reading, upon the understanding that the Bill would be referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. O'SHEAsaid, that if the Government proposed the appointment of a Select Committee probably hon. Members would agree to it.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that he felt himself to be in a certain difficulty as to this Bill between opposing authorities. He, of course, attached a great deal of importance to the opinions of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), who represented a constituency deeply interested in this question, and, of course, he entertained great respect for the judgment of the hon. Gentleman who had introduced the Bill (Mr. Blake)—the hon. Member having had such a large and familiar acquaintance with the merits of the fisheries question. On

  1079
  the other hand, he found it necessary to pause when he heard the Chief Secretary offering opposition to the Bill. He should like to ask for enlightenment from another portion of the House, as his Leader (Mr. Parnell) was not present. They had the advantage amongst them that evening of the presence of a right hon. Gentleman who had filled, not with satisfaction, but with a considerable amount of fame, the position of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. He referred to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). He assumed that the right hon. Gentleman was favourable to the Bill, because on the Question of Adjournment a little while ago he had voted against the postponement of the consideration of the measure. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would be much influenced in the course he should take in the conduct of the Bill by anything that might come from the right hon. Gentleman; and therefore he thought that he was speaking the sentiments of hon. Members around him, when he said that the very keenest desire existed on their part to hear what the right hon. Gentleman had to say.
  MR. KENNYsaid, that the question of referring the Bill to a Select Committee was one of great importance. He did not think the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) at all approved of such a course; and he thought that if the Government could not see their way to reading the Bill a second time—a Bill which was supported by the vast majority of those engaged in the fishing trade in Ireland, and only opposed by a few of those who were interested in rod fishing in the higher waters—without referring it to a Select Committee, it would be well to give it up altogether. The Bill was notoriously for the material and moral benefit of the fishermen, to afford them more time to work, and to keep them out of the way of certain inducements to dissipation which at present were thrown in their way. He thought it was the duty of Irish Members to force the Bill to a Division.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that if the Irish Members accepted the proposal of the Government, would they give them a Select Committee again next year, supposing the Government to be in Office next year? The period remaining of the present Session was very short, and
  1080
  very little could be done by a Select Committee.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, that the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) had met the proposal of the Government by a dignified silence, for he had said nothing. The position of things was this. The Chief Secretary had made up his mind that the Bill was one which should not have a second reading, and therefore they had put the hon. Member in charge of the Bill in the locus penitentiœ of referring the Bill to a Select Committee as a condition of its being read a second time. This showed clearly that the view of the Government was against the measure. ["No, no!"] Yes; clearly so. That was the reason why the hon. Member had voted for the adjournment. The Government said they would give the Bill a second reading if it were referred to a Select Committee. If the hon. Member for Waterford would accept that, that triumph would be secured to him by his own forces and those of the Government. But would the hon. Gentleman get a promise from the present Government that if they were in Office next year they would repeat the Select Committee? That would raise the question of the Autumn Session; and they were told that the Autumn Session was to have nothing to do with Select Committees.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I mean the real Session.
  MR. GIBSON: Oh, then, this Committee is to sit in the "real" Session of next year, and not in the interlude of the present year?
  MR. BLAKEsaid, that as he could do nothing better, he would accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. He would take the second reading, on the understanding that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee."
  MR. HEALY: I presume the right hon. Gentleman means a Select Committee with power to send for Papers and correspondence, &c.
  MR. TREVELYAN: Yes.
  MR. SPEAKER: That Question will be put when the names are called.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I object to the Bill being referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. HEALY: Is it not a disorderly practice, Mr. Speaker, when such a Motion as this is made, for the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Dublin to object to the Motion?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must object by challenging a Division.
  Question, "That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee" put, and agreed to.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT, 1878 (DISTRICTS) BILL.
(Mr. Hastings, Sir Edmund Lechmere, Lord Moreton, Sir Eardley Wilmot, Mr. Duckham.)
CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT, 1878 (DISTRICTS) BILL.

  [BILL 253.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  New Clause—(Application to Ireland,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. KENNYsaid, that before this Bill were applied to Ireland he should like to know what it meant.
  MR. HASTINGSsaid, the clause was simply this—that in the application of this Act to Ireland the expression "Privy Council" should mean the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Councillors. It was to secure in regard to Ireland that the Act should be administered by the Irish authorities, and not by the English authorities.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  MR. HASTINGSsaid, that the Amendments introduced into the Bill were introduced after consultation with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson). It had been agreed that the Bill should be reprinted with the Amendments, and considered again on Report.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 284.]
  MR. WARTON: Why Monday next?
  MR. HASTINGS: To enable the Scotch Members to see the clauses.

WASTE LANDS AFFORESTATION (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 40.]
(Dr. Lyons, Sir Thomas M'Clure, Mr. Maurice Brooks.)
WASTE LANDS AFFORESTATION (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 40.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he observed that this Bill was blocked by an hon. Member connected with the Government—the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Cotes). It was the Bill of the hon. Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons); and he wished to ask that hon. Member whether, seeing that his measure was blocked by an influential Member of his own Party, he intended to remain any longer a Member of that Party?
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at Four o'clock in the morning.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Bishopric of Bristol (181).
Committee — Supreme Court of Judicature Amendment (152–191).
Committee — Report — Licensing Act (1872) Amendment* (160).
Third Reading—Post Office Protection* (185), and passed.
Royal Assent — Fisheries (Oyster, Crab, and Lobster) Act (1877) Amendment [47 & 48 Vict. c. 26]; Sea Fisheries Act (1868) Amendment [47 & 48 Vict. c. 27]; Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act (1883) Amendment [47 & 48 Vict. c. 28]; Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 4) [47 & 48 Vict. c. cii]; Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London) [47 & 48 Vict. c. ciii]; Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order (Dundalk Waterworks) [47 & 48 Vict. c. civ]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Naas, &c.) [47 & 48 Vict. c. cv]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (The Labourers' Act) (Carrick-on-Suir) [47 & 48 Vict. c. cvi]; Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 3) [47 & 48 Vict. c. cxii]; Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings (Scotland) Provisional Order [47 & 48 Vict. c. cviii]; Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (No. 2) [47 & 48 Vict. c. cix]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 5) [47 & 48 Vict. c. cx]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 6) [47 & 4 Vict. c. cxi]; Tramways Provisional Orders [47 & 48 Vict. c. cxii] Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 11) [47 & 48 Vict. c. cxiii]; Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law) (No. 14) [47 & 48 Vict. c. cxiv]; Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law) (No. 15) [47 & 48 Vict. c. cxv]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Labourers Act) (No. 4) [47 & 48 Vict. c. lxxvii.]

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.

  NOTICE OF RESOLUTION.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I beg to give Notice that, on Thursday next, I shall move the following Resolution:—

  873
  "That this House is prepared to proceed now with the consideration of the Representation of the People Bill, on the understanding that an humble Address shall be presented to Her Majesty, humbly praying Her Majesty to summon Parliament to assemble in the early part of the autumn for the purpose of considering the Redistribution Bill which Her Majesty's Ministers have undertaken to present to Parliament on the earliest occasion possible."
  I should explain that the wording of this Resolution, my Lords, is somewhat different, though in sense it is practically the same, as the Resolution which has appeared on the Paper. I think that, perhaps, with your Lordships' permission, I may be allowed to say that I drew up that Resolution without any communication whatever with any Member either of your Lordships' House or the other House of Parliament on either side, and that I at once put it on Saturday morning in the hands of the Clerk of the Parliaments. My object is simply this—to endeavour, after what passed on Friday last, to find some common ground for agreement for the effectual settlement of the question of the reform of Parliament. And if the Resolution appears to either Party of this House or to both not exactly what it should be, I earnestly hope the Leaders of the Parties will be able to come to some common understanding for the peaceful solution of this great question.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I have to protest very earnestly against the inconvenience of the course taken by the noble Earl. Without giving any Notice on Friday night or Saturday morning, he puts on the Paper a Notice cancelling and tearing up the Resolution to which your Lordships came, after great debate and solemn Division, on Tuesday last. Then he fixed his Resolution for to-morrow night. Now, I believe to-day and to-morrow are days on which a great many Peers have engagements elsewhere—the Agricultural Association, for instance—making it a matter of very great inconvenience for them to come down to this House, yet it was necessary, in view of the Notice of the noble Earl, to ask them to alter their engagements. Now, at the last moment, the noble Earl makes another change, and puts it off till Thursday. I can only say that is not the way in which Business is usually conducted in this House. I doubt, moreover, whether the Motion of the noble
  874
  Earl is in Order. The House has solemnly recorded that, for certain reasons, it will not read the Representation of the People Bill a second time; until that Resolution is formally rescinded and removed from the Journals, it is not competent for any Member of this House to make a Motion that the Bill be read a second time. Therefore, I believe that the Motion is, in fact, informal and disorderly; but I mainly rose for the purpose of protesting against the extreme inconvenience caused by the course which the noble Earl has adopted.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I rise for the purpose of putting a Question to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville); but before doing so, I would like to point out that the remarks of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) seem founded on a misconception, for the Notice of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) is not for to-morrow, but Thursday.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes; it was originally given on the Paper for Tuesday.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: For Thursday.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It was given for Tuesday. That was the inconvenience in the matter; and now at the last moment the noble Earl puts it off till Thursday. That is partly what I complain of.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I made the alteration after consulting with Friends of both Parties. It seemed to us that it would be best to put the Resolution down for Thursday, so that there should be more time to consider it after the meeting of Conservative Members, which, as I believe, is to be held to-morrow.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Then I proceed to the point of Order, which will doubtless be settled by a greater authority than myself; but, at the same time, I wish to point that, as I understand it, the Resolution of the noble Earl would not supersede any Resolution that has been arrived at, because it is hypothetical on the second reading of the Representation of the People Bill. Now, that Bill is still down for second reading, and there is nothing, as it appears to me, to prevent your Lordships proceeding to its consideration. But the noble Earl on the Cross Benches wishes

  875
  to know what the view of the Leaders of the two Parties would be with regard to the matter? What has fallen from the noble Marquess, I am afraid, leaves little doubt as to what his attitude will be; but I would like to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government are prepared to give their support to the Resolution of the noble Earl?
  EARL GRANVILLE: Like my noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery), I should not like to give a definite opinion without further consideration on the point of Order so suddenly stated by the noble Marquess; but, at the same time, I should have thought that, primâ facie, the Resolution of the noble Earl is perfectly in Order. I believe that all we resolved the other day was that the Bill should not be read a second time on that day, except on certain conditions. The Bill still remains on the Minutes of your Lordships' House for second reading; and that may be done at any time, if it is the pleasure of your Lordships that it should pass. With reference to the Question of the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) as to my view of the Resolution, of which Notice has been given, I agree with him in regretting that the noble Marquess has taken the earliest opportunity of putting his foot down against the proposition which has been started by an independent Peer with the object of removing a great difficulty, and enabling some adjustment to be arrived at between the two Houses of Parliament. Certainly, if that spirit is to obtain, the Government are prepared to support the proposal of the noble Earl, reserving, of course, the question of the exact date at which Parliament should meet. I may say that, in November, we should be prepared to undertake—
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Resolution says in the early autumn.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Yes; but I think November might be a more convenient time, and in the course of that month I should say we would be able to undertake the great task of redistribution—on the condition, of course, that the Bill do pass this Session.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that in 1859 the hon. Member for Berkshire had intended, as he said, to oppose Lord John Russell's Amendment, which occupied seven days in debate (and this House, he said, was lucky to escape with two); but he
  876
  was surprised that the noble and learned Lord should have proposed such an Amendment as he so severely blamed Lord John Russell for proposing it, that the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) had to defend the then Solicitor General from an attack upon him for having imputed interested motives to the Mover of the Amendment (Lord John Russell). It certainly was on the 31st of March, and this was so late as 7th of July; but it had not succeeded in advancing Reform as in the hands of a supposed ardent reformer, who caused the question to sleep for seven years.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES): I would be much obliged to the noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss), if he would answer the Question I am about to put to him—Does he believe that, until the matter of redistribution is settled, anyone can determine in what manner the extension of the franchise will affect the constitution of the House of Commons?
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I will answer the Question when I give my reasons for moving the Resolution on Thursday.
  THE EARL OF JERSEY: After the conciliatory speech of the noble Earl opposite the Leader of the House—which shows a silver lining to the cloud—I trust we shall not allow such a chance to be lost for arriving at a solution of this grave political difficulty through any informality in the Resolution presented to the notice of the House.

THE WESTERN PACIFIC — DEPORTATION OF FRENCH RECIDIVISTS.

  WITHDRAWAL OF NOTICE OF MOTION.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY, who had a Notice on the Paper, to call attention to the proposed deportation of Recidivists from France to the Western Pacific, and to move for Papers, said, it had been on the Paper for several weeks; but it had been postponed more than once. Their Lordships must have felt how important the subject was to the people of Australia; and one of the objects which he had had in view with regard to the Motion was to show the people of this country how very important also were the issues involved to influence the Government of this country to make such representations to the Go-

  877
  vernment of France as they might think proper, in order to secure the object in view—namely, to prevent the Bill then under consideration in the French Parliament from passing into law. That night he proposed to withdraw the Notice of Motion from the Paper; and, in doing so, he wished to give a short explanation of the reasons which had induced him to take that course. Several circumstances had occurred since be last had had the honour to allude to the subject, which had very materially modified both the attitude of the French Government, and also the position of the Recidivist Bill that was then before the French Senate. Since that time a gentleman, M. Courbet, who had been sent out by the French Government to New Caledonia to report as to what the practical effect of the Bill would be, had made his Report, and that Report was as unfavourable as it could be to the main objects of the Bill. That he (the Earl of Rosebery) regarded as a great point in the case. Since that Report the French Senate, who had charge of the Bill, had asked for further explanations as to the Bill from the French Government. The result of all this was that the Under Secretary for the Colonies in France had demanded increased powers, in order to deal with the matter. One of these powers was to keep those criminals under restraint when they arrived at New Caledonia, and that power, practically, was a direct reversal of the whole policy and spirit of the Bill. The next proposal was that the Recidivists should have guardians, in the proportion of not less that 4 per cent of the criminal population, to restrain those men in New Caledonia. There, again, was a deliberate reversal of the policy which previously prevailed. And, in the third place, they asked for power to make the convicts work. Taking these facts into consideration, he thought that if the French Government did really insist upon those demands before the French Senate, it would be far better to leave the matter to its natural solution before the French Senate, more especially as he was convinced Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Ministers at Paris were doing all they could to further the objects they had at heart with respect to the matter. Two other circumstances had arisen which, he thought, were worth their Lordships'
  878
  notice. It was said that the danger of the Bill was very much overrated; but, in April last, no less than nine persons, whose sentences had expired, landed in New South Wales from New Caledonia. These persons were not those who escaped in boats; but they arrived by the Messageries Steamship Company, that great ocean line of French steamers. That showed that the Australian Colonies had very good reason for their fear as to these people. But there was a still greater question raised than that; and it was that, at present, these men were being sent over to New Caledonia in daily increasing numbers. They numbered from 500 to 600 a-year. We had always flattered ourselves that the French Government could demand their extradition, and thought that it would be a wearisome and expensive process. Yet we could get rid of them. But that hope had been roughly destroyed. A very celebrated lawyer, a Professor of the University of Paris, had been writing letters to the French papers, in which he pointed out that the extradition of these criminals could not be demanded of the French Government by the Convention of 1876, the theory being that these people were not to be tried again for a crime, nor to be further punished. That would increase the difficulties to be dealt with by Her Majesty's Government. He thought that the French Government should take these circumstances into consideration not only as they regarded Australia, but also the other islands in the Pacific. He had no right to make any speech on this occasion, because he was withdrawing his Notice; but he had wished to lay before their Lordships the various circumstances which had arisen since he last addressed them on that subject, and which had materially altered the situation; and he believed that it was now the best course to leave the matter to diplomacy and the exertions of Her Majesty's Government, reserving to himself, however, he need hardly say, the right, should circumstances change, to bring it in again, and more at length, before their Lordships.
  After an interval,
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, this was a subject on which he should like to make a few remarks. He should have been glad if the statement of the

  879
  noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Rosebery) had been followed by a few words of explanation from the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Derby); but, as the latter had preserved silence, he wished himself to make a few remarks, not in any way to find fault with Her Majesty's Government, but to express his hope that they would not fail to make the French Government distinctly understand how seriously critical that particular question was. He had no doubt that the noble Earl opposite had done right in withdrawing his Motion. The facts he had stated probably rendered it expedient not to open the whole question, and to leave the matter in the hands of the Government. Under those circumstances, it was desirable the Government should speak out frankly to the Government of France, as a few timely warnings might prevent the two countries being engaged in unfriendly discussions with each other. At the same time, he trusted that the Government of France would rightly appreciate what the position of affairs really was, for he foresaw that if there should be any misunderstanding on the question, Her Majesty's Government might, before long, have to choose between giving support to the Australian Colonies and finding themselves engaged in some adverse action with the Government of France. They would have to require explanations of a definite character, and there would be some very plain speaking. He was afraid that, at present, the grievance of our Colonies in Australia was a very real one. There were now in New Caledonia about 6,000 of those criminals, who were not ordinary criminals, but relapsed and incorrigible desperadoes, who, according to the statements of French officials themselves, were steeped in vice, crime, and debauchery of every kind; and, indeed, at that moment, the French Government were subjected to strong protests on the part of their own Colonists in New Caledonia that the number of those criminals might not be increased. In deference to those protests, he believed the French Government had resolved not to increase the number; but still the presence in their neighbourhood of so many malefactors was a very great grievance to the Australian Colonies. The feelings of the Australian Colonists were still stronger, all classes
  880
  of the people, the whole Press, and the members of every trade there were unanimous in protesting against the influx of such criminals into the same communities with themselves. Victoria was, perhaps, less affected by that matter than the other Australian Colonies, yet she was making their case her own; and New Zealand was also prepared to take common action with them in regard to it. He might mention that some few years ago an Act was passed by the Colony of Victoria, called the Criminals Influx Prevention Act. That Act was intended to prevent any escaped criminals from our convict station in Western Australia finding their way into Victoria. It enacted that anyone coming into Victoria from a British Possession, whose sentence had not expired three years before, might be sent back in custody by two Justices, or be sentenced to three years' hard labour; but the next provision was more serious—namely, that any master of a ship who brought such a criminal would be liable to a fine of £100, or to undergo six months' imprisonment with hard labour. That Act applied solely to criminals escaping from British Possessions; but it only required the addition of the three words "or foreign countries," to at once place French Possessions in the same category as Western Australia in regard to those penalties. At the Intercolonial Conference, a Resolution was passed in favour of uniform legislation on that particular point; and if the Australian Colonies were to pass an Act similar to the Victoria Act, but with the addition of the words "or a foreign country," he put it to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, could he, or would he, advise the disallowance of such an Act? He (the Earl of Carnarvon) did not think he could. Again, he would ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville) how he was prepared to deal with such a grave international complication as would arise if the master of a French steamer were thrown into prison and sentenced to six months' hard labour in the Colony of Victoria, or fined £100, for taking one of those criminals there. He did not say that in order to embarrass Her Majesty's Government, but to open their eyes to the gravity of the situation, and to induce them to use every effort to make the French Government under-

  881
  stand how very critical and serious that matter was, so that they might not be led away as to the feeling of the Australian Colonists in regard to it. He hoped, therefore, the noble Earl would let them know that the Home Government had been ill-advised enough to twice attempt to make these Colonies the receptacles of our own criminal convicts, and had been twice forced to forego the attempt, having signally failed. Those were small cases as compared with this, and the power of the Colonies was then much less than it was now; and he was certain that if the French Government were, through any misapprehension, to commit themselves to any such difficulty as that, they would find that they had to count the cost of their undertaking. The French had a great trade growing up in those parts of the world, and they had granted a very large subsidy — 2,000,000 of francs yearly—to a line of steamers for the carrying on of that trade. He entreated them to consider whether it was worth while to sacrifice these great and growing interests, that they might push that proposal further. There were many international questions which were often all the better for delay, as it enabled passions to cool down; but this was just one of those questions from which he foresaw great danger and difficulty, if much more delay was allowed to intervene; and, for those reasons, he sincerely hoped that Her Majesty's Government, and the French Government in particular, would thoroughly understand how very serious that matter was.
  THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTHsaid, he would remind their Lordships that, as New Caledonia was within easy access of the shores of the Australian Colonies, it was not likely that the Australians would long tolerate the sending by France of criminals of the worst class into such close proximity to them. He had lately been in the company of many Australian Colonists; and he found that, if there was one feeling among them more unmistakable than another, next to the loyalty they expressed to Her Majesty the Queen, it was their repugnance at the prospect held out to them of Recidivists reaching them from a neighbouring French Colony. When it was asked, Is it likely that a great and independent group of Colonies, who refused, years ago, to accept convicts from the Mother Country, would permit convicts from a French settlement to be
  882
  landed in the vicinity of their shores, the question was responded to by cheers which left no doubt as to the spirit and determination of the audience. He would urge upon the Government the importance of remaining on the best terms with France, in order to bring about a satisfactory settlement of this matter in the interests of the Australian Colonies.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he so entirely approved of the spirit and also the reasons which his noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery) had given for withdrawing his Motion on that occasion, that he did not intend to prolong the discussion on a Motion which he understood was to be withdrawn; but the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon), following his noble Friend, had stated his views on the question. It was not the first time this Session the noble Earl had expressed a hope that Her Majesty's Government were aware of the importance of the question. Three times he had done so, and on each occasion he (Earl Granville) had stated that Her Majesty's Government were fully aware of the importance of the matter; and not only were they fully aware of its importance, but they had done their very best. In looking back, he could not see how they could have done anything more than they had done in making friendly, but urgent representations to the French Government as to the feeling and sense of the Colonists in the matter, and appealing to their sense of the comity which ought to exist between the two countries on a matter of so much importance. The noble Earl said that it was necessary to make a speech that night, in order that the French Government might know the real position of the matter. Up to that moment Lord Lyons had, quite as clearly as the noble Earl himself, presented to the Government the exact position of the question now in dispute.
  Notice of Motion (by leave of the House), withdrawn.

PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882 — THE COMPENSATION CLAUSE—THE BARBAVILLA MURDER CASE — WILLIAM BARLOW SMYTHE, ESQUIRE.

  PRESENTATION OF PETITION.
  THE EARL OF COURTOWN, in rising to present a Petition from William

  883
  Barlow Smythe, Esquire, of Barbavilla, Westmeath, said, that there could be no doubt that Mr. Smythe had a grievance to complain of. His case would seem to show that there was some defect in the administration of the law as it at present existed in Ireland, which required amendment. Mr. Smythe, it would be remembered by their Lordships, was returning from church one Sunday in his carriage, in which there were also two ladies. He had just got within his own gate when a shot was fired at the carriage, killing his sister-in-law. It was believed that the shot was meant for Mr. Smythe himself. The crime created a great sensation in the district at the time. In due course steps were taken under the Prevention of Crime Act to follow up the murderer; and, among other things, application was made for compensation for the murder. The charge provided for by the Act was levied on the district—the townland of Barbavilla—and as Mr. Smythe was owner of a good deal of property in the district, the townland in question being almost entirely his property, it appeared to him (the Earl of Courtown) that the Lord Lieutenant could scarcely, consistently with justice, expect that this charge of compensation should be continued to be paid by Mr. Smythe. It came to this—that Mr. Smythe had to share in paying this compensation for the murder of his sister-in-law, and was also asked to pay for his own attempted murder. Naturally he felt surprised at this, and he had applied to the Lord Lieutenant to exempt him from paying his share, under the belief that the Lord Lieutenant had the power to grant such exemption. This supposition turned out to be wrong, the exemption granted by the Lord Lieutenant being in the case of charges for extra constabulary. In these circumstances, Mr. Smythe presented his Petition, and he hoped Her Majesty's Government would be induced to give their serious consideration to the question. He (the Earl of Courtown) thought by an expression of opinion on the part of the Government the Lord Lieutenant might be induced to reconsider the mode of levying the tax, so as to relieve Mr. Smythe from bearing any share of the burden.
  Petition read, and presented.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORD, in supporting the prayer of the Petition, said,
  884
  that, as he was connected by residence with the district, he desired to say a few words on a matter which he thought was certainly worthy the attention of the Government, as to seeing whether or not something should be done to relieve Mr. Smythe from this burden, so painful in its circumstances. Besides this incidence of taxation referred to, he thought the Government could be little aware of the system of black mail which still prevailed in Ireland, and which had been supposed to be partially suppressed at least by the Prevention of Crime Act. Respectable farmers, shopkeepers, and others, who had no sympathy with agrarian offences, under threats that they would be ruined, had to subscribe to the fund for the defence of the miscreants who had committed this crime, and a very large sum had been collected in this and other districts from very unwilling contributors for similar purposes. He added his testimony regarding the merits of Mr. Smythe. He was a neighbour of his, and he knew what he had done in the way of philanthropic and other good works, and he also knew the reward he had received for so doing.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, this question arose out of that dreadful tragedy in which Mr. Smythe was the intended victim, but which resulted in the loss of the life of the lady who was seated beside him in his carriage. Mr. Smythe had presented a Petition, representing that he should not be called upon to contribute to the tax which had been imposed upon the district for compensation on account of this horrible crime. He (Lord Carlingford) was informed that under the Prevention of Crime Act, which exclusively regulated this matter, the Lord Lieutenant had no power to exempt any individual, as suggested. Beyond that, the noble Earl must remember that the district and area charged in these cases was not ascertained and fixed at the will and pleasure of the Lord Lieutenant, but after a careful and public inquiry, conducted by competent persons. It was upon the Report presented by the barrister who held this inquiry, after ascertaining all the circumstances of the case, that the area was fixed by the Lord Lieutenant. The Lord Lieutenant felt that it was very important, if possible, to act upon the result of such an inquiry, and the Report which he received from the gentleman who had conducted it.

  885
  It was, therefore, a very difficult matter for him to alter the area so recommended upon any private application. The Lord Lieutenant, therefore, in this case, as in all other cases, had accepted the area so recommended. As to whether that particular provision in the Prevention of Crime Act might not possibly be improved, when occasion offered, was another matter; but, while quite understanding the wish of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Courtown) that Mr. Smythe should not be called upon to contribute to the tax imposed upon the guilty neighbourhood, the reasons he had given made it quite impossible for the Lord Lieutenant to alter the decision arrived at.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he thought that, under present circumstances, the clause in the Prevention of Crime Act, which levied on a district the compensation to be paid to the relatives of a murdered person, lost its deterrent force. The tax fell so lightly upon the people guilty of crime and their accomplices that they did not mind it much, and they rather rejoiced at seeing their neighbours whom they disliked paying it.
  Petition ordered to lie on the Table.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
(NO. 152.) COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee read.
Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL CAIRNSsaid, he thought the clauses in the Bill restricting the right of appeal were somewhat novel, and seemingly of a dangerous character. The Bill would, for the first time, place restrictions on the right of appeal in cases heard before the Superior Courts, and would place those restrictions with reference to the amount of the subject-matter in dispute. There were a great many objections to such a limitation. In the first place, he did not see how a line could be drawn between the amount at stake, if the case was one of principle. How were they to draw a line of distinction, and say to one man, whose claim was in respect of property worth £250, that he could appeal, and to an-
886
other, whose claim was in respect of property worth only £200, that he could not? Everyone must know that some of the highest and most important questions, as to the construction of wills and documents, which had to be decided, arose on the trial of cases where the subject-matter of dispute was very small. But there was another observation to be made. They had just made arrangements for strengthening the Court of Appeal by providing that the Judges of the Court of Appeal should not be taken from their Appellate work to go Circuit. They had not yet had an opportunity of seeing how that would work; and it seemed to him to be a very unfortunate time to make this change, limiting the right of appeal to a Court that had just been strengthened. He should like to know whether the Judges of the Court of Appeal had made any representations to the effect that the right of appeal had been abused, and that frivolous and vexatious appeals were often brought, so as to render the proposed regulation necessary? As far as he knew, that was not the opinion of the learned Judges of the Court of Appeal. In cases where only small amounts were involved, the right of appeal was to be abolished, and appeals were only to be brought by leave of the Court that heard the case, or by leave of the Appeal Court. To give to the Court from which the appeal was sought to be brought the right of giving or refusing leave to appeal was, he thought, most unsatisfactory. There were many Judges who were so clear in making up their minds, and so confident of being correct, that they regarded the giving of a right to appeal as injurious to the suitor, and they refused it. On the other hand, there were Judges whose scruples as to the possibility of an error on their part not being corrected were so keen, that they leant immensely in favour of giving leave to appeal. As to the application to the Court of Appeal itself for such leave, the Bill provided that such application should be made ex parte, and they all knew how erroneous was the impression created by an ex parte application, however bonâ fide made. Instead of curtailing the stages of litigation, this Bill would really drop an additional one in, thereby causing increased delay and expense to the suitor. On these grounds, he must repeat that he had the gravest doubts as

887
to the wisdom of the proposal now made of placing restrictions on the right of appeal, which, so far as he knew, had not been abused, and especially at the present time, when the Court of Appeal was being strengthened. In conclusion, he would further say that he had great doubt as to whether the new arrangements for conducting the Assize business in Lancashire would prove satisfactory, which doubt had been much increased by a Petition he had presented from the Chamber of Commerce at Liverpool, complaining of the proposed changes.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, there had been some misunderstanding as to the intention and probable operation of the new orders as to the Lancashire Assizes. It was intended, first of all, that the sittings should be so arranged, in respect of their commencement, that they might be begun a considerable time before the usual time for the commencement of the ordinary Assizes elsewhere; and, secondly, that they should be continued in substance until the business was disposed of. The scheme, if in any respect it should not be found to work satisfactorily, would, of course, be open to further consideration. The object at which most reasonable persons would aim would be to provide for the real requirements of these important populations. This matter was to be ultimately determined by experience; he entirely agreed that such sittings as were necessary for getting through the local business in those great centres of population should be provided; but he doubted whether there was business enough at Manchester and Liverpool to justify sittings being held there at all such times as the Courts happened to be at work in London. This Bill contained 20 clauses, 16 of which were not, he thought, of a controversial character. As to the other four, he was perfectly aware that differences of opinion existed with respect to them, and that the Judges were not unanimous on the subject mentioned by the noble and learned Earl. A Committee was appointed some two or three years ago to consider and report upon this subject, consisting of the Lord Chief Justice, the late Lord Justice James, Sir James Hannen, Sir Charles Bowen, Lord Shand, Mr. Justice Mathew, and others; and that very strong Committee recommended those limitations of
888
the right of appeal which were embodied in the Bill, which were designed to limit expenses, and so to keep down the power of the purse. That Committee recommended that where the subject-matter of appeal was less than £200, there should be no appeal, without leave, from any final judgment. That seemed to him reasonable, when it was considered that £1,000 was the appealable value from India, and that £300 was the lowest appealable value from the Colonies. There were, he thought, few greater evils than the consumption in costs of the whole subject-matter of an action. Then, as to new trials, in accordance with the recommendation of that Committee, the 8th clause provided that there should be no appeal, without leave, from any decision of a Divisional Court, consisting of not less than three Judges ordering or refusing a new trial, except in case of difference of opinion among the Judges, or unless the value amounted to £500. A very large proportion of these questions as to new trials turned very much upon the weight of evidence; and, the application to the Divisional Court being really in the nature of an appeal, it certainly did seem undesirable that an unlimited power of multiplying costs in that way should be given. His noble and learned Friend had taken exception to the clauses providing for a relaxation of the proposed rules limiting the right of appeal; but when a Court might think that a principle was involved in a case, or an amount beyond the value of the immediate stake, or a question of character, it would be only right that an appeal should be permissible. The Bill, with the limitations which it contained, would result in the exclusion of costly, unnecessary, and improper appeals. Such appeals, however, as were desirable would still be allowed.
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he entirely concurred as to the necessity of additional sittings being held in Lancashire, and even considered that there was enough work for a Judge sitting permanently there, for the purpose of hearing all matters that were dealt with by a single Judge in London. He considered it all-important that appeals should be limited; and he, therefore, disagreed with the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns) in his observation as to the limitation which the Bill proposed to place on the

889
power of appeal. Many appeals, especially from the Queen's Bench Division, were most frivolous and vexatious.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, that, though agreeing with much that had fallen from the noble and learned Earl upon the Woolsack, he thought the limit fixed (£200) an arbitrary one. In actions of trespass the amount of damage was often far less, while the importance of the right claimed was of the greatest consequence. He feared that much opposition was to be anticipated in the Lower House.
LORD DENMANsaid, that he could not refrain from calling to mind the state of the Court of King's Bench, when first Sir Thomas Denman was made Lord Chief Justice. There were 700 causes at Guildhall and 500 at Westminster Hall, and the time for a first trial was after a delay of two years, and after a new trial—two years more of delay—but great labour reduced the arrear so that at last it was quite a pleasure to put the date of the writ—the beginning of an action—at the head of the abstract of the record. It was to the great joy of his father that such men as Sir Nicholas Tindal and Lord Lyndhurst were each at the head of two efficient Courts, and that two Chiefs could travel together on the same Circuit; whilst in London and Middlesex each Court had its list, beginning with No. 1, and going down to its end; but now, from the want of a Lord Chief Justice and a Lord Chief Baron—who were recognized by an Act for Ireland passed only last Session—all the Common Law Courts were blocking the Queen's Bench Division, and causes were taken from the middle and nearly the end of the list, without due notice or preparation, and at great expense. His duty was to appoint causes, and he was blamed if he put down too few for each day. Though neither Marshal nor Chief Clerk, he would do all in his power to improve the administration of justice in the Common Law Courts.
Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
Amendments made.
An Amendment moved, and negatived.
Amendments made.
The Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 191.)

BISHOPRIC OF BRISTOL BILL.—(No. 181.)
(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
BISHOPRIC OF BRISTOL BILL.—(No. 181.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was not to provide for the creation of a new Bishopric, but for the restoration of an old one, by disconnecting the Sees of Gloucester and Bristol, which were joined together as late as the year 1836. From the Reformation until just half-a-century ago, Bristol was a Bishopric in itself; but at that period the See was united to that of Gloucester, though, in order to satisfy the objections of the people of Bristol, it was arranged that the Bishop should reside in that city alternately with Gloucester. This condition had, owing to circumstances, been unfulfilled. There had been plenty of evidence of the desirability of restoring the two Sees to their ancient integrity. There would be something like 400,000 persons included in the Bishopric of Bristol, a larger population than that of some other dioceses, and so thoroughly in earnest was Bristol in its desire for its object that £50,000 had been expended in the rebuilding of the nave of the Cathedral. Within a period of three weeks 10 sums of £1,000 each were subscribed to the endowment of the See, and a total sum of £20,000 had been raised for the same object. Application having been made to the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol to take steps to sanction £500 a-year being deducted from the income of his Bishopric in the future, his reply was that as soon as the money was raised for the endowment of the Bishopric of Bristol, which that £500 a-year would supplement, he would desire to pay that sum over in his lifetime. Bristol was willing to contribute the whole sum necessary (£80,000) for that purpose, and not a penny would come from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Beyond that, it already had, in addition to its own Cathedral, preserved all the organization and jurisdiction requisite for the establishment of a Bishopric. It came then to

  891
  this—that Bristol asked, at its own expense, to have its ancient Bishopric restored on the lines of Sir R. Assheton Cross's Cathedrals Act of 1877, which had been found so useful and so practical.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLsaid, he heartily approved of the Bill. After the lucid statement of his most rev. Friend (the Archbishop of Canterbury) it would not be necessary for him to detain their Lordships at length. He, therefore, deemed it only necessary to add that it was not an exact restoration of the old See of Bristol, but was an annexation of a portion of Wiltshire to Bristol and its neighbourhood, which now, from the circumstances of railway and other communication, was especially desirable. Dorsetshire was formerly connected with Bristol. Now it was proposed to form a diocese for Bristol by annexing to the old Deanery of Bristol a portion of Wiltshire, in which was the populous and rapidly increasing town of Swindon. This portion of his present diocese was not readily approached from Gloucester, but was in very easy communication with Bristol. He entirely concurred in the principle of the Bill for two broad reasons which had weighed considerably with him. First, that a wrong done to the ancient City of Bristol, 50 years ago, would now be removed; and, secondly, that two men could always do in the same area more than one. For these reasons he wished to give the Bill his heartiest support.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he thought that some of the patronage of the Crown might be given to some of the new Sees, as the Church had already, in the most generous manner, provided for the endowment of a number of new Sees. He asked whether the endowment fund for the See of Bristol had already been provided as there were seven new Bishoprics already to which the patronage of the Crown ought to go?
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, in reply, said, that £20,000 had been collected out of the total of £80,000 required; and they wished the Bill to pass, in order that they might go on with the matter.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.