said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the following passage in a charge to the Grand Jury at Liverpool in March last by Mr. Justice Mellor:—

"In conclusion the learned judge referred to frauds recently practised upon burial societies, and said that, in many cases he feared that the registration of death was a mere farce. In one of these cases, he said, the doctor had given a certificate of death without being aware that the person was dead; and if such was the usual practice, and he was told it was, the sooner it was changed the better."

Whether he has not observed similar complaints—namely, of certificates of death being given without any inquiry or knowledge, to have been made by the Coroners for London and, Manchester; and if he will state what steps have been taken to remedy so dangerous a practice?

Sir, my attention had not been called to the passage in Mr. Justice Mellor's charge until the hon. Member put his Notice upon the Paper. I have made inquiry, and I understand the Judge's reference to the subject arose from two certificates having been given of the deaths of persons who were not actually dead. Men affected to have been present at the houses or at the deathbeds of those represented to have been dead, and they brought with them certificates from medical practitioners stating the cause of death in each case. They had gone to the medical practitioners, stating that the persons were dead, and the medical men, remembering that they had attended them for certain complaints, without further inquiry gave certificates stating that the deaths had resulted from those complaints, while in fact neither person was dead. Under the Registration Act the Registrar is to receive, either from a person pie-sent at the deathbed, or some one in the house, a statement of the death and of the cause of it, and the usual practice is to obtain from a medical man, if one has been in attendance, the statement of the cause of death. The Registrar is not bound to go and see that the person is dead, but under the statute he is to receive the statement from those who were present or who are cognizant of the facts; and if these persons make a misrepresentation, under a recent statute they are liable to penal servitude. With respect to the second part of the Question, I have had no complaint from the Coroner of London; indeed, he has written to me since the Notice was given to say that he has no complaint to make. There were some complaints from Manchester, and there has been some correspondence between the Coroner of Manchester and the Home Office, and, in consequence, be- tween the Home Office and the Registrar General; and the Registrar General stated in effect that the Registrar on the spot was acting in conformity with the statute in receiving the statement and the medical certificate; and that he had no option but to enter in his book that which was stated to him by persons who appeared to have authority for making the statement. We have not contemplated any alteration of the Act of Parliament, for it would be impossible that the Registrar should inquire into every case; and as every person who makes a misrepresentation renders himself liable to a severe punishment, I think with due vigilance that this dangerous practice may be put a stop to.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What truth there is in the statement in the China Newspapers that our Ambassador in Japan, on a first visit of ceremony to the Mikado, or Emperor of Japan at Kioto, accompanied by a European escort, was attacked by Japanese and twelve of the escort wounded; and whether twelve of the crew of a boat belonging to the French ship of war Dupleix were assassinated on landing on the estate of Prince Losa, near Osaka, and what effect have these outrages had on the relations between the British and French Governments with that of the Emperor of Japan; and, whether the Mikado, or real Emperor of Japan, has ratified the Treaty we made with the Tycoon, or supposed Emperor?

It is true that Sir Harry Parkes, on his way to pay a visit of ceremony to the Mikado, accompanied by a mounted escort, was attacked by a party of Japanese fanatics, supposed to be only three or four in number. They took the escort by surprise, and wounded eight or nine persons, but it is hoped none of them mortally. I am bound to say that the Japanese authorities did everything that could possibly be expected of them, both in the way of exerting themselves to detect the offenders and making the apology due to our Ambassador; and they have gone so far as to promise compensation to the men injured in the event of any of them becoming permanently disabled. Therefore, however unfortunate the accident may have been, I think there is nothing in it which will in the slightest degree affect our present good relations with the Japanese Government. I understand also that the difference between them and the French Government, arising out of the murder of a boat's crew, has been amicably arranged. Within a few days of the time when the last despatches were sent off, Sir Harry Parkes received an envoy from the Mikado, who was authorized to express the Mikado's desire to cultivate friendly relations with Foreign Powers, and to take upon himself all the obligations of the Treaty we had made with the Tycoon.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, If any Contract has been effected with the Union Steam Shipping Company for the conveyance of an intermediate Monthly Mail between England and the Cape of Good Hope; if he will have any objection to lay all Correspondence and Contracts with the said Company upon the Table of the House; and if, previously to concluding any such Contract or Contracts, tenders were invited from, or offers made by, any-other Company for the performance of this Mail Service, or any part thereof?

, in reply, said, a contract had been made with the Union Steam Shipping Company, for the conveyance of an intermediate Monthly Mail between England and the Cape of Good Hope. The proposals for it were made so long ago as the early part of last year; they were accepted by the Treasury in June of last year; but circumstances had occurred which had delayed the execution of the contract until the present time. He believed, however, it would be laid on the Table in the course of a few days. He should have no objection also to lay on the table, if the hon. Member desired it, the Correspondence between the Treasury and the Post Office, having reference to this extension of contract, which would show all the particulars and the reasons which had led to its acceptance. Previously to the conclusion of this contract no offer was made by, nor were tenders asked for, from any other company for the performance of this particular Mail Service, but subsequently to the acceptance of the offer by the Treasury, a tender was made by another company to carry the Mails upon terms which were less advantageous than those which had been virtually accepted. It was a voluntary proposal on the part of the Union Steam Shipping Company, to double the amount of their Service for a lower amount of subsidy than they were authorized to receive under their existing contract.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any Correspondence has taken place between the Foreign Office and Her Majesty's Consul General in Egypt relative to the claims on the Viceroy of the shareholders of the Société Agricole et Industrielle d'Egypte; and, if so, whether he would have any objection to present the Correspondence?

replied, that a Correspondence had taken place on the subject referred to in his hon. Friend's Question. It had not yet been concluded, and though, as far as the Foreign Office was concerned, there was no objection to its production, he did not think it would be in the interest of the parties concerned to publish it in its present state.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Despatches from the Governor of Victoria brought by the last Mail?

said, in reply, that the Despatches which had been received would be presented to the House in the course of a week.

said, he wished to correct a misapprehension arising out of what he was supposed to have said last evening. He did not say, referring to a friend of his, a late Member of this House, Sir John Tyrrell, that a Romish Priest attempted "to convert a female member of his family by placing in her hands a book referred to in the work known as The Confessional Unmasked." What he had said was that the book was based upon the authorities whose doctrines the work called The Confessional Unmasked was intended to expose.

said, he rose to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, all sums required to defray the expenses of the Diplomatic Service ought to be annually voted by Parliament, and that Estimates of all such sums ought to be submitted in a form that will admit of their effectual supervision and control by this House."

This Resolution was precisely similar in its terms to one which had been proposed in 1853 by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Dodson), who then went to a division, but failed to obtain a majority in favour of his Resolution. As he understood that the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary intended to oppose the present Resolution, he should briefly reply to the reasons which he presumed would be advanced against it. The late Lord Palmerston seemed to have been under the impression that the less the House of Commons had to do with foreign affairs the better—particularly in regard to all matters of detail. It was said that the statement of the sums spent in the Diplomatic Service was, to a certain extent, brought before the House in the financial accounts. The object he had in view was to bring all the expenses of the Department before the House in the Estimates, to enable any hon. Member to ask for explanations. There appeared to him to be no reason why hon. Gentlemen should not be afforded the same facilities with respect to the Foreign Office which they enjoyed with respect to the other Departments. An objection urged to the Motion by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) was, that if it were carried it would produce a greater expenditure than now existed; but it was a strange doctrine that the control exercised by this House would produce an increased expenditure. If the hon. Member was right, then they ought to introduce a system of contracts, and say to the head of each Department that they would give him so much for the payment of salaries. The sum allowed was £180,000; and, if the Foreign Secretary contracted to pay all the diplomatic expenses with that sum, it might produce economy; but there was no such contract, for when any further sum was wanted the Foreign Secretary asked for and obtained it. The right hon. Member for South Lancashire said in 1853 "that all his prejudices and prepossessions were in favour of such a Motion;" but he did not vote for it, because he considered that the salaries of these gentlemen should, like those of the Judges, be placed beyond all uncertainty. Now, he contended that the present system produced the greatest uncertainty, and therefore he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would support his Resolution. The salaries of the Judges were charged on the Consolidated Fund; but there the analogy ceased, because the Home Secretary was not given a sum of money and told to pay such and such a Judge as he liked; but the Foreign Secretary was given a sum en bloc, and told to spend it on the Ministers abroad. So far from the salaries being certain, the noble Lord would bear him out when he said that applications were being constantly made to the Foreign Office for an increase. The Foreign Minister was entirely dependent upon an irresponsible body at the Foreign Office, and surely that House was a more independent and responsible body than the permanent officials at the Foreign Office, who practically settled the whole matter. Another objection urged by Lord Palmerston was, that that House might be actuated by some sudden impulse, and might withdraw a mission from a Foreign Court. But any Government which might be in power had, as a rule, a majority upon the Estimates, and the case must be a very strong one indeed when a private Member was enabled to defeat them upon such a question. He believed that, if the Motion were carried, it would promote a greater economy. He had taken extracts from a list of Ministers who received pension, which had been published by the Foreign Office, and he found in many instances they were not old men, but gentlemen who had not the slightest objection to being employed. The Foreign Office, however, had got into the way of putting Ministers upon the retired list when they wished to put some one else forward or entertained any personal dislike. There were, for example, Sir James Hudson, with £1,300 a year; Sir Henry Bulwer, with £1,700; Mr. Christie, with £900, and several others in the position of retired Ministers who were very anxious to be employed. Out of the £180,000 taken out of the Consolidated Fund, £40,000 was charged to pensions. There were a great many Legations which, with great advantage, might be suppressed—for instance, that of Wiirtemberg, which had cost the country for several years £3,050; the Netherlands, which cost £4,700; and Switzerland, £3,800. He had been at n great many of those Missions; he knew what was done in them; and he could assure the House that it was absolutely nothing. It was supposed that a Minister did a great deal of good by asking important personages to dinner; but at those wretched German Courts where we kept Missions it was not important personages, but some chamberlains, that were asked to dinner. Let the noble Lord only look into the archives of the Foreign Office and say when he had received an important despatch from Wiirtemberg. He had asked a friend of his who was Minister at one of those Legations, one time, what he was doing? And the reply was, "Doing? what do you think is to be done in such a place as this?" Another reason why the present system should be done away with was because, as some portions of the expense were charged in the Estimates, and some taken out of the £180,000 granted to the Foreign Secretary, the House was never able to know what was really spent upon any particular Mission, and, not having the facts before them, no proposals for reduction could be effectually made. Among the items of expenditure last year were, for Embassy houses, £64,920 in China and Japan, £8,000 in Teheran, and £2,135 in Paris. Then there was an item of £26,500 for messengers and couriers, which might be very much reduced. Half of the foreign messengers were sent abroad simply because they had been sent in past years. There was another item of £6,000 for Telegrams, and an item of £56,000 for Extraordinary Expenses, and £15,000 for Special Missions, which might be put a stop to. Now, when it was thought well to give a foreign Sovereign the Gaiter he did not see why some nobleman politically unknown, but socially very important, should be sent out at considerable expense when the thing might be done as well by our Minister on the spot. He had made inquiries, and found that when the Toison d' Or or other foreign order was conferred it was not usual to send Special Missions for that purpose. There had recently been some newspaper attacks upon the Foreign Office, which were rather unfair and greatly exaggerated. That Office was well conducted in the main, and it contained honourable, hard-working, painstaking men. The noble Lord at the head of the Department should answer such attacks by giving the greatest publicity to everything done in the Office, because at present there was an impression that the Foreign Office was not subjected to the same control as the other Offices. One cause of those attacks was the abominable system of agencies. The gentlemen employed in the Diplomatic Service were paid by the head clerk of the Foreign Office, and all of them were virtually obliged to appoint a clerk in that office as their agent, and to give him a percentage of 1 or 2 per cent. Some of the clerks received as much as £2,000 a year from this source. He did not accuse those gentlemen—who were wise to profit by the system; but a certain number of permanent officials who were allowed to levy this species of blackmail ought not to be permitted to pot up a claim to control the Estimates—and the mode in which the money was spent and the salaries received by our Ministers abroad. The head clerk had to decide whether any extra expenses were legitimate or not, yet he was allowed to receive a percentage in order to urge the claims of any gentleman against the Office. He could see no reason why the Foreign Office should be exempted from the control exercised over other Departments; and he hoped the noble Lord (Lord Stanley), who had done his best to keep down the expenses, would exercise his own judgment in this matter, and would not be influenced by the permanent officials. He hoped also that his Resolution would be supported by the Secretary to the Treasury, who, on a previous occasion, spoke in favour of the proposal. The House, as the guardian of the public purse, ought to have the control of this expenditure, and ought not to hand it over to gentlemen who, though highly honourable, were prejudiced in favour of every sort of abuse, and being a kind of administrative Brahmins believed that everything which existed was right.

seconded the Resolution.

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesex (Mr. Labouchere) had rather exaggerated the abuses of the Diplomatic Service. Having been long connected with the Foreign Office himself, he might state his conviction that no Department was better or more efficiently administered. The evidence given in 1861, before the Diplomatic Committee, by Mr. Cunningham, the then chief clerk, and Mr. Hammond, permanent Under Secretary, showed that this sum of £180,000, fixed in 1832, was admirably administered, there having frequently been a surplus, while the amount had never been exceeded. Were the control transferred to the House, he believed the expenditure would be considerably greater, for the House was excessively amiable in money matters. Would any gentleman's private garden of the same extent cost £7,138, as was the case with the garden at Hampton Court? If the Foreign Office had any fault it was in being too stingy. Ministers, for instance, were sometimes removed to a different post after two years, and were thereby put to great expense, in some cases losing a great deal of money which they had expended on their houses, in the expectation that they would be permanently located there. Their successors felt themselves under no obligation to compensate them, and if they applied to the Foreign Office, the noble Lord and the Under Secretary not having time to attend to such details, the matter was probably decided by some crusty, gouty gentlemen, who objected to paying anything which they could avoid. It was true Ambassadors had an allowance for outfit; but this did not meet the expenses of removal, since they could not travel about with a carpet-bag or portmanteau. He thought the longer a system which worked so economically was continued the better.

said, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) in his by no means unfair, but somewhat desultory observations, had travelled over a wide range of subjects, fully to discuss which would require considerable time. The first point he had touched upon was the subject of Diplomatic pensions; and he had said that those pensions amounted to £40,000. If the hon. Member would look at the list, however, he would find that instead of £40,000 they were only a little over £24,000.

explained that what he meant to say was, not that £40,000 was paid for pensions, but that that sum was set apart for the purpose, and it encouraged the giving of such pensions. Even £24,000 was too much to give to gentlemen who were capable of active service.

said, a large number of those upon the retired list were of a very advanced age. One of them was Lord Stratford de Redcliffe—another, a gentleman who retired thirty years ago. Similar allowances were given under various names in all branches of the public service; and he did not think the rate exorbitant. Only the last three names upon the pension list, however, had been placed there by him; and those, supersessions rendered necessary by the recent alterations and amalgamations in foreign countries. With regard to the question of agencies, that was a large and important subject; and he had not concealed his opinion that the system was not, in principle, a satisfactory one, nor one which ought to be continued in any public Department, though he did not believe it had led to much abuse. It was, however, not correct that any gentleman could make £2,000 a year by the percentages he received. The gentlemen concerned had accepted the agencies which they held with the full sanction and knowledge of their superiors in office, and in his opinion it would not be fair to take those fees away without granting compensation. Referring to another subject, the House would recollect that nearly all the German Missions—about which so much was said a few years ago—had been abolished, and that we had at present only the Embassy at Vienna, that at Berlin, and minor Missions at two other South German Courts. Those Courts were now in a state of transition, and the present would not be a favourable moment for withdrawing the Missions. There might be cases where Missions became vacant, in which they might be reduced in rank or in pay, or possibly in which they might be suppressed altogether; but the time, he thought, for considering cases of that kind was when vacancies actually occurred. Nor did he believe that any considerable saving could be effected by those means. He was much struck by the fact that every one of those points in which the hon. Member complained of the expenditure of the Foreign Office came under the direct control of that House; while it was precisely in that portion of the Foreign Office expenditure which did not come under the direct and minute supervision of that House that the greatest degree of economy had been practised. He hoped, however, no one supposed that question ought to be regarded as a matter of controversy between the House on the one side and the Foreign Office on the other—the one desiring to obtain greater control over the expenditure, and the other desiring to evade it. That was not, in the slightest degree, the state of the case. He admitted—and he believed that every one who held his Office would be prepared to admit—the full and indisputable right of the House to cheek, control, and supervise the expenditure of the Foreign Office. There was no doubt upon that point. The House found the money, and the House had a right to know what was done with it. It was only a question of means; and it was for the House to decide, for its own convenience, in what form and to what extent that supervision should be exercised. There was no need to go back to the origin of the present system. The House was aware that the Diplomatic expenditure was formerly defrayed out of the Civil List; and it was in the year 1831 the present arrangement first came into operation. That arrangement was not made on the sole responsibility of the Government; it was made on the recommendation of a Committee of the House of Commons sitting at a time when zeal for economy and reform was stronger, perhaps, than at any subsequent period. That Committee recommended—he presumed upon grounds of economy—that there should be a lump sum of £180,000 provided for the Diplomatic Service, rather than a number of separate items placed in the Votes. That question had been again and again discussed in subsequent years, and the arrangement had invariably been supported by the highest authorities among the Liberal as well as the Conservative party; and he was not aware that an unfavourable opinion had ever been expressed upon it by any considerable petition of the House. They all knew that the cost of the various branches of the public Administration had greatly increased within the last thirty or forty years. That increase was owing partly to an augmentation of business, and partly to the fact that the value of money had diminished during that period. The pound sterling did not go us far, in the way of purchasing power, as formerly; and he believed they would not find a single branch of the public service, except the Diplomatic Service, in which the expenditure had not of late years increased. He had gone over the items of that expenditure more than once, and he would venture to say that they would not find it easy, as a matter of general policy, to effect in it any reduction. He sometimes heard it said—although the hon. Member had the candour not to avail himself of such an argument—that under the arrangement of the year 1831, the mode of disposing of that money was wholly removed beyond the knowledge or control of that House. That was, he believed, a common impression out of doors; but it was one which was wholly unfounded. Any one who referred to the financial accounts which were published yearly, might see in the minuted detail how that money was expended; and it was competent for any hon. Member, who thought that the Diplomatic expenditure was too great, to point out the particular items to which he objected. The hon. Gentleman had drawn a distinction between that Diplomatic expenditure and that precisely parallel case of the expenditure on account of judicial functions. He (Lord Stanley) was bound to say that he did not think the distinction drawn by the hon. Member, however ingenious it might be, could be practically sustained. The basis on which the hon. Gentleman rested his argument was that all public expenditure should come into the Estimates, so that it might be criticized item by item in that House. But if they laid down that principle, he did not see upon what possible ground they could refuse a similar investigation into judicial salaries. He did not attempt to decide whether such an arrangement would be right or wrong. He had not himself that horror of investigation which seemed to exist in some minds. He did not believe that it would be attended in that case with the advantage which some persons anticipated from it; but, at all events, he saw no reason why a distinction should be drawn in reference to that subject between the salaries of Judges and the salaries of members of the Diplomatic Service. It was not true, as some persons appeared to suppose, that the salaries of individual diplomatists were, or according to usage could be, arbitrarily cut down by the Secretary of State. There was no such thing in the service as cutting down salaries without notice, and without assigning a reason. He was not aware of any such case. There was, undoubtedly, no legal security for the permanence of Diplomatic salaries any more than of the salaries of officers of the Civil Service; but who ever expressed fear lest these latter should be arbitrarily reduced? They were regarded and treated as permanent, though not made so by law. He objected to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, because he did not believe that if it were adopted it would lead to greater economy. Every one knew that there was nothing more popular in that House than advocating economy in general term, while there was nothing more unpopular than carrying out the principle of economy in detail. He did not remember an instance in which any material reduction had been effected in the Estimates by discussions upon the separate items; and he believed that these discussions had often rather contributed to an increase of expenditure. He believed it was becoming pretty well known, as a matter of Parliamentary experience, that if any one thought the expenditure in a particular branch of Administration was too high, the only chance of getting it diminished was by insisting on some general reduction, and then leaving it to the Minister of the Department to decide in what manner that object was to be attained. He had stated briefly his reasons for opposing the Motion; but he did not pretend to speak of it as one in which the interests of the Foreign Office were deeply interested. He believed that the House of Commons, if called upon, would be ready to vote the money that might be wanted. The question was really one for the House itself to settle with a view to its own convenience. During the last forty years they had supported the present system under which a lump sum was placed in the hands of the Foreign Minister, and he was told that he must do the best he could with it, but that he must not exceed it. The practical working of the system, in his opinion, had been to keep down the expenditure. The House, in taking that course, had imposed upon the head of the Foreign Office a certain responsibility of which he had no right to divest himself, except upon a deliberate intimation of the judgment of Parliament. He should have no great fear of the result if that Motion were carried; but he saw nothing to induce him to believe that the House was dissatisfied with the present arrangement; and it was therefore his duty to support it. Before he sat down he would once more remind the House that nearly every one of those items of expenditure to which the hon. Gentleman had referred as subjects of criticism were items not included in the £180,000 a year which, were placed at the disposal of the Foreign Office, but were items which passed the scrutiny of the House, and with respect to which, therefore, if any extravagance had been committed, the House must be considered not to have exercised the power placed in its hands.

said, he was rather disappointed at finding that the noble Lord did not feel himself in a position to accede to the Motion, and the more so as he had understood from the statement of the noble Lord last year that he was in favour of that change. The Foreign Office expended annually about £640,000, and out of that amount £180,000 was the sum for Diplomatic salaries and pensions, which formed the subject of his hon. Friend's Motion. What he wished the House to consider, and what the noble Lord had not justified, was this—why that £180,000 should be handed over as a lump to the Foreign Minister to be used in that particular way, whereas all the rest of the £640,000 was included in the regular Estimates laid every year on the table of the House. If the whole of the Foreign Office expenditure were placed in the hands of the Minister, and he were tied down as to its amount, there might be some sense in laying that charge on the Consolidated Fund. But that was not what happened. What practically occurred was this, that a certain part of the Foreign Office expenditure was taken out of the usual review of Parliament; whereas if the expenses connected with foreign affairs fluctuated up and down that fluctuation appeared in the Estimates. The services for China and Japan appeared on the Estimates; but our Ministers for those countries were in much the same position as our Ministers elsewhere; and he could not see why the salaries of our Ministers for China and Japan should be put on the Votes of that House, while those of our Ministers in South America were not. So with regard to many of the appointments which were half Diplomatic, half Consular. It had always been matter of controversy whether a particular class of public servants abroad were to be called Diplomatic agents performing Consular functions, or Consular agents performing Diplomatic functions; the salaries of those that belonged to the one class coming upon the Votes of the House, and the salaries of the other class being charged upon the Diplomatic fund and not coming upon the Votes. Then there was the special case of the third Secretary, whose case nobody would contend was on a different footing from that of any other of the attachés. There was not a sufficient balance to charge the salary of the third Secretary on the Diplomatic fund, and therefore a Vote for it was annually taken in the House. Again, while a Minister's salary was charged on the Diplomatic fund, the expenses of his outfit and his establishment were placed upon the annual Votes. The truth was that £180,000 was put at the disposal of the Foreign Office within certain limits to use as they liked; if they wanted more they came down to the House for it; if they saved anything, which they rarely did, the House did not hear much of it. Therefore, the noble Lord's argument broke down. Then the noble Lord had said that the Judges were in one respect placed in a parallel position to that of our Diplomatists; but he (Mr. Childers) did not think there were any grounds for that statement.

said, that what he had stated was not that the individual Judges were in a parallel position, but that the sum appropriated to the payment of the Judges was in a parallel position.

said, he did not think that the cases were at all parallel. The Judges of the Superior Courts held their offices during good behaviour, and it was perfectly right that their salaries should not be cut down by the vote of the House, but should stand in the same position as persons whose salaries were charged on the Civil List. But Her Majesty's Ministers abroad did not hold their offices during good behaviour, and there was no reason why they should not be dealt with in the same manner as the Secretary of State or a permanent Under Secretary in the Foreign Office. It was very unfortunate that when they were year by year getting rid of the idea that any of our public servants required to have their salaries kept out of the view of the House, the Government were not in a condition to accede to the adoption of the same rule as regarded the Diplomatic Service. Precisely the same objections as those urged by the noble Lord had been urged for many years past against every successive step that had been taken for transferring from the permanent fund to the Votes of the House the salaries of public officers. The expenses connected with the Courts of Justice, excepting the Judges' salaries, were now charged on the annual Estimates, and the other evening a question arose as to a particular appointment. A Vote was brought before the House, and after an explanation from the Attorney General as to that appointment, the House naturally criticized the rate of the salaries of that particular class of officers. But they could not have done that a few years ago, because those salaries did not appear in the Estimates. He entirely dissented from the opinion that no good was done by discussing the Estimates. Every discussion in Supply on a particular item of expenditure, though it might have no immediate effect, afterwards stirred up the Department that was concerned, and also the Treasury; and in the following year the result of the Motion made the year before was seen. On these grounds, he did not think sufficient reasons had been given for refusing that Motion; and he hoped that next year the whole of the Diplomatic expenditure would be borne on the Estimates, and not a part of it merely.

said, he was glad to hear the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) express himself in terms which did not imply an intention of offering any serious resistance to the views of the House on this subject. The existing system was a direct infringement of the constitutional maxim that the public purse was in the hands of the House of Commons. The noble Lord, he might; remark, was not responsible for the system, which on former occasions had been most strenuously supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, and also by the late Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, with his usual warmth of temperament. Under the circumstances, he trusted the noble Lord would agree to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.

said, he could bear witness to the great care with which the noble Lord watched over the expenditure connected with his Department. A great principle was involved in this question, and nothing whatever had been said to prove that this particular item ought to be withdrawn from the immediate control of Parliament. He believed that the noble Lord had defended the system in such a manner as he would have done if he had entertained very strong convictions on the subject; and he hoped, therefore, he would accede to the Motion before the House.

said, that as the salaries of Ministers of the Crown came before the House in the Estimates, he did not see why those of the Diplomatic Service should not also be stated clearly in the Estimates.

, in reply, observed that both the present and former Secretary to the Treasury—who might be supposed to know what was the best for economy in conducting the finances—were in favour of his proposition. He hoped the noble Lord would not put the House to the trouble of a division.

, in rising to move "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into Colliery Accidents," said, he might be asked why he, who had no connection with mines, should bring such a subject before the House. His answer was, that he, in common with others, deeply felt the calamity of accidents in coal mines, and considered it a subject well worthy of the Legislature. Even should the debate be unproductive of any practical good, the country would at least feel that Parliament was not neglectful of the lives of the people. He considered that the very fact of 2,468 lives having been destroyed during the year 1865–6 was a sufficient reason for endeavouring to arouse public attention upon the subject. He had carefully read the Report upon Accidents in Coal Mines, and had come to the conclusion that, although the Committee had paid the most careful attention to what they had investigated, there still remained a great deal to be done, and the progressive discoveries of science must always be suggesting improvements in the management of coal mines. He need not draw a harrowing picture of what occurred when 200 or 300 lives were lost in a colliery; but the man must be lacking in Christian feeling who could look into a blazing fire, remember that so many tons of coal cost a life, and refuse to do anything in his power to prevent accidents in future During a long connection with working men he had experienced many accidents, but he never had a second accident from the same cause, and similar vigilance would prevent many colliery accidents. There were colliery inspectors appointed by the Government, but they went to collieries after accidents, when all was made ready for inspection, and it was therefore difficult for them to ascertain what might have been the particular causes of them. In the Report of the Committee there was a petition of miners, which set forth that the fearful sacrifice of life in mines abundantly proved that the legislative measures hitherto taken were totally inadequate to secure the personal safety of miners; that the Staffordshire practice of working thick coal in more than one place was highly dangerous; and that the loss of life in ironstone and coal mines proved the necessity for more extended legislative supervision. It had been said that if sub-inspectors were appointed the owners of pits would be too much relieved of responsibility. Legislative interference, however, was no new matter. In his opinion sub-inspectors ought to be appointed, and he was told that their appointment would be acceptable to the owners of collieries if it were made by the inspectors, under whom the sub-inspectors should act, and to whom they should report. It was said that men were fatalists; but why should they be exposed to such risks that at last they became hardened and were careless whether they lived or died? There were pitmen who had left mines which they believed had become dangerous, and he desired so to improve the working of coal mines that the men generally should cease to be fatalists. In the petition of the colliery workers the appointment of sub-inspectors was asked for; and on this point he was at issue with the Committee, who said that they did not think it right to recommend such appointments. What he complained of with regard to the Report of the Committee was that nothing practical had come of it. With regard to the proposed examination of overlookers, the Committee suggested that no examination would afford so good a test as the personal knowledge of their qualifications which the owner of a mine might be expected to have; but he believed that the Chairman of the Committee thought the overlookers should pass a proper examination for the office. Then the Committee said that it would not be well to diminish the responsibility of owners and managers of mines by any action on the part of inspectors; but it could not be said that this result would follow if the visits of the inspectors were more frequent than they now were. Ac present the inspectors rarely went down a mine at all, and they visited the mines at wide intervals, often allowing two years to intervene. [Mr. JACKSON: No.] He referred to the evidence of Mr. Dickenson, and the Report of the Committee, in support of his statement with regard to inspection. He knew it was held that mine-owners ought to continue free from liability for accidents to work-people which were the result of the negligence of fellow-workmen; but, in his opinion, a heavy deodand should be levied on every pit where an accident had occurred through negligence. Under the present system, inspectors did not think it their duty to visit mines unless they were summoned to an accident, or were informed of impending danger. During 1867 there were 500 more accidents than there were in the previous year; and that being so, Parliament could not say that all had been done which ought to be done. He hoped that colliery owners would not think him antagonistic to them; he had no interest either for or against them; but it certainly was for their interest that the mines should be safely worked. The great point was to secure adequate ventilation. He believed that there had been some important inventions for the discovery of gas, and he hoped that the Government would assent to the appointment of a Royal Commission, composed of scientific men, who should carefully, and without prejudice, examine into the merits of these tell-tale inventions. The Oaks Colliery had not been inspected for some yours before the accident. He held, therefore, that the present inspection of mines was not sufficient. The number of Government Inspectors was only twelve; there were 3,000 pits; and who would allege that twelve inspectors, without; any sub-inspectors to aid them, were sufficient for the purposes of inspection? Mr. Thomas Wynne, a Government Inspector, had testified to the number of accidents which occurred owing to bad management, and added that in every case where a good manager was got he found that the accidents immediately decreased. Well, then, if the owners of coal mines failed to get good managers, he held that it was high time that means should be taken to secure them. Mr. Wynne, in his description of a good manager, said that he was a man who thoroughly understood the working of mines, and who had served a proper time under a proper mining engineer. Mr. Wynne also said that he thought it would have a very good effect if, in certain cases, the inspector should say to the owner, "I think you must take the responsibility on yourself unless you get a better manager." He hoped the circumstance of his calling attention to this subject would produce a good result on the owners of coal pits, for unless they managed their business better, and accidents became much fewer, it would be the duty of every right-thinking man to press for further legislation. Parliament had legislated with regard to sanitary and other matters, and yet they were told that they must leave things alone in a case where accidents were so numerous and terrible. But though the accidents from explosions formed far the largest proportion of those which occurred, there were many also which took place from the falling of roofs. He thought he had shown, from the evidence of Government Inspectors, that many precautions which could be taken were neglected, and that a Royal Commission ought to be allowed to decide whether anything further was to be done. In the Oaks Colliery case the jury came to the conclusion that the deceased had met their deaths by an explosion of gas; they believed that the explosion had occurred in consequence of the great accumulation of gas, which they attributed to the negligence of the manager and his subordinate officers, and they recommended that mines should be inspected once in three months by competent persons, and that they should be provided with scientific instruments for registering the quality and quantity of the air that passed through them. The jury were, no doubt, men thoroughly acquainted with the working of the pit. It was to be feared that colliers were too regardless of their lives, and often continued working in pits long after they were known to be dangerous. Some outbursts of gas might arise from unavoidable circumstances; but he believed such cases were not so frequent as those where the accumulation of gas might have been prevented by better management. As to the safety lamp, many practical men held that it had been a curse rather than a blessing, it being apt to put men off their guard, while any little accident which opened it led to an explosion. Mines, moreover, were now worked which but for the safety lamp would have been abandoned. Now, he maintained that workings should not be continued where the use of naked lights was inadmissible. Not only the prevention of accidents, but the health of the colliers ought to be considered, for who could tell how many lives were shortened by inhaling foul gas? If a naked light could not be used, a pit could not be in a proper sanitary condition, the right use of the safety lamp being to detect the presence of foul gas. Whether the single shift or the double shift system was the best he would not discuss, since the question would be better considered by a Commission, as also would the question of a third shaft. Only a few years had elapsed since two shafts were rendered compulsory, and this regulation had already effected much good. A third shaft, according to a calculation with which he had been furnished, might involve a cost of an extra halfpenny a ton on coal; but the country, having willingly paid 2d. in the pound income tax for the liberation of thirty of our fellow-subjects in Abyssinia, would not think this a consideration when the saving of 2,000 lives a year was at stake. He had himself no interest in mines; but he hoped pit- owners and other interested persons would co-operate with him in obtaining the appointment of a Commission. The Commissioners, it had been suggested to him, might, like the Boundary Commissioners, appoint barristers and civil engineers as their assistants, so that the mining districts might be visited, and all possible information elicited.

said, he did not rise to oppose the Motion, for there was not a single well-considered suggestion for the safety of their mines that, the coalowners of the district with which he was connected were not most willing to comply with. He agreed that the present inspection was not sufficient. Many new collieries had been opened in his district, but no new inspectors had been appointed. The present inspectors were overworked. He did not think the remedy was in increasing the number of sub-inspectors, but in dividing the present districts, which were too large, and appointing an additional number of inspectors. He regretted that the hon. Member who had brought forward this subject was not better acquainted with it; but on behalf of the colliery owners he would say that there were no measures of safety and precaution which the Government could devise which they were not most anxious to adopt. The pecuniary loss of an explosion was so great that if the coalowners had to pay for the inspectors themselves it would be a cheaper thing than the liability to accidents without inspection. He had not been a member of the Select Committee; but he had read the Report and the evidence, and he trusted that the Government would carry their Resolutions into effect.

said, that as a Member of the Committee of Inquiry into the nature of a colliery district, he wished to offer a few observations on the Motion. At present there was a unanimous feeling throughout all acquainted with the subject that the number of inspectors must be increased. Every one who had read the evidence would admit that many accidents might have been prevented if the inspection had been adequate. It was stated before the Committee that complaints were often made by workmen to the inspectors which brought them to the mines, and one of the inspectors stated that when the mines were visited the reports of the workpeople were usually more than borne out by the facts. The Committee came to a strong and unani- mous recommendation that the number of inspectors should be increased, and he was much disappointed on taking up the Estimates for the present year to find that no provision had been made for an increase in the number of inspectors. Although, however, the condition of things might be improved by better inspection, that improvement would be limited in degree unless they secured a better class of managers. Colliery owners were agreed that one great cause of accidents was the want of skill in the managers, and it frequently happened that persons who invested their capital in collieries with no sufficient knowledge of the business occasioned disaster to themselves and others 05' an injudicious selection of unskilled and careless managers. But even this would not be sufficient without a like improvement in the whole class of subordinate officers and underground viewers. A great change of opinion had taken place lately amongst the owners of collieries on the subject of inspection, and it was felt that this was of the highest possible importance, and that the chances of accident and loss would be materially lessened if there were a number of efficient sub-inspectors under the control and direction of the inspectors who would be engaged in the function of viewing and making suggestions as to the better management and more complete provision for the safety of the workmen.