said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is true that after objecting, on the 29th May, 1865, to the creation of the sinecure office of Governor of Greenwich Hospital, he has constituted that office, with a salary of £1,200 a year; whether it is true that any of the seamen and marines of fifty-five years of age, and who have been for five years on the pension list have, in consequence of the appointment of the Governor of Greenwich Hospital, not received the pension intended for them; and, whether it is intended to increase the number of the medical officers of the Navy at Greenwich, or to allow them any pensions from the Greenwich Hospital Fund?

In answer to my hon. Friend, I have to say that on the 29th of May, 1865, being then a Junior Lord of the Admiralty, I objected to the creation of the sinecure office of Governor of Greenwich Hospital, and that on the 8th of June, in Committee on the Greenwich Hospital Bill, I defeated my gallant Friend, now Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay), who moved to insert a clause for this purpose, by 57 to 53. But he renewed his Motion on the Report upon the 18th of June, and on the part of the Admiralty, I gave way, and a clause was inserted in the Bill under which I undertook that on Sir James Gordon's death the office with a reduced salary should be continued. It happened that I was at the Admiralty again when Sir James Gordon died, and it has been my duty to carry out the arrangement. But the salary of the Governor is only £433; and as he remains on the active list, no additional charge for pay or half-pay is involved. In reply to the second question, I am happy to be able to say that there is no truth in this suggestion. The fact is just the reverse. One of my first acts was to inquire whether the 5d. a day pension might not be extended to all seamen and marines who had been for five years on the pension list, and were fifty-five years old, beyond the 5,000 originally proposed. This has been done, and the result is that instead of 5,000 men receiving £48,000 in 5d. and 9d. pensions as I proposed in 1865, 5,412 men now receive £59,407. In reply to the third Question, I may state that I certainly do not propose to appoint more medical men to Greenwich or any other hospital than are required for the public service, merely in order to give employment and salary, and I have no reason to anticipate that any more such officers will be required. Although it was not originally intended to give any medical pensions out of the Greenwich Fund, the Order in Council of the 16th of February, 1866, established fifteen such pensions of £80 and £50, at a cost of £780 a year. As to the intentions of the Admiralty with respect to this and other matters connected with Greenwich Hospital, my hon. Friend the Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) will before long make a full statement to the House.

in rising to call attention to the state of the Law as regards the use of False Weights and Measures and the Adulteration of Food, Drink and Drugs, said, this was a most important question, and one which affected the interests of gentlemen who lived in comfortable houses at the West End, quite as much as it did those who lived in garrets in St. Giles's. The subject was an old and trite one. If he recollected rightly, Mr. Scholefield the late Member for Birmingham had brought one portion of the question before the House, and had succeeded in passing a Bill upon it, and on the latter portion of the Motion his successor had also introduced a Bill last year, which had obtained a second reading, but was not passed into law. The hon. Member for Frome (Mr. Hughes) had also brought forward a Motion on the subject of weights and measures, but from whatever reason it might be, whether it was from the inherent difficulties of the question or from the fact that the Government of the day had been always unwilling to undertake so difficult a task, all the well-intentioned efforts of hon. Members to legislate upon the matter satisfactorily, or to rouse public attention to the present state of the law had hitherto proved fruitless. When he asked himself why it was that this great nation, which boasted itself to be so practical and which was always ready to take up the grievances of other people, had submitted so tamely to this monstrous and increasing evil, the only answer he could give was that what was everybody's business became nobody's. But if any hon. Member doubted the magnitude of the evil, he would refer him to a Return which he had moved for last Session, of the number of convictions for the use of fraudulent weights and measures in the metropolitan districts between the 1st of July, 1867, and the 1st of January, 1868. According to that Return there were no less than 659 convictions in the metropolitan area, and that was exclusive of the five districts of Southwark, Newington, St. George's (Hanover Square), Paddington, and the Strand, which, for some reason best known to the local authorities, had made no return whatever. In other words, it appeared that, according to the Return, there were at the rate of 1,300 convictions for the use of fraudulent weights and measures in the year, and he need hardly tell the House that, with the im- perfect system of inspection which now existed, for one person convicted probably three escaped. But if anyone was curious enough to analyze this Return still farther, he would find the most astonishing statistics as to the way in which the poorer classes in this metropolis were habitually cheated. Now, taking the City of Westminster—and he did not do so for the purpose of casting any slur upon it, because he believed that if, as happened to be the case, it stood at the head of the list, that circumstances was owing not to the fact that it was worse than its neighbours, but rather that the duty of the inspectors had been better discharged—well, in the City of Westminster there were 100 persons convicted in the six months, and, on examination, he found that of these twenty-four, or nearly one-fourth of the whole, were licensed victuallers and forty-seven were dairymen, greengrocers, cheesemongers, and others who supplied the poor with food, making in all 70 per cent of provision dealers. That would give the House some idea of the great extent to which this kind of fraud was carried out in the case of the poorer classes. The only wonder was that any result of the kind had been made public at all; because, when he looked at the number of inspectors who were employed in large districts, he could not but think that it was beyond the physical capacity of any man to discharge the duties properly which fell to their lot. He found that in Middlesex, one of the most important counties for its wealth and the number of its houses, though the smallest in area, there were only four inspectors of weights and measures, and that not only were these gentlemen compelled to do their duty in the county, but that many districts which would otherwise have fallen under local Acts were visited by them also. He was quite aware that the system of payment, too, was anything but what it ought to be. The inspectors of weights and measures were paid in a manner unfair to the public and to themselves—namely, by the very objectionable system of fees, and the consequence was—as happened the other day in Middlesex—when the moiety of fees did not come up to the travelling expenses of the inspector, there was a direct premium to his sitting still and doing nothing. He was also aware that in many other districts of the metropolis there were what were called "Local Acts," under which the local bodies appointed their own inspectors. But of the way in which those inspectors did their duty, he could not give a better idea to the House than by stating, what he had on the best authority, that in the district of St. Pancras there were twenty-four gentlemen appointed by the vestry without any stated remuneration whatever, and in the parish of Islington there were twelve gentlemen appointed by the vestry at the magnificent salary of £30 a year, to be divided amongst them. He left it to the House to imagine how an unpleasant duty of this kind was discharged when it was paid for in that way. He should probably be told by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade when he got up to reply, that the whole of this question was under consideration, that there was a Commission at this moment sitting, and that their Report might shortly be looked for. But that was exactly what he complained of. For the last two or three years that Commission had been sitting, and when any Members who took an interest in the subject asked Questions or moved for Returns, they were invariably told that the matter was under consideration. And all this time there were hundreds and thousands of the poorer classes who were suffering because there was no legislation on the subject. He would now pass to that portion of Ms Motion which related to the Adulteration of Food and Drink, a subject which concerned the welfare, comfort, and happiness of the poorer classes quite as much as that on which he had already spoken. There were many Gentlemen in that House who, no doubt, thought that the questions which interested the poorer classes were those which had to do with the ballot, the re-distribution of seats, or the Irish Church. But these were mainly political questions; the question of which he spoke was a question of daily food, a question very often of health or sickness, and he might even say of life or death. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in one of those addresses by which he had electrified his constituents and the public, stated that the great panacea for the ills of the working classes was a free breakfast table. Now he (Lord Eustace Cecil) was the last person in the world to object to any revision of taxation, if it were based upon really sound grounds. But, with all due deference to the right hon. Gentleman, there was one thing of even more importance—namely, a breakfast table free from all impurities. It was not necessary for him to appeal to medical gentlemen, in or out of that House, to prove that purity of food was of vital importance, whether to the child in its cradle, to the boy at school, or the workman who had to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow. Those were simple truisms with which anybody who had thought upon the matter at all would not hesitate to agree. Purity of drink was also of the greatest importance to the poor, because many of the vices and crimes common to that class were connected with it. Take, for instance, the criminal brought before a court of justice, or the case of the soldier and the sailor when brought to the bar of a court-martial, and ask them what it was that first got them into trouble. Their answer would be that it was some nasty stuff they drank at a public-house. Or go into any of the streets of our large towns, and ask some of those wretched women—the disgrace of our civilization—who were to be found there, and they would tell you that much of their wretchedness was due, in the first instance, to drugged liquors. Well, what, under these circumstances, had the Legislature done in that matter? As far as he could make out, it had simply punished the crime of adulterating food, by a trumpery fine, quite disproportionate either to the offence or the wrongful gains of the delinquent. And here he would briefly examine the state of the law. Passing by the 9 Anne, the 17 & 56 Geo. III., the 3 Geo. IV., the 1, 6 & 7 Will. IV.—Acts all relating more or less to the adulteration of beer, tea, and bread—the first comprehensive Act which dealt with the subject was the 23 & 24 Vict., which was passed mainly through the efforts of Mr. Scholefield; and he ventured to say, in no disrespectful spirit to that Gentleman's memory, that that Act was a mockery and a delusion, and had entirely failed in its object. Many of them would recollect that a Committee sat in 1855–6 to inquire into that question. A number of witnesses of the highest scientific acquirements were examined, the public attention was generally drawn to the matter, and the result was—he was sorry to be obliged to call it so—one of the most ridiculous measures that ever became law. After reciting that the sale of adulterated articles of food and drink, being hurtful to health, ought to be repressed by more effectual legislation, it enacted that the person selling such articles, knowing them to be injurious to health, should be subject to a penalty not exceeding £5 and costs; so that any tradesman might, as far as that clause was concerned, knowingly ruin his neighbour's health on paying £5 and costs. Then, for a second offence, if he had as was probable, poisoned scores of people, and ruined the health of scores of others, the justices had power—to do what? To imprison him, or send him to the Assizes? Not a bit of it; but to publish his name, residence, and offence in any way they thought desirable at his own expense. Thirdly, the Act gave a power—which he believed never had been put in force—to appoint analyists, but not a word was said about the payment of them. Fourthly, it provided a protection, forsooth, against articles of food being tampered with by purchasers. Fifthly, there was a power for the purchaser and the justices to have food analyzed; from which it would appear that the purchaser had to test the food at his own expense. And, lastly, it was provided that this precious Act was not to apply to medical drugs or articles usually taken or sold as medicine. So that it came to this, that the baker who adulterated a loaf of bread with a certain quantity of alum was, if convicted, to be punished with a fine of £5 and costs; but the chemist, who had to supply the necessary medicine to get rid of the alum, escaped with perfect impunity. There was not a word in the Act about the appointment of a really good body of inspectors or supervisors, which he thought a most important point; and he should be very glad to see in any measure brought in on that subject, that an efficient body of such officers was to be appointed, so that any penalties which might be enacted by law should be really enforced. Perhaps some might think he took rather an exaggerated view of the present state of adulteration as far as food and drink were concerned; but let such hon. Members, if there were any, read some of the evidence given before the Select Committee to which he had referred; and if they thought that commercial morality was superior now to what it was in 1856 and 1857 he would request them to look at the too frequent cases which constantly appeared in the papers of fraud, both in high and in low quarters. But if they wanted some more modern testimony as to that point, he would refer them to the very able Report drawn up by the chemical officer of the Board of Revenue, Mr. George Phillips; and if they were still dissatisfied he would suggest to them that they should go to the first public-house in town, or out of it, and ask for a glass of beer. He would not trouble the House with a long list of all the disagreeable things which they had to swallow, nor with details of the exact quantities of alum, or red lead, or vitriol, or any other of the pleasant compounds which had been known to enter into their daily food. It was sufficient for him that it had been shown, on indisputable evidence, that those things did exist. It was said that a man must swallow at least a peck of dirt in his lifetime, but he suspected that many of them had to swallow a great deal more. He might mention what occurred not very long ago in the Committee on the Malt Tax, of which he was a Member. Every agricultural witness examined before that Committee testified to the fact that the beer sold in public-houses was adulterated. Now, in speaking of the adulteration of beer, he did not for one moment bring a charge against the great brewers. He believed that the evidence cleared them entirely from all suspicion of adulteration, but this could not be said of the public-houses. Not only did the gentlemen to whom he had alluded speak unanimously of the way in which beer was adulterated, but there was one practical witness who asserted from his own daily knowledge that such was the fact. The only labourer who was examined gave his evidence in these terms. He was asked—"Can a man do hard work on publican's beer?" and his reply was "No." "What effect has it?" he was next asked, and he answered—" The beer is so bad that he cannot work." "It gets into his head?" Answer—"Yes." It makes him feel so bad? "Answer—" Yes; it makes a man feel too bad to do hard work. He always wants to be drinking." Now, there was one fact which established beyond doubt that this man's evidence was truthful— namely, the fact that the importation of cocculus Indicus had largely increased within the last few years. Cocculus Indicus was a narcotic of an intoxicating and stupefying character, and, as far as he was aware, was only used in this country for two purposes, the poisoning of fish and the poisoning of men. He found that in 1857 the quantity of the drug consumed in this country was only 68 cwt., but in 1858 it had increased to 394 cwt.: while in the years 1867 and 1868 the quantities consumed were respectively 689 cwt. and 1,064 cwt. The drug was thus extensively used notwithstanding the fact that the very heavy duty of 5s. per cwt. was levied upon it. No wonder, then, that the statement made by the poor man before the Committee was perfectly true with regard to many labourers in the country. No wonder that he complained that they could not do their work, and that they always wanted to be drinking. We often heard of labourers being knocked down with sunstroke during the hot season, but we ought not to be greatly surprised at this if we remembered that an enormous quantity of cocculus Indicus was imported into this country and that this subtle poison entered into their daily drink. Then there was another article which he believed was very considerably adulterated, and it was one which our seafaring population were especially interested in obtaining in a pure state. It was only the other day that he read a newspaper paragraph which stated that in Liverpool it was quite impossible to procure limejuice of sufficient purity to meet the requirements of the Board of Trade. Of course, he could not vouch for the truth of the statement, but if it were true, such a fact certainly did not tell well for our commercial morality. He thought he had sufficiently proved that the law required amendment of some sort. In his opinion a penalty of £5 and costs was much too insignificant to prevent the recurrence of this class of offences, and the law was likewise defective because it did not provide for a proper supervision and inspection with regard to weights and measures as well as the adulteration of food. Should a Bill on this subject be introduced, it would be well to consider what was the practice in foreign countries with respect to these matters. He found that in almost every civilized country the provisions of the law were far more stringent than with us. In France, for example, all frauds of this kind were under the supervision of the police. A commissary of police had a right to enter premises and seize any suspected goods he might find, bearing all the responsibility, of course, if the seizure were a wrongful one. Then the inspectors, both of weights and measures, and of food, were not, as with us, retired tradesmen, but were appointed by a central authority—the Minister and Prefect. With regard to drugs, there was a special body, called Inspecteurs de Pharmacie, and the tribunals had the power to punish offenders with fine and imprisonment, to advertise the names of delinquents, and to order the adulterated goods either to be destroyed before the owners' doors or to be confiscated for charitable purposes. The law of Prussia was still more stringent. Whoever knowingly used false weights and measures in that country was liable to imprisonment for three months, to be fined from fifty to 1,000 thalers, and to suffer the temporary loss of his rights of citizenship. Secondly, where false weights and measures were not regularly employed, a fine of thirty thalers might be imposed, or the delinquent sent to prison for four weeks. Thirdly, the adulteration of food or drink was punishable with a fine of 150 thalers, or six weeks' imprisonment. Fourthly, if poisonous matter or stuff were employed, the offender was liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ton years. Fifthly, where adulteration was proved to have caused severe physical injury, a sentence of from ten to twenty years' imprisonment might be passed. And yet in this country offences of this nature could only be punished by the imposition of a penalty of £5 with costs. It might, however, be asked why he, who had gone so deeply into the subject, and had pointed out the defects of the existing law, did not try his hand at amending it in the best way he could? His reply was, that questions of this kind could be much better dealt with by Government. For his own part, he was very much opposed, as a rule, to private Members bringing in measures of a national character. Now, this subject was one which, in his judgment, ought to have been looked into and legislated upon long ago. He had hoped, that the late Government would have taken it up, but they had too much of other work on their hands. Besides, they had not the power, if they had the will, to do justice to it, on account of the powerful Opposition arrayed against them. He might, indeed, say that the late Government only existed on sufferance. This, however, was far from being the case with the Government now in Office, who, being backed up by a majority of over 100, had the power, and, if report spoke truly, the will also, to deal with this question in a satisfactory manner. He sincerely trusted, however, that the Government would not appoint either a Committee or a Royal Commission to investigate the subject, for in nine cases out of ten the labours of Commissions and Committees led to the shelving of the questions which they were appointed to consider. Of information regarding this matter, and, he might add, of delay also the country had had quite enough. What was required was action, immediate action; and the Minister who should deal with the subject quickly, thoroughly, and comprehensively would entitle himself to the gratitude of the whole community, and would go down to posterity as one of the greatest benefactors to the labouring classes.

said, it was clearly shown by the evidence which had been taken before the Committee to which the noble Lord (Lord Eustace Cecil) had particularly referred, that the chief cause of adulteration was the legislation which had rendered the food and drink consumed by the working classes artificially dear. Let that cause be removed, and the evil itself would, to a great extent, cease to exist. Among the witnesses who spoke to this effect before the Committee were Professor Taylor, Mr. Gray, and Professor Calvert, of Manchester. He very well recollected the eloquent terms in which the First Lord of the Treasury in 1861 dwelt upon the expediency of reducing the duty on wine, so that the temptation to adulterate it might be taken away, and the same argument applied, in his opinion, with equal force to such articles as tea, sugar, and coffee. It was extraordinary, he might add, to what an extent the adulteration of whisky in Ireland had increased since an additional duty had been imposed upon it by the right hon. Gentleman. The quantity sold had diminished, but then the consumption of it was now in many instances accompanied by delirium tremens, verging sometimes on insanity to an extent which never previously existed. The way to put an end to the evil which led to such results was not by the agency of the police, but by doing away with the temptation which was the real cause of its prevalence. The Government which should accomplish that object would, he quite agreed with the noble Lord, be great benefactors of their country.

said, he thought the noble Lord had done good service by directing the attention of the House to the subject, though he (Mr. Pochin) was of opinion, that the reason why there had not been more prosecutions under the Act of the 23 & 24 Vict, for the prevention of adulteration was, that adulteration was not so general as the House and the country had imagined. Adulteration might be divided into two classes; first, that which simply reduced the commercial value of the article sold to the public; secondly, that which was calculated to interfere prejudicially with the general health of the community. Under the first head he was of opinion that a very serious amount of adulteration existed, and the attention of the Government had very properly been called to it; but he doubted very much whether the statement of the noble Lord was correct so far as adulteration affecting the general health of the people was concerned. His own impression was—and it was the result of much careful investigation of the subject—that the articles of food which were adulterated in such a manner as to affect to any material degree the public health, were exceedingly restricted in number, and a thorough examination of the evidence which had been taken on the point would, he ventured to say, establish the soundness of that view. The greatest service which had been done the country in connection with the subject, was that which had been rendered by the Analytical Commission which prosecuted its; labours some fourteen or fifteen years ago, under the able direction of Dr. Hassall, the result of whose investigations had been published in The Lancet. The result of the inquiry went to prove that while the articles which were adulterated were very numerous—there being scarcely any article of commerce which was not adulterated—yet adulteration tending to injure the health of the community was extremely limited. He believed indeed he was right in saying, that the list of articles which had been found to be adulterated to an extent deeply injurious to health, was pretty nearly confined to pickles, sweetmeats, and Cayenne pepper. It had indeed been discovered that there was scarcely a single sample of arrowroot which was not extensively adulterated; but then it was adulterated with inferior and less expensive varities of farina, injurious rather to the pocket than to the health of the consumer. He had another reason for believing that the conclusions at which he had arrived in the matter were correct. Soon after the passing of the Act 23 & 24 Vict., the Act was taken into consideration by a very energetic Committee, who conducted, its labours in Manchester, connected with the Sanitary Association, and whose members were of opinion that adulteration injurious to health very largely prevailed. They accordingly persuaded six of the most eminent chemists in Manchester to examine articles collected from all parts of the town, and to report upon them. He held in his hand the Report which was drawn up as the result of that investigation by Dr. Angus Smith, who he understood held some official position under the Government, and than whom a more able man as the head of such an inquiry could not be found. The conclusion arrived at by the Committee was, that out of eighty substances which had been procured from shops in which the labouring classes dealt extensively, none were adulterated in a way deeply to affect the public health; and he was happy to be able to add that the evil of adulteration, instead of being constantly on the increase, was rather shown to be diminishing, by the evidence furnished by recent investigations. He did not, however, mean to contend that the question was not one in which the Government might very well take action. Nothing was more objectionable than that there should be any mistake with respect to it out-of-doors, and he could very well imagine, that if the statement of the noble Lord were to go forth to the public unquestioned, that articles of food and drink were so adulterated as to be deeply injurious to health, the shock to the nervous system of a large portion of the community would be far more prejudicial than any actual amount of adulteration which now exists. What the House wanted were the real facts of the case, and the Government had it in their power to supply these at a comparatively small outlay. He agreed with the noble Lord, that it would be useless to appoint a Committee or a Commission, before which anybody who had a bee in his bonnet on this subject might exhibit the bee, as had been done in the case of the last Committee. He thought the proper action of the Government would be to follow the course prescribed by the late Mr. Wakley, by placing the matter in the hands of one or two official analysts, such as Mr. Phillips, of Somerset House, and Dr. Angus Smith, and he felt satisfied that if those gentlemen associated with themselves a microscopist, they would give to the country the exact state of the case. Parliament would then legislate with much greater certainty and confidence than it could at present. Two kinds of adulteration had been specially named—the mixing of alum in bread and cocculus Indicus in beer. Now he was not going to dispute the poisonous nature of cocculus Indicus, but no one had yet shown that the effects produced on the system by intoxication from cocculus Indicus were more injurious than intoxication from spirit. As to the presence of alum in bread, the general opinion on this point was quite at variance with that of the most able chemists. Professor Liebig had acknowledged that the ordinary mixture of alum in bread as practised in this country was not injurious, but positively beneficial. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laughed, and he should like to convince them by going into the question somewhat technically. In general terms, however, he might say that flour contained a quantity of gluten, which very readily passed into a state of decomposition and decay. The presence of a small quantity of alum arrested that decay, and enabled, the baker to produce by the use of seconds flour a very much superior bread than would otherwise be possible. The substitute which Liebig recommended the baker to use in such cases was caustic lime. Hon. Members might take their choice between the addition of alum and caustic lime; for his part he preferred the alum, and he thought that would be the general judgment of the community. He had said that the general health was not extensively interfered with by adulteration; but adulteration was practised so as to amount to a fraud upon the community. It was, therefore, rather on the ground of injury to the pocket, than of injury to health, that he joined the noble Lord in urging the Government, to give their immediate attention to this very important subject.

The noble Lord (Lord Eustace Cecil) has taken great pains upon this question, and has brought before the House a great amount of detail in connection with it. As I listened to his observations I hoped and believed that there was, though it was entirely unintentional, no little exaggeration in them. Although there may be particular cases in which great harm to health and great fraud may possibly be shown, yet I think that general statements of this kind, implicating to a large extent the traders of this country, are dangerous and are almost certain to be unjust. Now, my hon. Friend, the Member for Stafford (Mr. Pochin), who has just addressed the House in a speech showing his entire mastery of the question, has confirmed my opinion, for he has shown—and I dare say he knows as much of the matter as any Gentleman present—that there is a great deal of exaggeration in the opinions which have prevailed in many parts of the country, and which have even been found to prevail upon the matter in this House. The proposition of the noble Lord is—

"That it is expedient that Her Majesty's Government should give their earliest attention to the widespread and most reprehensible practices of using False Weights and Measures and of Adulterating Food, Drink, and Drugs,"

"During recent years many Returns have been laid before Parliament of convictions for false and unjust weights and measures, more especially in the metropolitan district, and a close examination of these Returns will show very few convictions for fraudulent weights and measures. The great majority are for defective or unjust weights and measures, deviating more or less from the standard, many of these deviations being of comparatively trifling amount, and frequently in favour of the purchaser—that is to say, the weights are too heavy and the measures too large. The convictions for unjust balances are also, for the most part, for defective, not for fraudulent balances."

said, the House and the country ought to feel obliged to the noble Lord (Lord Eustace Cecil) for the way in which he had brought the question forward; but he did not regard the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade as satisfactory. Every householder must have felt extreme difficulty in obtaining articles of food that were not more or less adulterated; and, however much the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Pochin) might be master of the subject, all the speeches he might deliver would not convince the House that bread without alum was not more wholesome than bread that contained it. But when the right hon. Gentleman spoke of tradesmen going abroad to avoid inspectors, he should remember that in Prance, and other countries, every baker and every vendor was under the strict and watchful eye of the police; and that a baker in France dare no more sell adulterated bread than commit an offence against the criminal law. The result was, that on leaving behind the alum loaf at an English port you got excellent bread at the first port or station you stopped at in France. Again, from the north to the south of Italy, as the Prime Minister would know, you would find no bread adulterated or food tampered with. If the Government would inquire into the practice of foreign countries as regards the inspection of food, they would learn a useful lesson which might be applied in this country at a future time with great benefit. In attributing adulteration to Customs duties, the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Pollard-Urquhart) no doubt alluded to tea, coffee, and sugar, but he forgot that that argument did not apply to bread nor to flour, which was as extensively adulterated as anything in this country. The other day, visiting a family in London, who were having bread made, he inquired and found that the flour was obtained at a distance because it was impossible to get it pure in the neighbourhood. The taking of the duty off wine had not lessened the adulteration of that article, and no man had more sins on his back than the Prime Minister had for taking off the duty. Its removal offered a premium to foreigners to send to this country every kind of poisonous mixture. As to weights and measures, why not bring in a measure to discriminate between fraud and unintentional error? Nothing was so unsatisfactory as the arbitrary power vested in the magistrates. In the county of Cumberland an eminent tradesman, who had one large establishment and many shops in different districts, was discovered to be using weights and measures that were, not colourably, but actually, false, and when this eminent tradesman—who dealt among other things in so-called Liberal politics—was before the magistrates, and the case was proved, they said that really this tradesman was such a very respectable man it was quite impossible he could have known what he was doing, and they did not fine him. The protection of the public required that every individual who had false weights should be severely punished; and it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would consider the expediency of adopting a mild measure of punishment resorted to in France—that of compelling the convicted tradesman to provide a placard setting forth his guilt, and to exhibit it prominently in his place of business. In the hope that the Government would pay early attention to the subject, and bring forward a measure upon it, he should advise his noble Friend to withdraw the Motion.

, as one whose business for thirty years past had been in the colonial markets, which covered the principal articles of the breakfast table, had no hesitation in saying that, the country through, fully a hundred tons of tea as imported were retailed, to every pound adulterated here. In some minor articles a good deal of adulteration, no doubt, went on; but the motive was extra profit, and very few of the adulterating materials were injurious to health. With regard to the punishment of persons using false weights and measures, he believed it would be unwise to increase the penalties, and both unjust and cruel to make, as had been suggested, the punishment imprisonment—the clerks to the magistrates, both of Middlesex and Surrey, agreeing that in fully 80 per cent of the cases brought before them, the inaccuracy arose from carelessness rather than design. That morning above 200 licenses had been brought before his petty sessional bench; of the very few complaints made throughout the expired year, only one was of at all a serious a character.

said, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to the increased number of Railway Accidents during the last few months, arising from the enormous traffic now carried on by the principal lines? He divided accidents on railways into two classes—those which arose from circumstances in some measure under control, and those which occurred in defiance of reasonable supervision. At present it happened that when a fatal railway accident occurred it excited public attention but for a few days, a jury inquired into the circumstances which led to the deaths, sometimes their deliberations ended with a simple verdict, and at the most one or two of the company's servants were committed on a charge of manslaughter. He maintained, however, that accidents were, in most cases, the fault of the system and not of the servants; the lines were gorged with traffic to such an extent that the delay of a minute, in some instances, would lead to the most deplorable results. He had noticed more than four-and-twenty accidents had occurred during the last four months, nineteen of which were collisions of trains, and eight of these had been marked by gross carelessness. But, as the House would, perhaps, prefer the statistics of a Government Department to these collected by an individual, he gave a digest of the Board of Trade Returns of Accidents during the last four years. From these, it appeared that the collisions far exceeded accidents of other descriptions, and that the percentage of personal injuries was larger in the case of collisions. During 1864, 88 accidents of all kinds occurred; 59 of them were collisions, and 29 other accidents. The passengers killed and injured in the collisions numbered 642, and in the other accidents 142. In 1865, there were 112 accidents, of which 69 were collisions, and 43 others; the killed and injured in consequence of the collisions numbered 838, and in the other cases 267. In 1866, there were 75 accidents, 53 collisions, and 22 from other causes; the killed and injured in the one case were 498, and in the other 114. In 1867, which was the last year dealt with by the Returns as yet, 106 accidents occurred, 65 through collisions, and 41 from other causes; the killed and injured in the one case were 571, and in the other 221. These were remarkable facts; they showed that collisions were not only more frequent than all other kinds of accidents put together, but that they were also more fruitful of personal injury. The four years showed a total of 246 collisions, as against 135 other accidents; the killed and injured from the collisions numbered 2,549, and from accidents through other causes 744, giving a proportion of 10¼ persons injured by each collision against 5½ by each accident from other causes. He trusted the Government would study these statistics, and see what could be done to remedy the defects in our railway system, of which they were the result. In conclusion, he asked whether it is the intention of the Government to do anything with a view to regulate such traffic, so as to give greater security to passengers; and, if not, whether they would grant a Select Committee to inquire as to the best method of regulating such traffic, either by the establishment of a separate line for the conveyance of goods, or by a compulsory system of telegraphic signals?

called the attention of the House to the great loss of life by drowning in the Bute Docks at Cardiff. Though the Notice which he had put on the Paper was limited to the Bute Docks, the facts he had to bring forward applied to the whole of Cardiff harbour. From 1862 to 1868, both inclusive, no fewer than 208 human beings had lost their lives by drowning at Cardiff, which was nearly at the rate of 30 a year. In 1862, 21 persons were drowned; in 1863, 24; in 1864, 30; in 1865, 32; in 1866, 37; in 1867, 34; and in 1868, 30; making a total of 208. In some years every month had its human sacrifices. He would ask was there anything special in Cardiff from which this loss of life must necessarily result? He was informed that there was nothing like it even in London or Liverpool. One of the causes he was told was that there were no railings or chains by the water's edge, and again and again people walked over into the water. Another cause was that in one of the docks there was not a single light; in another the lighting was very imperfect, and in both there was want of watching. Again, the coals shipped there gave off a light kind of dust which lay alike on the water and the ground, and the consequence was that people mistook the one for the other. The question was whether this loss of life was preventible. He did not suppose that any precaution which could be adopted would prevent the loss of some lives wherever there was work and water, but he believed there was a preventible loss here, and that either the Government or the House, which had given power to construct these docks, ought to see that proper arrangements were made for the preservation of life. Many of the accidents, he was told, might be prevented by means of a moveable chain, which could be taken away when men were at their work, and by better lighting; but it was for the parties concerned to devise the necessary preventives.

said, he was not prepared to admit, especially upon the very short notice which his hon. Friend had given, the accuracy of the statistics which he had quoted. He could assure the House that the managers of the docks were quite alive to their responsibility, and would be glad to take every possible precaution, for they had always exerted themselves to the utmost to prevent those calamitous accidents which were almost unavoidable in the case of docks. Believing that the hon. Member's Notice referred only to the Bute Docks, he had not made any inquiry as to the other docks, but he found that in 1867 the deaths by accident in the Bute Docks were only twenty-one, of which five took place by day, and three or four were "females" and supposed to be suicides; and as about 60,000 sailors entered the docks in that year, that was an average of about one casualty to 5,000 sailors. In 1868 the average was greater. In consequence of some extensive works which were going on, the number of sailors that entered was only 54,000, but the casualties were as one to every 3,200 sailors. He could assure the House that the proprietors of the Cardiff Docks would be most happy if the Board of Trade would assist them in carrying out measures for the greater preservation of life in future.

The Question that has been put to me by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) I take to belong rather to the Home Office, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will probably answer it by-and-by. The hon. Gentleman who has brought forward the question of railway accidents appears to me to have based his Question and his proposition on a very insecure foundation, because he asks me whether my attention has been called to the increased number of railway accidents during the last few months, arising from the enormous traffic now carried on by the principal lines. Now, so far as the figures which are before the Board of Trade prove, there has been no increase in railway accidents; and, in fact, if we consider the constant increase in the amount of mileage, and the number of trains run, and of passengers carried, it is quite clear that the accidents have steadily diminished. Now, these are the figures which will perhaps interest the hon. Gentleman—The number of accidents—I do not speak now of injuries to person or loss of life—was, in 1864, 78; in 1865, 92; in 1866, 69; in 1867, 95; and in 1868, 87. These are accidents that were more or less considerable, and the number, though it varies to some extent, does not show anything like the increase to which the hon. Gentleman has called the attention of the House. Well, the passengers killed in 1864 were 14; in 1865, 22; in 1866, 15; and in 1867, 19. Then we come to the extraordinary accident at Abergele of which, I believe the hon. Gentleman himself was a witness, in which thirty-one persons lost their lives, and yet the whole number of passengers killed in 1868 was forty, so that, deducting that accident, the whole number of lives lost during the year besides was only nine, An accident of the kind that occurred at Abergele, grievous and horrible as it is, should not be taken into consideration in looking at the figures and the averages. The number of persons injured stands thus—in 1864, 697; in 1865, 1,034; in 1866,540; inl867,689; andinl868,519. Therefore, the number of persons injured in railway trains in 1868 was lower than in any of the previous four years, and that notwithstanding the increase of carriage and trains, and the enormous increase constantly occurring in the mileage and number of persons travelling. That loss of life, I ought to state, does not include the servants of the companies, nor does it include trespassers, it includes merely passengers who have been killed by circumstances over which they had no control, and, as it may be said, either by accident or the fault of the companies. The House -will see, if I next give them some figures as to the increase of passengers, how much better this account shows than it does as I have read it. In 1857 the number of passengers carried (exclusive of season tickets) was in round numbers 139,000,000; in 1864 it was 229,000,000; in 1865, 251,000,000; in 1866, 274,000,000; and in 1867, 287,000,000. The Return for the last year has not yet been furnished. But, notwithstanding that enormous increase in the number of persons carried, the number who lost their lives is almost stationary; while the number injured has really fallen off. Therefore, looking at the whole case, there is nothing to create alarm in regard to this question. The hon. Gentleman asks whether the Government will do anything more to regulate this traffic, and give greater security to passengers? I think I have shown that there is no diminution of security so far as the figures go; and the hon. Member must know that there has been almost any amount of legislation heretofore with the view of in some way or other giving the Board of Trade power to interfere with the railway companies. My own impression—and it is also the impression of the most skilled and most experienced gentlemen in the Department with which I am connected—is that it would be a very perilous thing, and one not good for the public, to add continually to this interference with railways on the part of the Board of Trade, because you take from them some of the responsibility which ought to attach to them; and you ask me, or those who are assisting me in that Department, to regulate that which no man in it can know one-hundreth part as much about as the actual managers and directors of these railways. But then there comes this other question—What are the inducements which the companies now have to afford security to their passengers and prevent accidents? I will give the House two or three figures that are to me most astonishing, although I had before an opinion that the inducements for the good management of their lines were very great on the part of the companies. By the force of law passengers who are injured on railways, and the friends of those who are killed, can claim compensation from the companies on whose lines the accidents by which they suffered have happened. Now, in the year 1865, the compensation paid for these personal injuries alone amounted to more than £333,000, while the amount paid for damage done to goods in the same year was £115,000. In 1866, the sum paid as compensation for personal injuries was £306,000, and for damage to goods £178,000. In 1867, the compensation for personal injuries was £347,000, and the amount paid for damages to goods £ 166,000. Thus the total amount of compensation paid in each year was—in 1865, £449,000; in 1866, £484,000; and in 1867, £513,000. The Returns for 1868 are not yet furnished, and therefore I am unable to give them to the House. Let the House bear in mind that there is this enormous expense to the companies of more than £500,000 annually, which is equal to a capital sum of from £10,000,000 to £15,000,000. In addition to that there are law expenses to a very large amount. I ask, then, is it possible for Parliament to pass any law which shall add to the force of this great argument acting on railway directors and managers with the view to induce them to give the greatest possible security to the passengers and goods travelling on their lines? The London and North Western Company paid in 1867 not less than £86,000 for personal injuries alone. And, without wishing to give any additional authority to my opinion on account of the office which I hold—for I am now only expressing the opinion I have entertained for years past—I venture to say that the law itself as it stands, without limit of compensation, is a law of very questionable character; and I think, further, that neither the Press, nor juries, nor the public are disposed to give the credit which is due to the managers of the great lines of railway in this kingdom. My own belief is that, owing so much as we do to them, and considering their vast expenditure of capital, with the service they render to the public, we might, on many occasions, take a fairer view of the conduct and the success of railway management than we are accustomed to do in this country. The hon. Member asked, further, whether the Government would not grant a Select Committee—

"To inquire as to the best method of regulating such traffic, either by the establishment of a separate line for the conveyance of goods, or by a compulsory system of telegraphic signals?"

In answer to the appeal of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish), I think I need hardly assure him that the Home Office has no power of direct interference in cases such as that which he has brought under the notice of the House. I have no doubt that the facts he has mentioned will cause the attention of the local authorities of Cardiff and of the proprietors of the Bute Docks to be directed to the many accidents which happen there, whether they are or are not as numerous as he has stated. But under the circumstances it will be my duty to communicate with the local authorities, and to call their attention to the facts to which the hon. Gentleman has referred; and I hope the result will be that steps will be taken for affording security to human life in these docks.

rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland the Question of which he had given notice respecting the appointment of the late Government, on the eve of their resignation, of Colonel Sir E. R. Wetherall as Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. The hon. and gallant Member said, he did not find fault with the late Government for accepting the resignation of Sir Thomas Larcom, but with the mode in which they had appointed his successor. He took exception to that appointment, first, because it had been made permanent, and next, because it was held by a military man—a system being thereby introduced into Ireland quite the opposite of that which prevailed in England and Scotland. Probably his right hon. Friend had made inquiries into the subject since notice of his Question had been given, and would be able to inform them how, when, and for what reason that appointment was made permanent. For a period of eighteen years, or from 1835 to 1853, he found that under the successive Administrations which held Office in this country the appointment of Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was, like that of the Lord Lieutenant, a political office, which changed its occupant with the change of Government itself, and it was not until after that date that it became permanent. In 1835, when Lord Melbourne was Prime Minister, Lord Normanby was Lord Lieutenant, and Mr. Drummond was Under Secretary, and on his death in 1840 he was succeeded by Mr. Norman M'Donald. In 1841 Sir Robert Peel appointed Lord De Grey Lord Lieutenant, and Mr. Edward Lucas Under Secretary, and before Sir Robert Peel left Office Mr. Pennefather held the Under Secretaryship for a year. In 1846, when Lord John Russell was Prime Minister, Lord Bessborough was appointed Lord Lieutenant, and Sir Thomas Redington the Under Secretary. In 1852 Lord Derby appointed the Earl of Eglinton Lord Lieutenant, and Mr. Wynne Under Secretary; and the Earl of Aberdeen, in June, 1853, appointed the Earl of St. Germans Lord Lieutenant, and Colonel Larcom Under Secretary. It was considered in 1835 that it would be advantageous for the country if the office were made a political one, and that the person filling it should be in unison with the Government of the day. The objection to the appointment being made permanent was one of long standing among many of the Gentlemen who represented Irish constituencies; indeed, he might say that almost all the Irish Members entertained a very strong opinion on the subject. The present Government did not wish to treat Ireland differently from the rest of the United Kingdom, and he hoped that they would state why a course which was in accordance with constitutional usage, and which had proved very beneficial, had been departed from. He also objected to the office being conferred upon a soldier. Sir Edward Wetherall was, no doubt, a most meritorious man, but the training he had gone through was not of the kind required for an Under Secretary for Ireland. He had distinguished himself as a soldier in Canada, India, the Crimea, and elsewhere, and in 1868 he was taken from the Horse Guards and appointed to the Under Secretaryship. He (Colonel Greville-Nugent) did not deny that Sir Edward Wetherall deserved to be rewarded for his important professional services, but that was a matter that ought to have been left to the Horse Guards. But the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Colonel Wilson-Patten) might, perhaps, allege that in appointing a soldier to the office he did not depart from the established custom. It was no doubt true that Sir Thomas Larcom was a soldier, but he was an officer of the Engineers, which was a different service from the rest of the army, and, besides, he was employed by the Board of Works in Dublin and on the survey of Ireland for a great number of years before he was made Under Secretary. There was no parallel, therefore, between the appointment of Sir Thomas Larcom and that of Sir Edward Wetherall. The ap- pointment of Mr. Drummond could not be referred to in justification of the late appointment, because Mr. Drummond had been engaged on the survey in Ireland, and had been long acquainted with the country and the people, and had more of their confidence than any other man that had filled the office. If the Lord Lieutenant required to consult a soldier there was the Commander of the Forces, who was perfectly competent to regulate all the military part of the business. An account of the duties of the office of Under Secretary was given in a recently published life of Mr. Drummond, from which it appeared that his functions were exceedingly diversified. For instance, he had to receive and reply to a variety of communications similar to those which were addressed to the Home Office in England. He also had to receive constabulary reports, and to carry on an extensive daily correspondence with the local and stipendiary magistrates, to bring under the notice of the Lord Lieutenant all matters of an important nature, and to communicate with the Chief Secretary and other officers of Government. In addition, he was, during the absence of the Viceroy and of the Chief Secretary, virtually the Irish Government. If it was intended to govern Ireland in future as it had been governed in the past, by all means let a soldier be Under Secretary—let the country, in fact, be kept under martial law; but if they looked to governing Ireland as a constituent part of the United Kingdom, let the great offices in its Government be placed in the hands of civilians changing with the Government of the day; and the sooner they made this office political the better. In conclusion, the hon. and gallant Gentleman asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If Colonel Sir E. R. Wetherall, appointed by the late Government on the eve of their resignation as Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, is the same person whose name appears as Deputy Quartermaster General at the Horse Guards; if the appointment is permanent; and, whether the present Government considers it desirable that the whole Civil Administration of Ireland should be under the control of a Military man, holding his appointment independently of the Government of the day, instead of a civilian, according to the custom which obtains in the Government of England at the Home Office?

said, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Longford (Colonel Greville-Nugent) has thought it his duty to bring before the House the question of the appointment of Sir Edward Wetherall to a very high and important office in the Irish Government. Now, I think the best thing I can do is to endeavour to give an accurate statement of what happened in regard to this matter—a statement which, if it be inaccurate in any respect, will, no doubt, be corrected by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Wilson-Patten). For some time the late Under Secretary for Ireland, Sir Thomas Larcom, had been most anxious to resign the arduous office which he had filled for so many years with so much benefit to the public service. He had, on several occasions, offered his resignation to the Earl of Mayo, and had more than once been persuaded, he believed, by his Lordship, to continue to assist him during his tenure of the Irish Office, especially under the grave circumstances connected with the Fenian disturbances with which Lord Mayo had to deal. Lord Mayo afterwards went to India, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lancashire succeeded him as Chief Secretary. Sir Thomas Larcom then renewed his application for what I may term a release from his laborious duties at the the Irish Office, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lancashire very naturally protested against being deserted at such a time in an office which was new to him by a gentleman of such immense experience. Sir Thomas Larcom accordingly consented to continue in office for some weeks longer. Upon receiving positive information of Sir Thomas Larcom's determination to resign his office, the late Government proceeded to take measures to find a successor; and the result was the choice of Sir Edward Wetherall, a distinguished soldier, then filling an important office in the Horse Guards, where, I must say, the late Government might, in my opinion, have far more wisely left him, with great advantage to the military service of this country. Well, the result of the inquiries of the Government was to place Sir Edward Wetherall in the Irish Office. The letter appointing him is dated the 18th of November, 1868, and he was gazetted on the 1st of the following month. I sincerely believe that that choice was made by the late Government with the best possible intentions. They did, I believe, endeavour to find the best person whose services they could procure to fill the important office which was vacant, and I am far from imputing to them any such impropriety as that of creating a vacancy merely for the purpose of obtaining the patronage connected with the appointment. More than that, I am bound to tell my hon. and gallant Friend and the House that the late Government were perfectly entitled to look upon this office as a permanent one, inasmuch as it had been placed on that footing for some years. I hold in my hand a Paper which has been already moved for, and which will show my hon. and gallant Friend and the House how the change in it was made. The fact is that this office, which until the year 1834 or 1835 was a permanent office, was in that year accepted by a man to whom my hon. and gallant Friend has paid so just a tribute—Mr. Drummond, and converted into a political appointment, which it continued to be until January, 1854. At that time a correspondence passed between the Treasury and Sir John Young, who was Chief Secretary for Ireland, in which Sir John Young gave reasons to show the Government that it was desirable to restore the office to its former permanent character, Sir John Young writes—

"It is only of late years, since 1834, that the practice has grown up of considering this office political, and to be filled up by a gentleman attached to the party in power. There is nothing in the duties assigned to the office which invests it with this character; on the contrary, it is of moment that the business chiefly connected with the local administration of justice, the supervision of the constabulary, and the regular routine of the Executive Government, in its details, should, as far as possible, be dissevered from party and political influence, and be understood to be held by an officer not interested in, nor even liable to the suspicion of such influence."

Sir, my right hon. Friend has made so fair a defence of the conduct of the late Government on this matter that he has left me very little to say on the subject. It is, I hope, unnecessary for me to corroborate his statement, but I may be allowed to observe that I do not believe an appointment was ever made by any Government so little open to unworthy imputations as that of Sir Edward Wetherall. It was, I must confess, a deep source of grief to find that that appointment was treated by the Irish press and public, totally ignorant as they were of the circumstances under which it was made, in a manner which was calculated to give great pain to one of the most upright and honourable men in Her Majesty's service. The same observation applies to the remarks which have emanated from the same quarters in reference to Sir Thomas Larcom. The conduct of that gentleman has been misrepresented in every sort of way. Belonging to the political party to which my right hon. Friend belongs, he was accused of betraying the interests of that party by not retaining his appointment until they acceded to power, and had an opportunity afforded them of naming his successor. That part of the case my right hon. Friend has entirely cleared up. He knows very well that Sir Thomas Larcom tendered his resignation to us over and over again, and that he was requested to remain in the post which he occupied. It was indeed with the greatest surprise that I learned, almost the first day I arrived in Ireland, from Sir Thomas Larcom that it was his in- tention to resign. I appeal to my right hon. Friend, who knows the duties of Chief Secretary for Ireland, to judge what would be the position in which I should be placed if he had at once carried out that intention. I did my utmost to endeavour to induce him to retain his office until I became better acquainted with the duties on the discharge of which I had only just entered. He kindly acceded to that request, and the only return he met with from the press in Ireland was being accused of being actuated by unworthy motives, although nothing could be more honourable or straightforward than his conduct. I must say as much with respect to Sir Edward Wetherall, and I will only add to the statement of my right hon. Friend a few particulars in defence of the Government of which I was a member. As soon as I knew that Sir Thomas Larcom intended to resign I consulted the Lord Lieutenant as to the appointment of his successor. We were unanimous in agreeing that the appointment should be made without the slightest reference to political considerations, and I can also assure my right hon. Friend that we felt it our duty to appoint a man who would be agreeable to our successors in Office. These were the motives which actuated the Lord Lieutenant the Earl of Mayo and myself with respect to Sir Edward Wetherall, and I think in the last respect I have mentioned we have succeeded to the utmost of our ambition, for I believe my right hon. Friend will say that in the short experience he has had of Sir Edward Wetherall, that officer devotes himself to the discharge of his business, free from all political bias. That, at least, was the character given of him when we were considering who to appoint, and I believe Sir Edward Wetherall has acted strictly up to that character since he has filled the office. I can only say that neither the Lord Lieutenant nor myself had the slightest previous acquaintance with Sir Edward Wetherall. I did not know him even by sight until the moment when, by the Lord Lieutenant's direction, I offered him the office. In our choice we were entirely guided by the high character we had of Sir Edward Wetherall from several quarters. We inquired in many, civil and military, and heard in all so good a report of Sir Edward Wetherall that at length we fixed upon him. The fact of his being a military man came under our consideration, and no doubt we did feel that it was a question upon which some difference of opinion might exist. But that consideration was quite overborne by the other recommendations we had of Sir Edward Wetherall. My right hon. Friend is in error in supposing that Sir Edward Wetherall's duties have been always entirely of a military character, for he has been in Ireland and has been consulted by the Executive upon matters connected with the Government. But now as to the policy of appointing a military man at all; I confess I was surprised to hear it stated that it was in accordance with the practice in this country a civilian should always be chosen for a civil office. Why, who was the last political Under Secretary of State for the Home Department? A distinguished military officer (Sir James Fergusson); and if my right hon. Friend will look through all the civil appointments of other Governments he will find that, beginning with the Duke of Wellington, no difference has been made in filling those appointments whether by military men or civilians. I was surprised, then, to hear my right hon. Friend agree with so false a statement as that contained in the Question on the Paper.

complained of this reference to the Question as containing a false statement.

I intended no offence, but the Question insinuates that it is contrary to the rule of the English Civil Service that an Under Secretary should be a military man, and I controvert that statement. My right hon. Friend says that Sir Thomas Larcom was only an Engineer officer, and was not really a military man. Then, I want to know how it was that my right hon. Friend and the Government with which he was connected so often consulted Sir Thomas Larcom upon military matters? The fact that time after time various Governments in Ireland have so consulted him is unanswerable as showing that the late Under Secretary was really regarded as a military officer; and yet when another military officer is made Under Secretary in his place, objection is taken to the appointment upon political grounds in Ireland, and the gallant officer opposite (Colonel Greville-Nugent) says that Ireland is to be under martial law. We do not consider ourselves under martial law in England when a military man is chosen to fill such a post, and the gallant officer must have got this idea from some extraordinary quarter. I contend that the post is one which may be filled equally well by either a civilian or a military man; and if, in either case, the person occupying that post chooses to act unconstitutionally the gallant officer knows that he would not be allowed to retain it many hours longer. I was surprised, then, at the insinuation made against Sir Edward Wetherall that he would take an unworthy advantage of his position.

I never made any charge against Sir Edward Wetherall; I simply objected to the appointment of a soldier to this office.

Then, what did the gallant officer mean by saying that Ireland would be under martial law because Sir Edward Wetherall was Under Secretary?

I never said any such thing.

Then, how did the gallant officer intend to argue that Ireland was to be brought under martial law?

I objected to the system of military appointments to such offices.

The Government will, of course, deal with this question as they think fit, on their own responsibility. All I can say is that Sir Thomas Larcom was a military man, and he remained in this office under seven different Governments, three Conservative and four Liberal; and now for the first time it has been objected that a military man ought not to succeed him, because, forsooth, of the distinction between the engineering branch of the service and that to which Sir Edward Wetherall belongs. I think it was quite unworthy of the Government to take up a position of that kind because there seemed to be an opportunity of getting rid of an official appointed by the late Ministry. I will not believe that the Government will take the course until I see them take it. The appointment was made in a most honourable and straightforward manner. And now let me say a word or two as to the period at which it was made. My right hon. Friend says that it ought not to have been made so closely upon our leaving Office. Why did not the Government act upon the same principle when they themselves went out of Office? Have we not heard of a Lord Lieutenant and several other persons appointed only a few days before they left Office? The fact is that Sir Edward Wetherall's appointment was decided upon before the late Government agreed to go out of Office. It astonishes me to be told that under such circumstances a Government must leave such an appointment to be filled up by their opponents on taking Office. Certainly I have not had much experience in Office, but I have been many years a Member of this House, and to me these are quite new ideas.

I said it would have been more advantageous to the public service had the appointment been delayed.

My right hon. Friend said it was injudicious. If the appointment ought to have been delayed, will my right hon. Friend, when the present Government go out of Office, fix a time after which they will fill up no offices, but will leave all appointments to their successors? If my right hon. Friend is ready to give such an undertaking, I can understand and respect his present scruples. As it is, I cannot understand them at all. It is, I believe, an invariable practice that all the vacancies which occur within a reasonable time before the resignation of a Government are filled up by that Government; and I think that if my right hon. Friend will only move for a Return of the number of appointments so filled up within the three weeks before the last six or seven Governments have left Office, he will find that he cannot support the imputation he has cast upon the late Government. Sir, the object I had in rising was to do justice to two most distinguished men. As for myself, I have had a brief experience in Ireland, and it is possible that I may have made mistakes there; but I shall always be of opinion that I have taken part in recommending one of the most distinguished men ever appointed to Office in this country, and I venture to add that when my right hon. Friend knows Sir Edward Wetherall better, he will agree with me that seldom, within his experience, has so good an appointment been made.

I might, Sir, have been very well contented, after the temperate, careful, and able statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to leave the matter where he left it. But some expressions fell from my right hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Colonel Wilson-Patten), which require some notice by me. My right hon. and gallant Friend opposite has heard the admission of my right hon. Friend near me (the Chief Secretary)—an admission freely made on this side of the House—that in this case there was no imputation of motives whatever. In fact, the character of my right hon. and gallant Friend was on that subject quite a sufficient guarantee. But, having regard to his high character and position in this House, it was frankly admitted by my right hon. Friend that no imputation of that kind could for a moment stand. Yet my right hon. and gallant Friend gave us distinctly to understand—I think I am giving the precise effect of his words—that if Her Majesty's Government thought fit to act upon the principles laid down by the Chief Secretary—namely, that it was not desirable that a soldier, never having had experience of civil business, should be the permanent Under Secretary in Ireland; and if they should make some arrangement which would give to Sir Edward Wetherall an appointment elsewhere, the only motive which could be ascribed to us was, that we took this course because an opportunity was offered of getting a gentleman out of Office who had been put there by the late Government.

I do not think I said that.

I am glad to think I may have misunderstood my right hon. and gallant Friend.

If I said so, I withdraw the expression,

I was sure that my right hon. and gallant Friend must have made that imputation inadvertently. Well, Sir, I must entirely adhere to and support the propositions of my right hon. Friend near me. I am distinctly of opinion that it is a wise and judicious measure by which the Under Secretaryship in Ireland has been made a permanent office. The delicacy of the work of the Executive Government in Ireland is extreme, and it is exceedingly necessary that there should be some person of great experience, authority, and capacity who should be able to carry on the traditions of civil government from one political Administration to another. I was at the Treasury when the office was made permanent, and I do not in the least regret having been a party to that arrangement. So far I am at one with my right hon. Friend opposite, and so far I differ from my hon. and gallant Friend near me (Colonel Greville-Nugent), for he holds that the office ought to be a fluctuating one, and to change with the Government. I feel obliged, however, to demur to the pleas offered in justifiction by my right hon. Friend opposite in the present instance. In the first place, he thinks that the objection taken by the Chief Secretary for Ireland is, that no Government likely to go out of Office ought to make any appointment whatever. My right hon. Friend did not lay down any proposition so absurd. It may be that it is very proper to make some appointments on the eve of quitting Office. It may be that is an error to make other appointments. The only question is—was this an appointment which it was wise for a Government to make on the very eve of quitting Office? It is not any general rule, but it is the speciality of these appointments on which the objection is founded. My right hon. Friend opposite refers to and claims the practice of England, and says that a distinguished military officer was lately Under Secretary of State for the Home Department; but there is the greatest possible distinction between a political and a permanent Under Secretary. Not only is there that difference, not only has a permanent Under Secretary in every office duties to perform that scarcely attach at all to a political Under Secretary, but my right hon. Friend, when he speaks of Sir James Fergusson as a distinguished military officer must remember that for fifteen or sixteen years he was an active, able, and intelligent Member of this House, constantly giving attention to the general course of its affairs, so that he qualified his military habits by a very large civil experience. It is not to one circumstance alone, but it is to the combined effect of several circumstances we must look in judging such a matter as this. Sir Thomas Larcom began by being an officer of Royal Engineers; he was reared in that corps, from which I venture to say, limited as it is, more persons have been selected for civil appointments than have been taken for them from all the rest of the army; but at an early period of his life he left the military profession and educated himself for civil duties. The combined effect of these two circumstances is to create a difference as wide almost as it is possible to conceive between these two gentlemen. There is no reproach to Sir Edward Wetherall; but I venture to say that an ardent and gallant soldier cannot devote the best part of his life to military duties without losing some of his civil capacities; for the habits of military men tend to give them a mode of viewing affairs which is a soldier's and not a civilian's. But in my opinion you commit a slighter error in appointing a soldier to be permanent Under Secretary of State for the Home Department in England than in appointing him to be permanent Under Secretary in Ireland, for it must be remembered that the general spirit of government in England is civil, while in Ireland, unhappily, it is already too military. It has been found necessary to give to the constabulary a military character in a much greater degree than is desirable in a civilized country enjoying political freedom. It is on that account it is desirable a strong civil influence should be brought to bear upon the spirit of Irish administration by the appointment to the office of permanent Under Secretary of a person who has had some experience of civil duties. I think my right hon. Friend opposite overlooked this consideration—that in case the late Government had not gone out of Office it would not have been any great inconvenience to them to have postponed the appointment for three or four weeks; but in making it as they did, they made themselves the judges of who was a fit person to advise and support the new Lord Lieutenant and the new Chief Secretary; they decided who was to be the prop, stay, and adviser of these officers, and that at a time when it was well known that Irish policy was the cardinal point of public affairs, and when, consequently, it was of the utmost importance they should work with those with whom they enjoyed unbroken sympathy. That being the case, I do not think my right hon. Friend on this side has overstated the matter—while rendering the freest acknowledgments to the late Government in the most important respects—in venturing to say he considers they have not exercised a sound discretion. For my part, I must entirely concur with my right hon. Friend in all the tribute he has rendered to the great merits and the high character of Sir Edward Wetherall. The anxiety of the Government will be to do him no wrong; at the same time, it will be to reconcile that purpose of doing no wrong or injustice with the fulfilment of their duties to the people of Ireland and to the great public interests which are at stake.

rose to call attention—

"To the situation in which the House of Commons is placed by the absence of any authentic record of the judgments delivered by the Judges appointed to try Election Petitions; which judgments interpret and declare, without appeal, the Law of Parliament, upon which depend the rights of the constituencies, the title of their representatives, and the constitution of the House of Commons."

"Although the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102, has in some respects assimilated bribery and treating, there is a wide difference between the nature of the two offences, both as regards the candidate and the voter. The bribed man votes for the candidate whom in his heart, perhaps, he hates or despises; the other follows the impulse of excited zeal and votes for him who has recommended himself by supposed liberality and hospitality. Bribery is directed to obtain the adverse and to fix the doubtful voters; treating is resorted to to confirm the good intentions and keep up the party zeal of those believed to be already in the interest of the candidate. The distinction between the two offences is, it will be seen, clearly recognized in the above-mentioned Act, by which bribery is made an indictable offence, while treating is not made criminal, and the penalty imposed upon the latter is only half of that attached to bribery."

"Treating under this statute, therefore, became an offence without reference to its extent, the intention of the giver, or its effect on the election. The objects of the Legislature, it is imagined, were to put an end altogether to treating within certain periods, to estop the candidates from pleading either moderate or necessary refreshment, and to take away from the House all discretion upon the subject which it was found had been exercised in an arbitrary and unsatisfactory manner."

"The word 'corruptly,' it will be seen, governs every clause in this section. What is the precise force to be given to this word is by no means clear."

said, he thought the House was indebted to his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) for having called attention to a matter of such great interest. He thought the request of his hon. and learned Friend that the decisions of the Judges should be laid upon the table was a reasonable one; and he was happy to say that he believed the Government could comply with it. He was informed that the official shorthand writers, though only required to take notes of the evidence, had, in fact, taken notes of the judgments. Arrangements would therefore be made to obtain the judgments in an authentic form, and lay them upon the table of the House. When they were in the hands of the Government and the House it would be very proper to consider them with a view of seeing what the law was, and whether any amendment was required in it. He must say he was prepared to go a long way with his hon. and learned Friend in his anticipation that it would be found necessary to amend the law, especially as regarded treating; but he did not think they would be in a position to deal with that question till the judgments were before them in authentic form. He was not so sanguine as to concur with his hon. and learned Friend in thinking that a Bill to amend the law could be prepared in half an hour; and he thought that when his hon. and learned Friend had a little more experience in that House he would find that Bills could not be got through quite so rapidly as he seemed to suppose. He believed it would not be possible to make any amendment which could come into operation before the petitions already lodged had all been tried; but the Government would give their attention to the subject at the earliest possible moment after the decisions were laid upon the table. His hon. and learned Friend was under a misapprehension in supposing that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department had intimated that he did not attach any importance to the production of the decisions. What his right hon. Friend had said was that he did not know whether the Government would be able to produce them. As to the appointment of a public prosecutor, he did not hold out any hope that the Government would be able to deal with that question this Session; but it was one which had long engaged his attention. For years he had been in favour of the appointment of a public prosecutor, and he hoped the day was not far distant when we should have a public prosecutor, as all the nations on the Continent had at present.

rose for the purpose of asking Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is his intention to propose any measure respecting the Collection of Taxes similar to that which was introduced in the Session of 1864? He had received strong representations from his constituents as to the hardships inflicted upon them by the existing system. The assessors and collectors were no longer appointed by the vestries, but by the local tax office, and it was not thought right that the vestries should incur responsibility without having power in respect of collection. It was also stated that more collectors were appointed than were required by law or than were necessary, the only result being that the tax-payers had to pay an increased charge. He need not remind the House of the extreme inconvenience entailed upon tax-payers by their being obliged to attend the committees of the Local Commissioners. In one case brought under his notice a gentleman carrying on business in Walsall received a summons on a Sunday to attend the Commissioners seven miles off at ten o'clock next morning, so that he had no time to make arrangements to provide for his necessary business. He knew of another case where a person had been fined for non-attendance at a meeting of one of these committees, he being confined to his bed at the time by severe illness. Although he stated the reason for his non-attendance, he was fined £20, in consequence of some vague rumour that he had been seen at the time at another place. He (Mr. Charles Forster) had himself brought the case under the notice of the Board of Inland Revenue, who, he was bound to say, had immediately remitted the fine, but not until the person aggrieved had been put to considerable inconvenience. In every country except England the Government undertook the duty of collecting their own taxes. In 1864 the present First Lord of the Treasury brought forward a measure to enable the Board of Inland Revenue to relieve the tax-payers from the burden of collecting their own taxes. The scheme of the Bill was a most simple one, and met with general approval until the third reading, when by some unaccountable means it was rejected by a majority of 4. He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would signalize his accession to Office by introducing a Bill upon the subject calculated to relieve the tax-payers from the burden they had now to bear. It was just such a subject as a Government, having strong support in Parliament, should address itself to, and the country had a right to expect something at their hands.

I quite agree with the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. Charles Forster), as to the great anomaly that is involved in the manner of collecting these taxes. It is perfectly true, as he has stated, that the tax-collector is made to serve compulsorily, and is appointed without his consent being obtained. The consequence is that this duty—a most important one—is often placed in very strange hands. I recollect the present First Lord of the Treasury stating to the House that within his own knowledge the office of tax-collector had been filled by a general officer, a retired merchant, a captain of a ship, the head of a grammar school, and a lady. That, I am sure, is not the way in which these taxes ought to be collected. Again, if any defalcations occur, which, unfortunately, sometimes happens, the parish is made liable for their amount, which seems to be a very great hardship. I will not go into detail upon the subject at this hour, but I will just read to the House a short paragraph from Page 29 of the Report which has just been published by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue—

"In connection with this subject—that is, the addition which may be made to the revenue by a closer and more careful assessment and collection of existing duties—we cannot refrain from repeating an often expressed conviction, that the assessed taxes, if entirely taken out of the hands of parochial officers and intrusted to the sole management of this Department, may be made to yield a much larger quota to the income of the country than at present. And we believe that since we first began to ventilate the subject, a great change has taken place in public opinion respecting the antiquated, cumbrous, and inefficient system absurdly named 'self-taxation,' and that there will be no difficulty now in superseding it by a better arrangement."

"The following conversation, which really occurred between a member of this Department and a parochial assessor, is worth preserving as an illustration:—'A.—I see that Mr. B. is not in assessment for either a horse or a carriage, though you know that he keeps both.' Assessor (who is the principal butcher of the village)—'Well, Sir, you must not be hard on a poor man like me. Mr. B. is my best customer, and if I were to charge him, after so many years that he has gone on without paying any tax, he would give all his custom to X. at once.'"

rose to call the attention of the House to the imprisonment in York Gaol of John Kenn, aged eighty-five, for costs in an action for slander; and to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, power should not be given to the Crown to remit in certain cases imprisonment for debts of this character? It appeared that this old man and his blind and almost equally aged wife lived in a cottage for which they paid 15d. a week at Knaresborough, where he had formerly been a cowkeeper, but for several years past he had given up that occupation. They possessed an acre of land, and managed, by the help of their single cow and of the sum of 50s. paid them twice a year by Mother Shepherd's Charity, to keep themselves off the poor rates. Somehow or another, either he, or, as he said, his "missus" managed to get up a quarrel with one of their neighbours who, knowing them to be penniless, commenced an action for slander against him in one of the Superior Courts in London. Not having the money to engage a solicitor or a barrister in his defence or to come up to London in person, Kenn was obliged to allow judgment to go by default, and in September or October he was arrested and taken to the Debtors' Gaol at York for costs. Were not some means adopted for his release this old man would have to rot in gaol, and even if he managed to regain his freedom he would be placed in a most unfortunate position, because his only cow had been sold to pay his rent, and he was also in danger of being tried as a fraudulent bankrupt at the next Assizes. There seemed to be no means known to the law for effecting his release without payment of the money. He brought this case before the House in order to avail himself of the opportunity it would afford him of asking the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it was not desirable that the Home Office should have the power to interfere in cases of this kind, as in criminal cases, and remit the imprisonment.

said, it was very natural for a humane man like the hon. Member, when instances of this sort came to his knowledge, to wish for some short ready remedy for the grievance; but on the part of the Government he was not at all anxious to increase the powers of the Secretary of State for the Home Department relating to the remission of sentences. He might, however, add that he understood that the Bankruptcy Bill about to be introduced by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General contained a provision which would completely meet the case brought forward by the hon. Member.

asked for some explanation of this Vote.

said, that this Vote and the one which would be next proposed were required for the purpose of closing past accounts; and pointed to a note appended to the Estimate in the hands of hon. Members as explanatory of the arrears of charges, which it was meant to wipe away. The mode in which the Estimates were now dealt with was rather different from what it had been in former years. Some years ago the Supplies for the Civil Service were granted merely for the service of the year, and any excess in those Supplies remained with the heads of Departments for future expenditure in those Departments. Now, however, the money was not voted for the service, but for the particular amount that would come in course of payment during the financial year in each Department. In consequence of the adoption of the now system a final adjustment of balances had had to be made. An Act had been passed—the Exchequer and Audit Act, which was rather a complicated measure, regulating the precise manner in which Votes were to be accounted for by all the officers of the Crown who were accountants, and balance sheets had to be prepared. For that purpose it became necessary to ascertain the exact balance in the hands of every officer engaged in watching over; the expenditure of the public money at the end of the financial year in March, 1868. In order to arrive at that the accounts, for several years past, had to be carefully examined, and many of these accounts were found to result in an excess over the amount available for the public expenditure; while others, on the contrary, resulted in a balance in favour of the Exchequer. The Commissioners of Audit, however, and the gentlemen to whom the investigation of these balances had been specially referred, had arrived at the conclusion that the excess of expenditure over the amounts voted in the different Departments would be covered by the two Votes now laid upon the table. It was necessary to take these Votes for the purpose of setting the accounts right; but he was happy to add that the number of accounts in which the balance in favour of the Exchequer exceeded the expenditure were by far the more favourable class. As far as the accounts had been yet adjusted the aggregate balance in favour of the Exchequer amounted to £844,000, being about £440,000 in excess of the total of balances on the unfavourable side.

said, the explanation just given by the Secretary to the Treasury was much clearer than the footnote appended to the Estimate. He thought, however, that to vote this money as if it were actually needed, when there was more than enough in hand, was rather a bungling way of settling the accounts. It would be much better to have an adjustment of the rival balances, and treat this transaction as an ordinary matter of account.

said, an hon. Member asked why the Government paid the light dues for the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, while they would pay them for no other packet company in the kingdom? It was impossible to deal with the balances in the manner suggested by the hon. Member for Swansea, inasmuch as the Estimates were framed with the object of showing every item expended on the national account, without reference to receipts. Every effort was being made by the Treasury to keep the expenditure as closely as possible to the Votes granted by the House. Other Questions he thought might more properly be reserved until the Estimates for the present year were brought forward.

said, that St. James's Palace during the last four years had cost £40,000 in repairs, yet here was another item of £7,704 outstanding for Royal Palaces, which were explained to mean Windsor Castle, Kensington, and St. James's Palaces. How was this? There was an item of £18,000 in the Supplementary Estimates for printing and stationery, yet here was a further item of £8,468 of excess on the same head. There was also an excess of more than £18,000 in the Law Courts of Ireland for pensions and retiring allowances. He could not understand why there should be an item of £2,690 for Nonconforming and other ministers in Ireland unpaid. These were not men who could have got on without their salaries, and the amount must have been voted in the proper year. Then there was an item of "miscellaneous expenses from civil contingencies" of £5,053, which was explained to arise from the item for robes, collars, and badges of the various orders of knighthood, though the sum voted last Session for these things was thousands in excess of previous years. The result at which he had arrived was, that it was impossible for anybody to understand how these accounts were managed.

said, that these were not monies that were being voted for future payment in a Supplementary Estimate, but an adjustment of accounts for past payments. The item for Royal Palaces referred to unforeseen expenditure incurred before the end of March, 1868. It related to money actually spent, and had no bearing on the Vote of last year. The Vote for Printing and Stationery was also required to adjust the expenditure under the new Parliamentary mode of keeping the accounts. As the new system was not at first properly carried out, it happened sometimes that there was not in law any money applicable to the payment of any deficiency. When these Votes were adjusted it would be impossible for the same thing to occur again. In regard to the Vote for New Robes and Orders it was placed in the Estimates of a subsequent year, though the payment ought to have been a charge upon the Estimates for the year ending March, 1868. The Committee should clearly understand that they were now engaged in an adjustment of accounts, and were not really voting any public money.

said, he was afraid that under these circumstances any reduction in the Votes would be a Motion to pay so many shillings in the pound.

said, that they would now start with a clear account for all these heads of expenditure, and what had before occurred would not occur again.

said, he was afraid that money had been spent first, and was to be voted afterwards; at least such appeared to have been the practice under the late Government.

said, he wished to take the opportunity of impressing on the Government the necessity of having more speedy and satisfactory accounts from India. Merchants, even in such small matters as having ships in India, found no difficulty in communicating with them by telegram and giving directions as to what cargoes they should bring home. He could not, therefore, comprehend the peculiar difficulty of communicating with the Government of India with respect to these great matters of account. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought really to be able to tell them a little more of this Supplemental Estimate than he had done. Those who had experience in business could not understand the difficulties with which he was beset. There was another point which was not alluded to last night, and which he must impress on the Government. The Foreign Office should not send consuls to places where they were not wanted, and they could not be too careful in their selection of those they did send, for many of them were very peculiar men, and we were responsible for them. He hoped they had now heard the last of the Abyssinian war. It was all very well to talk of the honour and glory of the expedition, and of "the banner of St. George floating on the mountains of Rasselas;" but the tax-payers of this country had in the end to pay rather heavily for all these things.

, said, he was sorry he could not give the hon. Gentleman any further information on this subject than he had stated last evening. He was not Chancellor of the Exchequer for India, and had no official pecuniary relations with India. He had neither been able to extract from the Indian Government any account, nor any account why they did not render one.