asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a report of a trial at the late assizes for the county of Wicklow, before Mr. Justice Morris, whereat it was given in evidence, and not contradicted—

"That certain 'official reports' of the physician of Mountjoy Government Prison relating to the prevalence of incipient insanity among the 'untried' prisoners, brought on by the cellular system, and which in due course should have been laid before the Chief Secretary, were from him withheld and suppressed by one of the Directors of Convict Prisons in Ireland;"

whether any explanation of this statement has been by the Irish Government sought from the Prison Director referred to; and, whether he still holds his office; and, if so, are the Government prepared to institute an inquiry into the truth of a charge of so grave a nature?

, in reply, said, his attention had been called to a report of the trial in question. It appeared to him that the word "suppressed" was too strong a description of the circumstances which occurred. It was true, however, that the report was not laid before the Chief Secretary for a period of a month or six weeks, and when that circumstance was brought to the knowledge of Lord Naas, he expressed his extreme regret that a report of that nature was not laid before him. Lord Naas thereupon ordered a full inquiry into all the circumstances, and the result was that almost immediately a change respecting the treatment of untried prisoners was made. The Director of Convict Prisons referred to still held office; but considering that the circumstances were fully inquired into by Lord Naas three years ago, and that the result arrived at was what he (the Marquess of Hartington) had just stated, he did not see how it was possible for him to make any further inquiry into the matter.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether in a district provided with the requisite accommodation, within the distance prescribed in a Public Elementary School managed by a committee of ratepayers, can the School Board borrow money on the security of the school fund and local rate towards obtaining an additional school house; and, if they can, what limit (if any), would be placed by the Education Department to their borrowing powers or to the dimensions of such unnecessary building, and can the deficiency of the school fund in respect of such school house be raised out of the rates?

, in reply, said, the Education Department did not require school accommodation to be provided in any place until they were convinced there was a deficiency of such accommodation; and, with reference to a school board borrowing money for the purpose of increasing school accommodation, the district for which such accommodation must be provided was limited by the boundary of the school district, whatever that might be.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, If he will lay upon the Table of the House a Paper issued by the Endowed Schools Commissioners, containing the general rules upon which they will deal with endowments now applicable to Elementary Education?

said, in reply, that he was very anxious that every information should be given by the Department of which he was the head; but he felt considerable difficulty with regard to the document referred to, which was neither headed nor signed, so that it was impossible to make it a Parliamentary Paper without giving it an importance which it was not intended to have. It was not an official statement drawn up for publication, nor was it addressed to the public, but formed part of an explanatory letter adapted to the circumstances of each case.

said, he thought that the document, together with the correspondence with which it was accompanied, would form an interesting Parliamentary Paper, and he therefore hoped it would be laid before the House.

said, some limit must be put on the production of documents of this nature. If documents which were a mere statement of views and were devoid of official responsibility were to be laid before the House, there would be no end of such Parliamentary Papers.

, in rising to take the direction of the Speaker on a point of Order, which was of great consequence as regarded the conduct of Public Business in that House, said, he would have asked the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman last night, had not the right hon. Gentleman unfortunately been unavoidably absent from his place. After the dinner hour yesterday Her Majesty's Government determined to proceed with the consideration of the Report of the Committee on Public Business. But the Resolutions which Her Majesty's Government decided on presenting to the House were not handed in at the Table until, he believed, after midnight, and when very few hon. Members were present. At an early hour that morning—after 2 o'clock—he (Mr. C. Bentinck) protested against that course, and urged upon Her Majesty's Government the unfairness of such a proceeding in the certainty of the absence of a great number of hon. Members of the House, and a large proportion of those who had attended to this question, and who had also sat on the Committee. He also pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that he had given a distinct undertaking to himself (Mr. C. Bentinck) that ample notice of discussion on this question would be given. He ventured to submit that that undertaking had not been redeemed. That morning he had seen his right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), who held what was ordinarily termed the office of Leader of the Opposition. His right hon. Friend stated that he left the House after 8 o'clock last night, when no distinct decision had been come to by the Government as to what was to be done at the Morning Sitting that day; that he, too, was under the impression that ample notice would be given, and that he did not consider that even 24 hours' notice would be all that was required.

said, he rose to a point of Order. The hon. Gentleman opposite appeared to be opening up a question of good or bad faith, which, he submitted, was not a point of Order.

If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven will state the point of Order, I will be happy to give my opinion on it.

said, if out of Order he would submit to the judgment of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, not to that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven has stated that he wished to raise a distinct question relating to the Orders of the House, but much of the matter introduced by the hon. Member is not of that nature.

said, he would proceed at once to the point of Order. As far as his experience in that House had given him any means of forming a judgment, the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in that matter was a breach, if not of the Rules of the House, at least of the rules of etiquette. He apprehended that, according to the understanding that existed between the two sides of the House, no question could be set down for discussion unless there was sufficient time to enable Amendments to that question to be duly placed upon the Paper also. In that case the rule, whether it was a Rule of the House or a rule of etiquette, had not been observed by Her Majesty's Government, and he would cite as an argument in favour of the position for which he was contending, the almost analogous case of an Amendment upon the Report of a Bill as amended in Committee. Hon. Members know that it was a Rule of the House, for which the Standing Orders provided, that no material alterations could be proposed on the Report of a Bill, as amended in Committee, except upon notice of 24 hours, and for the very obvious reason that the House ought to know beforehand when any such Amendments should be considered, and that it was only proper that there should be ample notice. He apprehended that the Resolutions stood in exactly the same category, because a Resolution would not be read twice or three times; there would be only one discussion, and one opportunity for the House to express an opinion upon it. Therefore, according to common sense, justice and precedent, he contended that when Resolutions of such importance, dealing with the rights and privileges of the House of Commons, were to be considered, there should be no attempt, as it were, by a side-wind, to go through them without full discussion. That was the point of Order which he desired to place before the right hon. Gentleman.

The question of the hon. Member for Whitehaven, as I understand, includes two points—first, the point of Order as to Notice; and, secondly, the question of what is, under the circumstances, sufficient Notice. The rule with regard to Notice is, that Notice must be given on the previous day, and this was done in the instance under discussion. With regard to the sufficiency of the Notice, that is a matter of opinion upon which a difference of judgment may exist, and which may vary with the nature of the case; but as far as the strict rules of order go there is nothing, in my opinion, in them to prevent the House from proceeding with the considerations of the Resolutions.

The object of the Rules with regard to Notice is, that Members may have full intimation of what is to be proposed, and that those who wish to move Amendments may be able to give Notice to that effect. The Rule of the House as regards public Notices of Motion is that they should be given at a quarter-past 4, when Members are generally in attendance, and there are means of knowing what is to be done. Generally, important Notices are given at that time; but no doubt it is the practice constantly that Notices of Motion are given privately to the Clerk at the Table after that hour, but that is for a subsequent day, and then they appear on the Paper as Notices of Motion given for a future day. I presume, however, that strictly they are supposed to be given at a quarter-past 4, and not at any time during the evening to the Clerk at the Table. I was myself here until 2 o'clock this morning, and was not aware that airy Notice for discussing these Resolutions had been given. I was anxious myself to give Notice of one or two Amendments to the Resolutions. I understand that when Notice was given, my hon. Friend (Mr. C. Bentinck), who was more wide awake than I was, did ask a question of the Leader of the House as to what was to be done. It was not until this morning, after my breakfast hour, that I saw that some Notice of these Resolutions had been given. I would submit to the candour of the Leader of the House, whether, upon an important question on which hon. Members of this House feel strongly, it would not be proper that adequate Notice should be given, so that those hon. Members who have a desire to move Amendments should have a fair opportunity of doing so.

I wish to answer the appeal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). In the first place, I do not know upon what authority my right hon. Friend has stated that the Rule of the House is, that Notice should be given at a quarter-past 4. I beg my right hon. Friend's pardon, there is no such Rule. At least, as at present advised, I am disposed to say no such Rule exists. The practice is to give Notice at that time, or in the course of the evening, for next day or a future day, so that hon. Gentlemen when they see the Paper in the morning may be aware what business is coming on in the course of the day. The history of the matter before the House is this—There has been a great pressure on the Government, and questions have been put to us to know when we could proceed with these Resolutions. We have hitherto been very reluctantly obliged to baulk the natural desire of many hon. Members to have these Resolutions proceeded with. What happened yesterday was as follows:—The business began with the consideration of the Army Bill, and in the course of the evening communications were made to us from the other side of the House and the opponents of the Bill generally, to the effect that it would be extremely agreeable to them if the Government would consent to take the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) on Monday. Under the circumstances, there being every expectation that the Army Bill would be disposed of last night, it naturally occurred that, having acceded to that wish, we should take Supply this morning; but we took into account the fact that the Government had long ago considered the Resolutions of the Committee on Public Business, and that we had actually made up our minds as to the proposals which we should submit to the House on the subject, although our Resolutions were not actually drawn up. Now, of the three Resolutions which we intended to lay before the House, two were not in the slightest degree connected with our own interests. One of them is intimately connected with the concurrences of independent Members and the other with the propriety of certain proceedings in this House. The latter is that which relates to the power which every hon. Member possesses to call summarily and peremptorily for the exclusion of strangers from the House. Now, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) has announced his intention positively to introduce a Bill for the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Act on Tuesday next, and under the circumstances it appeared to us not in our own interest, but in the interest of the House itself, that this question with regard to the exclusion of strangers should be disposed of at a Morning Sitting before that day. That is the reason why we determined to propose the Resolution to which I am referring. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven was, I think, perfectly satisfied when I made a somewhat similar statement at half-past 2 this morning. [Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: No!] The other Resolution which we intended to propose sit this Sitting is that which relates to counting out when the House meets at 9 o'clock. During the last few weeks, although on those occasions the Government formed one-third, and sometimes one-half, of the Members present, yet the House has been counted out at an early period after 9 o'clock, because independent Members and the champions of the rights of independent Members have not thought fit to be in their places for the purpose of making a quorum. We have done what we could by personal attendance to secure that object, and we thought it was really important that we should settle the question without delay, and in a manner generally approved, by a proposal to delay the count for half-an-hour after 9 o'clock, in the interests of independent Members, not our own, because, personally, it would frequently be more convenient to us to go home than to sit here.

rose to Order. The right hon. Gentleman was doing that which he had no right to do; he was discussing the Resolutions under circumstances which would preclude any answer being given to his remarks.

I am not speaking to the point of Order, but in reply to an appeal from my right hon. Friend behind me, the Member for Kilmarnock, and if the House does not wish me to proceed I have no desire to do so. I have now stated the reasons which induced us to fix the consideration of those two Resolutions at a Morning Sitting to-day. As to the other Resolution which relates to Supply, I said last night that we should not proceed with it this morning, and my right hon. Friend near me, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will not proceed with it, but it will remain on the Paper. If the House should not deem it right to proceed with the other Resolutions also, we shall not press them. We simply took a course which we thought would be for the convenience of hon. Members generally.

said, he had had the honour of sitting on the Committee upstairs, and he was under the impression due Notice would be given as to the time when the Resolutions founded on their Report would be brought before the House. Hon. Members had, in his opinion, some right to complain that the 3rd of the Resolutions now proposed was not that of the Committee. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) had moved in the Committee that the hour before which a count-out could not be moved when the House met at 9 o'clock should be half-past; but the proposal of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), fixing the hour at a quarter-past 9, had been almost unanimously adopted. He thought it, therefore, extremely unfair of the Government to propose a different Resolution from that of the Committee, after only 10 or 12 hours' notice. If the Government thought the change which they suggested an improvement, they ought not, nevertheless, to take the House by surprise. As to the 1st Resolution, with which it was proposed to proceed, he would merely say that it was, he believed, only by the casting vote of the Chairman that the Committee had determined there should be no debate on the question whether strangers should be ordered to withdraw. Under these circumstances, he hoped the discussion of the Resolutions would not be persisted in on the present occasion; but that another occasion would be taken advantage of, when they would receive that share of the attention of the House as to discussion, to which he (Mr. Collins) considered them fully entitled. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.

said, he thought the main point raised in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock had not been answered by the Prime Minister, He (Mr. B. Hope) referred to the impossibility of putting any Amendments on the Paper, owing to the shortness of Notice, and he maintained that—putting aside all technicalities, and looking at matters from a common-sense point of view and with fairness, as he trusted they would always be looked upon in an assembly of Gentlemen like the House of Commons, who would disdain to take any advantage of one another—ample Notice ought always be given to Members upon any important business which was to be brought forward, so as to enable them to put their Amendments down. The points raised in the Resolutions were, after all, of the utmost importance to themselves, intimately connected as they were with forms of procedure which had long existed. The right to insist on the exclusion of strangers might be a somewhat obsolete privilege; but it was a very ancient one, and ought not to be parted with without debate. Of the power of "counting-out" the House, it could not be said that it was obsolete, and it certainty was a question on which both sides of the House ought to have ample opportunity afforded them to express an opinion. He himself must strongly protest against the notion that those who were anxious to protect the rights of private Members had any interest in interfering with that privilege. The power of "counting out" he regarded as a special privilege of private Members, and a Palladium of the proceedings of the House. It was a great protection against bores, and contributed to the saving- of the health and lives of Members, as every hon. Gentleman must feel who, like himself, had been in the House this week at 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning, as well as the whole of Wednesday. He did not mean to contend that it might not be desirable to put some restriction on the privilege of "counting out;" but the question was one which ought not, in his opinion, to be decided without mature consideration. The Resolution of the Government on the subject was not that of the Committee; so he trusted they would show their confidence in their own proposal by allowing it to run the gauntlet of free discussion.

These proposals are of very small consequence, indeed, to the Government, although we look upon them as of consequence to the convenience of the House. It was, therefore, for that the Government went out of their way to bring them forward. The view of many hon. Gentlemen, however, seems to be that everybody ought to discuss them except the persons who are responsible for framing them. In that view I, for one, cannot acquiesce. We have done what we can to meet the convenience of the House; but we cannot afford to waste time in wrangling over the question. The Government will not proceed with the Resolutions to-day, and we shall put them down for Tuesday; but I cannot give any promise that they will come on for discussion on that day. Whether they do or not will depend on the state of the Public Business. It will not be our fault if, when the Motion of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) comes on on Tuesday evening, strangers are obliged to withdraw.

, as a Member of the Committee, said, he wished to say a few words on the subject. He was not present at the discussion which had occurred after 2 o'clock that morning; but he could not help characterizing the mode in which it was proposed to proceed in the present instance as eminently unsatisfactory. Fair Notice ought, he thought, always to be given of the business which was to be brought on, and the Notice Paper should contain a true record of that business, which was not the case with that which hon. Members received that morning.

thanked the Government for postponing the consideration of the Resolutions, as it would have been very unfair to have passed Resolutions which would have been equivalent to Standing Orders without ample Notice having been given. There were several of the Resolutions of the Committee, and especially that which related to taking no opposed business after half-past 12 o'clock, which ought to be submitted to the House. That particular recommendation bore reforence to the health of the Speaker and to the health of every hon. Member of the House, and it ought to receive full consideration.

desired, as the Prime Minister had called in question the propriety of the course which he had deemed it to be his duty to take last Session, to say that he had informed the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler), the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. M. Chambers), and others that he would not move that strangers should be ordered to withdraw when the Motion which had been alluded to came on on Tuesday next.

said, he had made no reference whatever to the hon. Gentleman.

said, that as to the question of the herring brand, a Paper had been laid upon the Table, from which it appeared that the first suggestion for its abolition came from the Government of the Netherlands, who stated, through their Ambassador in London, that they were ready to do away with the brand provided the British Government simultaneously abolished their brand. The Board of Trade replied—

"I have to request that you will state to his Lordship that the Board of Trade hold opinions against the principle of branding herrings. They will be disposed to agree with the Dutch Government that the system should be put an end to by both Governments; but they cannot do that without reference to the Treasury, which is directed by the Lords Commissioners to say that they hold the system of branding in Scotland to be quite indefensible. But they fear that press of business will preclude them for taking measures for its abolition."

Now, when a foreign Government condemned that system, and our own declared it to be quite indefensible, and the Treasury said they kept it up temporarily only because they had not time to abolish it, their course was clear—they had only to stop the Supplies, and he should support his hon. and learned Friend in his Motion to leave out the whole Estimate.

said, he agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd) that this Vote for branding was the last lingering remnant of protection. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend that it would be very beneficial if the herring brand were abolished—the Scotch herring fishery would exist in spite of brands—and he was glad to find that persons who had formerly been opposed to the abolition of the brand now said that they thought that if due notice were given the Government would take a wise step in getting rid of it. What the hon. Member for Edinburgh had said in respect of the official correspondence with the Netherlands Government was quite correct. He felt it to be quite impossible for the present Government to defend the brand. He proposed that two years' notice should be given of its abolition, so that the trade might make the necessary arrangements for its cessation. With respect to the grant for harbours, he was not quite sure that he could agree with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ayr. The grant had been the means of doing a great deal of good, and he was not at all disposed to go to the length of his hon. and learned Friend and abolish the Board altogether; but he did think that expenditure of this kind should be laid before the House, and that they should know from year to year what was done by those who were spending the public money; and the more so because he admitted that the administration of the grant by the Scotch Fishery Board for the last two or three years certainly required investigation. The Scotch Fishery Board had spent in various ways about £45,000 for Anstruther Harbour; but they were in debt, the harbour was not finished, and, what was worse, it was tumbling to pieces. Mr. Hawkshaw had been sent to examine the works and see what should be done; and, although he had not yet presented his Report, which would probably be in the hands of the Treasury in a few days, he had written a letter stating—apart altogether from his other recommendations, which he had not had time fully to consider—that it was absolutely necessary to spend about £8,000 at once on the harbour, in order to prevent the pier and harbour works from tumbling into the sea. He (Mr. Baxter) had replied to Mr. Hawkshaw's letter that it was quite out of his power to sanction that, that too much money had already been spent on that harbour without the authority of Parliament, and that he could not authorize the outlay of a shilling upon it until the opinion of the House of Commons had been expressed. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not think it necessary to oppose the Vote this year. He promised that steps would be taken to abolish branding in two years; and that before the Estimates were again presented to Parliament they would consider what measures it was requisite to adopt in regard to the duties hitherto performed by the Scotch Fishery Board.

said, he certainly was not surprised at the willingness shown by the Secretary to the Treasury to make a change with reference to branding and also to the Fishery Board, because when about 18 months ago, upon the representation of his hon. Friends the Members for Ayr and Edinburgh, a Commission was issued by the Government to investigate, among other matters, the necessity of maintaining the Fishery Board and what were its duties, the present Secretary of the Treasury was one of the chief accusers of the Board, and gave the Commissioners to understand that his view was that it might be altogether superseded and its functions intrusted to other authorities. He might, however, state that the duties of the Board were not confined to the branding of herrings and superintending the application of the grant for harbours, but extended to the police to be maintained at the different stations of the herring-fishery, to the numbering of the boats, the charge of the nets, and also matters under a recent Act relating to the navigation. The duties were important. He might mention also a curious matter. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, being then Secretary to the Admiralty, stated, in his evidence before the Commission, that the police duties might be performed efficiently and at no expense under the superintendence of the Admiralty, and that the other duties connected with the numbering of the boats and taking charge of the nets could be performed by persons under the Board of Trade or the Customs. When, however, the Board of Customs were applied to on the matter, the answer it gave was that those duties could not be transferred to its officers without necessitating a great addition to the force of that department, and probably an expense not less than that paid by the Crown under the present system. Then as to the transfer of the police duties to the Admiralty—the First Lord was applied to—and the answer received was that—

"He (the writer) was commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to say that the question had been considered by their Lordships, but that it appeared to them that if any change was made in the present arrangement it should be in the opposite direction to that proposed, as the duties of police were at variance with ideas in accordance with which H.M.'s ships were manned, and such employment of the men in H.M.'s ships would be neither economical nor in accordance with the interests of the service. Their Lordships would therefore prefer that these duties should be performed in some other way."

That, he thought, was tolerably conclusive. There was nothing like giving a dog a bad name, and on that principle "branding" had been called "the last rag of Protection." The effect of the process was not to give any "protection," but merely to provide an authorized certificate from competent officers that herring had been properly cured. Branded herring fetched a higher price, was sold without trouble or expense, and an excllent trade was thus carried on without litigation. Branding involved no expense to the country, inasmuch as the herring curers paid for it, and the pecuniary result of the transaction was to leave a balance in the hands of the Fishery Board. It would create very considerable discontent in Scotland if the Treasury bench persevered in their determination to abolish the system of branding. The herring trade in Scotland was a very important one, and furnished employment to upwards of 70,000 persons—a large number of whom were boatmen, who would be available for our Navy in time of war.

said, he did not rise either to support or oppose the branding system—but he did say that the system had worked admirably in times past, and the herring trade had prospered greatly under it; nor was he aware that any dissatisfaction had been expressed by any of the parties interested in the trade—and many of those most largely interested were amongst his constituents. Although he felt that it would be of but little use for him to gainsay the decision of the Government, he only hoped that the course they had adopted in this matter would not prejudicially affect a trade which gave employment to such a large number of the poorer classes of Scotland. It had been stated that by branding the herring casks the Government were preserving the last rag of Protection; but he, on the contrary, regarded the branding of those casks in the same light as he did the branding of gun barrels. The latter stamped the character of the weapon, and the former the character of the contents of the cask. The stamping of the gun barrels was paid for by the manufacturers, and was a certificate that the gun might be safely used, and the herring brand was paid for by the curer, and was a certificate that the contents of the barrel were wholesome food. As to the economical argument in favour of the abolition of the system, all he could say was, that while the whole expense of the Fishery Board of Scotland was £5,837, the fees paid to the Government for branding amounted to £5,003 per annum. Therefore, in the event of the system of branding being abolished, the result would be that the Fishery Board, which would be obliged to be kept up for other purposes, would have to be paid by a sum to be voted by the House. Then as to the question of the harbour grant, in his opinion the amount of the grant for forming, repairing, and maintaining the small tidal harbours along the eastern coast of Scotland, which were of so much importance to the preservation of the lives and boats of the fishermen engaged in this hazardous trade, so far from being diminished, ought rather to be largely increased. They had to deal with a very large, a very poor, and a most industrious population, on whom a most important supply of wholesome food to the general community depended. The persons who risked their lives in that hazardous calling were all poor people, and one of the chief duties of any Government intrusted with the affairs of this country was, it seemed to him, to encourage and protect that useful class of persona. It had been the policy of the Government for many years past to spend a small sum only—in his opinion a great deal too small a sum—in erecting, repairing, and preserving small harbours of refuge for the fisheries of those people. It was perfectly well known to hon. Members that the whole east coast of Scotland, on which the fisheries chiefly lay, was wholly open and unprotected by any natural harbours, and that it was upon these small fishery harbours, which were mostly tidal, that the safety of the boats and the fishermen engaged depended. And he must say that, as far as he was aware, the Fishery Board of Scotland had expended the small and inadequate funds placed at their disposal in a manner that had given general satisfaction. With respect to the harbour of Anstruther, for the construction of which sums had been borrowed on the authority of Acts of Parliament, he trusted that some satisfactory explanation would be able to be given for the partial failure of the works that had been commenced there. Looking to the eminence and character of the Government engineers employed, he had no doubt such an explanation could be given; but the result had been that over £50,000 had been expended; there was a considerable sum still due to the contractors; and a further sum was required to put the works in such a state that they would afford adequate protection. When the Anstruther Harbour was completed it would be of the greatest advantage to the population of that coast. It ought to have been completed in three or four years; but the engineers had been controlled by a want of funds. As the Government made a bargain with the people of Anstruther, and took possession of the only harbour they had for the purpose of constructing a new harbour, it was the duty of the Government to see that no further delay should occur in the completion of that harbour.

said, he rose to confirm the statement of the hon. Member for St. Andrew's. He would not have the Committee suppose that this was a case in which the inhabitants and fishermen of Anstruther alone were concerned. The whole of the very large fishing population upon the cast coast of Scotland, and upon the cast of Fifeshire and the Lothians, was exposed to very severe weather, yet along the whole of those shores there was but one harbour—Dunbar—to which fishing boats could run for shelter. Up to the present time no doubt the Anstruther Harbour was a lamentable failure; but as about £49,000 had been expended upon it, energetic efforts ought to be made to complete the harbour. The very fact that the harbour works had so signally failed was a proof of the violence of the storms to which those coasts were exposed. As to the question of branding, it was not denied that the whole expense was paid by the fish curers and fishermen themselves. Had it been paid by the public he might have had considerable doubt whether they should have been called upon to continue a system which gave a manifest advantage to those who dealt in the articles marked by this particular brand. But as the expense was borne by the dealers themselves, and they were willing to pay for what they considered a certificate of character, there was nothing unreasonable in continuing it.

saw no reason why the Fishery Board should be attacked. On the contrary, he thought it one of those institutions which ought to be very much strengthened; and if Her Majesty's Government had proposed to make it a large grant of money he would have supported the proposal. Probably one cause of the failure at Anstruther was the attempt to project now piers into the sea instead of excavating the harbour behind the piers already in existence If the latter plan had been adopted the Government might, with the expenditure of one-tenth of the sum which had been already laid out, have now had a practical and useful harbour; whereas by attempting to run the piers into the sea they met with or occasioned seas or cross-currents the force of which they had not calculated. There was another thing connected with our fisheries which he should like to see the Fishery Board employed in carrying out. He should like to see the Fishery Board supplied with funds to enable them to place model fishing boats at particular points on the coast, so that the fishermen might be gradually induced to abandon the low freeboard boats which were the cause of so much loss of life. When the Duke of Richmond was at the Board of Trade he had the pleasure of communicating with him on the subject, and he had no doubt that if the noble Duke had remained in office a little longer the suggestion would have been carried out. There was a third point, and that was the police which it was necessary to maintain at these harbours. His hon. Friend the Member for the Wick Burghs (Mr. Loch) would bear him out as to the enormous number of fishing boats which went to sea every night, and that almost every casualty arose from collisions. Sometimes no fewer than 1,100 or 1,200 boats went to sea at night—so that the necessity of maintaining a police along the coast became apparent. There was also the encroachment of foreigners to guard against. As the Fishery Board was within a very narrow amount of being a profit to Government he could not conceive any good reason for reducing or altering its scope or making the changes asked for. On the contrary, he saw good cause for granting more money to carry out its objects, and he felt quite sure it would be to the advantage of the community if such additional grant were made. The discussion as to the brand had been exhausted, except as to one point, and that was the anxiety of the Dutch Government to get rid of the brand. The Dutch were famous as a nation for perseverance, astuteness and other good qualities, and especially for looking after their own interest, and as the Dutch herrings were the only her-rings which competed with ours in foreign ports it was a matter of the greatest importance if they could get us to abandon the brand. As long as our herrings went to the Continent with the Government brand, they were looked upon as equal to the Dutch; but if you abolished the brand the Dutch herrings would bring a higher price. The Dutch honing brand spoke for itself as the Scotch herring brand did. He should cortainly oppose the Amendment.

said, the question of the brand was a most important one. He was decidedly opposed to its removal. Confidence was given to consumers in all parts of the world by the present system; but if the brand were taken away the confidence of the consumer was shaken or abandoned, and consequently the consumption was reduced He believed it to be a fact that no less than 10,000 boats went out from Wick fishing every year, and he maintained it was an act of public policy to encourage a fishery which produced seamen in such numbers and of such a character; because in a case of emergency no better man-of-war's men could be found than the men who were engaged in herring fishing in Scotland.

said, he did not think the Government could have given the brand question the attention which its importance demanded, else they could not have arrived at any such conclusion, as that to which they appeared to have come. The experiment was a very dangerous one, for it affected a class of the population who could but little afford to stand the risks attending it. The Northern districts of Scotland were in habited by a very poor and humble class of persons, who had few resources of their own, and but limited means of obtaining labour at home; and it was to the herring trade they looked for their means of living from year to year. It was with the interests of those poor and helpless people that this experiment would come into contact if the Government persisted. The brand was of very great value to the fish curers. Our principal foreign customers were the Germans, and the herrings were sent to them certified with the Government brand. Now, in those countries the Government brand was looked upon as of far greater importance than any private brand would over be. His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Baxter) had spoken about some communication between this Government and the Dutch Government. He said the Dutch Government were prepared to put an end to their brand, on condition that we put an end to ours. The offer was simply ridiculous. The Committee would be surprised when he told them the proportion between the herring trades of the two countries. In 1855 the Scotch herrings exported to Germany measured 388,000 barrels, while the Dutch herrings were only 1,800 barrels; yet with such a difference, it was proposed that we should meet them half way. It had been argued that the effect of the brand was to remove the inducement of the Scotch curer to improve the quality of his herrings. That was a mistake—it was the interest of the curer as it was of every other manufacturer to produce the best article he could. The effect of the brand was to certify that the barrel contained a properly prepared article; and without it the barrels would have to be opened individually to ascertain the quality. The brand was of most importance to the poor fisherman, for it enabled him to get the same price for his article as his wealthier rivals. If he complied with the conditions of the Government and got the brand, his herings were as valuable, and commanded as high a price in Germany as the herrings of any of the great curers. Do away with the brand, and they would confine the traffic to the great curers.

said, his constituents were interested in this question, and they had shown their interest in two ways. In the first place, they intrusted him with a Petition to the House in favour of the maintenance of the herring brand, and in the next place they had deputed a gentleman thoroughly conversant with the entire subject, to make the Government acquainted with their feelings respecting it. That gentleman had told him that the abolition of the brand would cause a depreciation of £100,000 a-year in the herring trade. It was not a question of protection—it was the principle of maintaining for the advantage of a very important existing trade the benefit of a trade-mark which had been established almost from time immemorial. If they took away that, they would greatly depreciate the value of the Scotch herrings, and they had the truth of that in the statement in the correspondence with the Dutch Government—that the continuance of the brand would lead to the price of Dutch herrings being as much below the Scotch as the Norwegian. Not a single Commission had ventured to recommend abolishing the brand. On the contrary, they had had the most emphatic testimony as to the advantage and almost the necessity of maintaining the brand. When they found that a system of business had been established, and had succeeded, 6urely it was a piece of infatuation to make a change.

said, that it was not to be wondered at that the Members for the Northern fishery burghs should oppose any proposition for removing this remnant of protection; but history showed that the parties most interested in the events were always the worst judges of what was good for them. He should support the abolition of the branding, believing that it was opposed to the principles of free trade, and that it was of no real advantage, but rather the contrary, to those whose interests it was supposed to protect. The Dutch had used a brand, and if it was the cause of the herring trade flourishing in Scotland, why should it not render the Dutch trade also flourishing? Yet the Dutch trade was rapidly declining. The last census showed that the population of Wick was declining. That did not look as if the system was doing them much good. The abolition of the brand would give an impetus to free trade principles and explode an antiquated notion. The superior quality of the article would, he maintained, continue to bring the best price after the brand was abolished.

, knowing something of an Irish fishery connected with Howth, could bear testimony to the fact that the system of branding was regarded as extremely advantageous.

said, that after the reply which had been given by the Secretary to the Treasury, he would not press his Motion to a division. He hoped his hon. Friend would at once issue the notice to which he referred.

, referring to the remarks which had been made with respect to Anstruther Harbour, pointed out that the Board were constantly in communication with the Treasury, and that they could not spend 6d. out of the annual Vote which they received without the consent of the Government. Some portion of the works were very magnificent and substantial—only some parts were inferior, and it was these that had given way.

wished the hon. Member the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Baxter) and the Mover of the Motion for the omission of this Vote (Mr. Craufurd) to distinctly understand that there was not a general concurrence of opinion amongst the Scotch Members in what they were about to do, and if the brands were to be removed, it was not to be supposed that such was the general desire of the Scotch Members.

rose to move the rejection of the item for Queen's Plates. It appeared indefensible in regard to the administration of the public revenue to vote this sum of money in the Estimates. They had got rid of a similar Vote for England, and last year they abolished the Vote for the Queen's Plates in Scotland. He therefore moved that the present Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,562 6s. 2d., the amount proposed to be given for Queen's Plates in Ireland.

said, that the hon. Gentleman was wrong in his statement that Queen's Plates had been given up so far as England was concerned. No Vote was ever taken for Queen's Plates in England, as the money came out of Her Majesty's Privy Purse; and, as for the Queen's Plates in Scotland, they were abandoned at the request of the representatives for Scotland. It was a matter of considerable importance to maintain the breed of horses in Ireland for the purpose of mounting the cavalry, and, consequently, he objected to the withdrawal of the item for the Queen's Plates.

said, he would vote for disallowing this item; for if it was wrong to vote money for Queen's Plates in Scotland, it must be equally wrong to vote money for Queen's Plates in Ireland.

observed, that the simple reason why the Government allowed the Queen's Plates as respects Scotland to be removed from the Estimates last year was because the general opinion of Scotch Members appeared to be in favour of that course. Not a single Member from Scotland, in fact, rose in his place to object to the omission. No similar opinion, however, had been expressed on the part of the Irish Members, and therefore the Government had retained the Vote.

was in favour of continuing the Queen's Plates in Ireland, and he hoped to see them restored to Scotland. The omission had occasioned the greatest possible dissatisfaction.

said, that the Vote for Queen's Plates in Scotland was struck out of the Estimates without a division; and he and the few Scotch Members present assented on the distinct understanding that the same principle was to be applied to Ireland. The Vote for Ireland had, however, re-appeared in the Estimates, and he should Vote against it, for he thought that it would now be most unjust to make the Scotch people contribute towards the expense of Queen's Plates in Ireland.

hoped that the hon. Member for Warrington would insist on the omission of the item for Queen's Plates in Ireland, which had nothing to do with the encouragement of a good breed of horses. If the Irish Members desired to have a prize offered for racing in that country, let them subscribe the money out of their own pockets, and let the prize be called "The Irish Members' Plato."

considered that it would be peculiarly inopportune to negative the Vote in the present year, since there had been, in consequence of the late war on the Continent, a great drain of horses from Ireland.

said, he had no objection to Queen's Plates in the abstract, nor to racing—on the contrary, he was rather fond of the latter—but had a great objection to Parliament voting money for horse-racing in Ireland when it voted none for that purpose either in England or Scotland. If Irishmen or Scotchmen wanted to have Queen's Plates, let them go to the Queen and ask for them.

said, if the hon. Member for Berwick shire (Mr. Robertson) brought on a Motion to restore the Scotch Vote he had no doubt he would be supported by a majority by the Irish Members. The omission of the Scotch Vote had not given satisfaction, because he had himself heard certain Scotch Members say that one or two Scotch representatives had been a great deal too ready to take money out of the country against the wishes of the people. The Irish were a sensitive people, who had, rightly or wrongly, a feeling that frequent attempts were made in that House to diminish the few privileges they enjoyed; and he did not think it was worth while, for the sake of the small sum now in question, to lend any countenance to that feeling.

approved these Votes, and recommended their more equal distribution.

said, he was astonished at Irish Members coming there for that paltry sum; and asked why, if they wanted Plates, they did not put their hands in their own pockets like gentlemen and subscribe for them.

said, he would certainly vote for the restoration of the Scotch Vote, as he objected to its withdrawal last year; and he hoped the Scotch Members would to-day support the Irish Vote. Moreover, it would be unjust to withdraw it this year, as a Queen's Plato had, on the faith of it, been advertised to be run for at Cork some two months henco.

said, the hon. Member for Warrington had moved the reduction of this Vote on the ground that a similar Motion had been carried for Scotland last year. In his opinion, however, that was a piece of gross hypocrisy on the part of his countrymen last year; and it was no reason why they should do an act of injustice to Ireland now. He would vote with the Irish Members in favour of these Queen's Plates; and hoped they would support the proposal to restore them to Scotland when brought forward next year.

said, that not only was a Queen's Plate advertised to be run for at Cork two months hence, but two or three of those Plates had already been actually won by horses this year; and as they could not expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find the money out of his own pocket, he asked from what fund the winners were to be paid? It was a great pity that the Scotch Plates had been abolished; and it was rather a singular circumstance that the first gentleman to raise the question of their abolition was an Irishman, the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Pim). He agreed in much that the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) wished to do in the way of economy, but hoped he would not persevere in his present Motion—a very unsportsmanlike proceeding. That Vote did a great amount of good in creating sport, of which the Irish were very fond, and in bringing people together at a social gathering from various parts of the country; and it would be very unwise, suddenly and almost without notice, to take away a paltry sum like that given for such ft purpose. Many hon. Members who were interested in this question were absent, and he believed that the hon. Member for Warrington would best consult the wishes of his Irish friends about him by withdrawing his Motion.

hoped that the Government would announce some decided line of policy with regard to this matter, and would either restore the Vote for the Scotch Queen's Plates or abolish the Votes for Queen's Plates altogether.

said, that the conduct of the Government had been perfectly consistent in the matter, inasmuch as they had consented to omit the Vote for the Scotch Queen's Plates, because the Scotch Members wished them to do so, and they proposed to retain the Vote for the Irish Queen's Plates in deference to the wishes of the Irish Members.

could hardly believe his ears. He was astonished to find that anyone professing to be such an economist as the right hon. Gentleman should endeavour to get the Committee to agree to the Vote under discussion by such a low subterfuge as he had resorted to. And he would observe that it was not on the Motion of a Scotch Member that the Votes for the Queen's Plates in Scotland had been withdrawn.

drew the hon. Member's attention to the fact that it was un-Parliamentary to charge an hon. Member with having had recourse to a low subterfuge. [Laughter.]

explained that he had applied the expression to the right hon. Gentleman's argument and not to his person. The right hon. Gentleman was totally incapable of being low. It would be easy enough to meet the objection of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) by adopting the course which had been taken last year with regard to the Scotch Queen's Plates, and bringing in a supplemental Estimate to enable the Government to find the funds for those Queen's Plates which had already been either run for or advertised.

also thought that the suggestion of the hon. Member who had just sat down would meet the difficulty which had been pointed out.

said, he wished to make one or two remarks upon the subject under discussion before the Committee went to a division. It was unfortunate that the withdrawal of the Vote for the Scotch Queen's Plates had been supported by one or two Scotch Members who were supposed to represent the voice of the Scotch Members generally, who, in fact, had no real objection to the Vote, while the great bulk of the Scotch people regarded the abolition of these Queen's Plates with regret. A distinction was to be drawn between the great assemblages of gamblers and blackguards at race meetings in the neighbourhood of the Metropolis and the social gatherings of the peasantry and the farmers at the races in Ireland to witness an innocent English sport. The chief defence of this Vote was that as regarded both Scotland and Ireland these Queen's Plates were formerly a charge upon the hereditary revenues of the Crown, which, having been now brought into the public Exchequer, the charges upon them had to be voted by Parliament every year. He should vote in favour of granting the money for the Plates, because he thought that our Irish fellow-countrymen did not get a great deal in this way—and that, although we were always anxious to show our sympathy with them in many respects as a nation, they did not get the same advantages as we did, such as the benefit derived from a Royal residence. While we were spending thousands upon the embellishment of the Metropolis it was unfair to begrudge the Irish people a paltiy £1,500 per annum for their amusement. He trusted that the House of Commons would not be indisposed to continue the grant.

said, that he would just remind hon. Members on the Conservative bench that he had been told on the highest authority (Mr. Disraeli), that one reason why "the Irish were not contented was that they are not amused." There was much more truth in this saying than at first sight might appear, as was often the case with, what fell from the right hon. Gentleman. It was true enough that Ireland was too sad to be amused, and a little reflection would show that the national games and sports of the great mass of the people took their tone and in a great measure depended on the presence and examples of those in higher stations of life. In England and in Scotland, in every village there were rural sports in which the residents of the neighbourhood took their part; but in Ireland there was but little of the kind. There were so many non-resident proprietors, and so much of the soil belonged to absentee landlords and public companies, that these social influences were greatly wanting, and perhaps races might be said to form the only national pastime. Racing in Ireland was not like race meetings in England—an occasion for extensive gambling and drunkenness; but the people took the greatest interest in the sport itself, and very often you may see their ministers of religion watching over and participating in the pastimes of their flocks, and by their presence preventing much that was evil, and showing that religion and amusement were not necessarily divorced from each other. He did hope, and, indeed, did not doubt, but that the Committee would confirm this grant, and not in a narrow-minded spirit interfere with national pastimes, to which the people were much attached.

thanked the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock for the generous sentiments he had expressed towards Ireland.

observed that the Vote included £3,000 for clerks of assize, and about £5,000 for officers of the same character called Judges' associates. The clerks of assize performed duties on circuit, and the associates performed duties in town. They were gentlemanly, easy offices, and it was not surprising that some of the holders of them bore the names of eminent Judges who presided over the Courts to which they were attached. He did not mean to complain of those officers; but he hoped that in any now scheme that might be introduced for the administration of the law, these offices, which were in the nature of sinecures, would be abolished, and that any person taking one of those offices in future would be informed that he took it upon the understanding that it would probably be abolished, in which case he would not be entitled to compensation.

said, that inquiry would be necessary before anything could be done with regard to this subject. He would, however, assure the hon. Gentleman that the subject should not be lost sight of.

said, the subject had been already investigated, and the Government had sufficient information.

said, that having regard to the great changes that might be made in the administration of the law, it might be desirable to introduce a Bill providing that persons who might be appointed to offices in that Department should not be entitled to large claims for compensation in case of the abolition of their offices.

said, he must deny that the appointments referred to by the hon. and learned Member for East Sussex (Mr. G. B. Gregory) were appointments in the nature of sinecures. One of the gentlemen referred to bore the same name as himself. He happened to go the very circuit to which that gentleman was attached, and, so far from his office being a sinecure, he had a great deal to do, and did a great deal. The salaries of these offices, if they were revised, might probably be reduced; but it was a great advantage to the public that these offices were held by gentlemen of some position. They were the heads of large staffs—of some six or seven persons engaged in the administration of the law, and they caused the work to be done expeditiously, harmoniously, and courteously to all concerned.

explained that he did not say that these gentlemen had no duties to perform.

said, he must complain of the hardship inflicted on jurors, who were required to give their services for days, or weeks, or it might be even months, and at the end of that time only received the remuneration of a single sovereign. It was not just to take men from their business without some sort of compensation.

, as Chairman of the Committee on Public Accounts, said, he wished to call attention to a matter which had transpired in the course of their investigations. It appeared that, notwithstanding the Act passed in 1869 that the Treasury was to be a party to all alterations of salary in connection with the Court of Chancery, the Lord Chancellor, under previous Acts, claimed the right to make alterations without the consent of the Treasury. The salary of a Chief Clerk of one of the Judges in Chancery had been increased from £1,200 to £1,500 a-year without the three years' probation required by one of the Acts. It was pointed out to the Lord Chancellor that a subsequent Act had been passed which, in his (Mr. Hunt's) view, modified the operation of the previous Act, allowing the increase of salary without any probation whatever; and it was stated that in a certain case a clerk had his salary raised from £1,200 to £1,500 a-year after a fortnight's service, on the certificate of the Judge that the clerk had discharged his duty to his entire satisfaction. That was a great scandal, and the Committee wished to prevent its recurrence. The Lord Chancellor, however, gave reasons why the proceeding might be defended, if a competent person could not be obtained at less than the maximum salary. But in that case the Lord Chancellor ought to get an Act passed to increase the salary of Chief Clerks. He wished to ask whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government had been called to that paragraph in the Report of the Committee on Public Accounts which said that it was desirable that the Treasury should be a party to all alterations of salaries and office expenses of the Courts of Law, and which recommended that the Treasury should institute an inquiry into the operations of the Act on the subject?

said, that 15 & 16 Vict. c. 80, empowered the Lord Chancellor to direct that the salary of any Chief Clerk might be increased from time to time until it amounted to £1,500, provided no such increase was given until the Chief Clerk had been in office three years, and had obtained a certificate that he had conducted himself to the satisfaction of the Judge, the increase to be by annual sums of £100. By 23 & 24 Vict. c. 49, s. 12, the Lord Chancellor was empowered, upon certificate of the Judge, to order that the salary should be increased to the full amount in a somewhat different manner. The Lord Chancellor took the view that by 23 & 24 Vict, he was enabled to increase the salary without any probation whatever. The opinion of the Controller and Auditor General, however, was different, and was to the effect that the Lord Chancellor might, on the proper certificate, make the entire increase, not by separate hundreds running over a period of three years, but at once, after a probation of three years, and that appeared to him the correct view. It appeared monstrous to argue that a clerk, if he obtained the required certificate, might have his salary increased to the full amount after only 14 days' service. He regretted that the Committee of Accounts had not expressed in stronger language their sense of the unpopularity of the transaction. In his opinion, it was nothing less than a misapplication of the public money.

said, he was sure the Committee would feel very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and to the Committee over which he so ably presided, for the statement which he had made respecting the existence of a state of things which no one would wish to continue. He should take care that inquiries should be instituted into the matter, and he might say that he would do so with the utmost confidence, as there was no one more willing to listen to reason than the present Lord Chancellor, or one more anxious for the good of the public service. Some little inquiry had been made already, but it could not be completed until after the passing of the Chancery Funds Bill.

rose to call attention to the existence of Illegal Lotteries, and to move—

"That the provisions of the Lottery Acts ought to be impartially enforced by Her Majesty's Government against illegal Lotteries, irrespective of their objects, in all parts of the United Kingdom."

In the first place, the hon. and learned Gentleman remarked that the law pronounced all lotteries, of whatever kind, and in whatever part of the country they were established, to be illegal, with the exception only of those in connection with Art Unions, and even these had to be approved by the Privy Council, or carried on under Royal Charter; and in connection with that part of his subject, he was only asking the House to re-affirm a principle of which it has always been a strenuous advocate—namely, that the laws be impartially enforced without fear or favour. Moreover, the laws made no distinction between lotteries for religious and secular objects, as all lotteries were pronounced by the State to be illegal, because they had a direct tendency to promote gambling, and to swell the tide of pauperism and vice. It was true that an Act passed in 1856 deprived private persons of the right to sue promoters of lotteries for the recovery of deposits or penalties; but that was done in order that the prosecution of offenders should rest in the hands of responsible officers of the Crown, and should not be left to the caprice of individuals. Nothing, however, could be more capricious than the proceedings of the Government in carrying out the Lotteries Act; the Home Secretary had made distinction between lotteries without any legal authority, and he had even expressed regret that the Lord Advocate had by a circular secured the withdrawal of lottery tickets in Scotland —against which country he (Mr Charley) had nothing to complain of on account of the occurrence of the practice—because he thought it would be better to allow the law to be violated than deprive certain benevolent institutions of the profits arising from the lottery. The Home Secretary, in fact, seemed to think the end sanctified the means; but the principles of Ignatius Loyola ill-became a Minister of the British Crown. Passing from Scotland to England, he found that the law had been very strictly enforced in England also with reference to lotteries unconnected with so-called religious objects. Two cases had recently come before the metropolitan police magistrates, one of which concerned what was described as the South London Art Union. The other was the case of a lottery promoted during the Franco-German War for the benefit of the Gorman wounded, and honoured by a communication from Count Bismarck. The promoter was informed by a detective that lotteries in England were illegal, and upon the promoter saying that he would write to the Foreign Secretary, the reply was that he might if he pleased; but the answer would appear, if made, not to have been in any way favourable, for both speculations were alike remorselessly suppressed. If the promoters, however, had endeavoured to get up a lottery in favour of some Roman Catholic institution, the threat of an application to a Secretary of State might not have been regarded as so hopeless. He now desired to call the attention of the House to the case of a lottery at Oldham, advertised to be held in support of some day and Sunday schools, with a view to the enlargement of premises and keeping them out of the hands of the school board. The lottery was stated by its promoters to be conducted on the principle of the Art Union, under the patronage of the Bishop of Manchester, and among the prizes to be distributed were a bust of Napoleon, a set of Mr. Disraeli's novels, including, he presumed, a copy of Lothair, a likeness of the Bishop of Manchester, and an excellent portrait of the late Earl of Derby. The announcements about this lottery, which were widely distributed throughout Wales, especially among Sunday school teachers and servants of clergymen, gave details of the poverty of the "parish," and purported to come from the "rector;" but if ever there was a lottery got up on false pretences it was this one, for it might surprise the House to know that the lottery was in aid of Roman Catholic schools, and the "rector" from whom they proceeded was a priest of that Church. It would be found by a Return for which he moved last year, that the attention of the Home Secretary was drawn to this, as well as to other lotteries, by the Secretary of the Scottish Reformation Society, and in answer, it was stated on behalf of Mr. Bruce that the Treasury Solicitor had already been instructed to warn the parties concerned of the illegality of the scheme in which they were engaged. In the subsequent correspondence it was stated that on the receipt of the first notice the promoters of the lottery had recalled the tickets and stopped the affair; but, despite the assurances of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, there were many who had been unable, after having subscribed, to obtain the return of their money. The "rector," as he called himself, or, in other words, the promoter, a Mr. Brinton, had inserted an advertisement in a local Oldham paper, stating that those who applied for their money would have it returned; but there were many who would not see the advertisement, and who, failing to make the application, would never get their money back. In Ireland he believed there had been 55 lotteries of late years, and that 16,000,000 tickets, representing £400,000, had been sold, and in most of these lotteries a supplementary ticket in a lottery, to consist of all prizes, had been offered to those who disposed of a certain number of tickets as a bribe to induce them to exert themselves to sell these tickets. In one of the announcements of these lotteries was a quotation, excellent enough except as regarded its neighbourhood, from a speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, and close by was an advertisement about a foreign lottery, where one of the prizes amounted to £20,000, although the insertion of these advertisements was forbidden under a penalty of £50. Moreover, some of these lotteries appeared to be annual lotteries. When he had, on a former occasion, put a Question on this subject to the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. C. Fortescue), he had received a very unsatisfactory reply, for that right hon. Gentleman's answer was, that those lotteries had no tendency to increase gambling, and if anybody deemed them contrary to the letter of the law the Courts were open and the question might be tried. The noble Lord the present Chief Secretary, in the same way, in reply to another Question, said that if the lotteries were illegal there was no difficulty in bringing qui tam actions against the promoters. A qui tam action was one in which a person sued as well for himself as for the Queen; and as by the Act of 1806 the forfeiture was taken from the informer and given entirely to the Crown, it was practically impossible to bring an action of this description at the present time. The noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland practically said to the Irish Protestants that they might violate the law if they chose, but as one of the promoters of the Irish Church Sustentation Fund he (Mr. Charley) should be very sorry to resort to any such mode of raising the wind. It would be most unfair after they had disendowed the Church in Ireland to allow the clergy to gamble for endowments. There were some persons whose practice fell short of their preaching, but the Home Secretary was an exception to this rule, for in his case the preaching fell short of the practice, as exemplified in certain rules laid down by the right hon. Gentleman in the last Session of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman laid it down that it was better for the law to be violated than that the promoters of these lotteries should be deprived of the benefit to be obtained from them, and that, therefore, the Secretary of State ought to possess the power of allowing the holding of lotteries for objects which he approved; he also said that the practice had been to threaten the promoters of these illegal lotteries, but not to carry out the threat in cases where the object of the lottery was a charitable one—a line of conduct which, in his (Mr. Charley's) opinion, was rather calculated to bring the administration of the law into contempt. The right hon. Gentleman not only did this, but he laid down the extraordinary distinction already referred to between religious and secular lotteries, thus producing an agglomeration of principles which needed only to be enunciated to be condemned. The right hon. Gentleman, moreover, appeared to forget that it required two sets of persons to form a lottery—the promoters and the persons who purchased the chances; and though the promoters might desire to confer benefit upon very desirable objects, it was self-evident that they appealed to motives beyond or other than charitable ones. If the person buying chances in a lottery were a friend of the promoter or of the object promoted, he would be willing to give as a subscription as large a sum as he paid for chances; but if he were—as was the fact in the majority of cases—unknown to the promoters and cared little or nothing' for the objects sought to be gained by the lottery, he would be simply a man possessed by the gambling spirit, and desiring to enrich himself by a small pecuniary outlay at the expense of the promoter, who in his turn was laughing in his sleeve at the gullibility of his would-be victimizer. Again, as in the case of the Oldham lottery, false pretences were sometimes resorted to, and persons were trapped into supporting by the purchase of tickets objects to which they were altogether hostile. It might be said that the maxim caveat emptor applied, and that the purchasers of lottery tickets must look out for themselves; but in his opinion the principle upon which later legislation on the subject had been founded was that of protecting the public against extreme recklessness in speculation and consequent ruin. Only a short time ago the case was related of two highly-respectable young women, who had gained a scanty livelihood by needlework, but one of them falling ill they were reduced to poverty, and the other risked their little all in the purchase of a lottery ticket, hoping to retrieve their position. The chance failed, however, and they were ruined. He would say, in concluding, that as State lotteries had been prohibited by Parliament so far back as 1806, he wished to know if it was now to be said that the Church had a less scrupulous conscience than the State, and begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

said, that while the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) spoke of the Acts being "impartially" enforced, the whole scope of his arguments went to prove that they ought to be enforced indiscriminately. This was the point of difference between them, and his (Mr. Bruce's) contention was, that the fact of the Legislature having taken lottery prosecutions out of the hands of common informers and vested them in the Attorney General on behalf of the Crown, showed that it was intended to give the Executive Government a discretionary power, to be exercised according to circumstances, in regard to the holding of these lotteries. If that were not so, why was the power taken from the informer at all? Then came the real question—Was that power so removed wisely exercised? So far as his own line of conduct was concerned, it was that which had been pursued by his predecessors in office, of whatever party, and he believed it was a line consistent with the intentions of the Legislature, and approved by the majority of the people. The hon. and learned Gentleman maintained that there was no power now to bring qui tam actions. That contention was quite correct; but it was no less true that a remedy might be found in an indictment for a nuisance, or by summary proceedings before a magistrate. The original lottery statute passed in 1802 was severely penal upon those who offended against its provisions, imposing penalties to the extent of £500, or in default of payment a term of three months' imprisonment; but in 1806 another Lottery Act was passed, for the purpose of granting to the Crown a sum of money to be raised by lotteries, and fixing strict rules as to the mode in which the lotteries should be conducted. He confessed that the object of the statute seemed to be rather to keep in the hands of the State the sole power of holding lotteries than to abolish them altogether; but, however that might be, the law existed, and it was the duty of the Government to apply it for the protection of public morality. Some lotteries were conducted solely for the purpose of gain, generally by persons who resorted to the most dishonest means, and swindled weak-minded and ignorant individuals. Against such lotteries the power of the law was always unsparingly applied; but there were also cases in which the attractions of chance were used for religious or educational purposes. The course he had in such cases pursued, in imitation, he was bound to say, of his predecessors at the Home Office, was as follows:—When a case was brought under his notice, he warned the persons who were conducting the lottery that their proceedings were illegal, and as far as he was aware the warning had never been given in vain. The hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to a lottery got up for some religious purpose at Oldham. Now, it was remarkable that information respecting lotteries of this kind was never given either by Englishmen or Irishmen. The Attorney General had assured him that no complaint respecting them had ever been made to the Government by any person residing in Ireland. Indeed, the sole informant against these lotteries in Ireland was the Secretary of the Scottish Reformation Society. On the reception of the information respecting the lottery at Oldham, he at once communicated with the persons conducting it, and informed them that if they proceeded further with it they would subject themselves to prosecution. They promised to relinquish the scheme; but shortly afterwards he received another communication from the Secretary to the Scottish Reformation Society, who said he believed that, in spite of the assurance which had been given, the lottery was actually being proceeded with. Thereupon he made inquiries of the Mayor of Oldham as to whether this was so, and he might remark that he should certainly have caused a prosecution to be instituted against the promoters of the project if, after the warning, they had persisted in it. The Mayor of Oldham informed him, however, that they had abandoned the scheme, and returned the money received from the subscribers. This, he submitted, was a course which could not fail to commend itself to the good sense of the House, as it must be obvious that cases of this kind called for a warning rather than a prosecution by the Attorney General. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that it was very strange that people would not give their money directly for a charitable object, instead of advancing it indirectly by lotteries or bazaars. Well, it was no doubt a very curious trait of human nature that persons would give large sums of money at bazaars for articles which were not of the slightest value, the prices they paid depending far more on the rank or personal attractions of the conductors of the bazaar than on the intrinsic value of the articles sold. And it would be further found that when the generosity of the customers was exhausted the proceedings almost invariably terminated with a raffle, in which everybody present took part, without imagining for a moment that the transaction was an illegal one. Surely no one would maintain that the Attorney General ought to prosecute in such cases. There was a rational distinction to be drawn between lotteries got up for mere purposes of gain and those which were got up for the purpose of promoting a good object; and the good sense of the House would readily determine that the moral consequences were less injurious in one case than in the other. At the same time, he admitted that a great many of the latter kind of lotteries came within the rule he had laid down, which would subject them to prosecution—namely, those which appealed very strongly to the mere love of gain. In the cases mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman, where hopes were hold out to the subscribers of obtaining a considerable sum of money, or articles of great value, such as a pair of ponies, piano, and a cottage, the principle, and what might be assumed to be the object of the law were violated, and the action of of the Crown might be fairly demanded. All he claimed on the part of the Crown was the right to discriminate between different kinds of lotteries. In cases where the object was clearly bad he instituted a prosecution at once; but where the object was not bad, he acted by giving a warning in the first instance, and prosecuting only in the event of that warning not being heeded. He believed the House would not think it was the duty of the Government to pursue any other course than that which he had indicated.

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was not less bound by the terms of the law than any other person. In determining questions of degree, value must be taken into account, and the right hon. Gentleman had himself pointed out cases in which ponies, pianos, and cottages were raffled for. In that, as in other cases, the right hon. Gentleman was apt to interpret his obligations very loosely, for there was nothing in the Act of Parliament which warranted the exercise of the discretion he claimed. He (Mr. Newdegate), moreover, did not think that if the Home Secretary considered himself entitled to dispense with the law, he set a good example to the other officers of the Government. Why, he would ask, should the law be restrained in the case of quasi-monastic institutions? In his own county large numbers of lottery tickets had been received from Ireland, and he had been repeatedly asked why any lotteries were permitted, except those which were sanctioned by law, such as the Art Union lotteries. The fact that certain exceptions were made by the law militated very strongly against the wise discretion which the right hon. Gentleman assumed the right to exercise.

said, he must call attention to the fact that the law had been more widely interpreted by the right hon. Gentleman to-night, than it was three years ago by the then Attorney General.

said, he must object to the Motion on the ground that the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone had attended all the investigations of the Committee, and that all the Committee had to do was to prepare the Report.

said, it was at the express desire of the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone that he had made the Motion before the House.

said, it would not be fair to the other Members of the Committee to allow such a course to be pursued, and he must therefore oppose the Motion.