asked the Secretary of State for the Home Depart- ment, Whether, as it was impossible to move the Second Reading of the Habitual Drunkards Bill, owing to the adjournment of the House after the vote on the University Education (Ireland) Bill, he will afford him an opportunity of bringing it on?

in reply, said, he should be very glad to assist his hon. Friend if the Government had in its possession a superabundance of time. He was sorry to say, however, that he could hardly foresee sufficient time for the Bills with which he was himself charged, and he was not therefore in a position to ask the Government to set apart a day for his hon. Friend. Besides, considering the time of year at which they had arrived, his hon. Friend could hardly expect to pass the Bill during the present Session.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he will explain to the House why it is that officers in the Scientific Corps employed in the Public Works Department or holding staff appointments in India are, on promotion from the rank of captain to that of major, kept, as regards Indian pay and allowances, on the rate of pay belonging to the former rank, while officers of the Cavalry, Infantry, or Staff Corps, on promotion to the rank of major, receive the full benefit of the increased rate of Indian pay, and allowances belonging to that rank?

Sir, as my hon. Friend did not find my answer of yesterday quite clear, and as his Question relates to a very complicated subject, the best course will be, perhaps, to read an official Memorandum which enters fully into it, and which will, I trust, be quite satisfactory to him£

"With regard to the Public Works Department, Engineer Officers are the only Officers of the Scientific Branch of the Army who are appointed thereto under the present regulations, and they have the option of receiving consolidated salary according to a new scale, or Staff salary under a former scale with regimental pay and allowances. Officers of the other branches of the Service joining the Public Works Department since 1870 have no such option, and receive consolidated salary. In such case the Engineer Officer has the privilege of receiving the net military pay of his rank, in addition to such consolidated salary, a privilege which the Officer of Cavalry, Infantry, or Staff Corps, does not possess. The aggregate pay of the Engineer Officer is, independent of his rank, always superior in that case to the pay of the Officers of other branches of the Service holding similar appointments. As to the case of Staff appointments, when the Staff salary is granted in addition to full regimental pay and allowances, it is believed that none such are held by Engineer officers, unless at their own option, in the Public Works Department. In such cases, however, an Officer of either of the Scientific Corps would receive less in the aggregate on promotion from captain to major than an Officer of Cavalry, Infantry, or Staff Corps similarly promoted, because the regimental pay of the former is in India, as it is in England, less than that of the latter. The explanation of this is, that when, in 1871, the War Office, for purposes connected with Imperial Army organization, converted all the captains of Artillery and Engineers into majors, it was thought unnecessary to give them the full regimental pay of majors of the other branches of the Service, as they enjoyed, especially in India, money privileges associated with their proper and ordinary duties which made their aggregate salaries paid out of the public purse amply sufficient. In adopting this course, the precedent established by the military authorities, both at home and in India, in 1858, was followed. On that occasion all the then majors of Artillery and Engineers were converted into lieutenant-colonels, but continued to receive majors' pay and majors' pension on retirement."

asked the Postmaster General, Whether there is any probability of a telegraph station being established at Recess, county Galway, in consequence of the number of English and Scotch gentlemen residing in the neighbourhood for the salmon fishing during the angling season, to whom the want of a telegraph station is the very greatest inconvenience, and as no great expense will be incurred, because the telegraph wire between Galway and Clifden is on the road beside the Post Office at Recess?

in reply, said, that the extension of telegraphic communication in Galway would cost very much more than by his Question his hon. and learned Friend seemed to suppose. But were the cost little or much, he was sorry to say that the Post Office had no funds at its disposal granted by Parliament for such purpose. He could not, therefore, hold out any hope to his hon. and learned Friend on the subject of the extension he referred to.

asked the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government have received any applications from British subjects for compensation in respect of losses occasioned by the destruction of their property in vessels destroyed or captured by the "Alabama," and what course Her Majesty's Government have taken or propose to take in reference thereto?

Sir, Her Majesty's Government have received certain applications from British subjects for compensation in respect of losses occasioned by the destruction of vessels by the Alabama; these applications have been taken into consideration and the opinion of the Law Officers has been taken. In accordance with their opinion, the Board of Trade and the various applicants have been informed that Her Majesty's Government is not liable to British subjects for the acts of the Alabama and other similar vessels.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Foreign Department, Whether it is the intention of the Goverment to refer the claims of British subjects as against the Alabama to arbitration? He also desired to know, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any notice of a claim in respect to the widow of Mr. Grey, chief officer of the "Saxon," who was murdered at an early period of the American War?

Sir, the hon. Gentleman, not having given me either public or private Notice of his Question, must excuse me making any reply to it.

I will give Notice of my Question on the Paper of the House.

on behalf of Mr. M'CLURE, asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the statement is correct that the Rev. Mr. Cahill has, on several occasions, been refused permission to see Mr. M'Aleese, confined in the county Antrim Gaol, and whether any special reason exists for Mr. Cahill's exclusion, as other clergymen have been admitted?

in reply, said, he had been informed that the Rev. Mr. Cahill, and also one other person whose conduct they considered to have been of an unsatisfactory character, had been refused permission by the Board of Superintendence to see Mr. M'Aleese. They had been informed they would not be admitted except on a direct order from the Irish Executive.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a Question of which he had given him private Notice—namely, Upon what authority, a payment has been made on account of the Contract for the conveyance of Mails between the Cape of Good Hope and Zanzibar, such Contract not having been ratified by the House of Commons? He also wished to know, Whether that Contract will be taken at such an hour of the evening as will afford an opportunity for a full discussion upon it?

Sir, It is most desirable that a Question conveying an imputation on the conduct of a Member of the Government should be preceded by the usual Notice on the Paper of the House, and that it should not be put immediately after a private Notice of it given to the party immediately concerned. So far as that private Notice goes, I will take care that the subject of the Contract referred to shall be brought forward at a time when the hon. Gentleman and his Friends shall have full opportunity of considering it. As to the remainder of the Question, I think it will be better—involving as it does argumentative matter—that it should be discussed when the Contract itself is brought under the attention of the House.

asked the Secretary of the Local Government Board, If it would be in accordance with propriety, that the Government should introduce a Special Clause into the Rating Bill, removing the exemption of Government property from the General Rate?

in reply, said, it had not been deemed necessary to insert clauses in the Rating Bill to provide for Government property being liable to other rates than poor rates. These, generally speaking, were either paid out of the poor rate, or collected on the basis of it. A provision in the Consolidated Rate Bill made the matter perfectly clear, but his right hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld) would no doubt consider any proposal to insert a clause in the other Bill, should it be thought necessary.

in rising to move, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report upon the Reasons urged by Members of the University of Oxford against the selection of Oxford as a Military Centre, and also to consider and report upon the whole question of the advisability of selecting Oxford as a Military Centre, said, he would first ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, whether he had reason to believe there was some great military or strategic necessity for the choice he had made in this respect? Could such necessity be shown, he should not expect the House to give a favourable hearing to objectors, though a few hon. Members might even in that case protest against the evils attending the choice. In the original scheme, however, Oxford was mentioned only as an alternative or secondary depôt, the military advisers of his right hon. Friend apparently preferring High Wycombe. The matter, however, assumed a different aspect when a powerful deputation of his constituents waited on the right hon. Gentleman, introduced and assisted by the potent eloquence of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the City of Oxford (Mr. Harcourt). They adduced reasons so convincing that the right hon. Gentleman then and there, if the report in The Times was correct, committed himself to the adoption of Oxford as a depot. [Mr. HARCOURT: No.] If his hon. and learned Friend said this was not the case, he of course accepted the correction. The deputation represented the geographical importance of Oxford, that there was no centre equal to it in facilities for the assembling of troops; that it had a weekly cattle and daily provision market; that the 32nd Regiment had precedence over the 85th —a very odd reason; that it had two rifle ranges; that there were excellent sites, high and healthy, accessible to a good country and large stretches of pasture; that the water supply was plentiful, and that there was excellent public bathing. What was his right hon. Friend's reported answer? It might be an incorrect report, but the statement in The Times was, that his right hon. Friend, having carefully read the memorial, found its reasons pertinent and conclusive. Now he (Mr. Herbert) held in his hand the Report of a distinguished officer who had been sent to Oxford to examine into its qualifications for this depôt, and it was therein stated that both the water supply and the drainage of Oxford were most unsatisfactory, and that, as regarded the former, as confirmed by Professor Phillips, the eminent geologist, no water supply sufficient to meet the demands of a barrack could be depended on by means of wells. Indeed, the whole tendency of the Report issued a few days ago was adverse to the selection of Oxford. Moreover, his right hon. Friend had assured him—and he believed members of the University likewise—that no battalion of Regular troops could be placed there; so that, while the object now was to attach regiments to localities, the centre of this locality was never to see the battalion belonging to it. Militia and Volunteers were to be trained at Oxford, but the battalion raised there was never to be stationed at the depôt town. If Oxford was to be a real centre of military activity, then there were strong reasons urged against it on the part of the University. The remonstrance addressed to the Government showed that men in every position in the University were remarkably unanimous on that subject. If Oxford was made a military centre, he understood it was intended to drill close to Oxford the recruits of the Militia and the Regular battalions which belonged to the district, and that the majority of the rank and file at the depôts would be recruits. It was reckoned they would require in the course of the year 444 recruits to keep up the two battalions to their proper strength; the depôts were to be drilled for six months, and it was calculated there would never be more than 200 recruits at the same time, with 50 old soldiers, making a total of 250. The drilling of the recruits was necessarily a work of a very rough and stubborn character; and in the depôts they would have a constant succession of men who would require, in homely phrase, to be licked into shape. The Inspector General of Prisons, in his Report for 1871 said, that in enlisting a large number of men, it was impossible to avoid taking many who would turn out afterwards to be worthless characters, and that many young soldiers did not adapt themselves to the requirements of discipline until they had undergone stern punishment. Therefore, at those depôts, the best side of military life would not be seen, and the proposed experiment would possibly turn out very unsatisfactory. Now, they had lately added to Oxford a large class of unattached students, essentially a poor class, belonging to no College, who took care of themselves, and who lived in the cheapest parts of the town. If the influences to which he was referring had a bad effect on the town, that class of students would suffer in consequence. Then there was the effect upon the maid-servant element to be considered in relation to such a matter. With regard to the City of Oxford, as distinguished from the University, its interest was, that there should be nothing to repel those parents who were beginning to settle there for the sake of educating their sons. It was said the officers who would be stationed at Oxford would be picked. That might be so as regarded the lieutenant-colonel, but he did not understand how they could pick any of the other officers. Moreover, the policy of taking away the best men from the regiments for the depôts was a very doubtful one, and had never answered. Again, the great difficulty of the University had been that a class of men went there for mere social purposes, to make friends and enjoy themselves; although in that respect there had been a great change for the better within the last few years. Now, he did not at all wish to interfere with the amusements of the military; but there were at Oxford already plenty of the elements of folly, and there were distractions from study which he did not wish to see encouraged at the University, and the reason why a great many men of wealth and position did not send their sons to the University was because of the fear they had that they might be led into expensive habits and amusements. Then, as to those Acts which the House had been engaged in discussing a day or two before, was it, he should like to know, intended that they should be carried out at Oxford? If so, would it not be placing the University there in unfair competition with its rival, Cambridge, where a hair, as matters now stood, turned the scale as to which of them a man would send his sons? He thanked his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War for the courtesy which he had displayed in listening to the arguments against his scheme which had been advanced in the case of Nottingham, and he trusted his right hon. Friend would meet the appeal which he now made on the part of Oxford; for if there were good reasons against establishing a military centre at Nottingham, the reasons were still stronger in the ease of Oxford. With regard to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford, he was not all afraid of him; for his hon. and learned Friend had joined him in too many attacks on the British Army, that he should fear him on the present occasion. It was only the other day that his hon. and learned Friend was trying to persuade them that a certain learned society should be abolished, or as he euphemistically termed it, placed in the secondary line. He was sorry his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had left his place, for as there was a time when he did not prefer Chole to Lydia, he should like to touch another chord in his breast, and induce him to lend even the smallest fraction of his influence in support of the proposal which he was now making. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for a Select Committee to consider and report upon the subject.

in seconding the Motion, said, he took the earliest opportunity of rising in support of his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Mr. Herbert), and to thank him on behalf of the University of Oxford for having brought the question forward. He did not regard the Motion as an attack on the British Army, but to defend the University from the introduction into the City of Oxford of alien and unacademic elements likely to interfere with the working of that University. There was not that unanimity of feeling upon the subject in the City of Oxford that was supposed to exist, because now many of the right hon. Gentleman's active and influential supporters within the City had changed their opinions, since it had become known that only 200 recruits and 50 old soldiers would form the depôt, and that the expenditure of £70,000 per annum on which the tradesman had been calculating was no longer to be relied on. But whatever might be the opinion of the City of Oxford upon the matter, the opinion of the University with regard to it was unmistakable, for a Memorial had been laid upon the Table of the House, signed by 112 members of the University, and representing every shade of academical, theological, and political opinion—embracing High Church, Low Church, Broad Church, University Conservatives, and University Reformers—and everyone engaged in the active teaching of the University, against Oxford being made a depôt centre. Beyond that, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had received a deputation, consisting of all the authorities of the University, who had stated their strong objection to Oxford being made a military centre, on the ground that if the military element were introduced into the City it would be impossible to preserve proper discipline among the undergraduates. It must be remembered that what was permitted to the young officers was not permitted by the laws of the University to the young students, and that the example of the former would prove most injurious to the discipline of the latter. The number of undergraduates now on the books of the Colleges at Oxford was 2,400. The Colleges were overflowing, and a large number of undergraduates now lived in lodgings in the town. Besides which, there was the new class of unattached students, already amounting to 145, whose numbers were daily increasing and all of them lodged in the town. He denied that any national object was to be gained by making Oxford a military centre, and the University contended that they were as much a national institution as the British Army. It was necessary that students should be trained to habits of order and regularity, and Universities and Colleges were places where "true religion and useful learning" were expected to flourish. With increasing numbers connected with the University, an increasing population of the City, the luxuries of the age, and the temptations with which they were surrounded, and the easy access to London, it was difficult for the authorities to maintain discipline; and those difficulties would be increased by the introduction of this non-academic element into the town. High Wycombe, Aylesbury, or Woodstock would be far preferable stations for such a purpose. Indeed, High Wycombe was the place selected by the military authorities, and not Oxford, and recommended to the War Office. Aylesbury was anxious to welcome the establishment of a depôt centre; and the Report of the commandant of the district, the Prince of Saxe Weimar, was in favour of Woodstock. This information had been in possession of the War Office, and ought to have been given to the House at a much earlier date. The Report was dated 23rd January, 1873, but it was not until Tuesday last that it was laid on the Table of the House, and distributed to hon. Members on Wednesday. That Report, which during the interval had not been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, stated that the selection of Oxford as a military centre was a mistake; because of the difficulty which would be experienced in obtaining water and on account of the bad drainage, and suggested that a site should be fixed upon near Woodstock. If it were a matter of paramount national necessity that Oxford should be made a military centre, he would not object to its being made a military centre, even although the University might suffer some damage. But, as the only object in proposing to make Oxford a military centre was to train 250 recruits, there was no necessity for thus interfering with the University. In a postscript dated the 19th of May, three days after the Notice of this Motion, it appeared that negotiations had been entered into for the purchase of another site, about two miles from Oxford, the local authorities having agreed to provisional arrangements as to the supply of gas and water. He maintained, therefore, that he was entitled to complain of his right hon. Friend for having put forward a document on which he professed to rely, but which really took away the ground of the conclusion on which he relied. His right hon. Friend should rise superior to the small consideration on which he appeared to decide this question, and decide it on grounds of a more national and paramount character. He was sorry to think that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had left the House while the subject was under consideration; and he had no doubt that the Secretary of State for War had now as much respect for the University of Oxford as he had many years ago, and that he would not do anything injurious to the interest of Oxford; but he could not help saying that there was ample ground for the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, and that he heartily concurred in it.

said, his right hon. Friend opposite the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Mowbray) was right in supposing that he (Mr. Cardwell) should be the very last man to do anything in the slightest degree injurious to the University of Oxford, and he had not the smallest intention of attempting anything of the kind. With regard to the Paper mentioned by his right hon. Friend, it was simply impossible to lay it upon the Table on the 23rd of January, when it was moved for on the 29th of April, and afterwards printed. The only value he attached to it was, that the objections made to the Bullingdon site were removed, because they simply turned upon arrangements as to gas, water, and sewage. One of the great arguments urged against him by his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Mr. Herbert) was, that he (Mr. Cardwell) had been compelled by his constituents to come to the conclusion that Oxford should be made a military centre, and that he did not come to that conclusion upon proper grounds or by military advice. But what said his right hon. Friend opposite? That many of the most influential of his (Mr. Cardwell's) constituents were altogether opposed to the scheme. How did those two propositions hang together? The hon. Member for Nottingham also spoke of the great improvement which had taken place in the University of Oxford. That might be the case, but how did it agree with the statement of his right hon. Friend that the difficulty of enforcing discipline was every clay increasing? He would appeal to a very distinguished Nobleman who spoke last year in the House of Lords on the subject, and who knew a great deal about the Army and the Universities. That Nobleman said he thought it was quite as likely that officers would be deteriorated by University students as that University students would be deteriorated by officers. What were the real facts of the case? In the first place, he congratulated himself that the present Motion was not made by the Members for the University, who had had their attention alive to the subject from the 17th February down to that time, and yet had not thought it their duty to bring the matter under the consideration of the House, but had left it to the free lance of the hon. Member for Nottingham, who, having been in the Army himself, was probably considered the best person to depreciate the Army in that House. Then the Motion itself was irregular, because he was quite taken by surprise when his hon. Friend stated his intention of moving for a Committee—[Mr. AUBERON HERBERT: The words were accidentally omitted from my Notice.] But they should have been put in. His hon. Friend had alluded to certain Acts of Parliament, and implied that they were to be extended to Oxford; but he could assure him that there was no intention whatever of making any such extension of the Acts to Oxford. What had really been done was this—a deputation of his constituents came to him, but, if his memory served him correctly, it was in reply to a deputation from the University. The House had been told that there was a great and unmis- takable objection on the part of the University to the scheme; and, undoubtedly, a large number of eminent members of the University had objected. Their opposition, however, like that which they formerly showed against the introduction of railways, proceeded more from an exaggerated view of what might happen, than from an accurate knowledge of what would be really done. What was the amount of the objection? A Memorial was laid on the Table of the House on the Motion of his right hon. Friend opposite, showing that of 25 Heads of Houses five Heads signed it, while 20 did not; that 24 Professors signed it, and 16 did not; and that out of members of Convocation 112 signed the Memorial, and 169 did not. What did the War Department propose to do? They were going to obtain 20 acres of ground at a distance of about two miles from Oxford. They would not interfere with the maid-servants; they would not interfere in the slightest degree with the unattached students of the University, wherever they resided; and the whole provision was to be—a lieutenant-colonel, a major, six captains, four subalterns, a paymaster, a quartermaster, a surgeon, 45 non-commissioned officers, and 50 old soldiers, many of them married. The remainder would be recruits under strict discipline, and undergoing drill. The hon. Member for Nottingham said that recruits were very troublesome, and that it was very unreasonable they should be brought to Oxford. But the reason why Oxford was selected was because it had a larger population among which enlistments for the Army could be made than any other town which could be selected; and when it was urged that even the opportunity for such an enlistment was an evil in itself, he (Mr. Cardwell) could not help expressing his belief that those who enlisted were improved by the discipline to which they were subjected, and were thereby made better members of society. He was told they should go to Woodstock; but was it likely they would consent to go there when they could have a recruiting market at Oxford? The population of the Parliamentary borough of Oxford was returned at 31,404, while that of Woodstock was only 7,477; so that, whatever exception might be taken to the phrase, Woodstock was a desolate place when compared with Oxford in respect to recruiting population. Again, there were these important considerations. If they went to Woodstock they would be entirely out of the way of the recruiting population; but if anybody would look at the map, they would see that of all places Oxford, although on the outskirts of the country, was, nevertheless, as central as any other place they could pitch upon, and was more accessible by railway. Besides, Oxford was connected with the 52nd Regiment, and was the head-quarters of the Oxford Militia, which corps, he believed, desired to be placed there, and the citizens certainly desired to have the depôt there. The proposed site for the depôt had the approval of the military authorities whom he had consulted on the subject, and General M'Dougall had reported in its favour. The engineering officer who had visited the spot also reported that the site possessed many advantages—it had a light sandy soil, suitable for building and camping purposes; it was in a sheltered situation; its distance from the town of Oxford was sufficient to prevent annoyance to the inhabitants; and the only disadvantage, the difficulty of obtaining an abundant supply of water, had been met by the undertaking of the corporation in that respect. With regard to the harm which it was supposed would result from the presence in the town of the military, as connected with the establishment of a depôt centre, Lord Shaftesbury's opinion contrasted with that of the hon. Member for Nottingham. It was that these institutions were likely to be the best training schools in the country. Besides that, he had in his hand a letter from a gentleman who had long been a tutor and a distinguished ornament of Trinity College, Dublin, and in that letter the writer said that, though he had never heard of any ill-effects to the students arising from the proximity of the garrison to the University, he had known many instances in which the officers of regiments had derived advantage from being quartered in the neighbourhood of the University. There were garrisons not only at Eton and Winchester, but at Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Aberdeen; and Oxford was surely no such sickly plant that it could not bear what other places endured without injury, and that it could not tolerate the presence of 15 chosen officers, 45 non-commissioned officers, 50 old soldiers, and a few recruits.

in supporting the Motion, said, that the University of Oxford would be quite willing to allow a military centre to be fixed in or near that city when the military necessities of the nation placed it in the position now occupied by Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Dublin; but the right hon. Gentleman had sat down without giving the House any information whatever as to the military necessities of the case, so far as Oxford was concerned. Indeed, as a proof that the fears of the University authorities were not without foundation, it was well known that at the time when the Militia was out for training the discipline of the University was much more difficult to maintain than at other times. [Mr. CARDWELL: That is just one of those things which, by this plan, we propose to put an end to for ever.] The right hon. Gentleman complained that the Members for the University had taken no active steps in reference to this subject. For his part, he moved in the matter early in the Session. On the 17th of February, he had questioned the right hon. Gentleman as to the site, and had been told that it was not absolutely settled; but when it was decided upon, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would have no objection to produce the Report of Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar. In the meantime, the present Motion was placed on the Paper; and in consequence, he obtained permission of the right hon. Gentleman to see Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar's Report in writing, which had since been printed, and laid on the Table. In short, he had simply been waiting for information on the whole subject, and did not see what more he could have done. Had he found that there were cogent military reasons for placing the depôt centre at Oxford, he would not have moved further in the matter but the contrary appeared to be the case. The proposed site was about two miles from Oxford, but the need for it was so little imperative that the question of £50 an acre more or less might make all the difference. It was a question of cost; indeed, upon this very point of its advantages for recruiting purposes there was evidently a diversity of opinion, for the general officer sent down by the right hon. Gentleman to survey the district had himself recommended a place near Woodstock in preference to Oxford; and if they were to look at the military depôts generally, they would find that their selection did not depend upon the considerations which the right hon. Gentleman insisted upon in the case of Oxford. The question was not the training of 250 recruits at Bullingdon, but those recruits would resort to the town as a matter of course when off duty; for there must necessarily be at times large numbers of recruits, and in the train of the soldiers that peculiar element of population which, say what they might, was always to be found in the neighbourhood of garrisons. It seemed to him idle to say that the fact of the station being two miles from town made a great difference. The moment the men were off duty they would direct their steps towards the large town of Oxford, and towards those parts of it to which Militia found their way. The right hon. Gentleman told them what a noble Lord said about the Military Manœuvres, and the way in which the soldiers behaved when they were in strict discipline; but that was entirely irrelevant to the conduct of the recruits who were to be brought into this depôt. One of the military reasons given for the selection of Oxford was, that it was the only city with a large population in the brigade sub-district, and offered, for that reason, the best recruiting district. He did not deny that it offered these facilities; but the military authorities did not think that of such paramount importance as to prevent them from mentioning High Wycombe and Woodstock as appropriate places for a military centre. It was said that Oxford was the headquarters of the Oxford Militia. That was one of the very things of which the deputation to the Secretary of State for War complained. It interfered most materially with the discipline of the University, and therefore they complained of the attempt to make Oxford a military centre. Another reason for this selection was, that Oxford was historically connected with the 52nd Regiment. There was not a more gallant regiment in the service than the 52nd; but he had looked over the history of that regiment, written by one of the old chaplains, and he was riot able to find a single particular in which it was connected with Oxford. The 52nd Regiment, whose distinctions were emblazoned on its banners, had obtained all its honours without ever being brought into connection with Oxford. He was not saying that it was not desirable for a regiment to have an historical connection with a particular city, but they were in this case also bringing a Buckinghamshire regiment into Oxford, and Buckinghamshire had as much right to have its local interests and connection considered as any other place. No doubt Oxford had considerable advantages in the matter of railway communication. There were many other places, however, which had the same advantages, and his experience in going to Oxford led him to say that it was not one of the best places in the kingdom so far as railway accommodation was concerned. Didcot Junction was an unpleasant association in travelling to Oxford, and High Wycombe would have been practically almost as convenient. Was it unreasonable that the University, having found the evils connected with the Militia, should apprehend similar difficulties from this depôt being in the immediate neighbourhood of Oxford? The right hon. Gentleman had told them that the question was still open, and that a site had not yet been purchased—a few pounds might make the difference. He did not know how many pounds it would require to make the Chancellor of the Exchequer put his veto on this purchase, but the memorial which had been addressed to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War demanded the greatest attention. It represented practically the whole of the teaching power of the University. Many who were not able to sign it from being absent had expressed their readiness to do so, and. it contained the names of 24 University Professors, and 112 tutors and lecturers in the Colleges and halls. The right hon. Gentleman said that some of the heads of houses had not signed it; but it did not profess to come from them, but only from the Professors, tutors, and lecturers engaged in the practical work of education. It was signed, among others by Dr. Pusey, Mr. Jowett, the Master of Baliol, and Dr. Heurtley, the Margaret Professor of Divinity; and what object could they have but the moral benefit of the University? With respect to the town, there were, he would not say sordid, but money considerations to be taken into account. He thought that they had been falsely taken into account. Oxford was growing; villas were springing up on the Banbury and Woodstock side; and all of them were connected with the education of the University; and would not the selection of Oxford as a military centre affect the minds of those who were coming to the city for the sake of the education, which had been thrown open to the nation? He asked the House to set the interest of the nation against the supposed interest of the locality, to set the moral feeling of the University against the sordid feeling of the town, and to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Herbert.)

said, he would ask the House to deal with this question in a practical and business-like manner. Subject to difficulties as to gas, water, and drainage which had been overcome, the military authorities had selected the site near Oxford, and that being so, he was unable to appreciate the reasons which had induced the two right hon. Gentlemen the distinguished Members for the University of Oxford to enlist under the banners of the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Herbert). They had done what was often done before Parliamentary Committees; they had suggested alternative places for this military centre which were not practically before the House, and one of them had mentioned High Wycombe. He did not know if they would have the assent of the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) to that proposal. If the evils produced by the military recruits were so great, and so injurious to the studious shades of Oxford, he felt sure they would have the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire coming forward, and seconding a Motion refusing to sanction as a military centre a place in which he was so much interested, and whose population including the maid-servants he would naturally desire to protect, from the evils of military settlements. The other Representative of the University had suggested Woodstock—he did not know whether with the assent of the Duke of Marlborough, but he should like to hear the opinion of the hon. Member for Woodstock (Mr. Barnett), on that point, and would ask how he could vote for the Motion, if the result were to save Oxford at the expense of Woodstock? Moreover, why should the Duke of Marlborough have what was described as a moral plague brought to a town in which he was so much interested? The real question to consider was, whether this was an evil at all. Was it an evil which arose from the society of the officers, or the propinquity of the common soldiers? They were accustomed to speak, he believed, not lightly, of British officers as officers and gentlemen; almost every Member of the House had relatives in the Army; and was it to be said, that they would demoralize the University by sending to the City of Oxford the regiments into which they did not hesitate to send their sons? Was it to be said that the members of the University would be degraded by being brought into the society of officers and gentlemen? If the evil contemplated was not likely to arise from the presence of the officers, were they prepared to assert that the Undergraduates would be degraded, and a town of 40,000 inhabitants polluted, by the presence of 200 or 300 soldiers? It would be extremely injurious to their military system if such a view should be taken by the House. At one time, it was considered a degradation to enlist in the British Army; but that was not so now, and a soldier who returned to his native village was looked upon rather as elevated than lowered in the social scale. If that House was about to affirm that a man's becoming a soldier, placed him so low in the social scale that he ought to be removed from society, they were doing their best to destroy the possibility of having a voluntarily-recruited Army. He ventured to say that the apprehension of the University was a sentimental one, and two officers well known to his right hon. Friend opposite, Captain Fane and Colonel Should-ham, had expressed their indignation at the aspersion which had been cast upon the profession to which they belonged. Were they going to toast the Army and Navy at banquets and make great speeches, and then when it was a question of quartering a regiment on a town turn round and say—"Good God! don't do anything of the kind; you will injure and destroy the population?" With respect to the site, it was a curious fact that, notwithstanding the objection which had been made to it, the authorities of Pembroke College were contending with private proprietors for the custom of the Government. It was equally remarkable that the Heads of Houses, who were especially responsible for the discipline of the University, did not sign the memorial to the right hon. Gentleman. Was the House, he asked, about to say that there should not be a military centre in any town? Well, if they were, they ought to go back upon the policy they had adopted up to the present time, and undo all they had done in that direction. Similar apprehensions were entertained by the University with regard to the original construction of the railroad to Oxford, and afterwards to the establishment of the Great Western Railway works, but such fears were unfounded; and he hoped the House would not, by agreeing to the Motion, place in antagonism the University and the town, between which agreeable relations now existed.

said, it was clear that Oxford was the first place for education in the world. No man had a higher attachment to the Army than himself; but he believed that the presence of a large military body brought with it some accompaniments that were not desirable, and he confessed that it might be injurious to the moral character of the University to have a military centre near the city. Men of high position had told him they refused to send their sons to Cambridge on account of the vicinity of New market, and he feared that were Oxford injured in a moral point of view the same objection would apply to it. He believed that there was no military reason why Oxford should be selected; on the contrary, there were reasons against the selection of this special locality.

said, he should not vote for the Motion. With regard to Woodstock, he was not aware till a few days ago that any idea existed of establishing a military depôt in that neighbourhood; but he thought it would suit admirably. He was not authorized by the Duke of Marlborough to express his opinion on the subject; but he had heard his Grace express an opinion like his own, that the apprehensions of the University were much exaggerated. Bullingdon was some distance from the town, and the officers would be men of some standing.

denied that there was any intention of introducing a body of troops into Oxford; on the con- trary, the town would actually be relieved of the periodical assembling of the Militia, who, instead of being trained and billeted in Oxford, would be removed to the depôt two miles distant. The railway accommodation of Oxford was superior to that of Wycombe, and so far from the question being still open, it was only a matter of site, to be governed by price and sanitary and other considerations. He could not think that this depôt would be dangerous to the undergraduates of the University. The hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Herbert) had served in a very distinguished regiment, not long indeed, but long enough to know the character of the officers and men, and he was surprised that the hon. Gentleman should repeatedly prefer grave charges against the Army. Indeed, he thought the hon. Member would not dare to repeat in his own mess-room what he had just stated in the House of Commons.

thought he had always guarded himself against such an imputation. He had spoken with severity of the system, and the system alone, not of the Army, for which he entertained respect and affection.

regarded this as a distinction without a difference. He maintained that the system was good, and that the officers and privates were highly honourable men, who would bear comparison with any other class; and he repudiated entirely the charges which the hon. Member had made against the Army.

said, he had yet to learn when the placing of a military centre in the City of Oxford was sanctioned by the House. He wished to offer one or two observations. It was necessary that some of the dust which had been cast into the eyes of hon. Members should be blown away. ["Divide."] He had one or two remarks to make, and he would not detain the House long. The noise arose from hon. Gentlemen about the doorway, who probably knew little about, and were not members of, the University. As to the suggested comparison of University discipline to that of the Army, though both good in their place, their nature was quite distinct as no one knew better than the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford. He maintained that the heads of houses at the University were against the establishment of a Military Centre at Oxford.

said, he had no doubt that it would be an uncommonly good thing for the City of Oxford, if the proposals of the Government were carried out, because it would cause a good deal of money to be spent there; it would also be a very good thing for his part of the country, because it would afford an excellent market for their fresh milk, butter and other produce; and besides that it would no doubt give to those living in the neighbourhood many very pleasant acquaintances. Again, the number of roads and railways which converged at Oxford, pointed it out as a situation having many advantages. On the other hand, there was a very peculiar body there—a vast number of persons under pupilage and education; and he had never known any subject on which there had been such a general assent among those who were concerned for the discipline of the University—nor anything like such a universal feeling of apprehension as existed on this matter. It was not easy for persons who were not responsible for the discipline of such a body as that, to judge whether those apprehensions were well or ill founded; he did not pretend to give an opinion on that point; but it would be a great national misfortune if the discipline of the University were interfered with. The proposal therefore was a matter of speculation; and the Government were taking the responsibility on themselves if evil consequences should result.

in rising to call the attention of the House to the Chinese Coolie Trade, remarked that, although the forms of the House prevented his moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice, he should proceed with his Motion, because the discussion would do good. The mortality on board the coolie vessels was dreadful—the average being 7 per cent, while in some it ranged from 20 to 30 per cent, most of the deaths being caused by suffocation. The following were instances of the fearful mortality which he had stated:—In the Ville de Grenada, 83 died out of 253; in the America, 114 out of 690; in the Antares, 82 out of 263; in the Louis Cornevara, 192 out of 739; in the Rosalia, 64 out of 456; and in the Onrust, 45 out of 453. Those statistics were partly furnished by our Consul at Callao, and partly taken from a Peruvian newspaper. The coolies, who were kidnapped and inveigled to the port of embarkation, at Macao, were there placed in barracoons under a strong guard. Thence they were taken in boats, still closely guarded, to the ships in waiting to receive them. On their arrival on board, they were battened down under the hatches in such numbers that they were almost suffocated from the want of air and the horrible stench that ensued. They were only allowed on deck once a-day in squads of 30, while loaded cannon were kept constantly pointed at the place of their confinement. On several occasions, maddened by their sufferings, they rose and murdered the captains or officers placed over them. In one instance, a ship, the Dolores Ugarte, with 600 coolies on board had run short of water, and they could only procure it by buying it at the rate of a dollar a cup from the sailors. The result was, that out of the 600, 207 died, 18 jumped overboard, while 50 were landed at Honolulu in almost a dying state. The same vessel, having changed her name to the San Juan, again set out for Macao, under the Peruvian flag, and took fire; but the coolies were left battened down below the hatches, and out of 600, all but 50 were burnt. Having referred to the Correspondence in the Library, he found no less than four cases in which coolies had risen and murdered the crews of the vessels, and those were all British ships, because 15 years ago four-fifths of the tonnage employed in this traffic was British, but now not one British ship was concerned in it. Of the cases which occurred on board Peruvian and other ships he had no statistics. Last year a Peruvian vessel had been forced by stress of weather into Yokohama, and a coolie jumped ashore, and claimed the protection of the Japanese authorities; but he was sent back. The matter had, how- ever, been taken up by our Minister, Mr. Watson, and the result was that the Japanese Court of Inquiry had sentenced the captain to receive 100 lashes, or to be imprisoned, while the coolies were liberated. Why could not the British authorities follow the just and courageous example set them by the Government of Japan? Many of these coolie ships, on their way to Cuba, put in at the Cape; why were they not examined, and the coolies liberated if found to have been kidnapped or cruelly treated? An instance had occurred last year of 1,000 coolies being kept under hatches while the steamer which was conveying them was coaling off Table Bay, during which time they endured the most terrible sufferings. The hon. Baronet went on to relate other atrocities of this traffic, and affirmed that the description he had given was attested by all our countrymen in China. Consuls Winchester, Sir D. Robertson, Sir Rutherford Alcock, Sir Harry Parkes, Sir John Bowring, Sir Frederick Bruce, all unite in denouncing the crimes, miseries, and horrors of this traffic, and in attributing them to the employment of crimps and recruiters. The condition of the coolies when they reached Peru was that of slaves; they were bought and sold publicly; it was a common practice to brand them upon the cheeks and other parts of their bodies; they underwent corporal punishment; they were employed in the guano pits—a most disgusting and unhealthy labour—and in the plantations they were overworked, ill-fed, confined at night in large barracks, which were guarded by soldiers; and were completely at the mercy of masters who were beyond the restraints of law, while all hope of ever returning to their own country was cut off. In Cuba the condition of the coolies was much the same, and our Consul General at the Havannah, as well as the Special Correspondent of The Times, in a series of letters from Cuba, had stated that the unfortunate Chinese in that island were not in any way to be distinguished from negro slaves. The coolies were nominally under contracts for eight years, but by an edict of the Viceroy Valmaseda, they must leave the island in 40 days, or enter into a new contract, the result of which was that their slavery was perpetual, and the correspondent of a New York paper had shown how that law worked, for out of 600 coolies waiting at a port for ships to convey them home, 400 were seized by the Spanish Government and sold to planters for a long term of years. Representations as to the cruel treatment of the coolies had been made through the American Representatives in Peru and Cuba, and by the American Minister in China, to Prince Kung. The Prince thanked them. He said Macao is now the only seat of this traffic, and he hoped other Powers would not allow it to be carried on under their flags. At the same time, he sent a Proclamation to the Chinese in Peru, expressing pity for their sufferings, and regretting he could not alleviate them. Last year, the noble Lord the "Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs said, in reply to a Motion that was made on this subject, that Her Majesty's Government had made friendly representations to the Government of Portugal, and he asked what other course Her Majesty's Government could take. After what had taken place, it was a mockery on the part of Lord Granville to profess to entertain confidence in the sentiments of humanity entertained by the Portuguese Government, and in their hatred of anything like oppression. To remonstrate, to expostulate with a Government so dead to every sentiment of humanity, was to beat the air. The only way in which the Portuguese Government could put an end to this traffic was by putting down altogether the crimps, recruiters, and barracoons employed and maintained in connection with it. This, the Portuguese Government would not do, as the petty settlement of Macao flourished on this slave traffic. It had been said that they ought to direct their efforts to the place of demand rather than the place of supply; but they could pretend no right to interference at Cuba or Peru, and what he thought we ought to do was to endeavour to prevent men being sold into slavery in the first instance. He believed that the continuance of this infamous coolie traffic, which was slavery in its worst form, would imperil our commercial relations with China, and what he asked the Government to do in the matter was to give the Chinese Government such moral support as would embolden them to demand the suppression of the traffic altogether. It would be a great mistake to suppose that because the traffic was now confined to Macao the evil was diminishing. The statistics furnished by our Consuls in Peru and Cuba showed that 25,000 Chinese were annually sold into slavery in those countries, and the number would increase, for Cuba, in anticipation of the abolition of slavery had imported largely, and a proposal had just been submitted to the Peruvian Parliament that a grant of public money should be made for the increased importation of coolie labour. His hostility to the emigration of Chinese was confined to this emigration, under contract from Macao, and was not directed against the emigration, as it was carried on from China to Singapore, Australia, and the United States—that was when the Chinese go without solicitation, and pay their own passage. There was a large and constant flow of emigration from China to the United States, but the difference between the nature of this emigration and that of which he complained was shown by the fact that in the vessels employed for this service there had never been a single rising of Chinese, and the mortality was no greater than it was on land. It sometimes happened that a few Chinese returned to their own country, and the accounts they gave of the horrors of slavery were a main cause of the hostility which existed to foreigners, and the dislike to their settling in the interior of China for the purposes of trade. He, however, urged the adoption of his proposal on higher grounds than those of self-interest—namely in the interests of humanity. He asserted that the traffic in question was slavery in every stage of its progress—in the kidnapping—in the voyage—in the life of slavery to which they were doomed. It was simply a traffic in human flesh, maintained to enrich the corrupt officials and demoralized population of a petty settlement—Macao. He trusted the Government would not look with indifference upon the fact that 25,000 individuals—a number which would soon reach 50,000 —were being annually sold into slavery in defiance of the protest of their own Government, whom one word of encouragement from us would embolden to put a stop to such an outrage. Slavery once stirred the heart of the people of this country, and if they seemed indifferent to it now it was only because they were under the impression that, owing to the exertions of their ancestors, the hateful institution had been extinguished. When they realized the fact that slavery existed in all its most hideous features, he had no doubt the people would be moved by the same generous impulses as their ancestors had been, and would appear in their old characters as the most uncompromising foes of slavery. It would be no answer to his proposal to say it could not be effectual if adopted. If Her Majesty's Government knew of any more effectual method that would attain the end he had in view let them propose it. He only asked them to try and put a stop to horrors, to which it would be difficult to find a parallel in the most barbarous ages. Really when he thought of this coolie traffic, he was reminded of the words Lord Brougham used to stigmatize a great political crime. Referring to the partition of Poland, Lord Brougham said—"It vexes the faith of pious men to witness scenes like those, and not see the flames of Heaven descend to smite the impious and guilty actors." He thought this language equally applicable to the crimes he had described.

said, he was glad that that the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Charles Wingfield) had not fallen into the error committed by some persons, of confounding the Slave Trade from Macao to Cuba with emigration from Hong Kong to the British West Indies. It had often been erroneously assumed that Chinese emigration to the British West Indies had been attended by the same abuses as those by which the emigration from the Portuguese port of Macao to Cuba and Peru had been disgraced. An assumption more unjust to the Colonies was never made. What were the facts? In 1859, the Allied Commissioners of whom Sir Harry Parkes represented this country, arranged with the Chinese Government the terms under which coolies might be engaged for the British Colonies, and a Government agent was sent to China to commence operations. At that time a strong feeling existed in China against the Macao emigration, and it was thought probable that a properly conducted British agency would be the means of stopping, at least to some extent, the unlawful practices at Macao. The British agent opened a depôt at Hong Kong, under such regulations as to place the character of his proceed- ings beyond dispute. The success of his measures was complete. While the authorities wore proceeding with the utmost severity against kidnappers, the English depôt was crowded with voluntary applications for emigration. The contract entered into with the Chinese provided for a free passage to the West Indies in British emigrant vessels under the provisions of the Passengers Act; the protection of the immigrant by the Colonial laws, as confirmed by the Secretary of State, and carried out under the supervision of Government officials; all disputes between employer and labourer being settled before the stipendiary magistrate, who was appointed by the Crown; a service of five years' agricultural labour, payment of money wages at the rate prevailing in the colony; and, in addition, house, garden-ground, and medical attendance during the term of service. In order that the emigrant might be induced to take his family with him, the females entered into no obligation except to reside on the estate; and they were to be supplied, free of cost, with suitable lodging, medicine, and hospital accommodation when necessary. At the close of their five years' service, the emigrants were free to choose their mode of life. Some entered into new indentures, receiving a large bounty; others preferred to make their own terms with employers for independent service on the estates; others engaged in retail trade, or cultivated provision grounds, or pursued any handicraft they might have been accustomed to in China; all enjoying as much real freedom and protection as they could have in England. Under this system emigration was carried on up to 1866, with the concurrence of all classes, and notably of a German missionary, who, after a voyage to Demerara and Trinidad, returned to China fully convinced of the advantage the Chinese would gain by emigrating to those Colonies. About this time, however, Sir Rutherford Alcock entered into a Convention with China, containing new and onerous conditions, the practical effect of which was to put a stop to the emigration to British Colonies. On the other hand, it had thrown no obstacle in the way of emigration from Macao, for since the closing of the British agency there had been an increased activity at that port, and emigrants were still engaged in different parts of China, carried to Macao, and practically sold into slavery. With reference to the subject of the back passage, and as a distinguishing mark between the two different races, it must always be remembered, that wherever the Chinese went, he went as a colonist, married and settled in his new home, while the practice of the Indian coolie, as a rule, was to return to his native land. The British West India Colonies urgently needed labour, and offered advantages to the Chinese at least equal to any other countries—advantages secured to the emigrant on the good faith of the British Government, and for that reason, he trusted there was a prospect of the Convention being modified so as to allow the emigration to be resumed. The British Colonists, moreover, had long felt it a great hardship and injustice, that, while disposed to enter into and fulfil proper engagements, they had been debarred from obtaining labourers from this source, at the same time that other countries were procuring thousands every year, either by evading the terms of the Convention, or entering into engagements which they did not intend to carry out. This was one point upon which he hoped they should have an expression of opinion from the noble Lord. What the other was he would proceed briefly to state. The slave trade Blue Books recently issued contained a despatch from Lord Granville to Mr. Layard, the British Ambassador at Madrid, dated the 10th of April, 1871, referring to suggestions for the introduction of coolies into Cuba from British India. It stated that the Government—

"Can only consider a scheme for the introduction of British immigrants, when slavery is absolutely abolished in that island, and then only under the protection of a Treaty."

This pointed to the possibility of a Convention with Spain similar to those made, unfortunately, as he (Mr. Stephen Cave) thought, with the French and Dutch. The official Correspondence of 1872 had not yet been distributed, and he should like to know whether any negotiations to that end had been commenced, or whether the question had advanced at all since Lord Granville's despatch written two years ago. Now, the main objection to such a plan was that when once landed the immigrants were beyond the protection of this country. In our West India Colonies, the Government had thought the most stringent regu- lations necessary for the protection of the people, and a direct supervision over every detail of the system. But none such were possible in Cuba. The immigrants to British Colonies were conveyed in emigrant ships under the provisions of the Passenger Acts; they lived under colonial laws securing their rights and liberty, laws approved by the Secretary of State and carried out by Government officials. Questions between them and their employers were determined by magistrates appointed by the Crown and sent out from England. Contracts and renewals of contracts were verified by the Immigration Agent General, who had power to prosecute employers and to act in every way for the protection of the immigrant. Their houses were to be of a specified character, the hospitals were under Government medical Inspectors, and the estate doctors were henceforward to be Government officers too. There might be, of course, from time to time cases of fraud and oppression, but he would venture to say not more frequently than in this country. Such regulations would be still more necessary in Cuba, where the planters had been accustomed to deal with slaves; but, evidently, the British Government could not enforce such a system there. The case of Réunion showed that the British Consul would be unable to act as an efficient check, and no security would exist for the proper treatment of the immigrants, or for the fulfilment of the contracts. The sufferings of the Chinese in Cuba, nominally free immigrants, but practically slaves, afforded a strong argument against placing British subjects in a similar position. He did not wish to say anything harsh of Spain, especially in her present difficulties; but her extreme negligence, to say the least, in carrying out her various Treaty engagements respecting the slave trade, showed that she was not yet to be trusted in these matters, and he should be glad to hear that the idea of sanctioning emigration from British India to the Spanish colonies, if ever seriously entertained, had been finally abandoned.

said, he thought the circumstances of the coolie trade were such that anyone who had any knowledge on the subject ought to address the House. He concurred in the inutility of a Convention with the Spanish Government, and he trusted a strong opinion would be expressed by the House against the emigration from British India of any of our fellow subjects there, as there were in India thousands of square miles of territory which required labour. He entirely endorsed all that the right hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen Cave) had said on this subject. The noble Lord the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had only withdrawn his prohibition against the coolie traffic at Hong Kong on the conclusion of a Convention by which Chinese labourers had been carefully provided for under a system of rules and regulations which had been strictly and uniformly adhered to, and from information he had received, he could say that no complaint had ever been made with regard to any of the vessels on which they had been carried. The coolies had returned with considerable sums of money, having received ample wages for their labour. The hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Charles Wingfield) had referred to the Convention proposed to ourselves and other foreign nations by China, but it was obviously never intended by China to be carried out. The edict was in force only on paper, and hence the state of things in Macao which he had so graphically described, and which there was no doubt was conducted as cruelly and horribly as it possibly could be. The hon. Member had said that our conduct in the past with regard to China was not calculated to inspire confidence on the general subject of the prohibition of slavery. [Sir CHARLES WINGFIELD must protest against the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Magniac) putting words in his mouth which he had never uttered.] He (Mr. Magniac) could only say that he had taken down the hon. Member's words and was prepared to maintain that our conduct in regard to China had been particularly forbearing and worthy of being followed by other nations. The position of Hong Kong itself was a proof of this. At the present moment, no charge in regard to the improper shipment or emigration of coolies could be brought against anyone connected with Hong Kong. On the other hand, he was happy to say that a strong community of feeling was growing up between those who resided at Hong Kong and the natives of China. The hon. Member very much overrated the goodwill of the Chinese Government in this matter. That Government was content to sit by, and see what occurred under their noses without any interference, and a reason for that was to be found in the fact that the Government at Pekin looked to the governors of the various provinces only for a certain amount of tribute, and if that was forthcoming, the provincial governors were allowed to govern as they pleased. The Chinese officials were the worst paid in the world and, as a consequence, they made their gains as they could, and in that might be found the simple explanation of what occurred at Macao. The Chinese Government might put a stop to these proceedings to-morrow if they chose to carry out their own laws. Nothing was more beautiful than Chinese law on paper, but in practice nothing could be less effective. It was not carried out. The hon. Member recommended that we should pursue a vigorous course; but a vigorous course was too often a dangerous course, and in this case it might result in creating greater evils than those which we now sought to redress. The only way to deal properly with this horrible trade was to treat China as an independent nation, to give her good example, to support her where we could do so justly, and to remonstrate with her when her conduct might call for remonstrance.

said, that his hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Magniac) who had just sat down seemed to intimate that though these proceedings were very horrible, there was nobody to blame for them. His hon. Friend was, no doubt, a great authority; but an authority second to none in this country had shown in a letter to The Times, under the signature of "Veritas," that he was of a very different opinion, when he asked—

"Why had all these horrors of kidnapping and slavery been allowed to continue year after year without any effort being made by civilized States to put an end to them? What was done by the Spanish buccaneers 200 years ago had been revived in China without interference. The United States alone, of all civilized countries, had interfered in the cause of humanity by passing an Act for the suppression of this new slavery."

The writer showed that much might be done by this country if they would earnestly take the work in hand. Last year he himself called attention to this subject, and one of the statements which he then made was that gambling houses were permitted to exist in the British Colony of Hong Kong, that the Chinese, having lost in those houses everything that belonged to them, finally staked their persons, and that was one of the ways by which this horrible traffic was prolonged. He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Knatchbull Hugessen) was not now in his place, as he was happy to acknowledge that within the last 12 months Lord Kimberley had taken steps to put down that evil, and his principal object in rising was to thank the noble Lord and his right hon. Friend for what had been done. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen Cave) seemed to object to our paying the passage home of these coolies; but he had answered the objection himself, and shewn its fallacy, in the statement he afterwards made, that the Chinese were invariably colonizers, and in that event would be disposed to continue where they were. He certainly thought it was only justice that the return passage should be paid.

said, he had listened to the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Charles Wingfield) with some surprise and perplexity, because throughout the whole of his speech there ran a vein of accusation, not only against the present Government, but against all Governments, for having been careless and indifferent as to the horrors of slavery. The hon. Member drew a distinction between this country and the United States very much to our disadvantage; but he must have forgotten that this very year we were incurring great pecuniary, and possibly moral, sacrifices in carrying out the mission to Zanzibar, which had for its object the suppression of the slave trade on the East Coast of Africa. If he interpreted the hon. Member's speech aright, the conclusion which he would have Parliament and the country come to was nothing less than a declaration of war against Portugal. The hon. Member had brought various accusations against former Governments in respect of the Chinese Coolie traffic. But what were the facts? The question of the coolie traffic had attracted the attention of British Governments since 1853, and ever since they had endeavoured with various success to mitigate its horrors. But before going into the point he would join issue with the hon. Member and say that emigration and immigration of coolies, properly conducted, was not slave trade. He would recall to the House what had been done since 1853. The British Government had acted consistently both alone and in concert with other Powers for the defence of humanity in this particular question. Briefly mentioned, the results of its labours were as follows:—First, the Chinese Passenger Act of 1855; then the emigration system established in 1860; thirdly, the obtaining the assent of the Chinese Government to proper regulations in the Treaty of Tien Tsin; and fourthly, prohibiting Hong Kong from being a depot for emigration to any but British Colonies, and in any but British ships. The statements made with regard to the horrors perpetrated on board the two ships mentioned by the hon. Member were quite correct. But when the case of one of these ships, the Don Juan, formerly called Dolores Ugarte, was brought to the notice of Her Majesty's Government, Lord Granville wrote a despatch to Mr. Doria, in Portugal, in such emphatic terms, as conclusively proved that there was no indifference on his part to the horrors perpetrated on board that ship. He (Viscount Enfield) regretted to say that the Portuguese Government thought it their duty not only to defend themselves, but inferentially to attack the Hong Kong Government and our emigration regulations. But we had a complete refutation of these accusations in a despatch of Sir Richard Mac-Donnell, dated January 8, 1872. The only drawback to the system was, that the immigrants suffered from violence on the part of loafers, who regarded the importation of such industrious competitors with jealousy. Sir Charles Murdoch also confirmed the report that the system had much improved under the Governor of Macao, Admiral da Souza. Changes had been made between 1859 and 1866 with regard to the regulations affecting Hong Kong, and the remarks of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Magniac) speaking as he did from personal acquaintance, must have been listened to with satisfaction. Great care was now taken to prevent abuses, no native recruiting was allowed, the depôts were under strict surveillance, the emigrant ships were examined as regards seaworthiness, the emigrants were questioned as to their willingness to emigrate, their destination and conditions of service, and many of them returned home, having saved money. The House should know the character of these men. The writer of a private letter from Hong Kong said:—

"The greater part of the men obtained are either men of indifferent character, more or less at variance with the local authorities, who have been in prison or quarrelled with their parents or are given to drink, and of extreme stupidity. The majority are boatmen, about a third being agriculturists, or men employed on shore. These men are either deceived by delusive promises, by threats of being split on for some real or fancied offence against the authorities, or are induced by a continued round of dissipation and drink to promise anything. Many sell themselves to pay their gambling debts. The agents, who are natives, run great risks, for if found out by the authorities they get but a short shrift and and a long rope."

The hon. Member for Gravesend seemed to think we had refused to assist the Chinese Government. On the contrary, Sir Brooke Robertson, our Consul General at Canton, had acted with energy. He had observed large bodies of coolies leaving Canton every morning by steamers under British flag for Macao. He arranged with the Viceroy to appoint officers to examine all coolie passengers, and invited all who did not wish to go to Macao to step out and say so. On the first morning, 30 availed themselves of the privilege, next day nine, and others landed on subsequent occasions. That happened last year. Sir Brooke Robertson had again acted vigorously this year. About the beginning of March several junks with Europeans on board were reported on the coast opposite the Island of Hainan, and the Viceroy of Canton, at the recommendation of Her Majesty's Consul, sent a gunboat with orders to bring them to Canton. Three were captured; the Chinese crews were delivered up to the local authorities, but the European captured claimed to be a Portuguese, and a resident proprietor at Macao. The Viceroy accordingly proposed communicating with the Portuguese Government respecting him. In the end of March the Viceroy was going to despatch two more gunboats to sweep the coast for Macao kidnappers, of whom it was stated there were above 20 vessels fitted out for that purpose. The hon. Member for Gravesend had also referred to the case of the Maria Luz. That was a Peruvian ship, with 200 coolies, and it was driven by stress of weather into Yokohama in July last. One coolie, who had jumped overboard, was taken on board Her Majesty's ship Iron Duke and handed over to the Japanese authorities; but he as sent back to the Maria Luz, beaten, and had his pigtail cut off. Mr. Watson, the British Secretary of Legation, on hearing of this, paid a visit to the vessel, and, ascertaining that he and other coolies were detained against their will, brought the matter under the notice of the Japanese authorities. After inquiry, the coolies were liberated and sent back to China and the Chinese Government had thanked Mr. Wade for the friendly intervention of the British authorities on behalf of the coolies. The questions arising between the Portuguese and Chinese had created some difficulty, but the good offices of Sir Brooke Robertson had prevented any serious collision between the two countries. The fact was, that the Portuguese claimed jurisdiction over Macao by right of conquest; but the Chinese denied it. Some Portuguese adventurers obtained a footing there in 1516, and in 1557 permission was granted to the Portuguese to erect storehouses. In 1582 a ground rent was stipulated for of about £166, so it seemed clear that Macao was not ceded to the Portuguese. A private letter received from Canton stated that—

"Mutual concessions might lead to Portugal being admitted as a Treaty Power, and with a Minister of that nation at Pekin, much might be done to ameliorate the condition of the coolies and rectify abuses."

The United States had lately suggested united action on the part of America and Great Britain, and a reply had been made in the sense that we advocated coolie emigration when properly conducted as beneficial to the coolies themselves and to the countries in which they were employed; that all emigration under contract to places not within Her Majesty's dominions was strictly forbidden from Hong Kong; that we were fully alive to the evils of emigration as practised at Macao, and were willing to co-operate with the Governments of other countries with a view to put a stop to those abuses. The House would probably wish to know what assurance he could give as to the future action of Her Majesty's Government in that matter. It would be improper for him to indulge in any language savouring of menace towards Portugal; but anyone who carefully and dispassionately considered all that different Governments of this country had clone in reference to that subject, and how they had urged the matter upon the attention of the Chinese, the Portuguese, and other Governments, would recognize the anxiety they had shown for the suppression of that coolie emigration, conducted in so lamentable a manner as it was from Macao to Cuba. They would continue to urge their representations, for they could not be insensible to the horrors of that traffic which had been brought under their notice. He hoped the House would believe that Lord Granville, faithful to the traditions he had inherited from Lord Palmerston, was as keenly alive as the hon. Member for Gravesend himself to those evils, and would do all in his power by friendly communication with other Governments which had a voice in the matter to put a stop to them. In conclusion he (Viscount Enfield) thought that we might look with honest pride upon the exertions which had been made by the present and by past English Governments in the interests of humanity and justice.

said, he believed that the statements of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Charles Wingfield) in respect to the Chinese coolie traffic were not at all exaggerated—a traffic more cruel than any carried on in slaves from the Coast of Africa. These Chinese coolies were a civilized and intelligent race. They were much more sensitive than the poor negroes deported from Africa, and there was no doubt they were deceived and entrapped into those contracts. He therefore thought we had a right to complain on this occasion of the conduct of the Portuguese Government, and he hoped that some representations of a much more stringent character than any that had hitherto been employed would be made by Lord Granville upon the matter.

said, he regretted that the question of the the emigration of coolies from Hong Kong had been introduced into the debate. The Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend referred to the emigration from Macao, and it was a pity that the discussion had deviated from that point and thus had given occasion to some rather severe remarks by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Magniac), and the noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs on his hon. Friend the Mover of the Resolution. It was true that we might have confidence that coolie emigration from our ports and under the supervision of British officers would be fairly and justly managed. At the same time the Report of the Commissioners sent to British Guiana, stating that the planters, having made a dear bargain with regard to Chinese immigrants, had tried to extricate themselves in not the most creditable manner, showed that even in our own colonies, with all the care displayed by the Government, questionable proceedings occurred, and that unremitting vigilance was necessary. He thought, too, that the Chinese Government had shown that they were not indifferent in regard to the matter of Chinese emigration by having expressed to Mr. Wade their thanks for the course taken by Mr. Watson, our Chargé d' Affaires in Japan, with reference to the coolie traffic. If that gentleman was able to do so much to put down this abominable traffic, as far as the Japanese Government were concerned, he should like to know why we did not exert ourselves with equal success to interfere with it at the Cape of Good Hope. As to Spain and Portugal, the latter an old ally, and with whom any hostile feeling was undesirable, he was bound to say their conduct was reprehensible in the highest degree. The noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs very properly used the diplomatic expressions of courtesy which must be used by those employed in a responsible position towards Foreign Powers; but he (Mr. Eastwick), as an independent Member, could imagine nothing worse than their conduct. Ever since the debate of February 16th last year he had been on the watch for some indication that this revival of the slave trade—this hateful Chinese coolie traffic from Macao for the benefit of the Spanish and South American Governments—was on the wane. But he confessed that so far from discovering any reason to hope that that would be the case, he had, on the contrary, seen much to confirm him in the belief that unless some such course as that now recommended was taken, the traffic would increase. Some persons might, perhaps, derive comfort from the fact that negro slavery had just been extinguished in one of the Spanish Antilles, Porto Rico, and bore the appearance of giving way in Cuba, which had for so many years been its stronghold. Porto Rico, indeed, was a remarkable exception to the other Spanish Colonies, for there slavery had been abolished, not only with the assent of the Deputies, but even on their petition; but the circumstances of that island were so exceptional that no argument could be derived from what had been done there. Porto Rico had a population of 700,000 people on an area of 4,000 square miles, and but a seventh of that number had been slaves, and Consul Bid well said that—

"Slavery would not there, as in other countries, be succeeded by any sort of forced labour, the existing population being ample for the work it has to do, and there being a unanimous feeling of opposition to any immigration of labourers—whether Chinese coolies, or negroes."

Large quantities of sugar and tobacco were produced, and there was a surplus revenue, which, he was sorry to say, was taken by Spain to carry on the war in Cuba. In the latter Island the Governor and planters; according to the Report of a Committee reprinted in the Diario a Havana paper of October 20, 1871, stated that since the 3rd of June, 1847, 109,092 Chinese coolies had been introduced into Cuba, not one of whom had returned. The cost of their introduction was $340 each, or something like $37,000,000 in the aggregate. The Governor of Cuba argued that the intelligent proprietors and merchants of Cuba would not have laid out a sum so vast inconsiderately, and that, therefore, Asiatic colonization must be a wise measure. In his eyes the wisdom of the system was further demonstrated by the arrival during the last and present year at Havana of 2,715 Chinese, who were sold for $400 each, "notwithstanding the unhappy state of the island." Lastly, he brought, as a conclusive argument as to the fitness of this state of things, the fact that an association of rich planters had been formed with a capital of $1,000,000, "for the sole object of importing Chinese labourers exclusively for their own estates." The Report then went on to say—

"The insurrection is expiring. The Government should therefore prepare itself by profound and thoughtful study and meditation on the past and present, for the duty of setting the country in the way of material and moral progress. The scarcity of labour will be greater than ever, because of the great number of men who have perished, and the natural distrust of employing those—that is the slaves—who have been employed in the insurrection. It is necessary then to have recourse to measures already well known and accepted, and the resolution, therefore, is come to that Asiatic immigration—that is, the Coolie trade—is useful and of absolute necessity, and must be continued and increased."

said, he was satisfied with the reply given by the noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Viscount Enfield), and begged the Government not to slacken their efforts for putting an end to the hideous evils resulting from the kidnapping of Chinese, and from their transport to Spanish and South American possessions. Having considerable acquaintance with Macao, and with the great facilities for bringing thousands of Chinese coolies to that place by the numerous channels leading thereto from various parts of the mainland, and knowing the openings for corrupt commerce which existed at Macao, from the double system of government in that place between Chinese and Portuguese officers, he was afraid he could not hold out any hopes that the Government would be able entirely to prevent the kidnapping which was mainly carried on at that port. He trusted, however, that, in attempting to suppress it, they would not put an end to the free emigration of Chinese. He had had considerable experience in the Straits of Malacca of the great value of Chinese labour, which not only benefited the Chinese who there emigrated yearly in thousands, but rescued fine and extensive tracts of country from the jungle which covered the Malay Peninsula. He suggested that the most effectual mode of putting a stop to the existing evils would be to encourage the free emigration of coolies to our Colonies, under a well- regulated system of transport, whereby both parties would be benefited; and to cheapen as far as possible, the cost of their conveyance, whereby the inducements for kidnappers to supply coolies under the present detestable system would be lessened, if not entirely removed. When once the coolies were landed in large numbers in our Colonies, they were so intelligent, and so ready to band themselves together in brotherhoods or trade unions, as to be quite able to take care of, and to provide for, themselves.

in rising to call attention to the delay in the construction of the New Courts of Justice, and to move, "That such delay is prejudicial to the administration of the Law and to improvement in procedure," said, the question was of the first importance in the administration of the law, and was one that had excited the attention of that House, from time to time, from 1822 to the present time. That attention, gradually increasing, led to the appointment of a Committee upon the subject, upon the motion of Sir Thomas Wild. Nothing more was done until 1859, when a Royal Commission sat upon the subject, and reported upon it, recommending the purchase of a site, and suggesting that the sum of £12,000,000 stock lying in the Court of Chancery arising from accumulations of interest upon investments made by the Court, of suitors' money which would otherwise have remained idle, should be appropriated to the construction of the New Courts. In accordance with the Reports of this Commission, Bills were introduced into Parliament for the purpose of carrying out these recommendations, but from various causes they did not become law until 1865, when Lord Clarendon passed one, providing the funds for the construction of the Courts as recommended by the Commissioners. The other providing for the construction of the Courts by means of a Royal Commission, and accordingly in 1865 another Commission was appointed to consider the requirements of the offices, what the nature of the buildings should be, and to decide upon the designs, and generally upon the construction. The Commission lost no time in setting to work. They certified that £1,500,000 would be sufficient, and proceeded to invite competition by different architects for the New Courts. They also proceeded to purchase the required land. When the designs came to be reduced to estimates, the sum which the Commission had stated to be the cost was very considerably exceeded, and the Government declined to carry out the designs proposed by the Commission. Thus matters remained from 1867 to 1869, when the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. W. H. Gregory), who was now no longer in the House, raised the question of the advisability of selecting a different site—namely, on the Thames Embankment. On that occasion, great surprise was excited by the Chancellor of the Exchequer suddenly proposing another site which had never been in any one's contemplation—the Howard Street site. A Bill was brought in by Mr. Layard to carry out that scheme; it was referred to a Select Committee, who, after hearing evidence en the question, reported in favour of the Carey Street site. In 1870, his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works produced a block-plan for the construction of the Courts, which was acceptable to the profession and to every gentleman who had taken an interest in the question; and it was hoped by all parties that the building would be proceeded with. At the beginning of the Session, he put a Question to his right hon. Friend on the subject, and from his answer he understood that, although considerable delay had occurred in the preparation of the plans and estimates connected with the block-plan, they had been completed, and it was expected that the building would be started in March last. What had been clone since he was at a loss to know; but he understood that no contract had been accepted, nor was there any prospect of the work being proceeded with. What was the consequence of that state of things? In 1865, steps had been taken for the purchase of the necessary land, and the sum raised from the Suitors' Fund in the Court of Chancery, which might be stated at £800,000, had been expended between 1865 and 1867. So far as he knew, that money had been lying practically unproductive ever since, with the exception of a short period a year ago, when the concrete foundations of the Courts were being laid. Thus, during the last five years the interest had been lost, and taking it at a sum of £30,000 a-year, the loss on that head was not less than £150,000. But that was not all. By the provisions of the Act of 1865, the Government were bound to pay all the rates and taxes to which the houses which had been removed from the site were subject, and as those rates and taxes amounted to £9,000 a-year or more, making for the five years £45,000, a sum of about £200,000 had been substantially wasted. Any one at all acquainted with the subject could appreciate the inconveniences connected with the administration of justice, in consequence of there being one set of Courts at Westminster and another at Lincoln's Inn. He ventured to say, that the Bill now before Parliament relating to the administration of justice in the Superior Courts would be wholly useless until the New Courts were constructed, for there could be no fusion of law and equity so long as the Common Law Judges and the Equity Judges had no opportunity, by reason of the distance of the Common Law Courts from the Equity Courts, of communicating with each other. The price of labour and the cost of building, moreover, had increased and were likely to increase so that nothing could be gained by delay. He gave credit to the right hon. Gentleman for a sincere desire to carry out this great work, and he would certainly have the support of the House in withstanding any adverse pressure to which he might be subjected from other quarters. In conclusion, the hon. Member asked for a frank and full explanation of what had been done since 1870 towards completing the erection of the Courts; and moved the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

said, the land on this site had been bought seven years ago, at a cost of £800,000, and the loss of interest on that sum, together with the rates paid every year, amounted since then to little short of £250,000. Four years ago a Select Committee had reported in favour of the present site, and there was no reason why the building should not have been begun very soon afterwards. But these seven acres were left in a most neglected state. The grass was growing there a foot high, and you might suppose that, instead of being in the most valuable part of the Strand, the land was in Timbuctoo. He was also informed that owing to the rise in the price of labour the building would cost 15 per cent more than if it had been taken in hand at once. But a point of greater importance than the pecuniary loss was, that we should never get a proper fusion of law and equity until our Courts were brought under the same roof. Possibly, the babe unborn might practise in the New Courts, though he himself despaired of doing so; whereas, if due diligence had been used, they might now have been completed.

remarked upon the loss to the suitors arising from delays which might, to a great extent, be avoided if the Courts were concentrated. It was estimated that the total amount of property in litigation was not far short of £200,000,000, and if each suit could be accelerated by one month, the gain to the suitors would be enormous.

hoped the discussion would urge on the work, but he could not entirely blame the Government for the delay, because the first scheme of the Commissioners was of the most extravagant description and would have cost at least £3,000,000. It could not be denied, however, that in all public works undertaken in this country there had not been a single building in which the delay had been so great. To look at the site one would almost say that the property had "got into Chancery."

said, he was fully alive to the fact, that there had been very considerable delay in concentrating on some one spot, all the Courts and offices necessary for the administration of justice in the metropolis. That, however, was a grievance to which the public and the administrators of the law had been subject for centuries, and, as in other matters, the idea of re-construction had proceeded with extreme slowness. It was as difficult to deal with the material fabric of the Courts as with any alteration in the administration of justice in those Courts; and it was a singular fact, that Parliament was that year engaged in making arrangements not only for the building in which the Courts were to administer justice, but in re-constructing the entire basis on which justice was to be administered; for it appeared that the legal profession had been going on for several centuries with a system of jurisprudence that was now announced to be erroneous. The hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) proposed a Resolution, to the effect that since the Government would not create by enchantment New Courts of Justice, the administration of the law was likely to be thereby impeded. No doubt, these were matters of the deepest concern, but it was impossible to hold the First Commissioner of Works, or the present Government, or even the present Parliament, responsible for all the delays that had taken place since the moment when it had been determined to concentrate all the Courts in one building. The inconvenience was recognized when the first Royal Commission reported that a reform was necessary, and when an Act was passed to carry that Report into effect. The responsibility was, however, divided between a second Royal Commission, appointed in 1865, and the Treasury, which found it impossible to transact business properly with a body so dignified and numerous as the Commission. While the Treasury seemed to leave the business in the hands of the Commission, the Commission on the other hand, cast the onus of responsibility upon the Treasury; but what were the real facts of the case? The Act of 1865 prescribed that the Commissioners were to satisfy themselves, and to certify publicly and solemnly that the site and the building together would not cost more than £1,500,000. The Commissioners signed a certificate accordingly, that the land could be acquired for £750,000; and that the building could be constructed for a similar sum, the site between Carey Street and the Strand being regarded as the most appropriate. Upon that certificate, the Treasury directed the site to be obtained, and it was acquired. While the public and the Legislature, however, were under the impression that the duty prescribed by the Act was being performed, the Commissioners, by a gradual process which he need not further describe, found that it was expedient to carry out the provisions of the law by embarking in au expenditure of £1,453,000 for the site, and £1,650,000 for the building, with £147,000 for further miscellaneous expenses, making a total of £3,250,000. The House knew what "rough estimates" were, and there were some who talked about the site and buildings as being likely to cost £4,000,000 before the edifice was finished. These proceedings had been carried on without any sense of responsibility, and was it surprising that when the present Government came into office in 1868, and had to face these proposals, that they should pause in sanctioning such an expenditure, when the Commissioners had solemnly certified that the building and site would only cost £1,500,000, and when Parliament had required that the work should be accomplished for that sum? It was a solemn undertaking also, that all the expense of the new building should be borne by suitors, and that none should be charged on the Consolidated Fund; therefore, any further expenditure beyond that originally sanctioned by Parliament would have been a great injustice to the public, as well as to those who resorted to the Courts for redress, and it was the duty of the Government to take care of the interests both of suitors and the public. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, for that reason, proposed a new scheme of a less expensive character. It was examined and, for various reasons, Parliament thought it better to adhere to the old site. The discussion, however, had the effect of opening the eyes of the public to the fact that so large a scheme was unnecessary. At the beginning of the year 1870 the matter came into his hands as First Commissioner, and he might therefore take that date as his starting point, although it had been necessary to make some remarks respecting the antecedent transactions. He also satisfied himself that what was necessary for the due administration of justice might be accomplished as regards the building for £750,000. As to the question of land, he put it aside now, because an Act had been passed to charge the additional expenditure for land on the unfortunate suitors in time to come; but £750,000 having been set apart by the certificate of the Commissioners and the Act of Parliament for the construction of the building, he gave Mr. Street directions to prepare plans so as to keep the building within the specified sum, while covering all the expenses incidental to making it fit for occupation. After some time Mr. Street put him in a posi- tion to deal with this question as it ought to have been dealt with from the first; on the responsibility of the Government alone, or on that of the Board of Works, if the Government chose to leave the responsibility to that Department. The plans he submitted to the Commissioners, who, without pledging themselves to a minute and specific approval of any detail, considered they properly fulfilled their functions by signing a Report which approved generally of the plans. That Report was made on the 27th of July, 1870, and it was not until then that the requirements of the statute had been fulfilled; for, according to the law, the Government possessed no power to proceed with the construction of the building before the Commissioners signed that Report. Although the end of July was not a convenient period for embarking on an important undertaking, that was for him (Mr. Ayrton) no obstacle. As soon as he was placed in possession of the Report, with a request from Her Majesty's Government to give effect to it, he proceeded to make the necessary arrangements, and on the 23rd of September he arrived at the conditions on which Mr. Street was to be employed to execute the plans. As soon as that gentleman had signed his contract, instructions were given to him to prepare sketch-plans to be delivered on the 1st January, 1871, the further condition being that he was to deliver the contract-plans and drawings within six months after the preliminary sketch-plans had been approved by the Office of Works. When Mr. Street sent in the sketch-plan in January, 1871, many questions arose of a practical character as to the nature of the accommodation to be afforded and the mode of constructing the building. Discussions arose between Mr. Street, the Office of Works, and the Treasury. Several modifications were made in the plans, and on the 5th of August the Treasury stated that they were prepared to approve the contract-plans, provided they were so made that the work could be executed within the limit of the amount prescribed by the law. From the 5th of August, 1871, Mr. Street had six months to prepare his contract plans, but the details were of such a kind, that it was not until the 27th of February, 1873, that the Office of Works was put in a position to invite tenders for the construction of the build- ing. The tenders were sent in by the 25th of March, 1873, and in the judgment of the Office of Works, the lowest of them greatly exceeded the prescribed sum. Mr. Street was called upon, and was bound by the obligations into which he had entered, thoroughly to revise his designs and plans. He (Mr. Ayrton) put it to the House whether, from the 25th of March up to the present time, there had been any loss of time which could properly be said to justify the use of the term "delay" which had been made use of in the Resolution? The time, he maintained, was insignificant compared with the magnitude of the building. The Treasury having requested himself to undertake the task of revision, he had without delay, proceeded with the consideration of the question; and he had given an assurance that he would as soon as possible state the result to the House. What advantage, then, was there in discussion now? He had certainly much more reason than the hon. Member opposite for being anxious to bring the matter to a close, and to hand the building over to Mr. Street. The hon. Member wished to know what had been the tenders, and what were the points in dispute. It would be injurious to the public interests, while tenders were under consideration, to give information about them to the House; and he considered that it would be highly injurious to the public interests if he were to state all the views and opinions which he entertained as to the best mode of carrying out the contract. All that the Government could do was to state their own determination of what was to be done, and to submit their conclusions to the consideration of the House. What he wished to impress upon the House was, that that was not a mere question of money, for something more than money was involved in the question. He could not conceive a greater blunder than that the Government, for the sake of saving a day, a week, or a month, should precipitate themselves into the construction of a building, which might render it necessary for them to retrace their steps. These buildings were designed before the new system of administration of justice had been adopted, and it was necessary to consider some points as the mode in which justice was to be administered. Now, who was to be responsible? Was Mr. Street to be responsible, or was the responsibility to rest on the Government? He contended that it was the duty of the Government to see that the buildings were suitable for the purposes for which they were to be constructed, and that the public money was not wasted in their construction. The Office of Works employed Mr. Street on behalf of the Crown, and he considered that Mr. Street was the servant of the Office of Works, and was bound to obey the orders of that Office. It would be incompatible with the conduct of the public service if it were to be assumed that Mr. Street was the employer of the Office of Works, and that it had nothing to do but to carry out its desires. In that there was nothing derogatory to the position of any architect. It might be instructive to the House to know what had occurred with respect to the construction of other public buildings carried on under Votes in Supply, and it was remarkable that all these buildings had undergone the fate of the proposed building from similar causes. Everyone knew what had occurred with respect to the buildings of the Houses of Parliament; why that very House was an example of what happened, until one of his predecessors was made responsible, and completed the building. So were the Home and Colonial Offices, on which it was proposed to spend £460,000. He (Mr. Ayrton) called upon the architect to reconsider his proceedings; and that architect, Mr. Gilbert Scott, at the head of his profession, had no difficulty in responding. Mr. Scott never made the least difficulty about doing what he told him. As he had said, he was told the Treasury had determined to make a "radical change," and it was a good thing to deal with these matters radically. The result was the expenditure was reduced to £264,000, and the building was in many respects better. When it was proposed to erect the new building for the University of London in a particular manner, it went on rapidly, but when it had risen five or six feet the House learnt about it, and immediately passed a Resolution condemning it, and it had to be pulled down at a cost of £5,000 and re-erected conformably to the views of the House. Was that an example to be followed in the present case? The same thing had occurred in the case of the Museum at Kensington, and yet nobody would say that building, though much less expensive, was inferior to that which had been originally projected. The question was, whether it would not be better to spend one or two months in arriving at the solution of questions affecting the building rather than precipitate themselves into proceedings which would require future correction. It was absolutely necessary if they saw errors in the design or construction of a building that they should check those errors, and that they should not, either from a feeling of consistency or from a desire to shirk responsibility, allow the building to go on, and leave it to others to discover errors which it would require both time and money to correct. He did not anticipate that they would need to delay the construction of this building beyond a few weeks, in order to settle the questions which were now under consideration; but the House could not take a more unwise step than to cut into the middle of the negotiations which were now going on. It was impossible to explain all the details; it would be the work of hours and days—the work of a Department; but however that might be, when he had arrived at a result, he would be prepared to state that result in a perfectly intelligible manner; and when an estimate was brought forward any hon. Member would have it in his power to take the opinion of the House respecting it before any action Vas taken upon it or any expenditure incurred. That was the best footing on which he could at present leave the matter.

said, that they must all admire very much the tender and conscientious susceptibilities revealed in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works; but he had not met the point which had been raised by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory). He appealed to them almost passionately not to cut into the middle of negotiations, and declined to tell them the source of the delay which had arisen, but his hon. Friend had not asked for any Cabinet secrets; he had merely pleaded that some progress should be made in view of that great expenditure of time and money which all deplored. The right hon. Gentleman had not explained the present state of the negotiations. He simply told them what they all knew—that the plans had been hung up, and that Mr. Street was on his trial, forgetting that it was four years since the Committee sat and 15 since that Commission had been appointed in the Session of 1858 on his (Mr. Beresford Hope's) Motion, which decided upon concentrating the Law Courts in one building. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken with considerable amplification of the magnificent scheme propounded by the Commission at that time much under the influence of that active man of large views, the late Mr. Field, whom all so much lamented; but that scheme had been entirely set aside, and no one thought of reviving it. The present scheme had been hung up not by the architect, but by that architect's many masters—the lawyers—who naturally wished to breathe fresh air, and to have easy staircases instead of breakneck ladders, and every one of whom wanted the largest and best accommodation for his own particular department, totally regardless of all the other Courts and officers, and of the stint of money which unfortunately stood in all their ways. Our Law Courts in London should not be made the embodiment of Napoleon's sneer against England as the nation of shopkeepers. During the last year builders' prices had risen at least 15 per cent, and much more than that, taking a longer period back. Should, then, the price of the building be restricted to the original estimate of £750,000, with the consequent deficiency, and want, and discomfort, which must be the result of such parsimony, and that at a time when the revenue was more elastic than ever it had been before, and when we could afford to pitch our millions across the Atlantic? The right hon. Gentleman spoke of £750,000 as if it was something in itself sacred and immutable, and not the mere symbol of the particular building which the law needed and which naturally came out at that cost calculated upon former prices. This building, but none other, they were now morally bound to carry out upon as reasonable terms as the actual labour market made possible, but in not less dignity than was intended three years ago, or the national honour would suffer.

thought the right Eon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel. He said he would not go beyond the original £750,000 fixed by the Commission; but while he was waiting, he was spending £40,000 a year, the annual interest upon the sum paid for the land. That could hardly be called economy. Mr. Street in 1870 submitted a plan for building the Palace of Justice according to the then prices, and he ought not to be blamed if, three years later, prices had augmented 25 per cent. He (Mr. Goldsmid) did not understand the statement of the Government with regard to the tenders, as he found from The Architect newspaper that the highest tender was £950,000; the lowest, £732,000, the latter price being within the Government limit. It was the fault of the Government which had caused the delay, and he thought that the work should be commenced immediately, before any further rise in prices occurred. If Mr. Street were called upon to cut out the central hall in order to reduce the cost of the building, much further time would be lost—probably another year— and, besides, the public would be injured by the diminished accommodation. The loss of that year would involve a loss of £40,000 in interest, and of £9,500 a-year paid in rates; and it was very possible a further sum for the building, owing to a further rise in prices; so that this cutting down of the plans was the worst possible economy. It was not fair to the architect, nor to the public, nor to the suitors, that further delay should be allowed. He hoped the Government, after this strong expression of opinion from all sides of the House, would not hesitate to proceed with the building at once, and would not grudge the £50,000 or so, which they were in vain trying to save in this matter.

said, there was a rumour that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works meant to curtail very seriously the accommodation which was to have been afforded to the public and the profession in the New Law Courts. That would be a very serious mistake, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman should state what his intentions were in this respect, before the contract was signed, instead of afterwards. Competent authorities thought the rise in prices in the building trade would continue, delay would therefore result in an increase of costs.

deprecated the system of paltry economy which seemed to actuate the First Commissioner of Works, in respect to the subject under discussion.

said, he would admit you must cut your coat according to your cloth, but apprehended it was necessary in all cases to have a coat that would fit. It was, therefore, out of the question to suppose the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works would persist in his intention to economize, by providing insufficient accommodation.

commended the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works for not having proceeded with the work in the present unsettled state of the building trade.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will lay on the Table of the House a Copy of the Application to the Treasury for such aid to the Defendant in the Tichborne Prosecution as he would have been legally entitled to receive if he had been committed for trial after examination before a magistrate, together with the Reply declining to afford such aid; and to call attention to the subject? He said, the course which had been pursued in this case was utterly unprecedented; and he wished to call attention to the subject now, because hon. Gentlemen were just about to separate for the Whitsuntide holidays, and during those holidays there might be a complete and irretrievable collapse in the case, so far as the Claimant's power of defending himself was concerned. That unfortunate gentleman would certainly be unable to continue his defence, and bring up the necessary witnesses, unless he received some assistance. The prosecution of the Claimant was ordered by the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas simply and solely upon the evidence as to the tattoo marks. Already the Claimant had been compelled by the Government to spend something like £3,000, which the instincts and feelings of the people of this country had led them to contribute, and the unfortunate man had been made the victim of extraordinary efforts on the part of the prosecution to keep him in prison. It was upon the tattoo marks alone that he was prosecuted; but where were these marks?

said, he must remind the hon. Gentleman that he was out of Order in going into the merits of the case. If the hon. Gentleman would confine himself to the expenses incurred in consequence of the prosecution of this person he would be quite in Order.

said, he had further Questions to put to the right hon. Gentleman. One was, Whether the Government would afford such aid to the defendant as he would have been legally entitled to receive if he had been committed for trial before a magistrate? Another was, Whether, in the event of any Member of the House making a further appeal to the people to renew their subscriptions in favour of the person under trial, he would prosecute such Member for contempt of Court? and the last Question was, Whether the right hon. Gentleman had taken any steps to discover the authorship of certain letters which the Lord Chief Justice had pointed out to be forged and fabricated, and which had been brought forward at the last trial?

said, the hon. Gentleman had asked him four Questions. The first was—Who was responsible for that prosecution? His answer was, that he, as Home Secretary, was responsible for it. A person who was a party to a suit in a Court of Justice having been considered by the Judge to have committed perjury, the Judge in the exercise of Ids authority committed him to prison in order that he might be tried on that charge. The case was an important one. There was no person except the Crown to undertake the prosecution, and the Crown, in accordance with precedent, undertook it. Such prosecutions occurred frequently. The hon. Member wished the Crown also to undertake the cost of the defence; but such a proceeding was altogether unprecedented. The hon. Gentleman's second Question was, whether the Government would afford such aid to the defendant as he would be legally entitled to receive if he had been committed for trial after examination before a magistrate? Under the Act of the hon. and learned Recorder, passed in a previous Session, witnesses for the defence who appeared before a magistrate, and who were deemed by the magistrate to be material witnesses, might be bound over by him to appear on the trial; and at the conclusion of the trial the Judge who tried the case might, if he thought proper, order the expenses of those witnesses to be paid. The defendant, in this instance, having been committed, not by a magistrate but by a Judge, there was no provision made by statute for the costs of any of his witnesses. But the answer he had given on the application made in this instance was, that at the conclusion of the trial he would, in conjunction with the Treasury, consider what was fair and proper to be done in a case of that sort. The hon. Member's third Question was, whether if an hon. Member made an appeal to the public for subscriptions for the defence of that person, he would desire the Attorney General to prosecute him? His answer to that—in accordance with what he believed had fallen from the Lord. Chief Justice—was, that if such an appeal was made to the public in decent and proper language, it would not be a fit subject for a prosecution. The fourth Question put by the hon. Gentleman was, what steps did he propose to take with regard to certain letters in connection with that case which were alleged to have been forged? He knew nothing about those forged letters; but he believed the Lord Chief Justice had stated them to be wholly immaterial upon the point at issue, and he therefore could not sea what advantage was to be gained by entering on any such investigation as to their authorship as had been alluded to. With respect to the correspondence referred to in the hon. Member's Notice, it could be produced if the hon. Gentleman moved for it.

said, he objected to proceeding with so important a Vote at that late hour of the night, and would move that the Chairman report Progress.

hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persevere in the Motion, as it was most desirable that the Vote should be taken that evening in the interests of the public service. He would arrange that on Monday Supply should cease at half-past 10, in order to take the discussion on the Report.

asked the Government to take the discussion on Monday before Supply.

also objected to proceeding with the Vote that evening.

said, it was for the national interest, in the highest sense, that when the Vote was first proposed there should be no appearance of hesitation on the part of the House of Commons in assenting to it. He should take care that hon. Members should have ample opportunity for discussing it when it came on again on Monday; and, if necessary, he would take care to arrange so that the discussion should be taken before half-past 10.

regretted that the front Opposition benches were empty, and that it was left so often to the occupants of the back Opposition benches to look after the interests of the country. While agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman that it was not desirable to resist the Vote on the present occasion, he disclaimed on the part of the House of Commons any responsibility for the payment of the money.

thought the whole transaction must be looked upon as matter of national humiliation, and contended that when the Americans refused to withdraw the Indirect Claims the honour and interest of this country demanded that we should have washed our hands of the Treaty. The Times, which was generally supposed to be the Government organ, wound up a long leading article by stating that there were good grounds for supposing that the Indirect Claims had in effect been paid, although they were nominally excluded.

pointed out that, as he had said on a previous occasion, this country was bound by the Rules contained in the Treaty, but not by the observations made by the Arbitrators.

expressed his willingness to withdraw the Motion for reporting Progress if the Government would give an early opportunity for discussing the question on the Report of the Vote.

said, the Report should be taken at 9 o'clock on Monday.

in moving an Amendment in Clause 32, said, he did so with a view to remove the existing disqualification of town clerks to act as agents for candidates.