asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will consent to the appointment of a Morning Sitting for the consideration of the Second Reading of the Monastic and Conventual Institutions Bill? The reason why the Order for the Second Reading had been so long deferred was because of the delay in making certain Returns which had been ordered by the House on the subject.

Sir, I am sure there is no Member of the House that it would give me greater pleasure to convenience in the arrangement of Business than my hon. Friend; but my hon. Friend is under a mistake in supposing that I have any control over Morning Sittings. They must be fixed by the House. I appeal to the House whether the state of Public Business justifies me in so doing, and the House has generally supported me; and I fear I shall have on my own account to make frequent, if not constant, appeals to the House to grant Morning Sittings for the transaction of Public Business during the remainder of the Session. But, as a general rule, I never venture to ask for a Morning Sitting for the Business of the Government, unless it is in the case of a measure which the House has approved of by reading the Bill a second time. Now the case of my hon. Friend is that of a Bill which has been before Parliament for, I think, at least four years, and which the House has never read a second time. Therefore, I can hardly think that, under any circumstances, my hon. Friend can make a successful appeal to the House to grant him, at this period of the Session, the indulgence which he asks. I must repeat that it is not in my power to make that appeal, and I shall be under the necessity, in order to assist the advancement of the Government measures, to appeal to the House frequently to grant Morning Sittings for those Bills which the House has approved of by reading a second time.

, in rising to call attention to the reduction, by the Irish Church Act, in the number of Lords Spiritual sitting and voting as Lords of Parliament, and to the provisions of Section 2 of the Act for Establishing the Bishopric of Manchester—10 & 11 Vict., c. 108—said, that this section, which introduced the principle of rotation, involving the exclusion of junior Bishops from the House of Lords, excited warm discussion at the time the Act was passed. The opposition to it was led in the House of Lords by the late Earl of Derby, who felt so strongly on the subject that he recorded in the Journals of the House his protest against the clause, which was also opposed by Earl Fitzwilliam, Lord Brougham, and the late Bishop of Winchester. In the House of Commons the opposition to the clause was led by Sir James Graham, and Mr. Stuart Wortley and other eminent Members also opposed the clause, and it only passed through the House by the support of hon. Members below the Gangway on the Liberal side, who were naturally opposed to any increase in the number of Lords Spiritual. For his part, he objected to the exclusion of junior Bishops from Parliament—first, on grounds of public policy, and secondly, on constitutional grounds. He objected to the exclusion on grounds of public policy for three reasons. He objected to it, first, because the Bishops were endowed with large powers, and it was of the last importance that they should be directly responsible for the exercise of their powers to public opinion. By placing the Bishops in the House of Lords they were put on the same footing as Ministers of State and other public men, and were liable to be questioned and called to account with reference to their actions out-of-doors; otherwise they would be practically irresponsible. In support of that proposition he might state that the late Bishop of "Winchester in 1847 adduced instances in which tyrannical acts on the part of Bishops had been arrested in consequence of questions being addressed to them in their places in Parliament. He thought, therefore, that the presence of the Bishops in the Upper House was a safeguard to the liberties of the clergy, and that any agitation on the part of any section of the clergy against an increase in the number of Lords Spiritual, arising out of jealousy of Episcopal authority, was extremely short-sighted. His second reason for desiring the repeal of the 2nd section of the Act was that it excluded from the House of Lords Bishops who were in the prime of life, and who were then best able to discharge their legislative functions, while at the same time it admitted Bishops who from age and infirmity might be unable to properly discharge such functions. His third objection to the 2nd section of the Act was that it would be to the advantage of the community at large that the lay and the Spiritual Peers should be brought together in the same Assembly. Nothing could be more calculated to narrow the minds of the Bishops than to shut them up with their clergy within the limits of their own dioceses. They would thus be mere "country" Bishops, destitute of all knowledge of the motives which guide mundane actions. On constitutional grounds he objected to the 2nd section of the Act for two reasons. The first was, that it limited the Prerogative of the Crown by restraining Her Majesty, her Heirs, and Successors from summoning to the Upper House the junior Bishops until vacancies occurred in the numbers of the elder Bishops. Was it desirable to fix a precise limit beyond which the Crown was not to go with regard to the creation of Spiritual Peers? By the Irish Church Act, the number of Spiritual Peers was reduced from 30 to 26. Was the number to remain for all time at 26? He further objected to the 2nd section of the Act on constitutional grounds, because it suspended a right which the holders of our ancient Sees had enjoyed from time immemorial—the right of being summoned to the Great Council of the Nation. In 1847, Lord Russell admitted, on the part of the Government of the day, that every Bishop was entitled to be served with a Writ of Summons to Parliament, unless that right was expressly taken away by Act of Parliament. He (Mr. Charley) might be reminded of the position of the Bishop of Sodor and Man; but the position of that Bishop was only in appearance an exception, the reason of his exclusion from the Imperial Parliament being that he was a Member of the Manx Legislature. The total number of Lords Spiritual having been recently reduced from 30 to 26, Parliament could with less hesitation approach the question of increasing the number. He could not see why there should be a system of rotation with regard to the Lords Spiritual and not with regard to the Temporal Peers. Before the Reformation the number of the Lords Spiritual greatly exceeded the number of the Lords Temporal. He had every confidence in Her Majesty's Government who, no doubt, were anxious to protect the union between Church and State, but he had felt it his duty to call the attention of Parliament to the subject which involved important considerations alike of public policy and constitutional law.

said, that with all respect to his hon. and learned Friend, he must say that he could not see anything either in the subject or the remarks which had been made which ought to occupy their attention beyond a very short time. He (Mr. Beresford Hope) took part in the debates of 1847, to which reference had been made, and he had felt at that time that the gain to the Church in elasticity by the creation of the Bishopric of Manchester was far more than a set-off for a slight departure from the old principle that every Bishop should be a Peer of Parliament. His hon. and learned Friend had not completed his own argument, and he (Mr. Beresford Hope) would suggest that he should carry his recommendation further, and that when the new Opera House was constructed on the Thames Embankment, it should contain a Bishops' Bench. He could not sympathize with the pathetic description which his hon. and learned Friend had given of the poor country Bishop sent down to his own diocese, and deprived of the opportunity of having his mind enlarged by a residence in London. It was well known in the case of the junior Bishops how they felt that they required to be resident for two or three years in their own diocese after their appointment, in order that they might become personally acquainted with its wants, and with the clergymen with whom they had to work. If his hon. and learned Friend had taken the trouble to consult the Bishops themselves on the subject, he felt certain that he would not have raised the question, and he was sure that the course which had been taken had strengthened, not weakened, the Church in the eyes of the country. He hoped the time of the House would not be taken up in the consideration of such a subject, and trusted that they would at once proceed to other business.

agreed very much with what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope), and wished, at all events, that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) had proposed some definite Resolution, instead of merely calling attention to the subject. The question was thoroughly gone into in 1847, the arguments which were now advanced had been fully considered, and what was regarded as a satisfactory settlement was then come to. As to the reduction in the number of Spiritual Peers caused by the Irish Church Act, that was a matter which ought rather to have been discussed before the Act was passed. It was never mentioned at that time, the settlement of 1847 being, no doubt, accepted as sufficient. In his opinion, Her Majesty's Government would be unwise at this time to make any alteration of the kind proposed. The arrangement to which he had referred had been found conducive to the best interests of the Church, and he did not think the alteration suggested would at all advance the cause which the hon. and learned Member for Salford had at heart.

trusted that the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) would be satisfied in knowing that his opinions were not shared by other Members of the House. He thought the measure which enabled a Bishop to get acquainted with his diocese, instead of being a bad measure had tended to increase the efficiency of the Episcopal Bench. Beyond that, there was no more reason for creating more English Bishops because of the disestablishment of the Irish Church, than there would be for creating more English Peers if the Home Rulers succeeded in obtaining a Parliament of their own at College Green.

, in rising to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that those functions of Her Majesty's Government which especially relate to Commerce and Agriculture should be administered under the direction of a Principal Secretary of State, who shall be a member of the Cabinet, and that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that She will be graciously pleased to give effect to this Resolution,"

said, he desired it to be understood that, in the course of any remarks he might make on this subject, he had no intention of casting reflections on the present or preceding Governments. The Central Chamber of Agriculture, some weeks ago, passed a resolution desiring that the subject might be brought before the House in connection with the Chambers of Commerce, and it was in consequence of that resolution, and in accordance with the desire of 50 Chambers of Commerce, that he now ventured to bring the subject under their notice. He thought, however, that the commercial and agricultural interests of the country were so large that it required no apology on his part for acting as he had. When they recollected that the exports and imports, as regarded commerce, now exceeded £600,000,000 per annum, and that the tenants' capital employed in agriculture had been estimated at sums varying from £300,000,000 to £500,000,000, besides the home trade, which must amount to a very considerable sum, nothing more need be said to show that these were very great interests indeed, and deserved to be administered by a responsible Minister, a Member of the Cabinet. Formerly English industry was almost without a rival in the world. After the great French war terminated, and up to a few years ago, the circumstances of English industry were such that no competition on the part of foreign nations could possibly affect them; but now, owing to free trade and the various facilities of intercourse by sea and land, the industries of this country had to contend with foreign competition, which even went so far as to press our own producers hard in the home market. Our position as a commercial nation, then, could be maintained only on condition that the Government appreciated and, as far as possible, removed the impediments which beset our commerce on all sides, and gave it that new and legitimate help and protection which consisted not in monopoly, but in securing to British capital and enterprize a fair field abroad, and in carefully considering all matters affecting its interests at home. It was, therefore, of the greatest importance that the interests of Agriculture and Commerce should be under the charge of a properly constituted Department, and that the head of that Department should be a Minister possessing equal status and influence with the other Members of the Cabinet. What he wanted to call the attention of the House to was the fact that there was no Department in the State specially charged with the duties of watching over the interests of British Commerce and Agriculture, as affected by anything that took place in other Departments of the public service. It was a popular belief that the Board of Trade fulfilled the functions of a Minister of Commerce; but that Department had neither the requisite organization nor the requisite powers to fulfil these functions. The Board of Trade might be called in some sense a mythical body. It never met at all. At the commencement of each reign an Order in Council nominated certain high officials of State as a Committee of Council for Trade and Plantations. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor, the First Lord of the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and other great officers of State were placed on that body, which never met, and it was obvious that it could exercise no consultative functions. Its administrative functions, however, were performed by the President and Vice President, and they were both multifarious, numerous, and of the most varied description. Amongst them were comprised the following:—the inspection of railways, the registration of designs, the registration of joint stock companies, the relief of British subjects abroad, the granting of Royal Charters, matters relating to shipping, and the collection and distribution of deceased seamen's wages; indeed, some of its duties were inconsistent with the proper functions of a Minister of Commerce. If they turned to Agriculture, the Board of Trade did not partially, or even in pretence deal with it, and it was somewhat anomalous to find that, in another Department, the two noble Lords whose duty it was to combat the ignorance of the lower classes had also the duty devolved on them of combating the Rinderpest and Foot-and-mouth disease. There was a great want of arrangement in the various duties which devolved upon the Department, and even, however, if there were a better apportionment of the duties of the President of the Board of Trade, he was not a Member of the Cabinet, and a Minister who was not a Member of the Cabinet had not necessarily cognizance of the action taken by the other Departments; and yet that action might vitally affect commercial interests. He (Mr. Lloyd) would be amongst the first to concede that agricultural and commercial questions were not to override all others. He trusted that patriotism was as lively in the breasts of agricultural and commercial men as in that of any other class of Her Majesty's subjects. The present system needed alteration. "What took place in the different Departments was not necessarily known to the Board of Trade. In 1860, for instance, Colonel Rigby made a very valuable Report on the trade of Zanzibar, and that Report was first published by another Department of the Government two years after it was received, having never been communicated to the Board of Trade at all. The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854 between Canada and the United States, although it very materially affected many important British interests, was never mentioned to the Board of Trade until it was practically concluded. The same course was adopted in the case of the first Treaty with Japan, and of the French Treaty, which was inaugurated by Richard Cobden. In fact, scarcely any question could arise in other Departments which did not have effect, direct or indirect, on trade; and the interests of Commerce and Agriculture, as he had said, could only receive due care by being represented in the Cabinet by a Minister of equal power and authority with his Colleagues. The commercial community sometimes suffered, or thought they suffered, from the want of that watchfulness over their interests which was exercised by foreign Governments on behalf of their competitors. Sir James Emerson Tennent, in his evidence before a Select Committee which sat in 1864, said that the Treasury never consulted the Board of Trade, and yet the Treasury was the Department of the State which initiated legislation on the subject of Customs, Excise, Banking, and Currency. The India Office, also, it was stated, never consulted the Board of Trade. It appeared, therefore, that when the Committee sat in 1864, taxes might have been imposed, modified, or removed, Treaties with foreign Powers concluded, Acts of Colonial Legislatures sanctioned, banking or monetary systems altered, without the previous consent of the Minister whose duty it should be to consider those changes in relation to Commerce. Nothing was further from his intention than to suggest that the functions of a Minister of Commerce should be discharged only by a man who had sprung from the ranks of commerce. "What he wished to see was a Ministry of Commerce, or whatever the office might be called, filled by a trained statesman—and, happily, such men were to be found on the front benches of both sides of the House—who should be a Member of the Cabinet, and equal in point of status, experience, responsibility, and authority to those who presided over Finance, the "War Office, or the Home Office. Since 1864 the former Commercial Department of the Board of Trade had, he believed, been abolished, so that the Board of Trade was now deprived of the means it then had of exercising its functions. Thus all measures of reform connected with industry and commerce were left to the initiative of the public outside, or else to that of the heads of other Departments. No doubt these heads very sincerely desired the well-being of trade and agriculture, but they did not possess in their offices those means for obtaining a knowledge of details and appreciation of consequences of their measures which would be at the hand of a Minister of Commerce with a properly organized staff. Now, that such a Minister of Commerce should be a Member of the Cabinet was recommended by the Committee who sat under the presidency of the right hon. Member for Bradford, and was also supported by Lord Russell, Lord Malmesbury, and Mr. Milner Gibson. Such a Minister was surely as much entitled to a place in the Cabinet as the custodian of Her Majesty's Privy Seal. The existing want of system was strikingly exemplified by the ignorance and uncertainty of the public as to which Department was responsible on commercial questions, deputations to the Government being referred in the most bewildering manner from one Department to another. He would give an instance of the uncertainty which prevailed on the matter. Suppose a deputation waited upon the Government to ask them to negotiate for the removal of a differential duty on British goods, which would raise the question of the propriety of reducing duties levied in this country on Portuguese wine. The Foreign Office would think there was something in what the deputation urged, and would refer them to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and when they went to him he would refer them to the Inland Revenue or Customs, and then they would get to the Board of Trade; and, finally, if expenses were to be incurred, they would be referred to the Treasury. In Russia, Prussia, and France, Commerce and agriculture were specially represented in the Cabinet; and in India Commerce and Agriculture constituted two distinct Departments under one Chief Secretary. Having thus far dealt with the arguments in favour of his Resolution, he should, in the next place, briefly advert to the objections which were urged against it. The first of those objections was one which had been made by a Member of the late Ministry, who said that the French Treaty would never have been carried into effect, had it been necessary that its details should have been referred to a Minister of Commerce, and that the secrecy which was desirable could not have been observed if the Board of Trade had to be consulted. Now that remark might be fairly applicable to the Board of Trade as at present constituted; but it did not apply to the case of a country having a Minister of Commerce in the Cabinet, and equal in authority to the head of the Foreign Office. Another objection advanced was that agricultural and commercial communities were the best judges of their own interests, and that the Government would do more harm than good by attempting to patronize them in that way. If, however, that view were carried to its logical conclusion, it would apply with equal force against much which was already done, and also against the Government taking any part in such matters at all. Those, he might add, who were constantly engaged in commerce, were too much occupied to give that attention to the various changes in our own laws, or proceedings of foreign Governments which their importance demanded. They were not, besides, always enabled to obtain in time the requisite information; and, even if they were, they had not the power to carry their wishes into effect. The exercise of Government influence, therefore, was necessary, not to supersede the action of the mercantile community, but to give it a fair field. As matters at present stood, the interests of trade were placed at a disadvantage, not from any want of zeal on the part of those connected with it, but from the difficulty of obtaining from time to time that prompt and precise information which could be obtained only by means of a well-organized and intelligent staff. It was true that there was a commercial department at the Foreign Office; but, in order to answer all exigencies, there must be one such to each of two or three other departments. It would be far bettor to have a separate Ministry; and, he believed that its establishment would be a practical benefit to the country as well as to agriculture. It was urged, in the third place, by persons of high authority that there was no cause for complaint under the existing system, and that Commerce and Agriculture already received much more help under the existing machinery of Government than they suffered. The evidence, however, which he had received—and a great deal more which he could quote from the same quarter—conclusively proved, he thought, that that statement, as it would not have been true previous to 1864, was not correct as applied to the state of things at the present day. He thanked the House for the indulgence with which they had heard him, and would only say—representing, as he did, all shades of opinion amongst the agricultural and commercial classes—that they would gladly welcome a change in the direction he had indicated, from whatever Government or from whatever Party it might proceed. In conclusion, he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would consider this question; for it was to them that the country looted, now that party strife had somewhat abated, for measures of practical utility which would be accepted as evidence of their desire to promote the national welfare and prosperity. He would now move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

, in seconding the Motion, said, there was a strong feeling existing among agriculturists on the subject. They believed that it would be for their interests that there should be a Department appointed to represent not only Commerce, but Agriculture also, and presided over by a Cabinet Minister. They thought if the change was made, that there would be a fair and direct representation of Agriculture in Parliament. He did not wish to cast any imputation on hon. Gentlemen who filled, or had filled, Government offices; but there was certainly a feeling in the country that when any question relating to Agriculture came on for discussion in the House it was most likely to be shelved. In proof of that, he need only point to the great difficulty which there was in obtaining any information as to the state of affairs on any agricultural question. The various questions were under so many different Departments that it was almost impossible to get any satisfactory answer, and a person was frequently referred from Department to Department, and sometimes even the Departments themselves did not know whether a particular matter came within their Department or not. He would also point out it was a very unsatisfactory arrangement that the management of cattle and the education of the country should be placed together in one Department. To that he thought was owing the fact that there was no adequate supervision of the traffic in cattle and other live stock, and in connection with the subject he would refer to the Report which had been issued to hon. Members from Mr. Holmes of the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council, who had been sent down to Deptford to attend a ship on board of which it was said that some animals had been treated with cruelty. Mr. Holmes had been sent down in consequence of a letter in The Times from Captain Stanley; but the incidental part of it was, that the gentleman reported that the cattle exhibited no indications of having received ill-treatment, but, on the other hand, were in a better condition than most of the cattle landed at Deptford—adding quite innocently, that those affected with foot-and-mouth disease, 34 in number, only had it very slightly. But out of 119 cattle 34 were affected with the disease, in this one ship; and this one of the best cargoes he had seen for some time what must the worst have been? In the face of facts like these it was not much to be wondered at that agriculturists of this country should ask for the appointment of a Minister, nor that the country was inundated with cattle disease, and that the traders who relied for a living upon feeding and grazing were annually losing large sums of money through no fault of their own. He had lately seen a letter in the papers from the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire—a high authority on such matters—in which he estimated his own losses from foot-and-mouth disease alone at £2 per head; other farmers would give similar testimony. How great then must be the loss not only to the farmer but to the consuming public? This was the way things were now managed at home, but things were managed very differently abroad. He found that in Copenhagen, not much more than a month ago, the Minister of the Interior ordered that, in consequence of the prevalence of foot-and-mouth disease in Great Britain all cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs, imported there from should be kept isolated during three weeks at the cost of their owners and then submitted to veterinary examination before being handed over to their owners for disposal. In France, Germany, Hungary, Austria, and in the United States, and even in our own dependencies in India, there was a Minister clothed with the functions which would attach to a Minister of Agriculture in this country, and up to 1816 there had been a Board of Agriculture in this country, and to that board, in the year 1804, the celebrated Arthur Young was secretary. But somehow or other it had lapsed, and there was now no such body in existence, and he, for one, had failed to discover why it was discontinued. If it was that agriculture, by reason of the existence of protection, had at that time reached a state of prosperity which rendered legislative care no longer necessary the present was a period at which such care might advantageously be resumed, for the agricultural interest was now far from being prosperous. In some respects it was suffering from want of legislation, and in others it was over-legislated for—both circumstances being due to the fact that no one central Department was responsible for matters affecting agricultural interests. Farmers not only had natural difficulties to contend with, but difficulties arising from legislation, by which they were prevented from obtaining a sufficient supply of children for agricultural purposes. Besides that they were overburdened with local taxation, and had been saddled with still further expenses by the operation of the Education Act which had been passed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford. By that Act children were no longer allowed to be employed in agriculture, except under great difficulties; but were being educated for the benefit of the towns. The agricultural interest had borne many privations, although they were the last to desire a change in the existing institutions of the country. But the Returns issued showed how greatly the agricultural population both in England and Scotland was decreasing, and no wonder a difficulty was experienced in obtaining soldiers or recruits for the Militia or police, for a large number of agricultural labourers were now emigrating to the towns, from which they went abroad, or were so spoilt there that they never returned as agricultural labourers. In conclusion, he would say it should not be lost sight of that the agriculturists had in their hands the representation of the counties of England; but although that was the case, he was sure that they would never use that power but for legitimate purposes, and, therefore, they were entitled to every consideration in regard to the subject under notice at the hands of Her Majesty's Government, seeing their claim was simply fair and reasonable.

I am sure, Sir, there will be but one feeling amongst hon. Members on both sides of the House as to the importance of the two great interests represented by those who have brought forward this Resolution this evening; and it is quite certain that if at any time questions are brought forward affecting the commercial or the agricultural interests, those questions will receive the attention and respectful consideration of any Government, from whatever Party it may be formed. But with regard to the particular Motion which my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. S. Lloyd) has submitted to the House, I would venture to make one or two remarks. I wish, however, in the first place, to deal with the question of the importance of having a special Department charged with directly looking after the interests of Agriculture and Commerce. My hon. Friend the Member for South Nottinghamshire (Mr. Storer) remarked just now that there was a Department of Agriculture up to the year 1816, and the hon. Member for Plymouth told us, in some detail, how a number of years ago there was a Commercial Department of the Board of Trade, which has now been given up, the duties of which, in fact, have been transferred to the Foreign Office. Now, I would ask my hon. Friends what is the natural inference to be drawn from these facts? There were certain Departments charged with those very duties which you now say are so important, and how is it that they have lost the functions assigned to them? Is it not, in fact, because it was found that the work gradually left them? Now I contend that you cannot by any artificial re-distribution restore that which in the nature of things was passed away from Government. It is, in fact, like the case of a shopkeeper who finds that his business is leaving him, and who feels that he cannot have recourse to any artificial stimulus to restore what in the nature of things is fading away. I do not remember, and I do not know that I have ever paid particular attention to, the circumstances under which the Department of Agriculture was given up. I believe it was attached at one time to the Board of Trade, and no doubt there were very good reasons for the abandonment of that arrangement. But I do remember very distinctly, and I have for many years had occasion to know, what the course of business has been at the Board of Trade. I have myself witnessed a great many of the changes which have occurred in the commercial business of that Department. I remember very well when I was first introduced to the Board of Trade in 1842, that a great deal of business was done of the kind to which my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth now seems principally to attach importance—that is to say, foreign business. A great deal of correspondence was carried on between the Board of Trade and other Departments with regard to treaties, legislation on commercial subjects, and other matters affecting the commercial interests of the country. But by degrees, as the system of reciprocity dwindled away before the spread of Free Trade ideas, as the Navigation Laws were repealed, and as complicated differential duties were abolished, the greater part of the commercial business left the Board of Trade of itself, and at the same time a process of a different kind began to take effect. A number of matters requiring careful administrative interference, such as the Railway system and the Mercantile Marine, came under the notice of the Government, and were handed over to the Board of Trade, which thus became a large and influential administrative Department. Whilst the change I have referred to was taking place there was no doubt still a Commercial Department at the Board of Trade keeping up correspondence with other offices—preaching to them sound doctrine upon a great many commercial matters. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth has pointed out, and as the evidence taken before the Committee of 1864 shows, the business of the Board of Trade in that respect became less and less important— less and less efficacious—the Board of Trade having a large amount of important administrative duties to perform, and the great principles of commercial legislation and of the relations between England and foreign countries having assumed an entirely new aspect, and it in time became obvious that its commercial business, so to speak, had passed away from it. No doubt commercial questions, such as the duties on Portuguese wines, still arise which require to be dealt with; and under the former state of affairs those who were interested in the matter would have gone to the Board of Trade and laid their case before it. In that case the Board would have corresponded with other Departments; but, after all, it would have simply come to this—that in a matter of that kind there are two Departments whose action must be and would at any time have been supreme. The one is the Foreign Office, which would have to carry on the correspondence with foreign countries; and the other is the Treasury, in whose hands are deposited the fiscal interests of this country. It would even, under the old arrangement, have been impossible to entertain any question for altering the duties on Portuguese wines without having first obtained the approval and co-operation both of the Foreign Office and of the Treasury. The intervention of the Board of Trade would, therefore, really be of very little use in such a case, for it would be able to do little or nothing beyond what those directly interested in the question would be able themselves to achieve. Well, my hon. Friend says that the Minister at the head of the Department which has to deal with Commerce ought to be in the Cabinet, in order to strengthen his influence. Now there are many considerations which determine the number of Members who ought to form the Cabinet, and the particular Departments which, at one time or another, it may be desirable to have represented in the Cabinet. It is impossible that the head of every Department should be in the Cabinet without increasing the number of the Cabinet to a very inconvenient extent. At one time, it may be both convenient and desirable to have the Minister of Commerce in the Cabinet; at another time, the Minister of Education; at another time, the head of the Local Government Department, or the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and so on. No fixed rule, in fact, can be laid down for the number of those who should form the Cabinet at any particular period, as the exigencies of different times vary. But if it is of so much importance that the Minister of Commerce should be in the Cabinet, I would ask my hon. Friend what was the state of matters when the changes to which he has referred were made? Why, most of those changes occurred when the President of the Board of Trade was a Cabinet Minister, and it was with his concurrence that they were made. Therefore, it is not merely the fact of there being a Minister of Commerce in the Cabinet that would secure what my hon. Friend seems to desire. In these matters you ought not to be continually altering your machinery. You ought to devise and settle your policy, and then adapt your machinery to it. That is the only sound principle on which to go. Now, I am at a loss to conceive, from the speeches of my hon. Friends, what policy they recommend in this matter. Are we to rearrange the work of all the Departments which may be affected? My hon. Friend speaks of the foreign side of the Ministry of Commerce; but surely he would not say that the Minister of Commerce whom he asks for ought not to attend to a large number of home matters also which are connected with commerce but which are now dealt with by the Home Department, the Local Government Board, and the Board of Trade. The proposed Ministry, in fact, could not be formed without interfering with the duties of other Departments, and who is to say what duties belong properly to one Department and what to another? You would find that the establishment of a new Minister would be of no use, unless you laid down very clearly and distinctly what were to be the precise nature and extent of his duties. You cannot divide those duties so easily as you imagine. You must remember that these things run one into another. Many questions must, by their very nature, come sometimes under the consideration of one Department and sometimes under another. Therefore, though this matter has been before Parliament many times, though it has been investigated by Select Committees, yet no decision has been arrived at, and I think it would be unwise of the House by adopting the present lie-solution to pledge itself to a matter of which there is no denying the importance, but the exact outcome of which it is extremely difficult to foresee. I am afraid, therefore, it is not in the power of the Government to assent to the Motion, and I hope that the House will not allow itself to be led into what would really be the pursuit of a shadow, unless a more distinct plan be laid before it than the one now submitted by my hon. Friends.

said, that many of his constituents, and several of the Chambers of Commerce in the North of England with whom he had been brought in contact, took a deep interest in the subject which had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Plymouth, and he should on that account make a few observations upon it. He had himself given the question much consideration, having been Chairman of the Committee which sat in the year 1854, and he confessed he was still of opinion, and it was the unanimous conviction of the Committee, that there should be some good reason why the President of the Board of Trade should not be a member of the Cabinet. He, however, hoped right hon. Gentlemen opposite would not suppose he was making any charge against them for not making the President of the Board of Trade a Cabinet Minister. He was fully aware that there might be very good reasons for wishing to have a small Cabinet; but one of the advantages which would arise from having the question discussed was, that it might fairly lead to a consideration of it with a view to the future arrangement of Government business with regard to the management of the different Departments. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that we had much less to do now with tariffs with foreign countries than we used to have. That was true enough; but we were still constantly and seriously affected by the tariffs of foreign countries; and although this country was devoted to the principles of Free Trade, that did not imply that it was not the duty of the Government constantly to watch what other countries were doing, with a view, if possible, to secure an increase of our trade with foreign States. What commercial men felt was this—that, speaking generally, their interests might suffer from the fact that there was not in the consulting body of the Cabinet some Member who would specially represent their interests. "When matters of home policy," they said, "matters of finance, of foreign negotiations, of Indian policy, were brought before the Government, we think that the commercial interests of Great Britain ought to be represented in the Cabinet; and there should be somebody to whom commercial men could go and say we must not be forgotten when those matters are under consideration." He could not help thinking that that was a just and reasonable feeling to a certain extent; and without at all saying that his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade had less influence than he would have if he were in the Cabinet, he still thought that commercial men had reason for the strong protest which they made against the existing state of things. The words of the Resolution, however, when he came to consider them, went further than the House, he thought, would be at present willing to go, but as to one part of it there would be little difference of opinion—namely, that the Government business connected with Agriculture ought to be placed in the hands of the Minister who had charge of the Government business connected with Commerce. He could not help thinking that would be a wise change, whenever a Government had time to consider the subject of changes at all. Why should not all questions relating to cattle, for example, be taken from the Education Office and handed over to the Board of Trade, to which Department they naturally belonged, and where they would probably be better attended to? The same permanent staff could manage the business of both those branches. Or if they were to have a Minister of Agriculture, it would be far better that he should be Minister of Commerce also. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it would not be well to increase over much the number of the Cabinet, and in that expression of opinion he concurred; but the fact should not be lost sight of that, in a general way, one or two Members of the Cabinet had hardly any official business to conduct. If it was desirable to keep down the numbers of a Cabinet, it was easy to see that the duties of a Minister of Commerce and Agriculture would be onerous, while the duties of a Lord Privy Seal, for instance, were not great. He thought the same remark would also apply to the President of the Council, although at the present moment he undertook agricultural work in regard to the cattle disease. He would further remark that he concurred with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the opinion that no disadvantage to the commercial community had arisen from the abolition of what might be called the Foreign Department of the Board of Trade, for the investigation of the Committee to which he had referred left upon his mind the strong impression that the Foreign Office must conduct all negotiations with foreign States. There could not be two sets of negotiators representing the Government of this country, and commercial men ought not to have to go to the Board of Trade to make representations in order that that Department should communicate those representations to the Foreign Office. They ought to go direct to the Minister who had to do the work, and who would be more likely to do it well if he felt that the full responsibility rested upon him. The Minister of Commerce ought not to be a kind of adviser to the Foreign Office, but that did not remove the necessity of having the interests of Commerce and Agriculture represented by a Minister who should be a Member of the Cabinet.

gathered from the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he thought the present state of affairs sufficiently satisfactory, and that really no change was required; but it must be admitted, not only from what they had heard that night, but from the meetings which had lately been held both north and south of the Tweed, that among those who were interested in agriculture a very strong and earnest feeling prevailed on the subject which his hon. and learned Friend had brought under the consideration of the House. It was not that the Board of Trade did not give heed to subjects which were laid before it; it was not that the Vice President of the Council was not ready to act upon suggestions which were made to him, but it was because agriculturists generally thought that their interests were not sufficiently considered, or, at all events, were not sufficiently made known. Two points suggested themselves to his mind which he thought would go far to prove what he said. Last Session, for example, there was a short discussion in that House upon the subject of the very great evils arising from the existence of pleuro-pneumonia in Ireland. Having been a sufferer on his own farm from that disease, or a disease very like it, among his cattle, he felt the great importance of having a Minister in the Cabinet who would take into consideration the serious charge which had been over and over again made in respect of Ireland—that the stamping-out of that fatal disease had not been enforced, and that it was being propagated in England and Scotland because the Order on the subject was not put in force. He only rose to say that—speaking from his own knowledge—though as regarded Commerce he was quite ready to take his views from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—it was the earnest wish of agriculturists that there should be some recognized Member of the Government in the Cabinet to consider questions affecting Agriculture. Reference had been made in the debate to the population of rural towns, and he thought that, for instance, was a subject which should come under the surveillance of such a Member of the Cabinet. Considering the enormous mass of capital now sunk in the land, it would be very important that the Government should, if not this, in some future Session deal with the matter.

Sir, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. S. Lloyd) has brought forward a subject which both sides of the House acknowledge to be important and interesting; but, at the same time, I may remind my hon. and learned Friend that it is not now brought under our consideration for the first time. It has occupied the attention of the House and of Committees, and, at various periods, the distribution of duties among the Public Offices has been considered by some of the most eminent Members of Parliament. We must always remember, Sir, that we are dealing with the official hierarchy of an ancient kingdom, and that when we fix upon some particular office and judge from its name that it should be devoted to particular duties, we may really deceive ourselves by being precisely accurate. You may have an office called the Board of Trade which has been so called for many generations, and yet the control or attention to details of trade may become obsolete as far as that office is concerned. On the other hand, duties may have been transferred to that office which have arisen from circumstances attending modern civilization, and which it may admirably perform, though the office still retains its ancient title "Board of Trade." That is remarkably the case in the instance of the particular office in question; because, no doubt, a great amount of the duties of the Board of Trade can hardly be classed under the names of Trade or Commerce, and yet they are duties which deeply interest the people of this country, and are efficiently performed by that office. If, again, we consider what are the real commercial interests with which the Ministry as at present constituted in this country should interfere, I think it will be seen that they are such commercial interests as would call for the interference of the Foreign Office. In 99 out of 100 commercial interests which call for—and which, indeed, may be said have a right to demand—the attention of the Government—the intervention of the Foreign Office is required. My hon. Friend the Member for South Nottinghamshire (Mr. Storer) has evinced a great desire that the interests of Agriculture should be represented in the Cabinet. I think more than one of my hon. Friends have impressed upon the House that the ravages of pleuro-pneumonia might probably have been stayed or diminished if there had been a Cabinet Minister to attend to the interests of Agriculture; but the fact is there has been a Cabinet Minister all this time attending to those interests as connected with pleuro-pneumonia, and not only is he a Cabinet Minister, but he happens to be a very distinguished practical farmer. Therefore, it does not appear to me that the point can be substantiated. If a Government lasts for any considerable period we may practically say there is no time when the distribution of the duties among the various offices of the Government does not occupy some part of their attention. I and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year had many conferences on that subject, and I recollect it was suggested that the duties of some of the offices that were over-burdened should be transferred to that of the Lord Privy Seal. I am not at all clear that such an arrangement might not be made, and I entirely agree with the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. B. Forster) that the Lord President of the Council has now so much to attend to, that if a convenient arrangement could be made to give protection to agricultural interests against foreign plagues and pestilences, in the form of pleuro-pneumonia and other diseases, that question should not be lost sight of. But, at the same time, what the House should guard against, is rashly creating new offices. In my opinion, the administrative body of this country is sufficiently strong and competent to discharge all the duties of the State; but there is no doubt that some re-distribution might occasionally be made in the public offices of the country, which Would render the fulfilment of their duties more efficient. At the same time, I must say, with regard to the Lord Privy Seal, it is a great mistake to suppose that he has nothing to do because very little is performed in his mere office. Whenever there is a difficult business which a Minister finds it impossible for him to attend to individually, through the great pressure of affairs in his office, the first person thought of is the Lord Privy Seal, and we find in practice the Lord Privy Seal is not that indolent monstrosity which is imagined. I can hardly think that my hon. Friend will ask the House for a division upon this question. He was quite right in bringing it forward: and there is not the slightest doubt that the subject of the re-distribution of official duties is one which must always engage the attention of the Government. There have been in my time many changes in all Departments, and all of them, I think, were improvements. In no Department has there been more changes than in the Board of Trade itself; but they have been rendered necessary by the great diversity of circumstances in our present national life and the new wants of the progressive civilization of this country. More changes are going on in the public offices than is generally supposed, and I believe that those changes, being effected from a sense of their necessity, are meeting the difficulties and deficiencies which inevitably must occasionally be discovered in the system of administration, more completely than the House perhaps imagines. The observations which have been made to-night will not be lost sight of by the Government. They will encourage us in our efforts to improve some branches of our administration, and I trust it will be found that by availing ourselves of some of the suggestions which have been thrown out, and others which have occurred to us from our experience, we may in any alterations which we may make render the administration of this country more effective.

said, he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he said that the Board of Trade had become so overladen with business that the trade and commerce of the country had been lost sight of. If we had a Foreign Secretary or Under Secretary connected with Trade, the commercial interests might find their affairs properly managed; but there was only a very small section of the Foreign Office to whom they could go with their representations, and instead of strengthening that Department, it would be much better to appoint a Minister of Commerce and Agriculture. When they considered that many of their foreign Commercial Treaties would within the next two years have to be re-arranged, they could not exaggerate the great importance of the subject, and he wished the Government to understand that there was a strong body in that House, composed of Members from both sides, who believed that sooner or later there must be a Minister in the Cabinet to superintend the interests of Commerce and Agriculture.

, in rising to call attention to the inadequate provision for the safety of the public in case of fire in the London Theatres, said, that in 1866 it was calculated that there were 60,000 persons in the London theatres every evening, and 200,000 persons in other places of amusement; and those numbers must now have greatly increased. All the evidence on this subject showed that the means of exit in case of panic or fire were insufficient. A Select Committee, known as "Mr. Ayrton's Committee," sat in 1866, but it took evidence principally in regard to the question whether the licensing power of the Lord Chamberlain or that of the Middlesex magistrates should be united under one person or not. Into that question, which still remained unsettled, he did not intend to enter. At present the theatres were licensed by the Lord Chamberlain, who had a small staff under his direction, while the places of amusement were licensed by the Middlesex magistrates in Quarter Sessions. With regard to the risk of fire, many theatres had been burnt down, and it was said that there was a regular rotation in the order of their burning; unfortunately science had not advanced so far as to show on what particular evening a theatre would be burnt. Still, persons experienced in fire insurance would point out the probabilities of particular theatres being burnt at a certain time. It appeared that shortly before Covent Garden Theatre was last burnt down, a wish was expressed to increase the insurance. The agent, however, declined, observing—" Very shortly your turn will come; and then down you will go." From the evidence of Mr. Donne, given before Mr. Ayrton's Committee, it seemed that the rules of the Lord Chamberlain's office as to exits and entrances were strict, and that the Lord Chamberlain had the power of taking precautions that the places of exit were wide enough to secure the safety of the audience in case of fire. It was doubtful, however, whether the staff at the Lord Chamberlain's disposal was sufficient; and whether the circumstances under which those powers were exercised were calculated to secure the safety of the public in case either of fire or panic. He wished also to ask a question relating to the employment and payment of the police in the theatres and other places of amusement in the metropolis. From a Return issued that day he learned that the lessees of theatres had paid the police £1,571 5s.1d; and the question arose whether they were there in the interest of the public or in that of the managers, with the latter of whom they must necessarily be on friendly terms. If the police were placed there for the protection of the public, he thought the responsibility in case of fire or panic ought to rest upon them. No one wished to interfere with the emoluments of actors, a harmless, unobtrusive, and hard-working race, but the interests of the public should be considered; and he thought that, considering the enormous profits now accruing to theatrical proprietors, the present was an opportune time for bringing the subject forward.

said, no one could find fault with the hon. and gallant Member for bringing forward that subject, which was one of great public interest and importance. He wished he could state positively that there was no danger of fire in any of our theatres, but that it would be difficult to do, because many of these theatres had been built a long time ago, and could not have the benefit of all the most improved modern arrangements. At the same time, he was bound to say great care was taken by the authority in whose hands all power in this respect was vested, and that was, not the Secretary of State, but the Lord Chamberlain. That functionary informed him that theatres were the only buildings that were liable to supervision in that respect; and there were no doubt other places where people congregated in which they were exposed to greater danger than they were in theatres. The Lord Chamberlain said of theatres—

"They are regularly inspected by the Lord Chamberlain's officers, with a competent architect, who report that there is not now a theatre in London which could not be cleared in a very few minutes; that there are none in which there are not separate and distinct exits from boxes, pit, and gallery; that, with very few exceptions, there are double means of exit from each of these separate portions of the house, so that if one were blocked the other could be used in case of danger; that the doors are all made to open outwards, to swing both ways, or to fasten back; and that the greatest precautions are taken to prevent fire, and to extinguish it at once if it arises, by water supply, hose, &c."

If any theatres were to be rebuilt, it would be wise to borrow one improvement from abroad, and that would be to make any passage in which two passages were united as wide, or nearly as wide, as the two separate passages together, for a block was generally due to the meeting of streams of persons in one corridor. In any future re-constructions he hoped this point would be attended to by architects. He was sorry the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board was not present to speak for the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, but he had spoken to the hon. and gallant Member, who would be glad to learn on the part of the Board if anything more could be done to promote the safety of the public. "With regard to the question relating to the employment and payment of police in theatres and other places of amusement in the metropolis, they were in most cases specially employed at the request of the lessees, who paid for their services. Those services were these—The police regulated the admission of the public and the preservation of order during the performance, and they assisted the manager or his servants in ejecting any riotous or disorderly person. The police did not interfere with, nor were they in any way responsible for the arrangements made for the prevention of fire. When necessary, the police on ordinary duty regulated the carriage traffic at all theatres. He held in his hand a copy of the General Police Orders on the subject of theatres. He was not aware that any complaints had been made of the way in which the police had performed their duty at the theatres; but if any such complaints were made he would see that they were properly attended to. He believed that, so far, the police had performed their duty effectually without causing unnecessary inconvenience or annoyance. If there was any theatre to which special attention should be directed, or of which complaint could be made, he would do his best to see that attention was paid to any representations that reached him.

, in rising to call attention to the disallowances enforced by the Treasury in respect of the costs of Criminal Prosecutions, said, the Treasury Minute of the 29th January last, which was intended to remove the grievances of local ratepayers, had introduced another grievance; and if it had been in order at that stage, he would have submitted a Motion embodying his contention that the whole of the prosecutions in England ought to be defrayed out of monies provided as heretofore by Parliament without those deductions which had of late years been, as he maintained, improperly made there from. He very much regretted that the Forms of the House would not permit him to move his Resolution, because he believed it would have met with general acceptance. Practically, it was identical with one which was moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes), and which was on that occasion supported by the present Prime Minister and the present Home Secretary. The state of things of which he complained was neither fair to the ratepayers nor conducive to the due administration of justice. The grievance of the ratepayers was this—that whereas it had been intended by Parliament and admitted by the Government of the country that all the costs of the prosecution of offenders should be borne, not by the local rates, but out of the Imperial Treasury, yet, owing to what he regarded as the unlawful intervention of certain subordinate officers of the Treasury, the intentions of Parliament had been defeated and an irregular portion of the costs of these prosecutions was, contrary to the intention of Parliament, saddled on the local ratepayers. Since 1846 the intention of Parliament in the matter had been considered quite clear—namely, to relieve the ratepayers of counties and boroughs entirely from the costs of those prosecutions, and accordingly the costs were taxed by the proper officers in various Courts of Justice in the manner provided for by law, and when the order of the Court was made it was compulsory that it should be obeyed. The costs being paid the Bills were taken to the Treasury, whose duty it then became, after satisfying themselves that the money had been paid, to refund the money paid in the first instance. That intention was defeated by the interference of the Department of Examiners of the Criminal Law Accounts, who, under the provisions of no Act of Parliament, but merely under the directions of the Government of the day, reviewed the taxation of the proper taxing officers and made deductions, which they called their schedule of disallowances, knocking off a shilling here, and sixpence there, and thus saddling the sums disallowed upon the counties and boroughs. The County of Lancaster appealed to the Court of Queen's Bench in 1871 against this state of things, when Sir Robert Collier advised that the Treasury disallowances were totally indefensible. Next year, Lancashire. West Yorkshire, and other counties came to the Court, which unanimously disapproved the allowances, while holding that it had no jurisdiction over the Treasury, and expressed the opinion that the conduct of the Treasury was illegal, and a violation of the Appropriation Act. When this subject was brought under the consideration of the House there was a long debate but no division. Why? Because no one ventured to dispute the facts alleged or the conclusions arrived at by the hon. Baronet. Mr. Bruce and Mr. Winterbotham had nothing to say in defence of the Home Office or the Treasury; Mr. Cross supported the hon. Baronet in an able speech; Mr. Henley characterized the proceeding as a piece of robbery and swindling—nobody contradicted him; the present Prime Minister twitted the Chancellor of the Exchequer because he had not ventured to show himself; and finally, Mr. Baxter promised that the subject should receive the immediate consideration of the Government. The whole proceeding was admitted to be indefensible, and therefore the hon. Baronet withdrew the Motion. That was the way in which the grievance had been treated by the House of Commons, and yet, though denounced by all these high authorities, it had survived in full vigour till January this year. The Treasury Minute dealing with the subject was dated the 29th of January, and no doubt the intention was very fair. But there were several serious objections to it. The first blunder in connection with the Minute to which he would direct attention was, the strange assumption on which it proceeded that all the disallowances made in past years were lawful and proper. Nobody who read the Minute would suppose that these disallowances had been denounced by the Members of the very Government who agreed to the Minute. He should like to give the House one or two specimens of the disallowances which the Treasury were in the habit of making in the cost of prosecutions. In January, 1874, a case occurred at the Quarter Sessions for the county of Lancaster, held in the town of Lancaster. The Chairman of Quarter Sessions expressly ordered that a witness resident in London should be summoned by a Crown Office subpoena. It was served at a cost of £1 1s. 5d. That sum was disallowed, and the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions was Richard Assheton Cross, the present Home Secretary. Since 1872 the Treasury had invariably disallowed the costs of a warder attending the trial of a previously convicted criminal unless the prisoner pleaded "Not Guilty;" but the prisoner generally pleaded "Guilty" to a previous indictment, because he saw before him the familiar face of the warder under whom he had served, and the Treasury took upon itself, contrary to law, to disallow the costs of the warder's attendance, and imposed the burden on the ratepayers of counties and boroughs. The Treasury was also in the habit of deducting small sums of 3d. and 1s. from the railway fares of witnesses, and when complaint was made the Treasury expressed surprise that gentlemen troubled themselves with items of such small amount. The fees payable when prisoners were remanded were disallowed, although it was declared by the Court of Queen's Bench that such disallowances were improper. In one case an indictment had been specialty ordered by the Judge of Assize to be prepared by counsel, and the fees were disallowed. In a case in the county of Kent the Treasury had disallowed 16s. charged for a fly to convey a Justice when snow was on the ground to take the deposition of a dying man. In another recent case which occurred at the Liverpool Assizes a man was convicted for felony. After his conviction it was found he was possessed of £33, and an order of Court was made on the testimony of a witness from Blackburn that the money should be applied to pay the costs of the prosecution. The Treasury took the £33, and disallowed the expenses of the witness by whose evidence the criminal had been convicted. Another objection he took to the Minute of January last had reference to the improper and invidious distinction which it made between clerks of Assize and clerks of the peace. The effect of the Minute was, that the Treasury accepted the taxation in the case of the former, while reviewing it in the case of the latter. The Treasury refused to accept the taxation of the clerk of the peace, because they said he was amenable to the authorities for the proper discharge of his duties; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have been misinformed on that point, because the clerks of the peace were officers appointed in counties by the Lords Lieutenant, who certainly did not represent the ratepayers. His next objection was that under the Minute, the Treasury proposed to strike an average of the costs for prosecutions for the last three years, and to pay at the rate allowed, which would, in fact, make perpetual the illegal transactions of the last three years. The cost of prosecutions at Quarter Sessions was an increasing amount for two reasons—first, because the smaller cases were now disposed of summarily much more than they used to be; and, secondly, because the Court of Quarter Sessions now tried heavy and important cases, which were formerly remitted to the Assizes. He held in his hands a Return received from the county of Lancaster, which might serve as a specimen. From that Return it appeared that during the three years preceding 1874 the costs of prosecutions at the Assizes were £7,582, while the costs of prosecutions at the Quarter Sessions for the same period were no less than £25,683. The average number of prosecutions was 2,726, so that the average cost of each was £9 8s. 6d. But, the number of prosecutions during the half-year, ending December 31, 1874—when the new system had come into operation—was 568, and the amount of the county claim was£5,585, showing an average of £9 16s. 8d., so that the costs of each prosecution had increased by 8s., or a little more. If the Treasury made the average deductions from the amount claimed they would reduce it by £16 10s.; but, according to the new scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the claim would be reduced by £234. Therefore, the new scheme would have the effect the first half-year—he would not say, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had said—of "robbing," but of depriving the ratepayers of the county of Lancaster of £218. In the borough of Liverpool the same process would deprive the ratepayers of nearly £200 upon the half-year, and he had no doubt it would be found that the ratepayers of every borough and county in England would be deprived of large sums in a similar manner. Another thing to be remarked was the insidious intentions which it was apparent the Treasury had for the future. The examiners of criminal law costs were not to be abolished. There was still to be an examination of bills from Assizes and Quarter Sessions, not with a view to making deductions, but with a view to a possible revision of the matter at the end of three years, at which time he had no doubt we should have a very great reduction. Now, there were two reasons why the Treasury Minute ought not to be persevered in. The first was, that, according to the Judges of the land, the practice which this Minute proposed to establish was illegal; and Parliament was not going to pass an Act which would prevent the ratepayers from being reimbursed to the full amount of the costs. The second reason was that the practical effect of the Minute on the administration of justice would be very injurious; because, under the pretence of removing a grievance, it would really aggravate it. The Minute also would have this effect—that the Justices would cease to remit all the heavier cases to be tried at Quarter Sessions, and the Assizes would be overburdened with work. Suppose the Justices had a case brought before them, the probable costs of which would be £80, while only £9 10s. would be allowed by the Treasury, they would send it to the Assizes, because then the whole of the costs would be paid by the Treasury. In conclusion, he wished to be allowed to point the moral of this matter, because though in itself trifling, it was important as involving a great question of principle. Here was an abuse condemned by the Judges, by the Attorney General or the Solicitor General of the day, in defence of which no one would lift up his voice in the House of Commons, and which the Government, three or four years ago, promised should be immediately attended to. In the month of January, however, it appeared not only that the old grievances had been retained, but that fresh ones of the very worst kind had been introduced; and that circumstance showed how very little control the House of Commons, or the Ministers of the Crown, had over the persons who regulated these matters.

said, that his hon. Friend had made grave imputations against the Treasury, and had used rather strong language, talking about illegal proceedings in a manner calculated to mislead the House and to divert its attention from the real position of the case. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not for a moment going to question the propriety or the authority of the expression of opinion on the part of the Judges of the land respecting this question. What he understood the Judges to have said was this—that Parliament, having appropriated a certain sum for a certain purpose, it was a wrong and not a legal proceeding on the part of the officers of the Treasury to put the construction which they did put upon the vote of Parliament, or to make any deduction from the costs when they had been taxed by the proper authorities. Upon that opinion, he could understand that it might be contended that what was done down to 1874 was illegal; that the Treasury might, strictly speaking, have been guilty of some breach of law in making the deductions. But, however that might have been before 1874, it must be borne in mind that the matter was one in which the House of Commons had it in its power to give or withhold what it thought right from year to year; and what was now in question was not whether the deductions which the Treasury had made in former years were or not strictly legal; but what was to be the principle upon which grants were to be made for the future? Would the House or his hon. Friend admit the principle that Parliament should make payments in respect of expenses of this kind without submitting them to any audit or examination at all? Usually, when Parliament made a grant for a specific purpose, it took care, through the agency of the proper officer, that the money was applied to the purpose for which it was voted and to no other. Now, although fault might be found with particular disallowances, the examinations referred to by his hon. Friend were in the nature of an audit undertaken on the part of the Government, acting in order to see that the grant was properly applied, in fulfilment of the intentions of Parliament. Now, was that a vexatious or merely unnecessary proceeding on the part of Parliament? The history of the matter was this. In former times Parliament granted, not the whole, but half the; costs of prosecutions to the local authorities; but in 1846, Sir Robert Peel thought it a reasonable boon to grant the whole instead of only a moiety. The effect was that within three or four years after, the expense of prosecutions jumped up by one-fifth. Was it not obvious, therefore, that less control was exercised than had previously been the case? When the Examiners were first appointed, and called upon to look into the expenditure, they undoubtedly found that very considerable laxity and abuse existed. The course taken, therefore, whether strictly legal or not in subjecting these payments to the examination of competent persons, was in itself not an unreasonable course, although he admitted there had been a good deal of vexation in some of the challenges. The system as it was worked had necessarily caused considerable annoyance; but was it proposed to throw the reins entirely upon the necks of the taxing officers, to let them charge what they pleased, and to permit them to double the authorized scale if they thought fit to do so? It could hardly be contended seriously that nobody ought to take any notice, but that the Treasury should pay whatever demand was made upon it. Did hon. Members believe that such a system would really be in the interest of the ratepayers, or that if commenced it could possibly endure? A suggestion had been thrown out in the Treasury Minute, which was in the hands of most hon. Members, and the Government intended to ask the House to vote the money this year in accordance with that suggestion. If the House granted the money on the conditions set forth in the Minute, there would be no illegality in the money being applied in the way proposed. What was illegal was that money which had been voted by Parliament without condition was subsequently made subject to a condition. If that were so, then any question of illegality should be set aside, because it only confused the matter. The point raised was one touching the whole system upon which grants were to be made in aid of local taxation. In that matter the Government were not proceeding upon niggardly principles, for it was the intention of the Government and the practice they were introducing, to assist local taxation by subventions, and liberal subventions, from the Treasury. There might be some diminution in this particular case; but, if so, it would be as a drop in the ocean, compared with the new subventions which the Government were giving and intended to continue. If the House, however, refused to allow any system of control or to accept the principle of a gross payment, leaving a margin to be dealt with by the local authorities, the hands of the Government would be weakened in pursuing the course proposed. In the case of the police, the Treasury gave a certain portion of the money, and must necessarily see that it was properly applied. In the case of lunatics, the Government also gave a lump sum, and it was a subvention which might or might not meet the whole cost; but a margin of it had to be defrayed by the local authority, and the Government saw that the money was applied to the purpose for which it was intended. He hoped that the time might come when they would look more fully into this question, and others connected with the administration of justice; indeed, the present was only one portion of a great subject. But in all these matters they desired to take the House with them, and to proceed upon liberal principles, whilst, at the same time, they excluded waste and extravagance. He failed to gather from what his hon. Friend had told them what it was that he wished them to do, unless it was to abstain altogether from any audit. The Government wished to see whether in process of time the costs of prosecutions would increase, and, also, whether it would not be possible to revise the different tables of fees so as to bring about an approach to uniformity throughout the country. At present there were great variations in the scale of fees between one part of the country and another, and to produce anything like uniformity would require great consideration, and would be no easy matter to effect. He had no wish to say anything in defence of, or in mitigation of, those disallowances of the examiners, on which his hon. Friend had made such severe remarks. He knew that they had given rise to constant complaints, but he must do the examiners the justice to say that many of the disallowances had to be made over and over again, because the local authorities would continually send up their accounts with the same errors in them, and out of £5,000, about £3,000 had to be disallowed, including items which the local authorities had no justification for making on the plea of ignorance. To some extent it was true that the charges were made at Assizes by persons over whom the local authorities had no control, and it was partially so with regard to session cases, and it was on that ground that what his hon. Friend called an invidious distinction was made between Assize and session prosecutions. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could not admit that clerks of the peace stood on the same footing as clerks of Assize, and he was under the impression that until now, that greater powers of dismissal existed in the local authorities with regard to clerks of the peace than appeared to be the case; but any person who knew the relations that existed between clerks of the peace and magistrates must know that, as a rule, they had more influence over them than they had over clerks of Assize, and that they would not like to be exposing their counties time after time to losses in consequence of returns so made by them. It was a choice of difficulties. The charge had not been made for the purpose of saving a few hundred pounds, but upon a principle, and in giving a lump sum, it was done in the belief that it was equivalent to what had hitherto been paid, and given so as to avoid all those questions of dispute and get rid of that vexation and annoyance that arose between the Treasury and the local authorities, without at the same time the counties being losers by the change. If, however, it should appear to be otherwise—if the scale was fixed at too low a rate, there would always exist the power of revising it and of doing justice. He earnestly hoped that the new arrangement would be found to work satisfactorily, but if not, probably some compromise might be come to that would be satisfactory to both parties.

said, he did not think, when they looked to the great wealth of England and the importance of criminal prosecutions, that the expenses of those prosecutions were at all out of proportion to what they might be reasonably expected to be. He was anxious that justice might be done without extravagance, but thought that the principle of averages was as unlike a sound principle as anything that could be devised, because it was giving to one more than he ought to have, and giving to another nothing. A strong feeling was entertained in the counties that, in consequence of the miserable economy on the part of the Treasury in the matter of the costs of prosecutions, justice was continually being defeated. He believed the allowance to scientific witnesses was miserably inadequate; and, in conclusion, he endorsed every statement which had been made by the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst).

said, he had had some experience of the subject under consideration, having to officiate as Chairman of Quarter Sessions in the county of Somerset. Their proceedings were governed by an Order made by Sir George Grey in 1858, which was exceedingly unjust; and when they applied to the Treasury to have a more satisfactory rule instituted, the reply was, that if the Justices of Somersetshire made a special application on the subject, it would be considered, but the Order itself could not be departed from. He gave the Government credit for a desire to keep down expenditure, but the principle on which disallowances were made was wrong, and must be wrong; for how could Examiners sitting at Westminster have any knowledge of the circumstances connected with the various charges which they investigated? He contended that the whole system of audit could never prove satisfactory, unless it was an audit conducted on the spot by a properly appointed taxing officer. He gave the Chancellor of the Exchequer credit for the best intentions, but no average scale would get rid of the irritation that prevailed, or meet the views of the ratepayers, who believed that they had a legal and moral right to the return of the expenses paid by them for criminal prosecutions.

thought it was hardly necessary to add anything to the illustrations which had been given by his hon. Friend who had introduced the subject (Mr. Gorst), but there were circumstances which irritated not only the ratepayers of the county he had the honour to represent, but also the magistrates and officers who served under them, to which he felt it his duty to refer. In the county of Shropshire the sum allowed to attorneys by the Court of Quarter Sessions was £3 3s. The officials of the county of Leicester communicated with the Treasury on the subject, remarking that it was rather hard that £3 3s. should be allowed in Shropshire, whilst, when £2 2s. was asked for in the county of Leicester, the amount was reduced to £1 1s. In answer to that communication the Lords of the Treasury said the sum paid by the Court in Shropshire was unusually high, but that it had been fixed many years ago, and their Lordships had no power to alter that which had been the custom so long. The same principle, however, had not been observed with regard to Leicestershire, where the charge of £2 2s. had for a long period of time been customary, and he wanted to know by what authority the allowance had been reduced. He thought the Government had not made out a case for treating the costs incurred at Courts of Quarter Sessions in a different manner from those incurred at Courts of Assize. He believed that the clerks of the peace in counties were as scrupulous and as careful about the amounts they allowed for costs as they could well be, and he could not see why their work should be dealt with differently from that of the clerks of Assize. The Chancellor of the Exchequer having asked how the case was to be met, he would venture to suggest that the right course would be for the Government to take the whole cost of criminal prosecutions into their own hands, to deal with all criminal prosecutions through their own officers, and meet the expenses with respect to them, and not inflict on the ratepayers vexatious, and often heavy charges, which they had no power whatever to control. He hoped at least that the Government would re-consider the part of the Treasury Minute relating to the costs of prosecutions at Quarter Sessions.

said, the only difficulty he felt about the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal was that the right hon. Gentleman had taken his data on too limited a scale, and that some counties were so small that the adoption of an average of three years would operate unfairly in their case. He would prefer if the Treasury would take those charges altogether into its own hands from the first—an arrangement which he thought would conduce to economy, and relieve Justices of the Peace from the necessity of making disallowances.

said, these grants from the Consolidated Fund for criminal prosecutions commenced in 1836, and they had ever since gone on increasing in amount—a result which they might expect from all Imperial grants for local objects. The grant was largely extended in 1846 by the late Sir Robert Peel, on condition of the charge being subjected to audit, and this check the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right in strictly enforcing. But seeing how troublesome this duty must be, and how difficult it was for a Government to enforce this right over persons who were not in the direct service of the State, he could not refrain from expressing an earnest hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see his way yet to put an end to these payments by some transfer of taxes now collected for the Imperial Exchequer, but which more properly belonged to the localities, so that they might manage their own affairs, and, amongst other payments, provide for those of criminal prosecutions.

, in moving, as an Amendment, to omit the first line of the clause, said, that the object of his Amendment was to ensure the continuance of the mode of appointment of the Bishop laid down in the Bill after the creation of a dean and chapter of St. Albans—namely, by letters patent direct from the Crown in lieu of the cumbrous machinery of the congé d'elire and letters missive, which had given rise to much scandal and inconvenience to the Church. He disclaimed any intention of aiming a blow at deans and chapters by his Amendment. His object was rather to save them from being placed in the humiliating position of having to elect a Bishop, of whom they might not approve, with the alternative of a prœmunire staring them in the face. The Government had entirely given up the principle of election by congé d'elire in the St. Albans Bill by recurring to the mode of appointment of Bishops which existed in England in the reign of Edward VI., and in Ireland from the second year of the reign of Elizabeth to the disestablishment of the Irish Church. Under the Irish Act of 2 Elizabeth, c. 4, all Archbishoprics and Bishoprics were made donative, and so continued after the union of the Church of England and Ireland. There was no election, no confirmation, the appointment being absolute by letters patent, on the authority of which the consecration took place. The 25 Henry VIII., c. 20, prescribed the manner in which Bishops should be elected, presented, invested, and consecrated within the King's dominions; the first step on the avoidance of a see was the congé d'elire, accompanied by letters missive containing the name of the appointee, then the form of election by the dean and chapter, then the certification of the election to the King, and after the oath of fealty had been taken, the King signified the same to the Archbishop of the Province, requiring him to confirm the said election, and to invest and consecrate the person so elected to the office to which he had been elected. Section 4 enacted that if the dean and chapter delayed the election of the person named in the letters missive above 12 days after receiving the same, the King might appoint whom he pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal. Section 7 enacted that if the dean and chapter did not elect and signify the same within 20 days they should suffer the penalties of the statutes of provisors and prœmunire. By 1Edward VI., c. 2, all Bishoprics were made donative in this country. That Act recited with much disapprobation the mock election under congé d'elire and letters missive, stigmatizing the proceedings as—

"colours, shadows, and pretences, serving; to no purpose, but derogatory and prejudicial to the King's Prerogative, to whom alone appertained the collation and gift of all Bishoprics in England and Ireland."

That Act was repealed by 1Philip & Mary, c. 8, as also was 25 Henry VIII., e. 20, but the latter Act was re-enacted by 1Elizbeth, c. 1. So the law remained in England to this day. The House would observe that the dean and chapter were compelled under pains and penalties of the heaviest nature to elect the person named in the letters missive. In the case of Dr. Hampden, late Bishop of Hereford, the election was contested in the chapter by the late Dean Mere-wether, but he was out-voted, and the election took place. Subsequently, proceedings were taken to prevent the confirmation of the election at Bow Church on the 11th of January, 1848, when certain opposers appeared by counsel and claimed to be heard. After hearing arguments, the Vicar General overruled the objections, declared that the op-posers could not be heard, and pronounced all opposers contumacious for not appearing, at the same time directing the apparitor to call upon all persons to "come forward and make their objections in due form of law, and they shall be heard." On an application to the Court of King's Bench for a mandamus to compel the Archbishop to hear the opposers, the Court was equally divided in opinion, so that the mandamus was not granted. But the scandal to the Church arising from such a proceeding was very great. Nor was that a single instance. A like scandal occurred at the confirmation of Dr. Lee as Bishop of Manchester, and of Dr. Temple as Bishop of Exeter. The Court of King's Bench having ruled that the election of a Bishop by a dean and chapter was a pure matter of form and a ministerial act only, the religious service ought not to be mixed up with it; while the invocation of the Holy Spirit to guide the chapter in their choice of a Bishop, with the penalties of prœmunire staring them in the face if they exercised a free choice in the matter, was little short of blasphemy. So with respect to the confirmation also. In a debate in the House of Lords in 1848, Lord Denman, the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, said—

"An Amendment of the 25th Henry VIII., by substituting this simple process (the conferring upon the Crown the direct appointment of bishops) for the cumbrous machinery of congé d'elire and lettre missive, would be a great improvement of the law, and would avoid the scandal of similar questions arising in Westminster Hall for the future."—[3 Hansard, xcvi. 647.]

The venerable and learned Bishop Thirl-wall expressed his concurrence, and said he believed the time had arrived, and circumstances had arisen, when it was absolutely necessary that some change or other should be made in the law. Bishop Phillpotts also thought that, so far as the election of Bishops by deans and chapters was concerned, the statute of Henry VIII. was unmixed tyranny. Under those circumstances, he (Mr. Monk) had brought in a Bill last Session to abolish the congé d'elire, but he had no opportunity of moving the second reading. He was glad to find the Government strengthening his hands, by proposing in that Bill to dispense with the congé d'elire in the first instance, and thereby abandoning the principle of a mock election. The object he had in view was to make that abandonment permanent, and he appealed to the House not to leave the shadow when they had taken away the substance. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment.

seconded the Amendment, as he disapproved of fictions being kept up in the Church, when in most other instances they had been abolished. A real congé d'élire had been given by King John, and from that time until the reign of Henry VIII. there had been no interference on the part of the Crown with the election of a Bishop. He could not see what possible good purpose it could serve to keep up the present fiction of the congé d'élire addressed to a dean and chapter who must elect a particular person under the terrors of a prœmunire, and who went through the form of a prayer to the Almighty to direct their choice. The case of Dr. Hampden had given rise to a great scandal, and he hoped there would not be a repetition of it.

trusted the Home Secretary would not accept the Amendment. It was a broad question, and ought not to be raised on a narrow issue in a thin House. If the system was to be altered let it be altered for the whole Church, if the Church were inclined to give its assent to the change; but he did not think the whole Church would assent to the alteration of the system. The arrangement in this case was of a provisional character. If the Amendment were adopted, they would open delicate and burning questions, and, at the same time, not render the Bill in any degree more acceptable by making so sweeping a change on so small a portion.

opposed the Amendment, on the ground that there were at present no dean and chapter of St. Albans, nor did the Bill make provision for creating them. The general question—how Bishops ought to be appointed—was a very proper one to raise, but this was not the occasion for raising it. He was aware that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) had introduced a measure last Session to change the mode in which Bishops should be elected. This Bill, however, was framed on a different principle, and he thought the hon. Member ought to re-introduce his Bill, in order that the general principle should be discussed. He hoped the House would leave the Bill as it stood.

said, he was quite ready to recognize the right of the flock in the choice of their chief pastor; but in no sense did the dean and chapter represent the rights of the flock. What they did represent was the rights of the clergy. Under this Bill the Bishop would be nominated by the Crown, without the clergy having any voice in the matter; but in the best days of the Church of England—namely, in the reign of Edward VI., even the form of a congé d'elire was dispensed with. He did not think that there was any likelihood of a dean and chapter being appointed in their time, so that there would be no fear of the congé d'elire being resorted to. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), therefore, would get what he wanted, a non congé d'elire Bishop; and he (Sir William Harcourt) hoped that he would not divide the House.

said, the object of the clause was to the effect that the Commissioners should provide in the county of Surrey a suitable episcopal residence for the Bishop of Surrey. He objected to the question being prejudged, in the sense of a Parliamentary enactment that a Bishop was to live away from his See town. Perhaps in the present case it would be better that he should live in Surrey; but it was not right to sanction a violation of principle by statute. He would move that the words "in the county of Surrey" be omitted.

opposed the Amendment. The Bishop of Rochester had never resided in the Cathedral town, and the new Bishopric, it should be remembered, was founded practically for the benefit of South London, and it was therefore considered desirable that the Bishop's residence should be in the county of Surrey.

moved, as an Amendment, at end of clause to add the following words:—

"And be it further provided that in case a person be fined for the sale of an article of food or drug to the prejudice of a purchaser as aforesaid, he shall, if he sold such article without knowing it to be of a different nature, substance, or quality from that demanded, and in the condition in which it was supplied to him by the dealer from whom he had received it, have right of action against such dealer, and be entitled to recover from him the amount of penalty and costs to which he had been subjected."

said, he could not but express his surprise at the hon. Gentleman now moving to re-insert the word "knowingly" in the Bill, from which it had been struck out on a former night. The effect of the Amendment would be to subject the wholesale dealer to vexatious prosecutions and costs, in a matter of which he might not have had any knowledge when he was selling the article. He (Mr. Mundella) had no interest in the matter but that of justice; and if the word "knowingly" were inserted in the Bill, he would tell the hon. Gentleman that before long the Bill must be amended, or another Sale of Food and Drugs Bill be brought in.

, in supporting the Amendment, said, there was difficulty in getting at the wholesale dealer, and that the Amendment was considered necessary.

proposed to amend the clause by the insertion of words providing that the analyst should certify that the sample retained by the purchaser was of the same quality as that which he reported on.

objected to the Amendment as one likely to create confusion.