asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he has received any report as to the present state of Her Majesty's ship "Devastation" in respect to ventilation, and, whether he can give any information to the House as to the health of the crew?

Sir, since the right hon. Gentleman put this Question on the Paper I have received a special report as to the ventilation of the Devastation and as to the health of her crew. It is more recent than the Report an extract from which appeared some time ago. I hold in my hand a letter from Captain Richards, of the Devastation, forwarded by the Commander-in-Chief on the station, and as the matter has attracted a good deal of attention perhaps I may be allowed to give a rather long extract. It is dated Ragusa, June 17, 1875, and states that—

"As a matter of fact, the ventilation of the Devastation in harbour, or in ordinary weather at sea, is much the same as that of any other vessel, and it has not really been necessary for any consecutive 12 hours during the two and a-half years of the ship's commission to stop the natural circulation by closing the hatches. When it is necessary to do that in bad weather, the officers and crew are not subject to more inconvenience than would be experienced in a vessel of ordinary construction battened down under like circumstances; but, on the contrary, the comprehensive system of artificial ventilation by which fresh air is introduced into every part of the ship at once is an advantage which no other vessel would possess. Under the fine-weather condition of the present cruise in the Adriatic, with the tops of the turrets and all hatches constantly open, it was not necessary to use the fans, but for the additional comfort of the officers who sleep below two are usually worked at night, and in this respect the Devastation has the decided advantage over other ships in close or sultry weather, of having a fresh current of air constantly circulating below, and she is certainly the sweetest ship between decks I have yet served in. Herewith, I have the honour to enclose a nosological Return from the Staff Surgeon for the period included between the 5th of May and the date hereof (17th of June), which shows that the ship's company have enjoyed an immunity from sickness since the arrival of the ship at Malta, for which, I venture to say, it would be difficult to find a parallel in the fleet. At the present moment, but for the five cases of contusions and sprains caused by accidents, there would not be a man upon the sick list."

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true, as reported in the "Times of India," that since the deposition of the Gaikwar his legal advisers have not been allowed access to him; and, whether application for such permission has been made by telegraph to the Secretary of State; and, if so, what reply has his Lordship returned?

Sir, I believe application has been made by the Indian legal advisers of the Gaikwar for access to him, and a similar request was made to the Secretary of State on Tuesday last by his legal advisers in England. The Secretary of State is at the present moment in communication with the Government of India upon this matter, and if the hon. Gentleman will repeat the latter part of his Question a few days hence, I shall then be able to communicate to him the decision which has been arrived at.

, who had a Notice upon the Paper to call attention to the Civil Bill Courts in Ireland; and to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the expediency of amending the constitution of such Courts, with a view of making them more efficient and more suitable to the requirements of the country, and to report thereon, said, he was aware the Government had given some consideration to the matter, and were prepared to recognize the fact that some legislation must take place in order to afford the masses of the Irish people legal tribunals wherein they could assert their legal rights without an expenditure which virtually precluded them at the present time from availing themselves of the Courts of Justice of the country. He could not imagine a greater grievance for a poor man than to find that justice was denied to him because he was not rich; and he thought few subjects could be discussed of greater importance, or which were more worthy the consideration of the House than the one which he wished shortly to call attention to. Why, he asked, should the representative of an humble man be denied the privilege of having discussed and decided by a properly constituted legal tribunal the rights of all interested in his assets, merely because they were not of sufficient value to enable those interested to appeal to one of the Superior Courts, which alone in such matters had jurisdiction at present? He considered it to be the duty of the Legislature to afford to the meanest and poorest of Her Majesty's subjects a cheap and easily accessible legal remedy and the means of asserting their acknowledged rights. This, under the existing law, was impossible, he asserted. No doubt, there would be some difficulty in extending the jurisdiction of the Civil Bill Courts in Ireland to the same extent as that of the County Courts in England; and his object in bringing forward the question at the present time, and under existing circumstances, was that they might know those difficulties in time to enable the Government early in the next Session to carry through some scheme for affording immediate relief in the direction indicated. He would proceed to contrast the Irish with the English County Courts. The Judges of the latter had a Common Law jurisdiction up to £50, and equitable jurisdiction up to £500; actions referred by the Superior Courts of any amount or description; in Admiralty cases jurisdiction up to £ 1,000 in amount; Bankruptcy Jurisdiction without any limit; and jurisdiction in respect of real property to the value of £20. Besides jurisdiction in these matters they had conferred on them certain special powers to which it was unnecessary to refer. The County Court Judges were not selected from barristers of eminence; indeed, the qualification for a County Court Judgeship was seven years' standing at the Bar, and the Judges were removable at the pleasure of the Lord Chancellor. The Chairman of Quarter Sessions in Ireland, on the other hand, only had a Common Law jurisdiction of £40 in personal actions and in remitted cases; with respect to real property to the extent of £20; in Bankruptcy without limit (provided the Court of Bankruptcy referred the case to them); very limited Jurisdiction in probate cases, and in matters relating to the recovery of legacies, and certain special jurisdiction not necessary further to allude to at present. The Chairmen in Ireland were selected not unfrequently from men of the highest standing at the Bar and in large practice, and were entirely independent of the Crown, being removable only upon an Address from both Houses of Parliament. The Judges of the Civil Bill Courts in Ireland, therefore, had no equitable jurisdiction at all, their Common Law jurisdiction in remitted cases and others was limited to £40, and in other matters referred to of a much more restricted nature than the English County Courts. In England there were 60 County Court Judges at a cost of £105,300 with a large staff to assist them in their business, consisting of 16 treasurers, with 13 assistant clerks at a cost of £16,898, a superintendent, with an assistant and 10 clerks, at a cost of £4,420; a registrar, a chief and second clerk, at a cost of £1,200; 601 registrars at a cost of £221,446; a large number of registrars for Bankruptcy matters at a cost of £29,500; and 395 high bailiffs at a cost of £112,358, besides a host of process servers and other minor officials. The total cost of the County Court establishment amounted to the annual sum of £399,658, exclusive of the Judges' salaries, whereas in Ireland the salaries paid to the Chairmen amounted to only £35,450, and to the clerks of the peace £37,250. In England each Judge had 18 skilled men to assist him in his labours. In Ireland there were 33 Chairmen of Quarter Sessions and the only assistants they had were 33 clerks of the peace or their deputies, notwithstanding that the Chairmen exercised almost unlimited jurisdiction in criminal matters, and had entrusted to them the entire business arising out of the Land Act of 1870. But the numerical strength of the administrative staff was by no means the most formidable grievance that the Irish Chairmen had to complain of. The filling up of the responsible office of clerks of the peace was entrusted to the Lords Lieutenant of the counties. It was scarcely credible, but that was, nevertheless, the case. He had been credibly informed that out of the total of 33 clerks of the peace 28 did not reside in their districts. Some lived on the Continent, in England, and in India. Of the entire number of the clerks of the peace eight only had any legal training, 26 had their work done by deputies, and of these only three were professional men. Under the existing law he regretted to say the great majority of those acting as clerks of the peace were utterly incompetent to transact the duties which would be required of them if the jurisdiction of the Civil Bill Courts was enlarged in the manner which he suggested. The method of appointing clerks of the peace should be at once changed, and the present deputies should be required either to discharge their duties efficiently, or to resign. The persons now holding the offices of clerks of the peace should be called upon either to discharge their duties themselves or to provide substitutes who should be thoroughly competent to do the work under the altered system. It might possibly be necessary to compensate some of the existing clerks of the peace who might be willing to discharge the duties themselves, but who were not competent so to do; but it would be found that the holders of those offices would prefer to resign when they found that something must be done for their large salaries. It could no longer be tolerated that the poor man in England should be cared for whenever he chose to have recourse to the legal tribunals, whereas in Ireland such justice was denied him. There was scarcely a member of the legal profession in Ireland who had not had experience of the hardship and injustice inflicted on the poorer classes by reason of the denial of justice to them. He knew several cases. Passing from this part of the question he called attention to the proposal which had been before the public for some time past—the advisability of making the Chairmen of the Civil Bill Courts resident Judges, and in order to do so, requiring them to give up their private practice. Nothing, in his opinion, would be more prejudicial to the interests of justice or to the administration of the law than this proposal if carried out. The necessary result of making the Chairmen resident Judges would be that they would be compelled to mix socially and become intimate with the gentry and landed proprietors resident in the districts where they would be called on to administer justice. Nothing could be calculated to diminish the confidence of the people in the impartial administration of justice more than to see the Judge the intimate friend and associate of the upper classes. In cases under the Land Act the proposed system would work very badly. What the people wanted was a sound lawyer, not a man half a lawyer and half a country gentleman, to adjudicate upon their cases. He believed that the Chairmen as a body would feel that if residence in their districts was necessary, they would be placed in a most painful and embarrassing position. Their decisions would not carry the weight which would be essential to the proper administration of justice, and the people would look with suspicion upon the action of Judges whom they would see in the closest social communication with the rich and the powerful. In Ireland they were justly proud of many of the Judges of the Civil Bill Courts. The position was sought for by the leading members of the Bar. It was a great mistake to suppose that the conferring of a more extensive jurisdiction must have the effect of withdrawing Chairmen from their practice, or forcing them to reside in their counties. Under the existing state of the law much time was lost in adjudicating upon undefended cases. Great loss of time also occurred in the hearing of paltry cases which might be adjudicated upon by magistrates sitting in petty sessions. It was manifestly unjust that a suitor seeking to recover 5s. or £1, or a trifling sum, should be called on to pay as much for the support of the Court as a suitor who recovered a large sum. Jurisdiction to hear undefended cases ought to be given to the Registrar with an appeal upon the lodgment of costs to the Judge. All cases involving questions of trifling value ought to be adjudicated on by a petty sessions Court, held before, or presided over, by a competent stipendiary magistrate without the imposition of any stamp duty. These alterations would relieve the Chairmen from a great deal of labour, and enable them to exercise the enlarged jurisdiction without driving them from practice. Any measure for enlarging the jurisdiction of the Civil Bill Courts must necessarily fail unless a staff of efficient and properly paid officers be first created. The Committee, if appointed, could very easily devise a scheme whereby the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be relieved from all anxieties, and his frustrating influence dispensed with. At the present time the Civil Bill Courts yielded to the Exchequer about £20,450. If all claims for—say, less than £5, were freed from all duty, and an additional fee of 6d. was charged on every Civil Bill process, and an increased ad valorem stamp imposed, as in England, the result would be that the system would be self-working, and very little, if any, assistance would be asked for from the Treasury. He had said quite sufficient to prove that there was abundant matter for inquiry on this subject. A few days would suffice for the inquiry, and he asked that the Government would be in a position to deal with the matter at the commencement of next Session. If this Committee took place, the Government would be able to carry out a useful and substantial legal reform, the greatest benefit would be conferred on the country, and a measure creditable to the House would be passed into law. The most feasible scheme that could be adopted would be to extend the jurisdiction of the Chairmen, and make it analogous to that of the English County Court, give to the petty sessions Court, presided over by a competent magistrate, jurisdiction in all cases under £5, appoint a competent staff of registrars, chosen from professional men, reserve power to the Superior Courts to remove any case of sufficient importance, and reserve to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland the power of making such rules and regulations for the conduct of business as he might consider advisable. There were many other suggestions that would be made to a Select Committee. His principal object in calling attention to this matter was to hasten the granting of a boon to the poor of Ireland such as for many years had not been granted to them. The Civil Bill Court in Ireland was essentially the "Poor Man's Court," and everything that was done to make litigation there cheap and easy, must necessarily be an immense benefit to the mass of the people.

supported the views of the hon. and learned Member for Kildare. The present system was not the most desirable for the administration of the law in Ireland. The Government ought to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the subject.

said, the present aspect of the House, there being only a few Members present, did not show that much interest was felt by Parliament in the question. He considered that his hon. and learned Friend who brought forward the subject had gone much beyond the question in which the people of Ireland felt most interest, inasmuch as the Quarter Sessions in Ireland was the tribunal which most concerned the masses of the people. If any tribunal was popular in Ireland and enjoyed the confidence of the people it was those Courts, for they were known as the "Poor Man's Courts," and he should be sorry to see the English system introduced into them. The Court of Quarter Sessions was certainly a most important Court in Ireland; and here he would say that there was no country in which the law was more cheaply administered than in the Quarter Sessions Courts in Ireland. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend that the jurisdiction of the Quarter Sessions in Ireland required to be extended; but while the Act was more limited in its jurisdiction than similar Courts in England, it was yet a most important measure. For his part, he could not see any occasion for inquiry into matters with which all interested in them were perfectly well acquainted. A more efficient, high-minded, and honourable body of men could not be found in Ireland than those who discharged the business of Quarter Sessions.

said, his hon. and learned Friend had not advanced any argument against the administration of the law in Ireland to show that the people had not confidence in the tribunal of Civil Bill Courts in Ireland. "With regard to the extension of the jurisdiction of the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions in Ireland, he concurred with him that it was desirable; but he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press his Motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the matter, and that he would be satisfied with the pledge given by his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, that he would, if possible, bring in Bills in the ensuing Session of Parliament to deal with this and other questions relating to Ireland. In the Bill to be brought in, when time allowed of its being dealt with, the points raised as to the position of clerks of the peace would not be overlooked. There was no necessity for the inquiry asked for, and he hoped the hon. and learned Member would facilitate the passing of the Bill when it was laid before the House.

, in rising, pursuant to Notice, to call the attention of the House to the absence from the Reports of the Civil Service Inquiry Commission of any investigation into the complaints made against the system of Trading now carried on by the servants of the Crown under the guise of Co-operative Stores, said, that last year, when he put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject, the right hon. Gentleman declined, and very properly declined, to give any positive answer while the Commission was still pursuing its inquiry, and until its Report was presented. He was surprised, therefore, to find, in an answer to a Question he (Sir Thomas Chambers) put to the right hon. Gentleman a short time ago, that there was no fresh information upon the subject worthy of his attention. That answer was confirmed by the fact that they had now the Report before them, and the absence of any reference to that most important subject had naturally and inevitably led to very great and general disappointment, not unmixed with surprise. There was overwhelming evidence to show that the Civil Service Stores were not, in fact, co-operative stores, but gigantic joint-stock trading companies, with some singular distinctions to which he would presently allude. There were no fewer than 4,500 subscribers or partners in one of these concerns; 15,000 tickets had been issued to outsiders; and the business was carried on just like that of any ordinary joint-stock trading company. It was the greatest sham that ever existed; and he maintained that, both on general principles and on grounds of public policy, Civil Service trading ought to be forbidden. So long ago as March, 1849, a Treasury Minute was issued affirming the right of the Government to the whole time of the Civil servants, and that they could not be allowed to accept office as directors of companies; but the gentlemen against whom the Minute was levelled did not do one-tenth of what the directors of the Civil Service Stores were now doing. So much for the general principle; but what had been the policy of the Government on this subject? The evils against which that Minute was directed were much more serious at the present moment. Very recently another Minute had been issued forbidding Civil servants becoming directors of a company which had undertaken a publication which was much engaged in discussing subjects connected with the Civil Service. The Minute set forth that gentlemen in the Civil Service taking upon themselves editorial duties could hardly fail to render themselves liable to misrepresentation, and pointed out that their acceptance of such positions must necessarily disturb the confidential relations which ought to subsist between members of that Service and their official superiors. The National Chamber of Trade, having that Minute in view, wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to inquire whether the authorities of the Civil Service would not forbid their servants engaging in trade under the guise of co-operation. To that communication the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied by saying that the cases of Civil servants engaging in editorial duties and in co-operative societies did not appear to be exactly parallel. Such pursuits, however, were not parallel, but they were analogous, for they were strictly alike, because they infringed the principle that the Civil Servants were bound to give their whole time and energy to the country. He did not complain of co-operation—what he complained of was joint-stock trading with certain signal distinctions between the honest, ordinary, bonâfide joint-stock trading, and that which was carried on under pretence of co-operation; and it was a question for the Government to decide whether this Civil Service trading was to be permitted to be carried on. The dockyard workmen were precluded from engaging in any other occupation; so were the police, while postmasters were absolutely forbidden even to sell newspapers. Those facts and regulations proved that the Government perfectly understood that the principle of the contract between the Civil servant and the State was that the whole of the man's time should be given to the State. Further than that, these large joint-stock trade associations, which were carried on under the name of Civil Service Co-operative Stores, turning over millions in the course of the year, had several advantages over ordinary trading firms, inasmuch as by registering themselves as provident and industrial societies they escaped the payment of income tax, and to some extent stamp duties. It was a double fraud. It called itself co-operation when it was simply a joint-stock trading society, and it availed itself of the advantages allowed to provident societies because they were conducted by the poorer classes; yet they were not tidewaiters, or clerks, or porters at Somerset House, but Civil servants of the higher grades, who were just about to divide £400,000 out of their profits. On the whole, therefore, he hoped Her Majesty's Government would take the subject into serious consideration.

said, he must apologise to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the rather abrupt manner in which he had answered his Question on the subject the other day. He had just referred to the speech he had made on this question last year, and he found that it was substantially what he thought it was. He had said that in dealing with this subject there were two questions to be considered—first, how far this system of Civil Service trading was one which ought to be checked in the interest of other traders as being in the nature of an unfair competition with them; and secondly, how far it ought to be checked in the interests of the Government, on the ground of it not being advisable that their servants should engage in these pursuits. He had also endeavoured to point out the difficulties which the Government had to encounter in attempting to deal with the matter from the point of view taken of it by those whom the hon. and learned Gentleman represented, and he had endeavoured to show how difficult and unfair it would be for the Government to lay down principles with regard to the Civil servants which would exclude them from the privilege and the right of co-operation, and how very difficult it would be to draw a line between co-operation and trading. The upshot of his remarks was that he could not upon the grounds mentioned see his way to any interference with the system. At the same time, however, he was always ready to accept and to listen to representations which might be made as to any unfair advantages that might be taken of their position by Civil servants who were engaged in this kind of business, and, therefore, he should take care that the allegation that the Co-operative Stores contrived to escape the payment of income tax and stamp duties should be inquired into, because such associations had no right to put themselves into such a position as to give themselves an unfair advantage over all other traders. Upon the other points of this question, the Report of the Civil Service Commissioners might throw some light. It was difficult to say where the line should be drawn with regard to what branches of business Civil servants might engage in, and he did not know that the Report of the Commissioners at present had thrown much light upon that point. Their labours were, however, not yet concluded, and the Government had not taken any steps upon their Report. They would, no doubt, in a short time have to take the Report into consideration, and probably some steps in consequence, and it might be that they would have to go into the question as to the employment of Civil servants in the manner referred to in connection with the general subject. One such question arose the other day in reference to Captain Tyler, and he only referred to it to show that it was difficult to lay down general rules to govern all cases that might arise. His hon. and learned Friend said that the Government had dealt with the question, and asked them to carry out the same principle with regard to all Civil servants, and he referred to the Treasury Minute with respect to contributions to newspapers by Civil servants, and the entering upon other employments by dockyard labourers. His hon. and learned Friend must, however, have been misinformed. Dockyard labourers were not forbidden to enter upon any other engagement. They were only restrained from becoming keepers of public-houses or marine stores, and from entering upon any business of that sort in which it was thought that mischief might arise from temptations to which they might be subjected in respect of Government stores. Then with respect to newspapers, the step was taken not to prevent undue competition between one editor or publisher and another, but to put a stop to a practice which was found to be productive of mischief and scandal to the public service. From time to time letters, paragraphs, and articles appeared in certain newspapers which were obviously written by persons who had obtained official information which ought not to have been made public, and it was therefore found necessary to issue a Minute prohibiting such communications being made and warning the contributors that they would be held responsible in the event of official information being improperly communicated. With respect to the general question, he could only say, as he did last year, that he must draw the line between two different considerations. As regarded the question of competition with private trade, it was a difficult matter to interfere, and interference must be limited to prevent any unfair advantages existing on the one side, such as exemption from income tax or stamp duties. That branch of the question should have his best attention. The other question related to the employment of Civil servants in the manner complained of, and having had their attention more or less directed to it, it would be their duty to consider whether some regulation should not be made or some expression of opinion given in reference to it.

said, he concurred generally in what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. While in office he had stated more than once, in answer to his constituents who took a great interest in the matter, that he considered it unfair that Civil servants should be placed under restrictions which did not apply to those who were engaged in other walks of life. Civil servants were, no doubt, paid out of the public funds, but they were as freely entitled to make use of their leisure in any way they thought fit as were any other class of Her Majesty's subjects. He agreed with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be impossible to hold out any hopes to the tradespeople of the metropolis that the competition they complained of could be put a stop to, save so far as the preferences to which reference had been made, and which ought most rigorously to be examined and removed. The second branch of the subject—namely, how far, from the point of view of the public service, it was right that Civil servants should be allowed to engage in those operations—remained to be considered. There could be no doubt, however, that they were under the same limitations, both as regarded their time, strength, and honour, as the servants of private companies. As a matter of course, it would also be unfair that they should be allowed to take advantage of official information for their private benefit in their relation to those societies. If a gentleman were, for example, engaged in the Government Contract Department, it could not be tolerated that he should use his special information of the effect upon the market of Government operations to promote the interests of a co-operative society with which he might happen to be connected. They must, he thought, rely upon the good sense, right feeling, and honour of the Civil servants to see that no stone could be thrown at them in that respect. Then, again, came the question of interference with their capacity to serve the State, which was their first duty. It would, he thought, be improper to allow persons who were placed in high position, and whose energies, freshness, and health were vital to the proper discharge of their duties, to take any great share in the management of those companies. As an illustration he might mention that the point was brought under his notice in a peculiar way when he held the office of First Lord of the Admiralty. There was a most eminent Civil servant who was also an eminent director of one of the co-operative societies, one of its founders, and the life and soul of the society. He worked hard at the Admiralty and also at the society, and it appeared that the strain on him was so great as to threaten his health. The question of promotion arose, and he was recommended for promotion to a higher position than that which he enjoyed. Under these circumstances, he (Mr. Goschen) pointed out to that gentleman that if he could give his whole time to the fresh post, he should consider him an eligible person; but that if he continued the other work and the strain was too great upon him, he should decline to promote him. That gentleman adopted the course of resigning his lucrative post in the co-operative society, and received the promotion to which, as being most eligible, he was entitled. In taking that step he (Mr. Goschen) thought he was discharging a duty he owed to the public.

said, that last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised to make an inquiry into the subject, and unless he had done so, the public would think he did not consider it worth his while to do so, and was content to let matters remain as they were. Now, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made up his mind on the subject, it was desirable that the public should know what the Government intended to do. Traders did not object to co-operative societies. If Civil servants combined to buy goods wholesale and sell them to themselves at the wholesale price, traders could have no objection; but what they did object to was, that Civil servants should form themselves into a society for the purpose of competing with tradesmen. There was another point to which he wished to call attention. Civil servants were paid by salaries taken from the taxation of the country, and the public had a right to expect that their whole time should be devoted to the performance of their public duties. Now, it was well known that the whole time of the chairmen and directors of co-operative societies was not given to the public. Another objection was that Civil servants were sometimes able to obtain information with regard to duties which enabled them to make advantageous purchases while the other trades were entirely in the dark, and were unable to do so. General traders were therefore placed in an unfair position, as compared with co-operative societies.

, in rising to call attention to the practice of Overseers of Metropolitan Parishes delivering the notice of alleged increased value (the said notice requiring an appeal within twenty-five days of the date thereof) late on the evening of the 24th day, said, he could not help thinking that the overseers had consulted an attorney on the matter, and, if so, it might be true that they were within the law in what they did; but if this were so, their conduct weighed very harshly on the public. The notices were delivered so late that practically there was no power of appeal, and in many cases doubtless the persons served would pay upon the increased assessment rather than undertake the trouble and expense involved by the unduly late service of the notice. He wished, therefore, to ask the President of the Local Government Board, Whether such practice is approved by the Board; whether it does not tend to fraud on the part of the overseers; and on what data the fictitious statements of the alleged increased value are made? He did not bring the matter forward as a personal question, although he had been among the sufferers, but as a matter affecting the ratepayers as a body. It placed them in a very hopeless position, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to prevent this nefarious proceeding. He should be glad to hear the principle on which this increased charge had been made. It seemed to him that a considerable value was put down beyond the real and the money value.

said, it was clear that his hon. Friend had been made the victim of a very great wrong owing to an undoubted miscarriage of justice. If his hon. Friend had placed the documents in his (Mr. Sclater-Booth's) hands before bringing the matter forward, inquiry should have been made as to the accuracy of his allegations, although the Local Government Board had no control either over the overseers or the vestries in the performance of the duties imposed on them under the Metropolitan Valuation Act and by the assessment committees. If the overseers had served notice on his hon. Friend under the circumstances which he had stated, they had acted wrongly, and he might get satisfaction if he consulted his legal advisers. He thought the practice to which his hon. Friend had referred did not prevail generally throughout the metropolis. It was not his (Mr. Sclater-Booth's) duty to supervise the action of the overseers of the metropolis; but if his hon. Friend would give him the particulars of the matters of which he complained, and the documents connected therewith, he would be happy to make inquiries, and he had no doubt the overseers of the parish in which his hon. Friend resided would furnish all the information they could. No doubt the object of the Metropolitan Valuation Act was that the value of the property in the metropolis should be valued every five years, and as that value was constantly on the increase, of course the assessments were increased from time to time. In effecting that object it was desirable that the proper ratio of increase should be secured, and in order to discover it the rent actually paid must be a criterion. He thought that Act was an admirable model for the framing of a measure hereafter with regard to the valuation of the country generally. If there was no remedy in such a case as his hon. Friend had called attention to, he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) admitted that a remedy ought to be provided, and the matter should be inquired into for that purpose.

moved an Amendment to the effect that no portion of the sum should be applied to an increase of salaries. The hon. Member said, that Mr. Rylands when in Parliament obtained the admission from Government that a portion of the money had been applied to increasing the salaries of Queen's messengers. He (Mr. Dillwyn) did not think that was a proper application of the money.

said, a few years ago the sum asked for Secret Service was £30,000. Then it was reduced to £25,000, and now £24,000 was asked. He wished to know whether the Government could not reduce the sum to £20,000?

said, the hon. Baronet, being a great authority in the City of London on matters of financial administration, must know that certain occasions arose which prevented a limitation of the amount of expenditure. His hon. Friend, when serving the office of Lord Mayor, had entertained an Emperor, and no doubt he found the entertainment was more expensive than an ordinary entertainment. And so, with regard to the Secret Service, the expenditure under that head was very much larger some years than in others. As to the remarks of the hon. Member for Swansea, he might observe that the very name of this Service showed that, under certain circumstances, no limit should be placed on expenditure. This fund was administered with the greatest care and without any attempt to interfere with the due control of the Crown over any of its servants. He hoped the hon. Member for Swansea would not press the Amendment, which if it were adopted would improperly interfere with the administration of the fund.

also said that of late years no part of the fund had been applied to the increase of salaries.

wanted to know who was the Lyon King-at-Arms? In regard to another item, he had never heard any reason why there should be a Bible Board at Edinburgh. Then he objected to the sum of £199 for the Queen's Plate. The previous Government was very great in some instances and in others very small. It did away at one time with the £199, and then because some one asked them they restored it. He asked the present Government to have the courage to do away with the item entirely. The money was thrown away; and, besides, it was not their duty to provide funds for races. In several places there were no horses to run, and in other cases there were "walks over." He begged to move that the £ 199 be deducted from the Vote. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: The sum is £218.] The balance was for shooting with bows and arrows. They did not meddle with that.

said, that the fees for armorial bearings exceeded the cost of the Vote, and if they did away with the Vote they would abolish the fees, and such a result would not be satisfactory to the economical mind of the hon. Baronet. The Bible Board was an ancient institution for the purpose of securing an accurate edition of the Bible. It was formerly paid for out of the hereditary revenues, which were surrendered to the State, and he therefore thought it ought to be maintained. The question of Queen's Plates had been frequently discussed in that House. The money was omitted from the Vote in 1870 by the late Government; but in 1872 a very strong representation was made by the Scotch Members, and at their instance the Vote was restored.

suggested that the money should be handed over to the Highland Society, when he thought it would be productive of considerable good. At present the expenditure did not tend to improve the breed of horses.

said, when the Scotch Plates were abandoned it was hoped that the Irish Plates would be extinguished too.

said, that if the Scotch Members did not wish for the Vote nobody else would object to its being discontinued. The Scotch and Irish Plates ought to be dealt with together, and he would suggest that in Ireland the Plates should be consolidated into one sum, to be run for at four places in alternate years.

asked how any reasonable man could imagine that they were encouraging the breed of horses by a Vote of £99? The amount should either be increased or withdrawn altogether.

was in favour of the retention of the item in the Vote.

strongly supported the proposal to withdraw the Vote. He did not think the people of Scotland generally took such an interest in racing as to care for the sum in question.

said, that until the Members for Ireland asked to have a similar sum omitted from the Votes the Committee had no right to complain. He hoped the Government would adhere to the Vote as it then stood, and not give way to certain Scotch Members' notions on the subject of horse-racing.

called upon the Committee not to support the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury in his absurd proposition. Ireland was united in wishing to retain a similar Vote for that country, because she did not wish to give up any of her national pastimes, and he thought that although Scotchmen knew the value of a "bawbee," there were some amongst them who liked to keep up the exciting competition of horse-racing for "the Queen's Plate." If this item was withdrawn, there would be a scramble amongst Scotch Members for the bawbees to be applied in prizes for cattle or sheep or pigs.

said, that in 1824 an Act was passed allotting the small sum of £3,000 per annum for the improvement of piers and quays and the small fishery harbours of Scotland, and that this grant might be said to be a part of the payments under the agreement made at the time of the Union—at all events, it had been passed by Parliament as a part of the public policy of that period, to create openings for employing the then almost starving seafaring population on the coasts of Scotland, by providing for the fisheries of Scotland convenient havens to which boats engaged in fisheries could resort, or in which, in case of gales, the boats could find protection or refuge; and from 1829, when the first grant was paid under the Act of 1824, up to 1844, the money had been applied to the purpose for which the Legislature intended, and if not honestly and with entire success, at all events with some benefit to the very defective places, to which boats employed in the sea fisheries resorted, on the exposed coasts of Scotland. In that year the small grant was first appropriated to the construction of a harbour of a general trading character, and not one for purely fishery purposes, and for many years this fund was used for the extension, or rather construction, of the harbour of Dunbar, and he complained of this as the first considerable misappropriation of this portion of the Vote. No doubt to other places on the coast of Scotland grants had been made out of this small fund of £3,000, and no one could fail to think, on seeing the names of the owners of these fishing places, so aided, that influential parties had influenced the authorities in making grants to these favoured harbours; but it could not be denied that such places, so aided, were fishery havens, and within the Act. When the annual grants to Dunbar ceased, apparently in 1864, then the harbour of Anstruther, in Fife, was the favoured harbour, and since then the whole of this grant had been annually used for this one harbour; whereby, as he (Sir George Balfour) contended, this fund which had now for many years been applied to the improvement of the harbours of Dunbar and Anstruther, had thus deprived the many small harbours for fisheries of that and which they so much needed to adapt them for fishery purposes, and to which they were entitled. This misapplication could not have taken place if the Act of 1824 had been enforced in accordance with its provisions. This Act required that each locality receiving and out of the £3,000 should contribute one-fourth the outlay on the harbour improvements; and so long as the Fishery Board of Scotland were left free to decide on applications for money assistance out of the £3,000 grant, the contributions had been regularly paid, even by poor fishermen, who readily clubbed their earnings for the improvement of this little harbour. But this condition had been evaded in the application of this fund to the extensive and expensive improvements carried out at Dunbar and Anstruther, which had not supplied this portion of the expenditure required by the Act. It was true that funds were used in and of the grant from the Fishery Board; but these were borrowed monies from the Government or in the locality, and not of the description required by the Act of 1824; and he earnestly hoped the Government would take the whole matter into consideration, in order that the money that had been misapplied out of this special grant for so many years might be refunded, with a view to effect those improvements which the fishery havens of Scotland so much needed. He made these remarks not with a view of objecting to the harbours of Dunbar and Anstruther having been aided by public money, but merely with the view of pointing out that a very small fund of £3,000, specially applicable by law to the special object of creating facilities for our poor fishermen in carrying on their dangerous employment, had been used for a purpose different from that for which it was intended. He urged that Scotland had as just a right to have harbours provided out of public monies as England, and the harbours of Dunbar and Anstruther were fairly entitled to be looked at as works of general utility needed for our general trade and for our shipping; but these improvements ought to have been carried on by special grants voted by Parliament. He must also point out that the public money spent on harbours in the two countries, out of grants specially voted by Parliament, were in great contrast. Between 1840 and 1867, a period of 27 years, upwards of £5,000,000 was spent on the harbours of England, while in the same time only about £100,000 was spent upon the harbours of Scotland, though there was much more necessity to improve and maintain the Scotch harbours than there was the English ones, because Scotland had not the same manufactures as England had, and necessarily not the same wealth and commerce by which the harbours of England could be improved, extended, and maintained. But the most objectionable feature in respect to the misapplication of this Fishery Grant of £3,000 was, that practically it was more than covered by the fee that was now paid by the fish curers for the brand applied by the officers of the Fishery Board to the barrels of herrings intended for exportation. Under the old bounty system of encouraging trade and fisheries, and by which the herring trade of Scotland was largely subsidized from the Imperial Exchequer, a fee was formerly paid to the fisheries of the United Kingdom, on the export of herrings made to the Continent; but after discontinuing this bounty for some years, the policy was reversed, and a fee was levied in 1859, on the recommendation of Sir John Shaw Lefevre, on the brand to the herring barrels, which, after the payment ceased, had been continued to be affixed to the barrels of Scotch herrings. So productive had that fee proved that in 1874 the sum of £8,625 was raised from the Scotch herring fisheries, or nearly three times the amount of the grant for the improvement of the fishery havens, and the whole of this money was paid into the Exchequer as a part of the income of the year. Since 1859 these fees had amounted to close on £80,000; whereas the £3,000 grant for the improvements to Scotch fishery havens had only been about £48,000, nearly all of which had been spent on general harbours for commerce and trade, instead of, as the law required, on fishery havens. He would also contrast the exceptional prodigality, lately attempted to be shown by the Government towards Dover Harbour, on which it was proposed to lay out £1,000,000 sterling, and the rigid economy enforced against Scotland. The harbour of Wick, for instance, had been repeatedly reported on as deserving of public and, particularly by the Royal Commission of 1860, but no such and had ever been granted; whereas on harbours of England, such as Dover and Alderney, millions had been spent, and more money was yearly proposed to be spent, and, no doubt, would be laid out, whilst the many places in Scotland which, with only a fraction of the sum already spent on English harbours, could be usefully made into safe harbours, had been neglected, and the vast resources in fish in the adjacent seas, and better calculated than the land to yield wealth to the people of Scotland, and to extend industry and comfort amongst a large mass, had not been reaped, and all this loss owing to the withholding of pecuniary and.

supported the Vote. He thought the money spent upon Anstruther and Dunbar Harbours had been well spent, and he urged the Government to give more encouragement to small fishing harbours, both in Scotland and Ireland, by the advancement of small loans.

observed, that the Vote had been chiefly applied for the improvement of Anstruther Harbour; but that work was now drawing to a close, and the amount would be appropriated to another harbour for fishing purposes. He believed the hon. and gallant Gentleman was incorrect in saying that there had been any misappropriation of the Vote. There was every desire on the part of the Government that the funds intended for small harbours and fishery purposes should be properly applied to that object.

approved the Vote and called attention to the mode in which the Scotch Fishery Board managed matters in having fishery officers at the various stations round the coast of Scotland, who taught the people the best mode of fishing. He regretted that the Fishery Board which Ireland once possessed had been abolished. This Vote, though nominally £12,000, was actually reduced to £3,000 by the small fee which had been imposed in 1856 for "branding" herrings, which produced no less than £9,000. Although the Vote was comparatively inadequate for Scotch requirements, it was larger and placed on an infinitely better basis than the sum applied to Ireland. He hoped the Chief Secretary would give the same assistance to Irish fisheries and the same protection as was afforded to the Scotch fisheries.

hoped that the Government would review the Vote, and that the claims of Wales would not be forgotten.

thought the hon. and learned Member for Limerick had somewhat misunderstood the state of affairs in Scotland. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of a Board superintending the deep-sea fisheries; but the Fishery Board which existed in Scotland only took charge of their herring fishery. It was an unpaid Board, while, he believed, most of the Boards in Ireland were generally not unpaid. The only use of the Board was to appoint and direct the officers to superintend the herring fishery, and see that the herrings exported were packed in a particular way, and if they were so packed, that they should be branded; and those receiving the brand on the cask had to pay a fee. The whole expenses for the brand was a little over £6,000, while the receipts were about £9,000, thus showing a large surplus—Parliament, in fact, gained £2,300. But there were other items included in the £12,000. There was £3,000 for piers, and smaller sums for cruisers and cutters. These latter sums were not in any shape or way a charge for the fisheries of Scotland. They were for what he called the police of the sea. Boats came from France, Holland, England, Ireland, and the Isle of Man, and it was necessary there should be some power to keep them in order. When these sums were deducted there only remained some £3,000 for piers, while £9,476 was given to the Irish Fisheries. He had no objection whatever to the Irish Vote, but he denied altogether that Scotland received more than she contributed for the fisheries

said deliberately that Ireland did not receive the benefit that Scotland did, and said what they wanted in Ireland was not a paid Board, but a Board of Irish gentlemen. Give Ireland an unpaid Board and a system of branding, such as Scotland had, free for 10 years, and then she would be able to compete with Scotland on something like equal terms. From the Scotch Union up to 1856 the Scotch fisheries had the and of the Government.

said, if Scotland really derived any great advantage from the Board and the branding system there would be force in the argument for extending it to Ireland, and perhaps to England and Wales also. The truth, however, was that the system had been condemned by three successive Royal Commissions, who had come to the conclusion that it was a bad system, and that the success of the Scotch fishing was not due to the branding at all, but to other causes. There was an immense export of herrings from the East Coast of England carried on without any branding system whatever.

said, that at one time there was a bounty offered in Scotland for the curing of herrings; but whether it was due to that fact that the herring fishery made such progress and became so developed he could not say. He thought the system of branding was of very great advantage to Scotland, and knowing something about the herring trade, he was prepared to state that it could not be practically carried on without that system. A number of curers tried to do away with it after a charge was made for the brand, but they found it did not succeed, and there was a much larger portion of herrings branded now than was formerly the case. As regarded the Fishery Board, he did not put too much confidence in them, because they took no interest in the catching of the fish. One other matter to which he referred was that of the two cruisers. An opinion prevailed that they might be of much greater service than they were if they spent most of their time in harbour instead of cruising at sea. During a recent storm, when some of the fishermen lost their valuable nets, they were asked to go and see if they could find them, but they said their orders were to be confined to saving life. Now, seeing that they were there, he thought the Admiralty ought to instruct these cruisers that under the circumstances he had named they should give some little assistance to the fishermen.

thought it was due to the officers of the Revenue cruisers to say that he met this week with a gentleman from the North of Scotland, where there was a very active branch of the fishery trade prosecuted during the summer months, and he assured him that these vessels rendered very important services to the fishermen, and on many occasions had been the means of saving their nets at sea and towing the small boats into harbour during a storm. As regarded the question which had been raised by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), he begged to say what the Scotch Members complained of was this—that the Votes for Scotland, taken in the aggregate, did not correspond either with the population of the country or its taxation, and that there was a very undue proportion given to Ireland and to England also. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh at his statement; but the truth was when they were called upon to deal with economy and retrenchment by their constituents they were met with the assertion, which they could not deny, that the Votes taken in the aggregate for England and Ireland, and for any branch of the public service, exceeded in amount and proportion those given to Scotland.

objected to the practice which was growing up of discussing Votes, not with reference to the amount required for the public service, but with reference simply to the question of how much Scotland, Ireland, England, or "Wales might happen to be receiving under the same head. The simple question they had to decide was, whether the Vote now before the House was good for Scotland or not, and it had nothing whatever to do with Ireland.

asked whether the large increase in the Vote was due to the allowance of 4s. per head given for lunatics; also, whether that sum represented the whole of the Vote required for lunatics in Scotland, or only a part?

inquired whether the 4s. was given for the lunatics in workhouses as well as in asylums?

asked if the Government were taking care that the money granted was properly applied?

said, that the amount asked represented the whole of the normal Vote for pauper lunatics in Scotland for the year. All pauper lunatics were under the control of the Board of Lunacy, and the amount put down in the Vote was the maximum allowed per head. It did not follow that the total amount would be either required or expended; but it had been thought wise to put the full amount in the Estimate. There was no Estimate or payment made for pauper lunatics in workhouses in England, but there was in Scotland. In the case of the Irish Vote for the same purpose which had to be submitted, it represented only three-fourths of the annual amount.

said, the grant was only given to lunatics under the control of the Lunacy Board, and that by no means embraced the whole of the lunatics in Scotland. He complained that the Scotch grant had been commenced 60 days later than the English grant, and thus Scotland had been deprived of £10,000. Injustice was consequently done to Scotland in that as in many other respects.

said, that he had had a good deal of communication with the hon. Member, and consequently had agreed to recommend the allowance being given for Scotch lunatics, though it would not be given in the case of England. The hon. Member now made another complaint that the grant did not commence till 60 days after the English Vote; but then if this scheme ever came to an end, the Scotch would get paid for 60 days extra at the end of the period.

, speaking in the name of the Scotch people, thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what he had done in the matter, and said the more thoroughly he understood it the more convinced he would be that he had done what was right.

thought there was some misunderstanding on the subject. It was a mistake to suppose that all lunatics in Scotland were paid for. No pauper lunatic was paid for, unless he was under the control of the Board of Supervision.

said, that by means of exceeding importunity Scotland appeared to have obtained a concession which placed her at an advantage as compared with England, and that that fact ought to serve as a hint to English Members to proceed in the same way.

asked why the grant of 4s. per head for lunatics in Scotland should not be extended to Ireland and England?

said, that it appeared that in Scotland the lunatics in union workhouses were paid for at the rate of 4s. per head, and he thought it high time for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put the three countries on the same footing in that matter. That concession ought either to be withdrawn from Scotland or given to England and Ireland.

wished to know, as a matter of fact, whether anything had been given to Scotland which was withheld from England and Ireland?

said, the original proposal of the Government was to make a grant of 4s. a-head in respect to all lunatics under the charge of the Lunacy Commissioners; and it was made under the impression that it would work in the same way in all parts of the, United Kingdom, but that it would not apply to lunatics retained in the workhouses and not under the Lunacy Commissioners. That proposal was made with reference to England. Then it was brought to their notice from Scotland that there were many classes of lunatics there which did not exist in England. The lunatics in Scotland were classified in a different way from that adopted here, and were under the Lunacy Commissioners where that was not the case in England. The system being different in that respect, there was a difference in the payment. He did not think their English friends would be prepared to adopt the Scotch system and to have the same supervision by the Lunacy Commissioners as existed in Scotland, otherwise the case would be very much altered. Were they so, the Government would be prepared to give the grant to the same class of lunatics.

said, that if Scotland was dealt justly with, that was all she required. Now, as regarded medical grants, some years ago the grant for Scotland was fixed at £10,000, and it had never been since increased, while the grant for England was £157,000. Now, if England got her due proportion as regarded population, she ought only to receive £65,000. Then as regarded pauper lunatics, England received £357,000, while Scotland only got £61,000. Such figures as these could be multiplied in other cases, and they showed that Scotland had good ground for complaint.

objected to that part of the Vote which related to Queen's Plates in Ireland. It was pointed out in the evidence taken before Lord Rosebery's Committee that the money for Queen's Plates was absolutely thrown away, so far as the breeding of horses was concerned, and that they neither amused the people nor improved the breed of the horses. It was promised last year that before another year this matter would be re-considered, in order to ascertain whether the money could not be devoted to a more useful purpose. He did not want to take the money away from Ireland, but he did desire that it should be devoted to some more useful purpose in connection with the improvement of horses.

hoped they would be spared these vexatious interferences on the part of the Scotch Members in matters which did not concern them at all. ["Oh, oh!"] They did not understand the question, and they cared less about it. There was a large body of Irish people who loved racing, but the Scotch were different. Their blood did not run so fast as that of the Irish, and he altogether objected to the interference in this House of Scotch Members in matters purely belonging to Ireland.

said, that the question of principle had been decided by the division which had already occurred that evening. He had been in communication with several hon. Members, and with some of the leading men on the Irish Turf on the subject, and they had been unable to suggest any mode in which the money could be more usefully distributed than by means of these Plates. Any practical suggestions that might be made by Gentlemen possessing local knowledge which would lead to an improvement in the breed of horses in Ireland by otherwise distributing this money would receive the careful consideration of the Government.

, in reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Conolly), said, the Members who were elected in Scotland were not elected for Scotland alone, they were elected to the Imperial Parliament, and as Members of that Parliament, they had a perfect right to interfere in the affairs of the whole nation. He had as much right to interfere in anything appertaining to the constituency of the hon. Member, as the hon. Member would have a right to interfere in anything affecting the constituency of Edinburgh which was brought before the House.

suggested that some of the money which was given for Queen's Plates should be devoted to offering premiums for the best stallions.

said, if Scotch Members had nothing to do with Irish affairs, how came it they were allowed to vote upon them? If votes in this House were confined to nationalities, the Scotch Members would manage things a great deal better than was done at present.

objected to money being wasted in Queen's Plates.

was sorry to hear his hon. Friend who had just spoken object to Queen's Plates, because he had seen him on the back of a racehorse, though he admittted it was a broken-down one.

said, he would apologize to the Scotch Members if he had said anything offensive to them.

hoped that that House would not refuse a Vote, the object of which was to preserve and improve the excellent breed of Irish horses.

had just one word to say. He hoped the Government would never give premiums for the breeding in Ireland of cocktails. Another thing he would like to see—the races for the Queen's Plates run faster, and he suggested that they should not get the money unless they did the distance in a given time.

complained of the way the Commissioners were at present appointed, and expressed a hope that the Government would institute a change.

moved for Copies of Memorials and other Papers addressed to the Irish Government praying for the release of the prisoner Patrick Casey, confined under the provisions of the Protection to Life and Property (Ireland) Act.

opposed the Motion, stating that all special Minutes and Papers relating to cases arising under the Westmeath Act had always been regarded as confidential. He could conceive no useful object to be gained by acceding to the Motion.

ridiculed the notion that any documents which gave absolute power to the Lord Lieutenant to commit an innocent man to prison should be considered confidential and kept secret.