asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a report in "The Times" of July 3, from which it appeared that Mr. Balguy, the presiding magistrate at Greenwich Police Court, had publicly announced that after consultation with his brother magistrates, he had resolved not to impose fines in cases of the adulteration of milk with water when such adulteration was not over ten per cent; and, whether the Adulteration Acts now in force warrant magistrates in allowing the adulteration of milk with water if not practised to a greater extent than ten per cent. to pass unpunished?

I believe, Sir, that Mr. Balguy did make such a statement after consulting with his brother magistrates, but I cannot say how many magistrates he consulted with; but I do not think his view of the law will be acquiesced in by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, either with regard to the Acts now in force or the Bill now passing through the House.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If there be any intention to issue, at an early date, new regulations in regard to Militia Medical Officers?

, in reply, said, the new regulations referring to those officers had been for some time in preparation. The regulations relating to medical officers in the Yeomanry and Volunteers were actually settled, but difficulties had arisen with regard to the militia medical officers, through their being brought into contact with the Brigade Depôts. He hoped these regulations would be published at no distant date.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to a report of the case of Sarah Chandler, of Spalding, Lincolnshire, aged thirteen years, who on a visit to her aunt at the almshouses in the town had plucked a flower from a geranium, for which she was charged at the petty sessions at Spalding on Tuesday last, and sentenced to fourteen days imprisonment and four years in a Reformatory; and whether, if the facts of the case are as reported, he proposes to take any steps in the matter?

I think, Sir, that there are some very small inaccuracies in the way in which the case is stated in the Question; but I am sorry to say that substantially the facts as there given are actually true. The only steps which I thought I could possibly take in the matter were immediately to discharge the girl from custody, and to write to the magistrates to express my entire disapproval of the sentence which had been passed upon her.

asked whether it was true that two clergymen were on the Bench when the girl was examined, one of them being the presiding magistrate?

I believe there was one. I cannot say whether there were more.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that Mr. Shaw, our Political Agent at Kashgar in Eastern Turkestan, has been or is about to be withdrawn; and, if so, for what reason?

Sir, Mr. Shaw was sent to Kashgar with a special object—namely, to negotiate a Commercial Treaty with the Ameer of Kashgar. He received instructions from the Indian Government to return when the negotiations were completed. We have received no information from the India Office as to whether he has left Kashgar or not. Under the 6th Article of the Treaty made with the Ameer by Sir Douglas Forsyth, we have power of appointing a Political Agent at Kashgar.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether communications and documents have been sent to him purporting to prove that Arthur Orton, now supposed to be a convict in Dartmoor, is in fact in New Zealand and willing and prepared to prove his identity if protected from arrest on charges alleged against him; and, if so, whether he will lay the same upon the Table of the House, or allow them to be inspected at the Home Office; and, whether he will state the objections, if any, to grant to such person freedom from arrest for the purpose aforesaid?

Sir, I have nothing before me to lead me to suppose that Arthur Orton, whom I believe to be in custody in England, is now in New Zealand. I must, therefore, decline to grant to any person in New Zealand freedom from arrest on charges made against him in order that he may come to this Country for the purpose stated by the hon. Member.

subsequently begged to give Notice, owing to the sudden retirement of the right hon. Gentleman, that it would be necessary to ask on a future day, whether he would lay on the Table of the House or allow to be inspected at the Home Office the documents which purported to show that Arthur Orton, supposed to be a convict at Dartmoor, was now in New Zealand?

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the Correspondence between the Salvage Association and the English Foreign Office and the German Government in relation to the capture by the French of the German Ship "Turandot" during the Franco-German War, and to the indemnity paid by the French Government to the German Government on account of such capture?

, in reply, said, there would be no objection to lay on the Table the Correspondence referred to if the hon. Member would move for it.

asked the hon. Member for Penryn, If he would state on what authority he has stated that in Exeter Gaol the proportion of recommittals to the total number of prisoners committed was 65 per cent?

, in reply, said, that the statement which he made, or certainly intended to make, was that the recommittals were 35½ per cent. The authority which he had for that statement was a most valuable Return obtained in 1872 by the hon. Baronet himself.

moved, in page 9, line 24, to insert words, the effect of which would be to limit the power of the Judges in making rules to matters of pleading practice, and procedure. The hon. and learned Member observed, that a similar Amendment had already been made in sub-section 2, on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt). It seemed to him an innovation to grant to Judges the power to repeal or alter Acts of Parliament, which they would have under the Bill, without the consent of Parliament.

believed that sub-section 2 would probably not have been altered in the way mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman had the effect of the 20th section been more fully considered. He (the Attorney General) did not think it desirable to limit the power of the Judges in the way proposed; in making so great a change in the judicial spstem of the country, it was impossible to say beforehand what rules or orders might be necessary for the efficient working of the Act. In the Schedule to the Bill it was attempted to provide for all the cases that might arise, but it might well be that some matters of trivial importance were omitted, which, if not supplied, might lead to great inconvenience. In such a matter, confidence must be placed somewhere, and, unless it could be placed in the Judges, they would be hardly fit for their position. For several years past, similar powers had been placed in the Judges, and they were not confined to the Judges, for similar powers had been conferred on different Government Departments. If the Amendment were carried, it would impose a very unnecessary fetter on the power of the Judges in framing the rules and orders for regulating the practice and procedure of the Courts. It would be altogether unusual and extremely inconvenient in practice. He, therefore, hoped the Committee would not assent to the Amendment.

supported the Amendment, remarking that the Judges at the present day exercised their powers extensively, as might be seen when they dealt with cases of contempt of Court. The power in this clause was excessive and unconstitutional.

said, for once he almost agreed with the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley). They were going to give power to the Judges to make rules and orders, which, so far as they were inconsistent with any Act of Parliament, would virtually repeal that Act from the time those rules and orders came into effect.

observed, that at the proper time he should have an Amendment to propose which would obviate any difficulty upon that point.

said, he was glad to hear it. He would give the Judges all the power that was required to frame general rules and orders for the administration of the law as regarded pleading, procedure, and practice, but would not place in their hands the power virtually to frame the law which they had to administer.

said, that if he felt that this clause conferred undue power on the Judges, he should be inclined to vote for the Amendment; but he could not come to that conclusion. The true meaning of the clause was that the Judges should have full power to make the rules that were necessary to carry out this and the principal Act; and, if that was the true meaning, there were numerous precedents for them. He considered it would be impossible to adopt the Amendment, which proposed to limit the power of the Judges to make rules only with regard to practice and procedure.

observed, that Parliament, by passing these rules, was asked to enact a new code of procedure, and then by one sweeping clause, power was given to the Judges to alter or repeal any part of this code.

desired to remove a misapprehension which appeared to exist in regard to the operation of this clause. No power was given by it to the Judges to introduce a fresh legislation in regard to the administration of justice; the whole power conferred on them was to make further or additional rules for carrying out the purposes of this and the principal Act, that was to say, those purposes connected with the administration of justice which were regulated and determined by the Acts themselves. The Judges could not, under that power, introduce any fresh legislation inconsistent with the Acts of Parliament. In all probability, by far the greater number of the rules and orders hereafter made would have reference to procedure only, but questions might arise which would require that the Judges should go beyond mere procedure. They had exercised powers of this nature for the last 20 years, and had never exercised them in such a manner as to require the intervention of the Legislature.

remarked that the hon. and learned Member for the Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Watkin Williams) had got into a way of looking upon the Judges as his natural enemies, whom it was necessary to fence round in every way in order to prevent them from indulging in a sort of irrepressible desire to do mischief. If the Judges were not fit to be entrusted with the power which the Bill conferred upon them, they surely were not fit to be trusted with the high judicial functions which they exercised every day. The Judges had exercised similar powers without objection under the Chancery Amendment Act (Lord Cairns's Act), the Leases and Sales of Settled Estate Act, and the Trustees Relief Act, under which the Judges were authorized to regulate the exercise of their own jurisdiction. They had not abused these powers—why, then, assume that they would do so in this instance?

complained that provisions were constantly creeping into Acts of Parliament by which the Queen in Council, municipal bodies, or other persons were empowered to make laws and regulations. He protested against that House delegating its power of legislation to bodies outside. He should support his hon. and learned Friend the Mover of the Amendment.

objected to giving the Judges any more legislative power, and thought their functions ought to be confined to laying down rules of procedure or practice; otherwise the Schedules of the Bill would be useless, because they might be overridden by the Judges. He must press his Amendment to a division.

suggested that the Attorney General should re-consider the question, with a view of meeting the difficulty when they came to the Report.

argued that legislative powers should be exercised by the Parliament, and not by the Queen in Council, on the recommendation of the Judges as proposed. He had no doubt it was a convenient mode of dealing with the matter; but it was very objectionable, and, he ventured to say, unconstitutional.

considered that a provision like that contained in the clause was absolutely necessary. If the Amendment should be adopted, the power proposed to be given to the Judges would be materially cut down.

then proposed an Amendment, the object of which was to preserve the existing machinery in the county of Lancaster until such time as the new machinery contemplated by the Bill should be ready and be brought into operation. He proposed to remedy this state of things simply by enacting that the existing machinery should go on until such time as an Order in Council was passed bringing into play the changes to be created by the Judicature Bill.

said, he hoped that the Government would either accept the Amendment or themselves introduce a clause to effect the same object. The people of Lancashire were very well satisfied with their local Courts, and it would be a very serious thing for their action to be suspended even for a little time.

asked the hon. and learned Member to withdraw the Amendment for the present and bring it forward again on the Report. In the meantime, it would be fully considered by the Government.

asked the Attorney General to take up the subject himself, and relieve him of all further responsibility in the matter.

said, that if, upon mature consideration, he approved the principle of the Amendment there would be no objection, on the part of the Government, to propose a clause on the Report carrying it into effect, but at present he could not accept it.

contended that the clause did not sufficiently protect trial by jury. The Judges would have the power, if they saw fit, to interfere with trial by jury, and that was a thing which he altogether deprecated. He moved, in page 10, line 16, to insert after the word "affect," "trial by jury or."

pointed out that under the 36th order of the Schedule trial by jury was regulated and the particular mode of trial prescribed. The Amendment was therefore unnecessary.

suggested that it would be better to let the clause stand as it was, but to insert a Proviso at the end enacting that no rules made by the Judges hereafter should be allowed to interfere with trial by jury.

explained that trial by jury was actually interfered with by the Act of 1873. Unless the clause was kept as it stood a portion of that Act would practically be repealed.

said, they had no intention of repealing any portion whatever of the Act of 1873. If Parliament saw fit to interfere with trial by jury there could be no objection; but what they did object to was to give the Judges power to so interfere.

agreed that the Amendment would not only be inconsistent with the clause, but would also be inconsistent with the Act of 1873.

contended that there were two perfectly distinct points in connection with this question—one was whether they were to allow trial by jury to be altered, and the other was whether they would allow the Judges to alter it. Well, his own clear conviction was that if there was to be any alteration at all it should be made by Parliament, and not by the Judges. He objected to the Judges having any such legislative power, simply because they were bad legislators, and ought to be confined to their own proper functions—the administration of the law.

supported the view of the Attorney General, that trial by jury had already been interfered with by the Act of 1873.

suggested, instead of the Amendment, the introduction of words providing that no rules of court hereafter to be made should affect the mode of trial by jury now in existence

said, that that proposal would meet the case, but that, if adopted, it had better be embodied in a separate clause.

had no objection to reserve his proposition.

moved, in page 10, line 32, at end of Clause, to add—

"Whereas by section forty-six of the principal Act it is enacted that any judge of the said High Court sitting in the exorcise of its jurisdiction elsewhere than in a Divisional Court, may reserve any case, or any point in a case, for the consideration of a Divisional Court, or may direct any case or point in a case to be argued before a Divisional Court:' Be it hereby enacted, That nothing in the said Act, nor in any rule or order made under the powers thereof, or of this Act, shall take away or prejudice the right of any party to any action to have the issues for trial by jury submitted and left by the judge to the jury before whom the same shall come for trial, with a proper and complete direction to the jury upon the law and as to the evidence applicable to such issues.

"13 Ed. 1, St. 1, c. 31; 3 & 4 Vic. c. 65, s. 15; 15 & 16 Vic. c. 76, s. 184; 20 & 21 Vic. c. 85, s. 39; 22 & 23 Vic. o. 21; 23 & 24 Vic. c. 144, s. 1.

"In the event of the last preceding Amendment being adopted, to add, at the end of the last Amendment, the words—

"Provided also, That the said right may be enforced either by motion in the High Court of Justice or by motion in the Court of Appeal founded upon an exception entered upon or annexed to the record."

opposed the Amendment. The object of the Amendment was secured by an appeal to the Appellate Court from the decision of the Judge.

pointed out that the Amendment provided for the whole question being submitted to the jury. The power of reserving points had been carried somewhat too far by the Judges.

agreed that nothing was more dangerous than the extent to which this power of reserving questions had been carried of late, contrary to the former practice of such Judges as Lord Ellenborough or Lord Mansfield.

said, the hon. and learned Member for Oxford did not appear to understand that one of the great advantages of a Judge being empowered to reserve leave was that it enabled a verdict to be entered, so that the whole question could be decided by the Court above without sending it down for further trial. If, however, the object of the Amendment was to secure something in the nature of a Bill of Exceptions it had his earnest approval.

said, if the purpose of the Amendment was to secure the benefit of a Bill of Exceptions, without maintaining the entire form of the old procedure, he entirely agreed with it.

said, he did not wish to retain the ancient form of procedure; but he protested against giving a Judge indiscriminate and indefinite power of reserving questions which really came within the province of the jury.

said, as he understood the Amendment, it did not in the slightest degree interfere with the power conferred upon a Judge to reserve questions of law for the consideration of the Court above, with the consent of counsel, and he hoped nothing ever would; but it was a very different question whether the power conferred upon a Judge should be so large as to enable him to withdraw a question from the jury altogether, contrary to the wish of counsel; that should be carefully guarded against, as it was intended to be by this Amendment.

supported the Amendment, observing that without such a protection we should be giving up trial by jury.

said, he considered the Amendment to be hardly necessary; but as there appeared to be so strong an opinion in favour of it, he would save time by assenting to it.

proposed an Amendment, the object of which was to prevent the doing away with the circuits by means of an Order in Council. If the object was only to make changes in circuits he should have no objection, but to the power which seemed to be proposed he did object. He thought it was important that everyone should know that the law was administered fairly and justly, and without favour or affection.

complained that on a subject of so much importance the Amendment was not placed on the Paper or any Notice given of it. The clause was, in point of fact, founded on the Report of a Royal Commission, and the principle it contained was already recognized by the law as it now stood. He must therefore oppose the Amendment.

also opposed the Amendment, because it was, it his opinion, necessary that power should be given to alter the circuits when necessary. They were often attended with great expense, and useless in results, and it would be expedient on many occasions to dispense with them.

moved, after Clause 24, to insert the following clause:—

("Amendment of 35 & 36 Vict. c. 44, as to the transfer of Government securities to and from the Paymaster General on behalf of the Court of Chancery and the National Debt Commissioners.")

moved, after Clause 25, to insert the following new clause:—

("Amendment of 32 and 33 Vic. c. 83, s. 19; and 32 and 33 Vic. c. 71, s. 116, as to the payment of unclaimed dividends to persons entitled.")

moved, in page 8, after Clause 14, to insert the following new clause:—

(Principle on which costs are to he taxed.)

"Whenever in any suit or proceeding in the High Court of Justice, or in the Court of Appeal an order or judgment directs the taxation of costs and the payment thereof by any litigant party, or out of a fund or estate, the costs so to be taxed shall include not only the costs of the suit or proceeding as between party and party, but also all such costs, charges, and expenses as are allowed by the Court of Chancery whenever costs, charges, and expenses are directed to be taxed on the principle of taxation as between solicitor and client, and to be paid out of a fund; and the Rules in the Schedule to this Act relating to costs shall be subject to this enactment."

His object was to secure to every successful litigant indemnity from his opponent for the necessary costs and expenses he was put to in enforcing his right, and not simply costs between party and party. There were at present three modes of taxation recognized by the Courts; the first was taxation between party and party; the second, taxation between solicitor and client; and third that frequently adopted in Chancery—namely, taxation between attorney and client, when the costs had to come out of the estate. Under an order for costs as between party and party the successful litigant received only the costs actually incurred in Court; for instance, though it might be impossible to prove his case without scientific witnesses, he would be allowed only the fee for the witness's appearance in Court and would receive nothing for the cost of that witness's journeys to inform himself of the nature of the case, though it might be admitted on all sides that such a journey was indispensable. The result of this state of the law was that in every case the successful party had to pay at least one-third and often one-half more than he could receive, and in many cases it amounted to a denial of justice. He assured hon. Members that this was in no sense an attorneys' question. The attorney would in any case be paid his full costs. The question was whether his own client or the opponent, who from having been ordered to pay costs must be taken to be in the wrong, was to pay them. Parliament had already in several instances—such as the Patent Law Amendment Act, the Mercantile Marks Act, and the Election Petitions Act—sanctioned the principle of this clause, and enacted that in litigation arising under these Acts the costs awarded should be a full indemnity to the winning side. If it be objected that a rich or a timid litigant might put his opponent to an excessive expense, the answer was that the clause had been carefully prepared to avoid that possibility. He did not propose to make the defeated party pay all the costs for which the successful party might be liable to his own attorney. Such a proposal might open the door to considerable oppression, but only to costs taxed on a scale which would secure a complete indemnity for all reasonably necessary expenses both before and during suit. The most respectable solicitors were always willing to undertake the conduct of a suit in Chancery for the remuneration allowed by the Court, and the system of taxation adopted prevented either oppressive or "fancy" costs being allowed out of funds when administered by the Court, While a staff of competent Taxing Masters was maintained he failed to see why their services should not be applied to secure a reasonable result instead of perpetuating a practice which worked injustice and was unsuited to modern requirements. The language of the clause which he proposed had been submitted to some of the highest authorities and had received their approval.

said, the clause was so reasonable that it was surprising it had not been adopted before.

said, the clause, if adopted, would establish complete control over the costs.

said, no man should be put to expense or loss in asserting or defending his legal rights. He contended the principle should be that the winning party should be reimbursed all costs both as between party and party, and attorney and client, subject, of course, to taxation. He cordially supported the new clause.

said, that the present mode of awarding costs in the Common Law Courts did not appear to throw any heavy burdens on successful parties, and it was desirable that too much encouragement should not be given to litigation. If the attorney knew that he would get his whole costs it would increase the inducement to resort to litigation, and would, in fact, be a premium upon the introduction of a class of cases and a class of practitioners that ought to be avoided.

said, that this was hardly so much a question of principle as of policy. It was true that, with the exception of his hon. and learned Friend who had spoken last, every Member, who had addressed the Committee, had spoken in favour of the Amendment; but the opinions so expressed were the opinions of Members of the legal profession only, and he (the Attorney General) thought that before the Committee agreed to a change in the rule which had been established for so many years, they should have some general expression of opinion on the subject. They had not had any such general expression of opinion on a question in which the public were really the persons interested. If he entertained a stronger feeling in favour of this clause than he did, he should appeal to the Committee not to deal with a question of this kind without having ascertained the general feeling of the public. Although there would be advantages in certain eases in giving the winning party his whole costs, he much feared that the general adoption of the rule would greatly multiply speculative actions, and would lead to a great deal of harassing litigation. He therefore asked the Committee to hesi- tate before it sanctioned any change in the existing system, which might prove a considerable burden on the unprofessional community.

observed that this practice of not giving the winning party in a suit his whole costs was one of the greatest injustices of which suitors had to complain. He was very much surprised to hear the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) say that a man should not get justice because it might encourage litigation. They had to pay an enormous sum for Judges and law, and it would be very hard if a man in this land could not get justice. He considered justice one of the brightest gems in the Crown of England. He knew many men in London—and he was one of them—who would suffer wrong rather than go into a Court of Law; and just let the Committee fancy justice being administered in such a way that it was not worth trying to get it. It was not a creditable state of things, and he would appeal to the Attorney General to do something to remedy the evil.

expressed his concurrence in what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton.

said, that as a member of the other branch of the profession, he might be allowed to say a few words. He had been in practice as a solicitor for between 30 and 40 years, and he had many times to advise a client, when he knew he was in the right, to submit to an injustice rather than go to law, because the actual expenses must far exceed the allowed and taxed costs. If the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Henry James) had passed some time in the earlier years of his life in a solicitor's office it would have been better for him, and he would have had sounder views on this subject. As the Bill stood there were many cases in which a suitor might get a verdict, but in which he would not recover costs. The Judge might refuse to give costs. The Attorney General said there had been no expression of public opinion on this question; but when had the public had an opportunity of expressing their opinions? The hon. and learned Gentleman knew that the great branch of the profession to which he (Mr. Leeman) belonged had long felt that this was a grievance which ought to have been redressed. The Attorney General might be unwilling to interfere with the old principle as to costs; but it was really taken away by Clause 52, which enacted that the costs which were incident to the litigation might be allowed at the discretion of the Judge. It might be said that, unless costs were taxed as between party and party, the solicitor might go into unnecessary expense by engaging scientific witnesses and eminent counsel with large fees. There was, however, no difficulty. In the case of any extravagance on the part of the solicitor, why should not a discretion be given to the Judge who tried the cause to say whether the items ought to be allowed? There was no one who might not be driven into Court to defend his rights. It mattered little to the solicitor, who had the client behind him to pay the costs disallowed by the taxing-master; but the general public were interested in the question, and he trusted that the Attorney General would see his way to adopt at least the principle of the Amendment.

said, he had certainly heard complaints from suitors who, after they had gained a cause, found themselves saddled with a very heavy burden of costs. The Amendment, however, was too wide, and he would suggest that the clause might be made permissive, so that the Judge would have the power, in cases where he thought it proper, to allow the costs between client and attorney.

said, he hoped the Committee would adopt the clause. As an active member of the profession to which the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Leeman) belonged, he had known the greatest injustice inflicted on litigants by the rule in force at the present time. No one would contend that fancy fees should be paid by the unsuccessful litigant; but that was very different from taxing the successful litigant with a great deal of the necessary costs he had incurred.

said, he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Mr. Jackson) would not press the clause, which, in his opinion, went too far. The Bill, as it now stood, gave the Judges a discretion in the matter of costs, and all that he thought was necessary was that in particular cases they might have the power of allowing the costs between the attorney and the client. He, for one, thought that the discretion which was now conferred upon a Judge of determining whether costs should be allowed, and in what proportion, was a salutary rule under existing circumstances. He thought the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Coventry went too far. The effect of it would be that although the Judges might think it perfectly wrong to give costs, they were yet to be told that if they did award costs to one particular party they were to be bound to award them on a particular scale, and in a particular way, instead of leaving it to the Judge's discretion. He would suggest that the Amendment should for the present be withdrawn, with a view to his hon. and learned the Attorney General considering the question in view of the arguments which had been advanced on each side, before the bringing up of the Report.

objected to the Bill being proceeded with at such an hour (6.45.) but—

said, there was a general wish to get the Bill reprinted with the Lord Advocate's Amendment, and though the Bill fell far short of the expectations and wishes entertained by his hon. Friend and himself, yet, as it was a movement in the right direction in relieving Scotland from the entail incubus which bore so heavily on their country, he (Sir George Balfour) begged of his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen to allow the clauses to be passed, withdrawing his objections; otherwise the Bill must be lost for this Session. He would also remind his hon. Friend that the Bill was introduced late in the Session on the understanding that it could only be passed if not opposed.

moved, in page 8, line 33, after "sanction," to insert—

"(3.) Bonds and dispositions in security granted in terms of this section shall set forth the rate of interest stipulated to be paid from the date of the advance until repayment, with corresponding penalties, and may be in the form, and shall have the effect and operation, and be subject to the conditions and provisions as to keeping down interest, which are mentioned in the preceding section."

rose to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, Science and Art Education in Ireland, especially as applied to manufactures and industry, and the diffusion of Technical Instruction amongst the working classes, is in an unsatisfactory and defective condition; and that it is expedient and just, and would be in accordance with promises heretofore made by Ministers of the Crown, as well as with the frequently declared desires of the Irish people, that there should be established in Dublin, under management calculated to command the confidence of the classes intended to be benefited, a National Institution of Science and Art, with a comprehensive Museum analogous in purpose to and in co-operative connection with that of South Kensington."

The hon. Gentleman said, he was sorry that a subject so unexciting as that he was bringing on came before the House at such a period—so late in the evening, and after so much fatiguing work—but that the patience of hon. Members might not be tried he would be brief. Yet he did hope, that the importance of this subject would attract to it the attention not only of the House, but of Her Majesty's Ministry, irrespective of any impatience at the statement he might make. The importance of bringing technical education to the masses of the people was well understood now, and it was very much where the subject of general education was about a genera- tion ago. Some of them could remember the time when it was considered beyond the province of the State to concern itself with the education of the people. It was quite a modern idea that the State should take that cognizance of the education of the people which we had come to take in the present day. Certainly not very long ago the utmost the State felt called upon to do in the ordinary education of the people was to help in a trifling degree the benevolent efforts which private individuals were making to advance the education of the masses of the people. In our own time, however, society had wakened up to something like a true conception of the necessity of the duty on the part of the State to concern itself with the educational requirements of the masses of the people. Twenty or 30 years ago, when he was a boy, it seemed preposterous to expect the Government to do anything for the science and art education of the people beyond granting a small sum, rarely locally applied, for the establishment of schools of design, and in doing this he thought he should be able to show to the House that the Government began very much at the wrong end. They began with the idea that the aim in encouraging art should be to develop every now and then a Maclise or a Gibson; whereas their efforts should have been directed to the advancement of the education of the masses of the people, and the science and art imparted should have had an industrial application. And he did not intend to concern himself now with science and art in the higher branches, but merely to art and science as applied to the industrial occupations of the people; and, before he spoke of Ireland, he would assert generally that in England, as well as Ireland, too little had been spent on the matter as compared to that which had been expended in other countries. And the history of English manufactures would give a proof of this assertion. Many years ago articles of English manufacture were in great request in all the markets of the world, owing to their soundness and durability; but no sooner did the element of taste begin to hold sway than the British manufacturer began to be beaten in point of design by the manufacturers on the Continent, and the Government then, as a matter of direct financial interest, and not in the way of aspiration for the development of art—the Government then 40 or 50 years ago took art and science as applied to manufacturing industry by the hand. The result was the International Exhibition of 1851, which served to show that the British workman in point of ability in design was far behind the workman of any other country in Europe or the world, and the Reports of the Committee created something like a sensation when they, in effect, declared that such was the state of things. The present Minister for War emphatically stated that English workmen were far behind those of other countries in their scientific and artistic knowledge. There was a remarkable improvement noticeable at the Exhibition of 1862 in the education of the British artizan, and still greater improvement had taken place in 1867, and progress was still being made, but whilst in England the workmen had been advancing, although they were still behind those of Belgium, France, and Bavaria, those of Ireland had remained a long way behind the artizans of England. And the Irish, it would be admitted, were a quick-witted and intelligent race, and had, he believed, proved themselves to be especially adapted for the pursuit of art and science if they got the chance. His countrymen, he was sorry to say, in emigrating carried into other countries—to America and Canada for instance—only the rude raw material of physical labour; whilst the workmen from those countries where more attention was paid to technical education carried with them a developed ability which enabled them to take the superior posts. Irishmen were almost invariably found doing the heavy work with the pick and hod, whilst the gangers and overseers were foreigners. He did, therefore, impeach, although it might seem audacious, the efficacy, and completeness, and sufficiency of the present system of education here, even for English purposes. It would not do now-a-days to set the goddess on a high pedestal, and say to those who wished to be her votaries—"Go and worship her." They must bring art to the doors of the people. In proportion as the Government had succeeded in bringing art to the homes of the people, in that proportion had it flourished. He deprecated the system of centralizing scientific and artistic institutions, where the masses of the people could not get at them; and a very moderate idea of science and art made practically useful to the people would be more valuable than an institution like the South Kensington Museum, which was too distant from the working classes to be useful to them. He would prefer to have a large number of museums throughout the country than a concentrated and magnificent collection in the suburbs of London. The Queen's Institute in Ireland was an illustration of the advantages of the system he advocated, an institute which was carried on by ladies, and which was originally intended for the purpose of enabling certain young ladies to obtain a livelihood. Painting on porcelain and designing on linen were there taught, and the manufacturers of Dublin and Belfast and elsewhere in Ireland accorded the liveliest praise to the institute for the beneficial effect it had had upon their industries. No doubt, if we could get rid of the dispute between Leinster Lawn and Kensington, there would be a solution of the difficulty so far as Ireland was concerned. Leinster Lawn was partly a private institution, and those who made use of it were not sure of their position, there being a want of clearness as to whether they obtained their admission on sufferance or as matter of right. There were a number of artistic and scientific institutions in Dublin receiving grants from Government, but they were not doing anything like the amount of good that one harmonized institution would do for science and art in the country. A number of private gentlemen in 1867 instituted the Exhibition Palace in the interests of science and art, but the affair was a failure. After that, a number of gentlemen associated themselves together for the purpose of pressing on the Government the desirability of taking that building and of establishing therein a large national museum. These gentlemen represented every shade of opinion in Ireland, and were drawn from all ranks. A deputation waited on the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Hunt) in March, 1868, and pressed their views on him, and, in reply, he said—

"My hon. and gallant Friend has said that he hoped the (Government would not be able to resist the pressure put on them, but they wanted no pressure, because he thought that Her Majesty's Ministers had taken the initiative in the matter."

They had a Conservative Ministry then, and they had a better Conservative Ministry now, and he hoped that they would realize in 1875 the splendid promises held out in 1868. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded—

"The Government proposed to give to Dublin an institution analagous to that of South Kensington, which should not be subordinate to an English establishment, but should be under Irish direction."

That reply of the right hon. Gentleman covered the whole ground; and it was impossible to exaggerate the rejoicing which it caused throughout the whole of Ireland. But soon afterwards it began to be whispered that jealousies had broken out amongst the existing bureaux as to who should be ruler, who suppressed, and who absorbed; and later on strong rumours were heard that after all nothing would be done. But hope revived when it became known that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to visit Ireland and see how matters stood for himself. He came over, and a deputation, including the late Sir Benjamin Guinness, waited on the right hon. Gentleman, and then found that the Government had wavered, and modified their promises to this extent, that they referred the matter to a Royal Commission. When this became known, he (Mr. Sullivan) said—" The bureaux will conquer, and we shall have no Museum of Science and Art in Dublin." A Commission was appointed, and if he were opposed to-night he could only be opposed by meeting him with the evidence taken before the Commission. Although the Commission was composed of men of high position in the country, yet he impeached their conduct as a grievous departure from the instructions they received from the Crown; for after perusing their instructions they say—

"Feeling that the creation of an entirely independent department of science and art would be detrimental to the study of science and art in the country, and believing that we should probably be unable to devise means to carry out your Lordship's opinions, we refer to your Lordship for instructions on the subject,"

and the Commissioners went on to ask that they might be allowed to report on some other scheme which they might devise, and not on the scheme promised to Ireland by the Government. This Commission took evidence in a spirit, if not hostile, yet adverse, to the intentions of the Government and adverse to the wishes of the Irish people; and this could be shown by the fact that the whole of the witnesses examined on the subject in Dublin, every manufacturer in Ireland, and every independent gentleman and officer gave evidence in favour of the Government proposal; and the only witnesses examined in accordance with the minds of the Commissioners were officials connected with the existing institution. All the independent witnesses said in effect—"South Kensington is a failure, so far as Ireland is concerned; you must have a comprehensive institution, federate the existing societies, place the whole under proper management, and then it will be a success." He would not weary the House by going through the evidence taken before the Commission; he contented himself with this summary, leaving to his opponents—should he have any—the task of refuting his statement. In conclusion, he implored the Government not to aggravate the present evil by delay. He led them to remember that the evil of delay was most grievous to the generation growing up, and that every seven years an apprentice's life was lost to the country. In 1868 they were promised a museum by the Government; the Report of the Commissioners advised that £40,000 or £50,000 should be spent in the erection of a new wing to the Royal Dublin Society's premises, for the purpose of a large gallery of industrial art, but up to the present nothing had been done. The hon. Baronet (Sir Arthur Guinness), complained in 1868 of the delay which had already taken place. He hoped there would be no further delay; the question of a site need not embarrass them. He did not care where the new institution was built, and until it was built the Exhibition Palace might be utilized for the purpose. The Government having broken faith with the Irish public upon this subject, the hon. Baronet the senior Member for the City of Dublin (Sir Arthur Guinness) stepped in and with his own purse he had maintained for two years the expenses of an exhibition of industrial art in that city, and he (Mr. Sullivan) had brought forward this subject out of justice to him, and for the purpose of saying what he thought ought to be said. Earl Spencer had on many occasions deplored the non-existence of such an institution in Dublin, and expressed his hope and belief that the Government to which he belonged would have established one, and he (Mr. Sullivan) hoped and trusted that Earl Spencer's farewell words in advocating its establishment would be realized by the present Government. He also expressed his belief that its accomplishment would not be more heartily welcomed by any one in Ireland than by the present popular nobleman who filled the office of Viceroy of that country.

seconded the Motion, and said that, in the main, he agreed with what had been stated by the hon. Member for Louth. There could be no doubt that the necessity for this art museum and the improvement of art existed in Ireland, for it had been proved over and over again, and admitted by successive Governments and every great authority on that subject. It was no doubt much easier to admit the necessity than to carry out a scheme to place Irish art education in the position in which it should be placed. In 1867 a deputation, of which he was a member, waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the hon. Member for Louth had described, and the result was the appointment of a Royal Commission, which reported in 1869. In 1870, 1871, and 1872, the matter was brought before the Government in Dublin and elsewhere by various societies, and by himself, but nothing was done. In 1870 Lord Spencer admitted the want of a museum of ornamental art for Ireland, and expressed his wish to see one built; and in 1873 Lord Spencer spoke as conveying to his successor the task of carrying it out. In 1874 he (Sir Arthur Guinness), brought the question before the present Government by a Question in the House of Commons. It was received in the kindest way by the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, who promised that the attention of the Government should be directed to it during the Recess. This year he placed a Notice on the Paper to again call attention to the subject, but he postponed it at the request of the Chief Secretary, who, on the part of the Government, stated that it was under the consideration of the Government, and promised that a favourable answer would be given later in the Session. The hon. Member for Louth had taken up the question on independent grounds, and this would show the House that the desire for a museum of industrial art and science existed on both sides of the House, amongst every class and every shade of political opinion. It was quite true that a direction was given to the Commission to report on the founding of a department of science and art in Ireland independent of South Kensington; but he could hardly think, considering the character of the Gentlemen who formed the Commission, and among whom were the Marquess of Kildare (Chairman), Mr. George Alexander Hamilton, Professor Huxley, and Dr. Russell, President of Maynooth, that they deserved the strictures which had been passed upon them by the hon. Member for Louth, because they were obliged, from the evidence, to report against an independent department. He thought that the Commissioners were capable of forming the clearest judgment. But the Report of the Commission clearly showed that the Commissioners considered the Commission would be useless unless the scope of their inquiry was widened. With respect to the subject of the Royal Dublin Society, which had been alluded to, he had the honour of being a member of the Council of that society, and he could not agree with the view which the hon. Member for Louth had taken with regard to it. The hon. Member for Louth had called it a private public society. That, perhaps, was true in fact: but he believed it would be more true to say, with respect to the practice of the society, that it was a public more than a private society because the public interest always came first. The Royal Dublin Society was an old, noble, and useful institution, but he was not there to give the society all it asked for. However, he thought the Report of the Commission was clear enough to solve part of the difficulty, and the rest of the matter might safely be left in the hands of the Government.

supported the Motion. He apologized, being an Englishman, for venturing to take part in a discussion which so many Irishmen present must necessarily understand far better than himself. He thought that in this case injustice had been done to art and science in Ireland. He was exceedingly pleased at the moderate way in which the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) had brought the subject before the House; but, at the same time, he could not quite agree with the view which the hon. Member took of the Commission. He had carefully read the evidence taken before that Commission, and its Report, with which he cordially agreed, and it was clearly to the effect that it was not advisable to have a separate department of science and art for Ireland. He trusted, however, that Her Majesty's Government would give their favourable consideration to the proposal to establish a school of decorative art in Dublin on a far more extensive scale than at present. One of the recommendations of the Commission was that the School of Art which had been so well conducted by the Royal Dublin Society should be turned into a State school and supported by Imperial funds; and he agreed with the hen. Member for Louth in thinking that the people of Ireland had reason to complain that nothing had yet been done towards carrying out that recommendation. With regard to the grants and payments made to Ireland, there was no doubt, comparing them with the grants made to England and Scotland, that they were infinitesimal. What was wanted with respect to Ireland was to encourage a love of art and science amongst the humbler classes, and that could only be done by establishing a science and art institution in that country; because the humbler classes could not afford to come over to England to study from the beautiful models which were exhibited at South Kensington. It might be asked why he took an interest in this matter; but they must always feel an interest in a country which they felt was behind them in civilization; and as Ireland in the past had suffered wrong at their hands, this presented a favourable opportunity for conciliating the Irish people. They were a people who possessed many virtues and great capacities, and he would say on this occasion—

"Be to their faults a little blind,

Be to their virtues very kind."

expressed his most earnest hope that Her Majesty's Government would give a favourable consideration to the very moderate, reasonable, and wise demand which had been made from the other side of the House. Whenever reasonable and moderate demands came from Ireland, English Members on that side of the House always felt the greatest pleasure in supporting it. He would not enter into the disputed question of the utility of South Kensington Museum; but he would say this—that if a little South Kensington in Dublin would be the means of bringing to industrious and' clever people in Ireland an opportunity of studying art and manufacture, its establishment ought not to be resisted. It was well-known how remarkably successful the Irish were in competitive examinations in England, and it might be of great service to their industries to afford them in their own country, in the manner proposed, an opportunity of entering into competition among themselves. He hoped the Government would be able to see their way to accede to the Motion which had been made.

said, that being neither an Irishman nor an Englishman, he might be excused if he said a few words. He had a considerable number of Irish people in his employment during the last 20 years, and they always seemed to him to be suitable for something better than what they were doing. They were very witty, ready, and faithful; and he felt that if they had a little more assistance to enable them to study art and science they would become a very happy and useful people. It always seemed to him that Ireland was like a child which they were responsible for, and ought to educate in every possible way. If this Motion came to a vote he should certainly support it, and, if necessary, he should give the Irish people some of his money. With the greatest respect, he said, if the Irish people were better educated, of course they would be better satisfied than they now were. A good many of those in his employ could neither read nor write, but the best workman he ever had was an Irishman, who on one occasion had broken down a strike, and ever since he had had a great respect for the Irish people. No doubt the Irish people were a peculiar people for accumulating, and they were therefore obliged to emigrate. He hoped the Government, feeling their responsibility, would do something to educate them.

said, he thought that the hon. Member who had brought forward this Motion must be very well satisfied with the general expression of opinion which had been manifested throughout the House in favour of his proposition, and he could assure him that the feeling which had been so well expressed by both English and Welsh Members was cordially reciprocated by Her Majesty's Government. They, however, looked upon the question not exactly in the light of the hon. Member who had last spoken. They did not consider they ought to look upon Ireland in the relation with which a father regarded his child, but that they ought rather to treat Ireland as an important integral part of the United Kingdom. He could not help feeling that what was good for Ireland must be good for the rest of the Empire; and he ventured to hope that they might be permitted to look upon the question in a broad and liberal spirit, not treating it as an Irish, but as a national, question. Some indication had been given that because this demand was made it ought to be granted, simply because the Irish people asked for it, and without considering whether it was the best thing they could do for them or not. He however, ventured to say that this was scarcely a respectful way of treating the Irish people in this matter. They ought rather to look upon it in the spirit in which they would regard a similar demand put forward by any other part of the United Kingdom. He believed that if the House would look at it in that way they would be brought to a conclusion which would tally with the conclusion of the hon. Member for Louth, but in a still greater degree with the views of the hon. Member for Dublin (Sir Arthur Guinness), although somewhat differing from either. He did not like to say much about himself; but he must observe that he took a peculiar interest in this question. The hon. Member for Louth had reminded the House that this question of art education was attracting more and more interest in the United Kingdom. That was perfectly true, and he might venture to remark that for a very long time he had in some way or other taken an active part in the matter. In the early part of his official life he took an interest in the School of Design, about which the hon. Member had spoken; he was also interested in the Great Exhibition which had been alluded to, and it was also his privilege, during the period of his administration at the Board of Trade, to have assisted in establishing the Science and Art Department which was afterwards formed. He had also had some experience of schools of art in the country, and he was altogether confirmed in his views of the importance and advantages of the question. The hon. Member, in speaking of South Kensington, had treated it too much as an English institution, and as one which was not of very great utility to Ireland. In commenting on the Report of the Committee of which Lord Kildare was Chairman, the hon. Member had spoken in depreciatory language of the official evidence that had been taken before it. But the officials in question had been very zealous and patient in the matter, and had done their best not to magnify the merits of this or that institution, but to do all they could for the general interests of the country. He was, however, quite prepared to say that he did not think they had yet attained to a really proper system. He believed there was room for a great deal more exertion and assistance on the part of the State for the promotion of education in science and art; and, more than that, he believed that a great deal of the assistance which was given might be given more satisfactorily. There was a waste of power and a waste of money; but, notwithstanding this, great advances had been made, and he believed the system was one which had real life in it, and which might be easily developed until it met the educational wants of the country. He would draw the attention of the hon. Member for Louth to this fact—that they had to distinguish between two functions at South Kensington—namely, the functions of a museum and those of a great art school, and they ought to consider how far the good it did was capable of being broken up into separate South Kensingtons in different parts of the country. With regard to the system of teaching, he thought it would be a great misfortune if we were to break up the general principles on which the system of teaching was founded. A great deal would be sacrificed if we threw up the advantages of the school of art at South Kensington as the centre and mother of all other art schools in the country. There was one great advantage which took place from what occurred in 1851. Before that time there were schools of art in the different seats of manufacture—in Manchester, Birmingham, Dublin, Belfast, and Cork—but it was not until we were able to bring them under one system, of which South Kensington was made the focus, that we gave the impulse the right direction. He thought it would be a great pity to sacrifice the advantages arising from the centre of South Kensington; but he believed that a great deal more might be done to improve the various branch schools throughout the country, and that that object ought to be kept in view. He did not know much of the practical working of the system, but the President and Vice President of the Council were thoroughly impressed with the importance of making South Kensington collect into a focus for diffusing throughout the country art education. Beyond the question of education there was another, and that was what was to be done with the art museum? We had a magnificent collection, unparelleled in the world, but the mere accumulation of these treasures at South Kensington was far short of what the country required, and it was desirable that not alone in Ireland, but in various other parts of Great Britain, different neighbourhoods and localities should have collections of their own. It was a great object that we should have efficient and adequate museums in some of our principal seats of industry in this country, and also in Ireland, and that South Kensington should be brought into relation with these museums with the view of assisting them by a proper system of loans of the articles which were possessed in London. He thought the Imperial Government and Treasury might assist these local museums, especially if they were met with that munificence which characterized many of our great seats of industry, as well as Dublin and other parts of Ireland. It would be one of the objects of the Government to endeavour to meet in a liberal spirit exertions of that kind. He entirely agreed with the sentiments expressed by many speakers that there was amongst the Irish people an aptitude for art, which it was the duty and interest of the Government to encourage. He remembered that in the school in Cork there were casts by Foley which were distinguished almost above those of any school of design established in any part of the Kingdom; and; from what he had heard of the students who came from Ireland, he was convinced that they were able to hold their own in competition with those from any other part of the Kingdom. The artistic genius of Irishmen was not a thing of the past, but of the present also; and this natural genius ought to be developed and encouraged. He did not think the hon. Member for South "Warwickshire (Sir Eardley Wilmot) was quite correct when he spoke of the amount given to Ireland being so infinitesimally small as compared with that given to other parts of the United Kingdom. A Return moved for by the hon. Member for Durham showed the sums derived from Parliamentary grants expended in each year since 1852 for science and art in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively; and, taken according to the population, the apportionment seemed to be very fair for each part of the Kingdom. At the same time, he thought the money spent in Ireland might be somewhat augmented, and that its administration might be improved. There was a good deal of waste in the way in which these funds were distributed amongst the different institutions in Dublin, and he thought it would be an object to endeavour to bring about something in the nature of a more central museum, and perhaps the lines which were laid down in the Report of Lord Kildare's Commission were those which it might be well to follow. This was a subject which was now engaging the attention of the Government, and which they were most anxious to entertain, and he could promise the hon. Member for Louth, and the House generally, that it should not be for want of examination on the part of the Government during the approaching Recess if they did not arrive at some satisfactory step in regard to this matter. He thought they might be able to devise some plan by which they might be able to meet what he admitted was a very legitimate desire. In saying this, he wished to guard himself from indicating that they would in any sense break up the great central institution at South Kensington, or ignore the advantages to be gained by having a properly centralized system. The great problem was to harmonize, as far as possible, central assistance with local agency and local administration. He hoped the hon. Member would be satisfied with the assurance which he could give him on the part of the Government. He was speaking quite in earnest in saying that they would take this matter up seriously and deal with it without unnecessary delay; but he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not pledge them to any particular scheme such as that embodied in his Motion.

regretted that no Member on the front Opposition bench had risen to state why Lord Kildare's Report of 1868 had remained so long in abeyance. He thought the plan which the right hon. Gentleman had shadowed forth was much more likely to meet the approbation of the people of Ireland generally than the plan submitted by the hen. Member for Louth. He thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his full and encouraging statement.

observed that the late Government had been anxious to do something in the direction which had been pointed out, but the large measures in which they had been engaged had prevented them from carrying their wishes into effect. They had left the ground clear for the present Government to deal with museums and matters of art.

observed, that centralization in art had the same effect as centralization in education, and he was convinced that it was destructive to all excellence. The houses in Dublin, the residences of noblemen and gentlemen before the Union, which were now appropriated to Government and educational institutions exhibited, both externally and internally, a style and character of architecture which contrasted favourably with buildings of the same class in this country. There was a distinct school of plastic art, and the decorated ceilings were far superior to similar works in England. What was wanted in Ireland was a system of federation of the schools of art in Dublin, and he believed that the removal from them of the shackles which existed would do more good for them than any other process. He urged the House not to dwarf art education in Ireland by centralizing everything at South Kensington. For his part, he should like to see a national school of art established in Scotland and a national school in Ireland, and would allow them to compete with each other.

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had misconceived his object. He had never contemplated that South Kensington should be broken up, or that a kindred institution should be established at Dublin having no connection with South Kensington. But while he accepted the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as being satisfactory on the whole, he warned him not to attempt to go too far in the direction of centralization. He would withdraw his Motion on the understanding that the Government would, as they had promised, take up the whole subject at the earliest possible period.

said, he was not able to join in the feeling of satisfaction which had been expressed in reference to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At the same time, he could not help hoping that the wishes of the supporters of the views entertained by the hon. Member for Louth would be realized.

, in rising to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that Returns of crime and punishment in the Navy should be annually presented to Parliament,"

said: It will be in the memory of those hon. Members who take a more especial interest in the well-being of great naval establishment, that some 10 years ago the Government of that day established a series of annual Reports upon the condition of crime and punishment in the Navy. These Reports were of the most complete and useful kind. They showed to this House the entire condition and progress of the discipline and morals of the Navy; they showed station by station, and ship by ship, the condition of the men and of the officers. These Returns have now been stopped for several years. When, a few weeks ago, I called the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Hunt) to the cessation of these Reports, and asked if he would not cause them to be resumed, he gave me a reply which I have reason to know excited considerable disappointment among some of the best friends of our Naval establishment, and the reasons he gave excited no less surprise than the refusal excited disappointment, because he said—

"The expense of preparing the Reports was very great, and the advantage to be derived from them was not so considerable as to induce him to continue them."—[3 Hansard, ccxxiii. 1509.]

I hardly know how to deal with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that these Reports are so expensive. Of course, the expense he means is the expense of collection, not the mere cost of presentation to this House. I am sure he will not tell this House that these Returns are not made regularly to him as First Lord of the Admiralty. I have taken some time to ascertain in the proper quarters what would be the cost of collecting and abstracting the information that I think is required, and I have been assured that a clerk power, costing £200 a-year, would be amply sufficient for the purpose. That is without the cost of printing and presenting the Return to the House; but, whatever should be the expense, I would venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Admiralty it would be one well worth incurring by the publicity obtained, and the means given to hon. Members of this House who take an interest in our Naval establishment to ascertain what is going on. I am quite sure that any amount would be worth expending. We expend £10,000,000 yearly in caring for the welfare and strength of our Navy, and cannot we afford a few hundreds or a few thousands in order to procure that means of testing what we are doing, which we insist upon, and wisely insist upon, in every other Department of the State? I was much struck with a statement made by Captain Wilson, E. N., in a paper he read at the beginning of this month at the Royal United Service Institution, on "The Seamen of the Fleet." He told us that in the three years from 1871 to 1874 there were 18,683 sailors, blue-jackets, and the waste upon them was from 11·5 to 14 per cent. Of this number desertions in 1871 were 709, and this offence was increasing, for in 1873–4 the numbers were 835, and for 1874–5 they were nearer 1,000 than 800. He added that in his estimation the cost of each man before he was trained to the Naval Service was £300 or £400, and that the country thus expended in making men able-bodied seamen from £200,000 to £300,000 per annum. I think from this it will appear that no question of expense should stand in the way of the fullest information being given to the House of the condition of the Navy. If there were but two or three harshly treated men, and the influence of public opinion might have prevented their receiving that harsh treatment, these Returns would have been worth having. This country has always taken the greatest amount of interest in the condition of the Navy. Not many years ago there was a great outburst of indignation in the country at the flogging which went on in the Army and Navy, and the Government promised a great deal. The matter was amended to a certain extent; but I am afraid the House is not aware of the extent to which it still goes on, as shown by one of the Returns I am alluding to. Lord Clarence Paget, in the discussion in 1860 of the Naval Discipline Act—and I need not tell the House that it is upon this Act that these punishments rest—said—

"I cannot resist the pleasure of reading to the House certain statistics with regard to corporal punishment which I have been at some trouble to procure, as they show that year by year this degrading punishment is decreasing in a steady ratio, and it is gradually dying out of the Service. I am positive that the necessity for its continuance will even more rapidly diminish if the House will continue, as it has hitherto done, to support the Government in its efforts for the maintenance of discipline, and for the improvement of the service by the training of a large number of boys, who, having entered at an early age, become attached to the Service, and in the great majority of instances turn out skilful and valuable seamen."—[3 Hansard, clx. 1655.]

There has been, I need not say, a vast improvement in our seamen, through good management and care. I am informed that at the present day there is hardly a man in the Naval Service who cannot read and write, and that the old Jack-tar, with his rough, loose, dissipated, not to say debauched, habits on shore, is an extinct animal. Instead of him we have a body of as well-conducted men as any class of Her Majesty's subjects, and the more this is true the more the shame that we still allow to hang over them a system of punishment by flogging which is now almost abolished in the Army, and which, until lately, had been entirely abolished in the Civil Service. Ours is the last Service in the world where it is retained. The Dutch gave it up 10 years ago. But, Sir, the parallel is still stronger in regard to our mail steamers. There they have some hundreds of men, with an amount of responsibility in regard to mails and passengers which cannot be exceeded even by our war ships, and yet there, I need not say, the lash is unknown. Now, Sir, this is not, and should not be in any sense, a Party question. Every individual in this House, no matter what his political views, has the deepest and strongest interest in the good management, welfare, and strength of our Naval Forces. Still, it is impossible to forget, although I would not lay too much stress upon it, that a Liberal Government established these Returns; that it is a Conservative Government which has cut them off; and that it is a Conservative Government which has refused up to this time to allow them to be published. Yet I think the House will acknowledge, when I mention names, that they were able men who first laid these Returns on the Table of the House, and men who were not likely to introduce a system which would not be useful. The Duke of Somerset was First Lord of the Admiralty. Sir Frederick Grey, the House will acknowledge to be one of the best officers in the Service, a strict disciplinarian, and a wise administrator; while Lord Clarence Paget represented the Admiralty in this House. In 1865, in introducing these Returns, he said—

"We intend to lay on the Table of the House annually a report of the crime and punishments which take place in the Navy. There is an old French proverb to the effect that 'Dirty linen should be washed at home, but I think it desirable that the real state of the case should be submitted to Parliament.…These Returns are of such interest, as exhibiting the progress hat is going on in the Service, that the Committee will, perhaps, permit me to quote a few figures."—[3 Hansard, clxxvii.]

Now, Sir, that I think was a wise statesmanlike statement. The House would learn in this manner the exact state of the Navy, and the amount of success which had attended the efforts of the Government for the improvement of the men. I am sorry to say a different spirit prevails now. As was said by The United Service Gazette, in May of this year—

"In all matters connected with the Navy, more especially in regard to its interior economy, there is too evident a desire to keep the public in the dark. It would he hotter for the Service if the country knew more about its system of administration. Judging from the tone of the replies too often made in the House of Commons, to Members who venture to put Questions affecting the Navy, it would almost appear that such questions were deemed as an impertinent interference."

These Returns were suddenly stopped in 1867 by Sir John Pakington, now Lord Hampton, who was then at the head of the Navy, and the only ground that was alleged for such a step was that they were offensive to certain commanding officers. The House will well understand that the publication of these Reports would be offensive to certain commanders; but the fact that they were so should make those who have the real good of the Navy at heart all the more desirous that they should be retained. The officers who do not like them would not be those who are attached to the Service and care for their men, who maintain discipline and yet retain their men's affection and respect. Nor would it even be the rigid disciplinarians, because they have the respect of their men, It would be just those careless officers such as will ever creep into the best service, who alternate a gross laxity of discipline with a disgraceful severity of punishment. The journal from which I have already quoted says, in the same article—

"It may not he agreeable for some captains to see the results of the discipline carried out on hoard the ships under their command made public, but the good officer would have nothing to he ashamed of. The suppression of statistics formerly made was due to the interest certain captains had at the Admiralty, who objected to the notoriously discreditable condition of their crews being annually made a reflection on themselves, although in some instances it was richly deserved."

Some people treat this subject as though one crew were composed of good men and another of bad, and as though it were a great hardship to expose the one or the other, as though they had anything to do with the discipline or management of their ships. But I think I can show by quoting the best authorities on the subject that the condition of a ship depends far more upon the officers in command than upon the character of the men sent to the vessel. Lord Hardwicke, speaking in the debate on the Naval Discipline Act, in 1860, said—

"He was of opinion that the discipline of the Navy was equally, if not more, dependent on the character and conduct of the officers in command than upon the code of laws under which they acted."—[3 Hansard, clix. 1614.]

This was also the view taken by Commodore Wilmot, commanding the African squadron, who said—

"I have remarked to the commander on the increase of minor punishments, and suggested a greater amount of supervision amongst officers and others appointed to superintend and control the men. I am quite certain that one-half of the minor punishments need never have been inflicted if a proper vigilance had been exercised by the officers."

That appears in the Report of 1863. Now, Sir, we have continual Returns of the effect of civil punishment, and upon that are founded our laws, the alterations that are made, and the estimates of the advantage which result. But this is far more necessary in regard to our Naval Service than if is in regard to our Civil Service. Our Navy discipline is still of the most tremendous and Draconian severity. It includes every punishment from a simple reprimand, and the discretion vested in the officer is of the most absolute description. Simple larcency may be punished by imprisonment for life; 17 offences are punished by death; for penal servitude there is no limit. Thus, while under a good officer, a ship may be a republic or a happy paternal government, as the case may be, it is in the power of a tyrannical commander to make his ship a very hell. Nor is there anyone to report these punishments or to call attention to them. Abroad there is no press dealing with these matters, and it must be remembered that by the Naval Discipline Act it is not merely naval crimes that are dealt with. The 46th section of the Act says—

"If he shall he guilty of any other criminal offence which, if committed in England would be punishable by the law of England—he shall, whether the offence he or he not committed in England—be punished either in pursuance of this Act as for an Act to the prejudice of good order and naval discipline not otherwise specified, or the offender shall he subjected to the same punishment as which for the time being would be awarded by any criminal tribunal competent to try the offender if the offence had been committed in England."

That is, that any crime is to be so punished—whether it be connected with discipline or not. The Act of 1661, which was in force until this Act was passed, was strictly confined to naval offences, murder, and robbery. The result of this is that our naval officers, who are not trained lawyers, and usually know very little about law, have to decide a number of cases, not as in the Army with the assistance of a Judge Advocate General, but by themselves, and as a consequence men are, for instance, often illegally flogged.

resumed: The result, as shown by the statistics published in 1862, 1863, and 1864, was certainly not one to make us satisfied with the condition of the Navy. In 1863, out of a force of 49,463, the total crimes and offences were 106,703, or considerably more than two per head of the whole force. Of these there were for mutiny, 15; insubordination, 7,873; theft, 620; drunkenness, 10,142; absence without leave, 41,860; minor offences, 48, 552; desertion, 1,570. The punishments were—penal servitude, 10; discharged with disgrace, 85; flogged, 752; imprisoned, 1,625; confined in cells, 2,100; and so on, the minor punishments being, 99,980. In three years, 1862, 1863, 1864, 2,341 men were flogged with 79,815 lashes. There were also great diversities in punishment. In the Channel Squadron, in 1863, the punishment for insubordination varied in the different ships from 10 to 25 per cent; drunkenness, 13 to 45 per cent; leave breaking, 126 to 207 per cent; minor offences, 58 to 259 per cent. Again, on the Australian station, the punishment in the different ships varied, for insubordination, from 13 to 40 per cent; drunkenness, 11 to 40 per cent; minor offences, 56 to 325 per cent. Many ships were honourably distinguished by having had no flogging on board during the year, while on one ship 20 per cent of the whole crew were flogged in one year. We take the most elaborate pains to get trustworthy health Returns from the Navy, and it surely is a most essential part of those Returns that we should get also a Report of the state of crime and punishment. Where there is least crime and punishment, there we shall also find the least sickness; or, in the rough words of the sailors themselves—" A big black list makes a big sick list." I cannot tell what reason the right hon. Gentleman will give if he still refuses these Returns. I can only judge by the arguments used out-of-doors and in the Press. An argument appears in an evening supporter of the Government which has all the appearance of being a semi-official account, for it first misstates the question at issue, and then proposes an utterly ineffective remedy. The Globe states—

"That the number of punishments on board a ship should be the sole guide in deciding its position amongst others in respect to good order and discipline, was manifestly unjust. One ship employed on a station where labour is scarce and wages high, such as the Australian or Pacific, is likely enough to have far more cases of desertion and the grave offences against discipline, committed with the object of obtaining dismissal from the service, than half-a-dozen vessels stationed whore no inducement for leaving the Navy is offered, and where the attractions of the shore do not induce leave-breaking, such as the African coasts. Then, again, in the Channel, where men are granted leave at the home ports, and fall in with old associates, there is always a large amount of leave-breaking."

Precisely. But the excellence of the Return consisted in that it did not compare ships on the different stations, but ships on the same station, where exactly the same external conditions prevailed. The writer goes on—

"If it can be shown that these statistical Re-ports were of any actual value, as a whole, we would suggest that the personal element should be eliminated, and that the stations should be dealt with rather than individual ships."

If this were done it would be manifestly impossible for the House to judge which commanders dealt best with their seamen. The writer goes on—

"For one captain to be periodically stigmatized owing to the misconduct of his crew, to check which he has used his utmost endeavours,"

as if this misconduct did not result mainly from his own mismanagement,

"while another possibly in command of a ship not so well disciplined, but whose views is not subject to the same temptation, gains undeserved praise, is obviously unjust. Indeed, it is a positive invitation to commanding officers to allow minor offences to pass unheeded, rather than record them in the punishment returns of their ship."

This last sentence appeared to me to contain a charge so serious against officers of the Navy, that I made special application to a man who knows as much of the Navy as any man in the country, whose name would make his opinion well worth having, were not his reasons sufficient proof of what he says—

"To this I would reply that a graver slander could not be uttered against the officers of the Navy. I am confident that they are incapable of any such contemptible trickery. But if amongst this honourable body of men there should be any mean enough to resort to this low expedient to ingratiate themselves with the Admiralty, would it avail them anything F Certainly not. Each ship is minutely inspected twice a year by the Admiralty, and she is constantly or repeatedly under his personal notice. If her commander tampered with crime she—the ship—would necessarily be in bad discipline and the Report to that effect from the Admiral would be more damaging to the commander in a service point of view, than an inordinate list of crimes and punishments."

Now, Sir, I have said that this is no Party question. I will venture to make an appeal to Government in this sense. As a Radical, I regarded their accession to office without any dissatisfaction. I thought we were as likely to get good measures from them as from their opponents, while I was certain opposition would be good for our own Leaders. But if we are not to have measures of organic reform upon questions of the greatest social interest, and if we are to have retrograde legislation, if we are to have new flogging Bills for civilians, and these essential Returns refused that Liberals never denied, then I shall begin to wish to see a Liberal Government on those benches. I do not wish to say a word of antagonism to any portion of the Navy. There is a general feeling among us, whatever our politics of traditional respect and liking for our great naval establishment. I am no friend to extravagance or to standing armies; but I have always said I would have our Navy not only powerful, but predominantly powerful. But we do require, when we spend the money of the taxpayers, to know that it is well disposed of, that the men are in effective condi- tion, and that the men are well treated and contented, which the list of desertions seems to show is not the case. I will venture, in conclusion, to adopt the words used by the Lord Chancellor of England, in 1661—

"Here I am, by the King's special command, to commend the poor Seamen to you.… They are a people very worthy of your particular care and cherishing; upon whose courage and fidelity very much of the happiness and honour and security of the nation depends."—[parl. History, vol. iv. 183.]

The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.

seconded the Motion.

said, he could not recommend the House to accede to that Motion. It was in 1866 that the Returns were ordered to be discontinued; and the Naval officers of the Board of Admiralty of that day were unanimously of opinion that their production had been unfavourable to the discipline of the Navy. They could not be valuable unless they showed what were the qualities of the officers in command, as well as the amount of crime and of punishment, and that was not the case. On certain stations the temptations to desertion were very great, and therefore it must be expected that the statistics of crime and punishment on such stations would be considerably higher than on those where the same temptations to desertion or smaller offences did not exist. Again, when those Returns were presented to the House, after the careful analysis that was made of all the different punishments inflicted, and of the number which each ship had to show, it was found that the officers in command were in the habit of studying the Returns, and that great pressure was put upon them to keep the figures as low as possible in their ships. The consequence was, that they were much tempted not to inflict punishments when they were fairly due, for fear their ship should exhibit a larger average than some others with which they might be compared. In fact, in some ships the officers were so coerced, if he might so say, by the statistics as they were produced that orders were given that the punishments should be only so many in a week. The hon. Member, while admitting that certain stations were likely to produce more crime than other stations, said there could not be any such difference between ships of the same squadron on the same station. But, surely, it might happen from the accident of two or three bad characters being on board a particular ship that the punishments for minor offences would amount to a very large number in comparison with those on the other vessels in the same squadron; and a false impression would perhaps be produced with regard, it might be, to the conduct of a most humane and discreet commanding officer if that comparison was carelessly made. He thought the predecessors of the present Board of Admiralty had acted wisely in determining not to produce those Returns.

said, the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had, on a previous occasion, given as a reason for not producing the Returns that they were too extensive, and not worth printing. It now appeared the reason was that the publication would be prejudicial to the discipline of the Service. If that was correct it would be a sufficient answer to the Motion; but he was not aware that the publication had been prejudicial during the three years the Returns had been issued, and if they were seen at the Admiralty, he did not think it would make much difference if they were seen by the public. At all events, they might, without harm, be published, showing the facts squadron by squadron, if not ship by ship, and he believed they would prove to the country that even within the last 10 or 12 years there had been a great improvement in the condition of our seamen.

said, he was surprised that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken should be in favour of publishing these Returns, seeing that when he was at the Admiralty they were never given.

The question was never raised in my time either in the House or at the Admiralty.

But if the question were so important it could have been raised by the Admiralty. He thought the hon. Member had failed to see that there was a very great distinction between publishing the Returns and merely sending them to the Admiralty. The objection to publication was that false impressions might be produced on the mind of the public with regard to the conduct of officers, for the public could not have the information which the Admiralty possessed as to the circumstances of the different ships, the character of the officers, and the peculiarities of the different stations.

said, he thought that this was a great constitutional question, and he could not understand why the Government should refuse the Returns. Unless they knew what were the punishments inflicted they could not form a correct opinion of the state of the Navy, and for this reason he should support the Motion.

said, that they had full Returns as to crime in the Army, and he could not see why there should not be similar Returns for the Navy. He believed that it would be for the good of the Navy that the Returns should be published.

moved, that a Select Committee be appointed—

"To inquire and report to the House as to the residence in this country, in contravention of the Act of 10 Geo. 4, of any persons being members of the Order of Jesus, commonly called Jesuits, and as to the names, present residence, and ostensible occupation of such persons; also as to the amount and nature of any property vested in or at the disposal of such persons for the purpose of promoting the objects of such Society or Order; and, so far as may be practicable, to inquire and report as to the doctrine, discipline, canons, laws, or usages under which such Order is constituted, and by which it is directed and controlled."

The course proposed by that Motion was, in his judgment, the only way in which the object he proposed could be attained; and he would only ask possible opponents whether any more fair tribunal could be nominated than that of a Select Committee of that House? Every country in Europe had found it necessary to expel the members of this Society, and there was a widespread feeling in this country upon the subject. On a recent occasion the Vote for the Royal Con- stabulary in Ireland, amounting to £1,500,000 a-year, was suspended, and even yet we could not maintain the peace in Ireland. Notwithstanding that, the Prime Minister had had the effrontery to advise the German Ambassador to go to Ireland and see what a happy and contented people we were. He would appeal to the hon. Member for Wexford, the leader of the Jesuits in this country, to corroborate what he had now stated.

I beg to state that I do not represent the Jesuits in this country, directly or indirectly.

He hoped the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) would follow him. It was not many weeks since the hon. Member was understood to say in the columns of a public journal with which he was connected—The St. James's Chronicle—that his (Mr. Whalley's) Protestantism and his sincerity were seriously open to suspicion, in consequence of his intimacy and the intercourse that passed between the hon. Member for Wexford and himself. Another reason he had for bringing this question forward was his belief, founded upon knowledge which he was not at present in a position to lay before the House, that the Jesuits were mainly instrumental in promoting the disputes which the working classes had chosen to commence with their employers. The Press also had been dragged, step by step, into the Jesuit interest—whether for money or not he could not tell—and reliance could not be placed upon these ordinary channels for trustworthy information. What, he asked, was the state of Ireland now? It was this—that the large police force of the country not being able to keep the peace there, the Government were obliged to keep a large military force there, all owing to the intriguing policy of the Jesuits. He merely asked for a Committee of this House to inquire into the question, and if granted he would lay such a body of evidence from all parts of England and Wales before it—evidence of half a million of people—in reference to recent legal proceedings—to that great national scandal—a scandal in the eyes of all Europe—["Order, order!"]

informed the hon. Gentleman that he was speaking upon a a Question altogether irrevelant to his Motion which he had placed upon the Paper.

pleaded that the indulgence of the House had tempted him to digress. With regard to the Jesuits, he assured the House that he was not prejudging the case; and the question was whether they were to allow those "pirates," those "black pirates," to remain in this country.—["Order, order!"] Those Jesuits were coming by hundreds, nay, more, by thousands, into this country and making it a basis for their operations; and Germany, sensible of it, had given the warning; but if ever there was an occasion more than another for the extirpation of those nests of hornets—those Jesuits—it was the present. ["Order!"] What had been the effect of the Catholic Emancipation Act? They were glad to see Roman Catholics amongst them; but those Jesuits were pursuing a course of proselytism; and in fact, it was as Cardinal Manning told them it would be. He was disappointed that the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) was not present to support him. He did not expect that the inquiry could take place and be completed this Session; but if the Committee was appointed there would be ample opportunity next year for continuing it, and he therefore moved the Resolution which he had placed upon the Paper.