asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he intends to introduce a Road Bill for Scotland this Session?

in reply, said, that it was the intention of the Lord Advocate to introduce such a Bill as early as it was convenient to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true, as stated in the legal journals, that Her Majesty's Judges have passed a resolution to the effect that reporters shall not be admitted to hear and report the decisions upon the matters disposed of at the Judges Chambers in Serjeants' Inn; whether any reason has been assigned for that proceeding; and, whether the Government will take any steps in the matter to prevent the exclusion of reporters from the Judges Chambers?

in reply, said, that having consulted the learned Judges on the subject referred to in the hon. and learned Gentleman's Question, he had received a letter from Mr. Justice Lush, in answer to his inquiry, to this effect—That it was a matter of common knowledge with the profession that the rooms in which Judges sat in Serjeants' Inn were not, and never had been, open to the public. There was no accommodation in them, and none could be provided there, for the reporters; but it was quite true that in the early part of November, when the Judicature Act first came into operation, an application was made to Mr. Justice Lush, as the Judge then sitting in Chambers, to allow a reporter to attend in order to furnish for one of the law papers notes of the decisions under the new Act. Mr. Justice Lush went on to say that he thought the occasion was so exceptional, and that the publication of the early cases upon points of practice would be so beneficial to the profession, as to justify him in departing from the established usage for the time; and some arrangements were made for one gentleman of the Press to be admitted, on condition that he supplied others with the reports. The arrangement was considered as temporary and exceptional, and not to be taken as a precedent for the future. At a meeting of the Judges, which had been recently held, it was considered that the Judicature Act had been long enough in operation to make any further reports unnecessary, and they therefore reverted to the original practice. The matter was one entirely in the discretion of the learned Judges, and in which he could not interfere.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, having regard to the increased and increasing burdens imposed upon jurymen by the Judicature Acts, Her Majesty's Government intend to introduce a measure this Session for the amendment of the jury system; and, whether such measure will contain the provisions of a Bill introduced in the Session of 1874, which passed through Committee, and was approved of by this House?

in reply, said, a Bill had been prepared by Her Majesty's Government, and would be introduced as soon as possible, having due regard to the state of Public Business and the prospects of its passing into law. It would contain the principal provisions of the Bill introduced in 1874.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether his attention has been directed to the following case, which was heard at the Greenwich Police Court on the 8th instant:—

"John Speer was summoned for neglecting to pay a School Board tine of 6d. and 2s. costs, imposed for not sending his son to school. The defendant, who was nearly blind, in a very feeble state of health, and unable to work,

stated that it was quite out of his power to pay the amount. His wife, who assisted to support the family, had just been confined. He had two other children, and that morning the whole family had only a pound of bread and a pennyworth of tea and sugar for breakfast between them. He was committed for five days to Horsemonger Lane Gaol;"

and, whether, in view of the frequent occurrence of cases involving great hardship, he is prepared to make any suggestion whereby the operation of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, may be rendered less oppressive to the poor?

I am, of course, aware of the statement to which my hon. Friend calls my attention. But as I mentioned to my hon. Friend last week, I have no means of investigating the circumstances of the cases occurring under the compulsory bye-laws of the school boards; nor have I any authority to interfere with the school boards or magistrates in the execution of the difficult duties imposed upon them by Parliament under the Act of 1870, when they have passed compulsory bye-laws. Sir Charles Reed, however, has written to offer me all the information which he possesses on the subject, and I must say that the statement which he has sent appears to me, as far as it goes, to alter considerably the aspect of this case from that which appears in the paragraph to which my hon. Friend alludes; and he has also sent a letter from the magistrate who tried the case. The statement, however, is necessarily so long that it would be impossible for me to trouble the House with it in answer to a Question. I will, therefore, show it to my hon. Friend, and if he desires, I shall be happy to place it upon the Table of the House. I hope my hon. Friend will not think that I do not share his most natural feelings of pain at the hardships which must, I fear, necessarily arise in dealing with the great evils which the Act of 1870 endeavours to meet; but I am bound to say that, as far as my information goes, I think there has been a great deal of exaggeration in these matters.

said, he thought it would be well that the statement should be laid on the Table.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home De- partment, Whether, if there is time, the Government will bring in a Bill, similar to that of last Session, for the protection of women, &c. from Aggravated Assaults?

in reply, said, he had been requested to postpone the further inquiries which he had to make until after the Spring Assizes, when no doubt he would receive the replies of the learned Judges.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he has examined the amended proposal for the formation of a Fund for making provision for the Widows of the Seamen and Marines of the Fleet; and, whether he will recommend the Government to assist the scheme by an annual grant; or, if he will state to the House the position in which the matter now stands?

in reply, said, he had referred the amended proposal to the Accountant General of the Navy; but that, in consequence of the pressure in the Department occasioned by the preparation of the Estimates, the Report had not yet been made, and therefore he was unable at present to make any statement on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the promotion of the Officers of the Ordnance Corps is under the consideration of the Royal Commission now sitting on Army Promotion; and, in the case of those Officers of Artillery and Engineers where promotion has been lost owing to Lord Cardwell's arrangement of 1872 not having been acted on since 1874, whether the promotion so lost will be made good to them?

in reply, said, he had reason to believe that the subject of promotion of the officers of the Ordnance Corps was under the consideration of the Royal Commission now sitting on Army Promotion. He did not understand that any engagement had been entered into with the officers of Artillery and Engineers which had been broken, although no doubt the proposal of 1872 in reference to promotion had not been carried out. Before anything was done in the matter it would be necessary to wait until the Report of the Commission was received.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he intends to introduce a Bill this Session dealing with the Grand Jury System in Ireland?

Sir, I expressed more than once last year my hope of being able to introduce a Bill on this subject, and towards the end of the Session I sketched out the lines upon which, as it appeared to me, the reform of the Grand Jury Laws should proceed. My views did not receive the approval of hon. Members opposite; but I still hope to propose legislation with regard to this matter. Whether, however, I shall be able to do so in the present year must depend on the progress of measures dealing with other matters of importance in Ireland, which have appeared to the Government to be of a more pressing character than Grand Jury reform. I cannot think that any useful purpose would be served by the introduction of a Bill without some hope of proceeding with it within a reasonable time.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is true, as alleged in the "Pall Mall Gazette" of the 2nd instant, that there is reason to believe the practice was observed until recently in certain localities of giving instruction in the Church of England catechism in School Board Schools; and, if so, whether he will state to the House in how many cases the returns reported such instruction was given in Board Schools, and what course the Educational Department has taken in regard to those cases?

Sir, when the replies were received last year to the Re-turn respecting religious instruction in board schools, moved for by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, it was found that in the case of five board schools instruction was being given in the Church Catechism. None of these schools had been inspected since the date when they came under the control of the board, so that the time-tables had not been seen or approved by Her Majesty's Inspectors. Four of them had been previously Church schools, and were either temporarily occupied by the board, or were in course of being transferred to the board. Only one was a new school provided by a school board. A letter was at once, as a matter of course, addressed to the school boards, pointing out that Section 14 (2) of the Act was being violated by the provisions made for religious instruction, and stating that it would be the duty of the Department to declare the boards to be in default, unless the time-tables of their schools were at once brought into conformity with the requirements of the Act as to the admission of the Church Catechism. In every case the necessary alteration was at once made.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to reintroduce, during the present Session, the Bill of last year on the Patent Laws?

in reply, said, he intended to do so, with some modifications on matters of detail.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the third section of the recent Order in Council applicable to the Civil Service, wherein it is stated that such situations in that service as are not suitable to be filled by members of the lower division are excluded from that Order, and shall, until Her Majesty's pleasure shall be further declared, be regulated, as now, by the heads of Departments to which they belong, Whether it be the intention of Her Majesty's Government forthwith to deal with the other recommendations of the "Play-fair Commission" as regards the higher division, which so materially concerns the interests of the present members of the Civil Service?

in reply, said, it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government at present to issue any further Orders in Council with regard to the Civil Service. He would point out to his hon. Friend that the "Playfair Commission" to which he referred proposed a system applicable to the whole of the Service; but the Commissioners pointed out that the gist of their recommendations was the substitution of a large number of clerks of the lower division for the clerks of the higher division. They said that unless that could be accomplished they could not consider themselves justified, on account of the increased expenditure "which would be entailed on the Government, in submitting their plans. Of course, it was impossible to adapt their plans by a stroke to the whole of the Service; and all that could be done at present was that which the Treasury had done—that was, to prepare a constitution of the lower division, and look to the gradual increase of the lower division which would take the place of a certain number of those who were unnecessarily employed in the higher division. At the same time this was a matter which would be dealt with in the several Departments; and if any Department made proposals for bringing the scheme into operation in that Department, and accompanied such proposals with a plan for re-organization, and, of course, reduction of the higher staff, the Treasury would be prepared to co-operate with the Department in such re-organization.

in rising "to call the attention of the House to the position of those officers of the House called 'Referees,' and to move for a Committee to inquire and report on that position, and particularly as to the legality and expediency of allowing 'Referees' the same power of voting on a Private Bill Committee as a Member of Parliament regularly elected by a constitu- ency," said: In bringing before the House what appears to me an important constitutional question, I shall endeavour to do so without unduly trespassing on the time of the House. It may perhaps be asked why I should now call in question a decision of the House which was come to eight years ago, which was discussed at the time by hon. Members of far greater experience than myself, and which for those eight years has remained unquestioned. My reply is that the point which I wish to bring before the House appears to have been entirely unnoticed in the debates of that day; that it has never been called in question since, because the number of hon. Members who seem to be aware that these Referees were exercising a power of voting has been but small—and that in an institution whose powers and privileges are the growth of ages, eight years are by no means enough to create immunity from question. It was only near the end of last Session that I myself became aware that any one not an actual Member of this House had a vote in any stage of our legislation. I derived the information through finding that the vote of a Referee had decided the fate of two important local Bills in a way which I, with far better knowledge of the locality, considered illogical and absurd. Desiring to dispute the decision in this House on the third reading, I found that the actual decision had been given by one who could not come into this House to explain or justify what he had done. I thought that a most extraordinary and improper state of matters, and immediately set about inquiring how it should be so. I asked several old Members, but they knew nothing of it; in fact, did not believe it could be so at all. They had never heard of Referees voting. I then had recourse to Sir Erskine May's most valuable book, to the Standing Orders, and to the Journals of the House, and discovered that it was a thing of quite recent origin—that the power of a Referee to sit on a Committee had been conferred by a simple Resolution of this House only in 1868, and that the Resolution did not specify any power of voting. In the meantime I had failed in getting the House to upset the decision of its Committee, for the House hardly will do that in any case at all; and the consequence was, that a most unjust Bill had been passed through this House, nominally by the House itself, but really and practically by the vote of an outsider elected by no constituency, responsible to no constituency, not even responsible to this House—in fact, an utterly irresponsible individual, not even able to come into this House to explain his reasons. In this case fortunately, we had a House of Lords, and the blunder of this House was rectified there. I have said that the Resolution which enabled a Referee to sit on a Committee had not specified any power of voting. I may also say that in the whole debate the only trace that such a power was contemplated is in its incidental mention by the noble Lord at that time Member for the East Hiding of Yorkshire (Lord Hotham), but alluded to by no other speaker, and it seems therefore very much open to doubt if the House really intended to confer voting power. But the point I wish to press is that, even if the House did intend to do it, it was unconstitutional and ultra vires to make such a change in the process of legislation by a mere Resolution, or in any other way than by an Act of Parliament; and it does seem to me to be a most unfortunate thing that the Resolution did not specify fully its whole scope, for in that case I think its unconstitutional character would have been detected at the time, instead of remaining till now, when it can be set right only by an acknowledgment of error, which the House, and especially the official element in the House, will be most unwilling to make. At the time when this error was committed, the Private Bill legislation of the House was in a state of great difficulty. The burden of that legislation was pressing heavily on Members, and it was urgently required that some means should be found of getting through that business more easily. In 1864 a Court of Referees had been established to examine the engineering and estimates of certain Bills, and to report on these to the Committees. That had been found to work well, in so far that their technical advice was a manifest aid to the Committees, but it was also found that in considering these details a large part of the evidence on the subject of the Bill had to be gone over before that Court of Referees, and afterwards be repeated before the Committee, and that this double evidence led to an extra expense, which it was thought might be saved. For that purpose it was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman now the Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson), then Chairman of Ways and Means, that the Committee of Selection might, if they pleased, refer any Bill entirely to the Court of Referees, which, I may mention, consists of the Chairman of Ways and Means along with three other persons appointed by the Speaker, and not necessarily Members of the House. That course was objected to by the House, and particularly by Lord Hotham, then Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee, who gave strong reasons against such an arrangement, one of which was that when such a Court reported to the House, and hon. Members wished to question that decision, these Referees were unable to appear here to defend their decision. Lord Hotham then proposed the following Resolution:—

"That the Committee of Selection may refer any opposed Private Bill, or any Group of such Bills, to a Committee consisting of Pour Members and a Referee;"

which was assented to by the House, and is the Resolution which I wish to call in question. It does seem strange that Lord Hotham did not observe that the very argument which he had used with such effect against the proposal of the Chairman of Ways and Means—namely, that a Referee could not appear in this House to justify a decision—applied also to his own proposal, though not quite in the same degree; and that is specially so if the Resolution was intended to confer voting power, and the House will understand that it is only to the voting power that I make objection. I can understand it to be a suitable enough arrangement that the Referees should attend the Committees as assessors or advisers to give the Committee the benefit of technical knowledge on those points of engineering and estimates which, as Referees, they were specially appointed to examine; but if the Resolution meant to go further than that it was wrong. Now, whatever the Resolution meant to do, the power of voting certainly has been assumed by the Referees, and I will now lay before the House the grounds on which I think it was unconstitutional. Every hon. Member is aware that the powers and privi- leges of this House were in old times I far more the growth of custom and precedent than of statute, and therefore it is not possible for me to adduce any statute prescribing the legislative process of passing Bills through Parliament. Here, however, is an extract from Sir Erskine May's work—

"The Imperial Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, is composed of the King or Queen, and throe Estates of the Realm—viz., the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal, and the Commons. These several powers collectively make laws that are binding upon the subjects of the British Empire."

Here we have the legislative function clearly restricted to the Monarch and the three Estates of the Realm. They are to make the laws. Now, surely it cannot be contended that the making of a law consists merely in the final passing of it; but it consists of certain well-known stages through which every Act of Parliament, whether Public or Private, has to pass, and every one of which stages was, up to the passing of that Resolution, strictly limited to the Monarch and the Estates of the Realm. I presume an attempt will be made to show that a Private Bill is different from a Public Bill; but I do not think that, as regards legislative process, that distinction can be maintained, and for this among other reasons, that no one can draw a definite and distinct line between the two classes of Bills. We speak of Public Bills and of Private Bills, and of Hybrid Bills, but the difference cannot be strictly defined, for it may even happen that two Bills might be identical in their subject and in their provisions, and if one of them applies to London, to Edinburgh, or to Dublin, it would be a Public Bill; while, if its duplicate applied only to Manchester, to Glasgow, or to Belfast, it would be a Private Bill. Nor is there any material difference in the stages through which the two classes have to pass. Each must be introduced under the endorsement of two Members. Each must be read a first time, each must be read a second time, each must be gone through by Committee, clause by clause, each must be reported to the House, and each must be read a third time and passed; and I repeat that, till the passing of this unfortunate Resolution, every one of these stages in this House was strictly confined to Members of the House. The only difference that has existed has been the very slight one that the Public Bill is discussed clause by clause by the House in Committee, while the Private Bill is discussed clause by clause by a Committee of the House; but whether by the House in Committee or by a Committee of the House, the stage is one of the necessary stages in the making of a law, and is therefore part of the legislative function which cannot be exercised by any one other than those on whom the Constitution has imposed it. The only argument I have heard in justification is that the decision of the Committee and Referee is not final; that the Bill has to be reported to the House, and the House can reverse the decision, but the reply to that is that practically the decision is final, because the House hardly will consider the merits of such a Bill but simply confirms its Committee; but more than that, the very same argument applies to a Bill which is discussed by the House in Committee. That also only reports to the House, yet I hardly think any hon. Member would be found to maintain that it would be open to the House, if it chose, to bring in outsiders to walk through our Division Lobbies, and give votes on the clauses of a Bill on an equal footing with ourselves merely on the pretence that the stage was not final, and would still come under review of the House. It seems to me that if the House claims a right to confer a legislative vote on anyone outside the House by any other means than by Act of Parliament, it is assuming to itself a new prerogative, and one for which there is no precedent. Now, I find that in 1704 the House of Lords, at a Conference with the House of Commons, communicated the following Resolution:—

"That neither House of Parliament hath any power, by any Vote, or Declaration, to create to themselves any new privilege that is not warranted by the known laws and customs of Parliament."—[Parl. Hist. vi. 387.]

That Resolution was assented to by the Commons, and was always acted upon. It is for those who defend the Resolution of 1868 to show that it is not a new privilege to confer legislative votes on men not elected by any constituency, not responsible to any one, and who cannot appear in the House to justify their vote. I do not ask the House to come to any hasty decision; I do not ask the House to accept my statement of the case; all I ask is that they should appoint a Select Committee of their own Members to investigate the matter. I earnestly hope that the Committee may be granted, for I see possibility of grave difficulty if it be refused. It may lead to the loss of public confidence in the decisions of such Committees. It might lead to the decision of such a Committee being disputed in the Court of Queen's Bench, and I think it would hardly consist with the dignity of this House that such an issue should be raised at all. It would be far better for the House to investigate the matter for itself, and even, if necessary, retrace a wrong step of its own free will than have its authority questioned elsewhere. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution.

in seconding the Motion, said, he believed that it raised an important constitutional question. He did not believe that it ever was the intention of Parliament to transfer its voting powers to the Referees. How did the matter work? The Chairman of a Select Committee had a casting vote, and when there were three other Members of the Committee, including the Referee, the Chairman and the Referee could arrive at and make effective a decision which was against the views of two hon. Members of the House, that decision being practically carried not by the vote of a Member of the House, but by the vote of a Referee. In the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council there were sometimes three assessors, who took full part in the discussion, suggested points, and heard arguments, but in the decision itself they had no voice at all. He thought it would be a mistake to have a portion of the legislation of Parliament decided by the votes of those who were not Members.

trusted the House would not think him guilty of presump- tion in rising at that time; but he thought he should be almost guilty of disrespect to the House if, after his experience of Parliamentary Private Bill Committees, he did not give the House the benefit of his knowledge. It seemed to him that no solid and real ground had been laid why the system, which had worked well for a considerable number of years, should be destroyed. Some gross miscarriage of justice, or something worse, should have happened to induce the House to interfere with a state of things which had given satisfaction to the public and to those concerned with Private Bill legislation. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had erred in two respects; he had in one respect exaggerated the importance of the functions of these Referees, while he had in some degree underrated their position. These Referees were officers of the House. But they were also something more. A series of Resolutions and Standing Orders had been passed which gave them a certain status, and their position might be said to have been determined in 1867 by an Act which positively clothed them with the same powers in dealing with Private Bills, under certain circumstances, as Committees of the House. Then the hon. Member had overrated the powers of the Referees in assuming that they or the Committees had the power of deciding the fate of Bills. It was useless to disguise the fact that, in a great many cases, the verdict of the Committee was accepted by the House; but, properly speaking, the Committee's function was to report, and if it appeared that they had omitted to take some important evidence, it was possible to have the Bill re-committed, and the whole subject re-discussed. Therefore, although the Referees had a voice in Committees, it could not be said that they could walk into the House and influence the final determination of Bills. He thought the hon. Member would have taken notice of the Referee as to the question of locus standi. The system which had been adopted, by avoiding hap-hazard or conflicting decisions, had saved an enormous amount of time, and an enormous amount of money; but if the Referee were to have no vote, it would materially change the usefulness of the tribunal. The whole course of proceeding had been reduced to a system, and had worked admirably; but as he had said, if the Referees were not to have votes their usefulness would be very much diminished, for the House could hardly confer upon the Referees functions in one case which were to be denied in the other. The question had undergone discussion in 1864, 1865, and 1867, and his experience showed him that the Referees had been a very useful body. He did not know the merits of the particular case to which the hon. Member referred, but was that case, which was the only one of the kind the House had ever heard of, a sufficient ground for granting a Committee to inquire into the general practice on this question, a practice which had continued for so many years? He trusted the Committee would not be granted, as he did not think it would do any good. Another thing, it was not required, for no grievance had been made out.

said, that probably his experience of these matters was more remote than that of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell), and therefore he might be excused if he could not join in the conclusion his hon. Friend had arrived at. The question raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) was a new one, and one of such importance that it was desirable it should be settled. If it were a question as to whether the Referees formed a good tribunal, or the element of one, he should be disposed to vote against them; but the point raised was not that—it was much more serious, and one which called for the attention of the House and Her Majesty's Government, and he therefore hoped they would state their opinion on the subject. The more highly the House valued their privileges, the more careful they should be to guard their integrity, and to inquire into the operation of any system by which they might possibly be impaired. The hon. Member for Glasgow had pointed out that the functions attributed to the Referees were a delegation of the functions belonging to that House, and which functions were being performed by gentlemen who were not Members of the House. Now that was a very serious matter, and they had to consider whether they could delegate such powers merely by Resolution. If it was a good thing to do, then let it be done in the proper way; and he was disposed to agree that it ought to be done by Act of Parliament, because he doubted very much whether that House had the power by Resolution to delegate to those who were not Members any portion of its functions. Supposing by Resolution the House had determined that one of the Judges of the land should sit upon Election Committees, and determine the seat of a Member of that House. He thought every man would agree with him that that would be an unconstitutional Resolution, and that they would have no power to pass it. No doubt the House had thought fit to make the Judges try the Election Petitions, but it was not done by Resolution. There was nothing about which they ought to be more careful than a matter of the kind. He had no doubt his hon. and learned Friend had truly stated the efficiency of the Referees; but however satisfactory the tribunal might be, however high the character of its members, it appeared that it was now formed by a species of Constitutional lapsus, which could not be too soon remedied. The Report of a Select Committee might, therefore, be useful in placing the whole matter on a sound and Constitutional basis.

completely agreed with the observations just made. This was a matter involving Constitutional principles, and he was quite sure that House had no power to delegate its functions to gentlemen who were not Members of the House, because, if they had the power, it might be used in such a way as to lead to serious consequences. The maxim Delegatus non protest delegare applied to all their legislative powers, nor was there any difference between Public and Private Bills. The Act of 1867 largely extended the powers of the Referees in respect of locus standi and other matters; but the Standing Order which put the Referee upon the Committee was not passed until the Session of 1868, and it might be desirable to have evidence as to the manner in which the tribunal thus constituted had actually worked. He was of opinion that the question had been very properly brought before the House, and the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) deserved their thanks for the action he had taken.

said, that the question was no less than this—whether the Busi- ness of the House should be continued to be discharged by Members of the House alone. It seemed to him a remarkable proceeding that gentlemen who were not Members should be authorized to vote upon Committees; and that merely by a Resolution. Had a Referee been appointed upon a Committee of which he was Chairman, he should have felt it his duty to report that matter to the House; and he now hoped that the House would not refuse to appoint a Committee to inquire into the subject. It would tend to impeach the authority of the Private Bill Committees of the House if it was known that matters involving millions of money were to be settled by two Members of Parliament and that another who was not a Member of Parliament should have a casting vote. He should certainly support the Motion.

said, the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) was one which dealt with the question from two points of view; because the Committee he was so anxious to have appointed was to inquire into the legality as well as the expediency of allowing Referees the same power of voting in Private Bill Committees as Members of Parliament. He thought there was rather a tendency to confuse these two issues, which were quite separate in their character. He would endeavour to give a sketch of the history of the tribunal of Referees, and to show how the present system, which he admitted was an anomalous one, had come to exist. The first step was taken in 1864, when it was referred to a Select Committee to consider whether it was desirable to appoint Referees for particular purposes. The Motion was made by a Member of very great authority, the present Lord Winmarleigh (then Colonel Wilson-Patten), and the Committee reported that it was desirable that such a tribunal should be constituted, and should have cognizance not merely of matters of engineering and finance, but also of other matters having reference to four classes of Private Bills. The tribunal was really set up as a tribunal of experts, to relieve Members of the House of duties which in many cases they were scarcely adequate to perform. At the end of 1865 a further Committee was appointed, to consider how that tribunal had worked, and that Committee reported in favour of rather extending the powers of the Referees. In 1867 a rather considerable addition was made to the powers of the Referees, because power was given to the Committee of Selection to refer Bills to Referees instead of to a Committee of the House of Commons. This reference, however, was confined to Gas and Water Bills. In 1868 the then Chairman of Ways and Means brought forward a proposition that still further extended the powers of the Referees, by allowing them a jurisdiction over all Private Bills, and not merely Gas and Water Bills. The House hesitated to give them such an extended power, and an Amendment was moved by the noble Lord the Member for the East Riding of Yorkshire (Lord Hotham), the Chairman of the Committee upon Standing Orders, to get rid of the double inquiry which had existed by the amalgamation of the two tribunals which had up to that time exercised a divided authority. It was accordingly provided by the Standing Orders that a Bill might be referred to a Committee of four Members of the House, or to a Committee of four Members and a Referee. There must, however, be four Members of Parliament on a Committee where there was a Referee. Notwithstanding the change, however, it was not correct to say, as had been stated by the last speaker, that a question involving large sums of money could be decided by the vote of the Chairman of a Committee and a Referee alone. A Referee, of course, might make his influence felt, and with two other Members of the Committee might outvote the Chairman, and he was not altogether sure that it was desirable in cases in which interests so important were concerned, that the votes of two Members should overrule those of the other two Members simply because of the casting vote of the Chairman. Even in a case to which the hon. Member for Glasgow had referred, in which there were two Members on one side and two on the other, on a division the result might have been the same as that he had stated, without the intervention of the Referees. He would also remind the House that, owing to the fatalities which attended the last General Election, it had been deprived of the services of several Members who had had great experience as Chairmen of Committees on Private Bills, and that it was well that those who succeeded them, and who had not the same experience, should have the assistance and advice which such men as the Referees were able to afford. He was aware that the hon. Member for Glasgow did not propose altogether to expel the Referees from those Committees; but if the House were to decide that a system which had been tried for several years, and with which the greatest satisfaction had been expressed out-of-doors, should be now abolished, a great blow would, in his opinion, have been struck at the authority of those officers. To strike such a blow would, he thought, be most inexpedient. The Referees were not merely assessors upon these Private Bill Committees; but they also formed part of a Court of locus standi, which was composed of five Members of this House and three paid Referees. There was likewise the Committee upon Unopposed Bills, upon which Referees also served. They could not deal with one of these matters affecting Referees without dealing with all of them. While upon the question of legality he might observe that it was a serious matter that the House should, after the present system had been in operation for eight years, and after numerous cases had been decided under it, cast a doubt upon the authority of those Committees, and, as it were, retrospectively invalidate their decisions. Surely, if the question of legality were to be tested at all, it should be tested outside those walls, where an authoritative exposition of the law could be obtained. He thought that the hon. Member for Glasgow would, under the circumstances, do well to pause, if it were only out of consideration for the interests which would be affected, before raising this question of legality. For his own part, while sufficiently aware of the anomaly of the practice of Referees having votes, he was as jealous as any other Member of the privileges of the House, and he frankly confessed that if they were now constructing these tribunals, he would not propose to give the Referees votes. They were, however, now looking back over the practice of the House which had existed for many years. He had only to add that he would promise to give his attention to the subject, and that he should be happy to confer upon it with his right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee on Stand- ing Orders, and others whose opinions were entitled to more weight than that of any individual Member on so great and important a point.

thought the working of the present system had been most beneficial, but admitted that, in regard to expediency, a fair question had been raised by the proposition of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson). He should not for a moment deprecate the full investigation before a Committee of the question of the maintenance of Referees as a constituent part of the Committees upstairs. However, he trusted the House would pause before taking a step which would stamp with illegality an act considered to be one of the privileges of the House—namely, that of appointing servants of the House to assist them in their deliberations on private Bills. He should deprecate a hasty Resolution condemning the legality of a system which had been sanctioned by the leading Members of the House, and which had been in operation for eight years.

said, he was of opinion that, as the question had been raised, it must be settled, though whether it should be referred to the Committee proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) was another matter. The question that had been raised was, not whether the system had worked well, but whether the House had not gone beyond its power in allowing Referees to do that which it had no right to allow them to—that of taking part in making Acts of Parliament affecting the property of Her Majesty's subjects. He thought that his hon. Friend had very properly brought the subject before the House, and that as it had been raised, it could not be allowed to go to sleep.

confessed he was much surprised to hear about a year ago that the Referees did vote, as it had never occurred to him to see a Referee vote. As the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had remarked, it was absolutely necessary that, the question having once been raised, must be settled. The House, in so doing, would not be throwing any discredit on what had been done in past years, if it called in question the powers of the Referees. The point was, whether the House was right in giving them those powers, and not whether the Referees had done wrong. There was no shadow of imputation upon the Referees, and, indeed, they deserved all the credit which had been given to them by his hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means. He should have liked to see the Motion in a very different form, but that was hardly worth while dwelling upon. In his judgment it would be well if a very strong Committee were appointed to investigate this matter. It must be settled at once, for the power of the Referees might be questioned from without, and then the House would be placed in a worse position than it occupied at present.

said, he should have been unwilling to concur in the present Motion, if his doing so were considered to indicate the slightest dissatisfaction with the was in which the Referees had discharged their duties; but the legality or "constitutionality" of the arrangement having been now disputed, it ought to be decided.

said, it appeared to him that after the speech of his hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means, the House had better endeavour to modify the terms in which it was proposed to appoint this Committee. His hon. Friend had pointed out with great force that the functions of the Referees could not be separated. In his (Mr. Dodson's) opinion, the best course would be for the hon. Member for Glasgow to withdraw the present Motion, and substitute for it a new one, for an inquiry into the working of the system of Referees. He would suggest that the Amendment should be confined to the appointment of a Committee "to inquire into the position of those Officers of the House called Referees."

said, he preferred his own Amendment, as that suggested did not raise the Constitutional point.

said, he also preferred the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow to that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester. The Bill referred to by the hon. Member for Glasgow as having been read a second time in the House was altered in Committee, in which the Referees took part, and when it came back for the third reading, it was not the Bill the House agreed to on the second reading. It was necessary, on Constitutional grounds, that some alterations should take place.

said, he wished to call attention to the fact that the second reading of the Irish Land Bill, introduced by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), had been fixed for Wednesday, the 29th of March. It was a measure which the people of Ireland considered as of paramount importance, and in which they took a deep and burning interest. The agricultural population of Ireland numbered considerably more than 3,000,000, and a general feeling of insecurity pervaded that population. What they required was a Parliamentary title to their homes, and they naturally looked forward with intense interest to the discussion of a measure which was introduced at their express desire to secure to them that Parliamentary title. It was clear that a Wednesday sitting would be wholly inadequate for the discussion of the measure.

rose to Order. Was the hon. Member regular, he inquired, in discussing, on the Question that the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply, whether an Order of the Day fixed for the 29th of March should not be debated on some other day? The House having fixed the day, that determination could not be altered, except by a direct Resolution of the House itself.

said, that the hon. Member had not proceeded far enough to satisfy him that the object referred to by the right hon. Gentleman was that which he had in view. If it were, the hon. Member was clearly out of Order in questioning the decision of the House that a particular Bill should be put on the Orders of the Day for reading a second time on a given day.

said, his object was to point out that a Wednesday sitting of five-and-a-half hours would be wholly insufficient for a satisfactory do-bate of the subject dealt with by the Bill, and to suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman whether another day could not be secured.

ruled that the hon. Gentleman was out of Order. If he desired the Order of the Day to which he referred to be discharged, it must be done by substantive Motion. It could not be done on a Motion for going into Committee of Supply.

said, he would bow to the decision of the Chair, and would, before bringing the matter before the House in the form of a Motion, consult his Friends in respect to the terms of it.

said, that the Vote had usually been objected to on the ground that the office of Lord Privy Seal was practically a sinecure, and useless. The only excuse offered for maintaining it was that it enabled the Government to confer the office upon some excellent and valued Member of the House of Lords who might be able to give attention to matters which the heads of other Departments were unable to do. He could not but think that the parties responsible should perform those duties, and not the Lord Privy Seal, who was not responsible. He would not move the rejection of the Vote himself, but he would vote with any hon. Member who would challenge it.

supported the opposition to this expenditure, and expressed his regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, when in office, had not done away with this appointment. There was a strong feeling in the constituencies against sinecure offices.

said, he should like to ask whether it was true, as was said, that there were no duties connected with the office; because, if not, there was no occasion for the Lord Privy Seal to have a chief clerk and an establishment costing the country £750 a-year.

said, it was a monstrous thing that they should be called upon to vote the money without any information of the duties attached to the office. It would only have been respectful to the Committee if some explanation on the subject had been given them by a Member of the Government.

said, that the subject had been so often before the House, and had been so completely and recently discussed, that he had not thought it necessary to rise before, more especially as the few Gentlemen who had addressed the Committee did not appear disposed to persist in their objection to the Vote. The office of Lord Privy Seal was one not only of great dignity and antiquity, but also of great utility, and, far from thinking that because the Lord Privy Seal had not a Department to organize and manage he ought not to be a Member of the Cabinet, it was because he had no Department to manage that his presence in the Cabinet was often of the greatest advantage. The office had been held by many experienced and eminent men. Lord Halifax—one of the most efficient public men of our generation—was Lord Privy Seal, and the present Lord Privy Seal had presided over the most laborious Department of the Government. It was, indeed, a great advantage to a Government to have such men as Lord Halifax and Lord Malmesbury available for general consultation and advice. There were many duties which the Lord Privy Seal was called upon to discharge, which it was impossible to indicate on an occasion like the present; but he had sometimes allotted to him some of great delicacy and importance, when it could not be expected that a Secretary of State or the President of a laborious Department could give the time required for such performance. The Lord Privy Seal was always ready to attend to such duties. The present Lord Privy Seal represented also an important Department—the Admiralty—in the House of Lords, and was there to give information when it was asked for. He remembered that Lord Malmesbury was intrusted in a former Government over which he (Mr. Disraeli) presided with negotiating a matter which the Members for Ireland ought not to consider insignificant. When it was necessary to hold communications with the Roman Catholic clergy and other Bodies in attempting to bring about an arrangement on the Education question, the person intrusted with the negotiation was the present Lord Privy Seal. He appealed to the Committee to support the Vote, which any one who had had experience of the Government of this country must feel to be necessary, and which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) two or three years ago had vindicated to the complete satisfaction of the House.

said, that last year the Prime Minister, upon the question of the publication of the debates, had attributed to him the wish to form a "Speech Preservation Society." He ought now to admit that if such a society existed it would save a great deal of public time, and serve a useful end, for during every Session since he had been in Parliament he had heard a debate on this particular subject. The vote he should now give he would admit would not be the same that he had first given, because the reasons advanced by the late and present Prime Ministers appeared to him to be overwhelming in favour of the Vote. If there were any proper record of these debates and the explanations given by the Minister, hon. Members would not be always called upon to repeat the same objections to this Vote.

said, he had formerly complained of the want of celerity on the part of the Endowed Schools Commissioners in dealing with schemes for the management of endowed schools. Since then the House had transferred the endowed schools to the Charity Commissioners. The Chief Commissioner, Sir James Hill, a man of great ability, recently died, and in his place the Government had appointed a right hon. Gentleman against whom he desired to say nothing—Sir Seymour Fitzgerald—who had been incapacitated by illness from attending to the duties of the office. The result had been that if the former Commission was slow, the present Commission was slower, for the work which was before too much for three men had to be discharged by two. He believed several schools were awaiting the next step in the settlement of their schemes; and yet that no communication of any kind had been made to them for the last two or three months. He, therefore, desired some information as to the prospect of this deadlock being removed.

desired to know, whether there was any qualification for the office of Chief Commissioner; and, if so, what it was?

said, it was unfortunately true that the late Chief Commissioner died suddenly in the month of September, and the new Chief Commissioner had been suffering from illness since his appointment. It was possible that the death of the former Commissioner, the necessary delay in filling up the office, and the illness of the present Chief Commissioner might have retarded the business of the Department; and, although no representation on the sub- ject had reached the Treasury, he would undertake that inquiry should he made and measures taken, if possible, to facilitate the business forthwith. As to the qualifications for the office, he believed one of them was that the Chief Commissioner should be a barrister of 12 years' standing.

appealed to the Vice President of the Education Department to say whether any arrangement could be made to expedite the work of the Commission. Had not great delay occurred in reference to some schools in the country? He was well aware that the duties of the Commissioners could not be interfered with by the Education Department. Still, as the House had no organ through whom to communicate with the Commissioners, they were obliged to appeal to the Treasury Bench for information.

said, he was glad to have the opportunity of saying a few words. He had no business to interfere officially with the Charity Commission; and, like his Predecessor in office, he had given the House a pledge not to do so. It was only due to the present Chief Commissioner it should be known that he had been suffering from a severe attack of typhoid fever, and in his anxiety concerning the duties of his office he allowed a Commissioner to come to his bedside to dispose of some official business. The result was, he was thrown back seriously and his recovery rendered doubtful, and the medical men prohibited any further communication with him on official matters. Of course, the business of the office had necessarily suffered, first, from the death of the late Chief Commissioner, then from delay in filling up the vacancy, and, lastly, from the lamentable illness of the present Chief Commissioner. The Lord President took all the official steps he could to forward business, and used the power conferred upon him to enable one of the other Commissioners to sign certain official documents. In that way he had removed all the difficulties he could, and he need hardly say the Department was anxious that the business of the Commission should proceed with all possible despatch.

calling attention to the great cost of the Commission, asked whether a large portion of it could pot be borne by the charitable funds, for the due management of which it was called into existence?

said, the question had been seriously considered by the Treasury whether it was expedient, and, if so, possible, to keep up the Charity Commission by taxing charities. But great difficulties stood in the way. A great portion of the work performed was of a voluntary nature, and if a tax were imposed on the receipt and administration of their funds, it was quite open to the great majority of charities to remove their funds from the inspection and control of the Commissioners. On the whole, great public good was done by the management of that body; the operation of the charities being brought under the light of day rather than withdrawn from the Charity Commission.

rose to call attention to the increase of the Vote by the addition of £500 to the salary of the Chief Commissioner. The Second Commissioner received £1,200, and an additional Commissioner had been appointed. As no greater duties had been devolved on the Commission than were formerly performed, he wished to know why there had been an increase in the salaries of the Commissioners of £1,700?

said, that it had been found necessary to appoint Mr. Walrond, the former Secretary, a third Commissioner, and Lord Hampton had been appointed First Commissioner on the death of Sir Edward Ryan. It was true that the duties of the Commission were not of a wider character than those which they had discharged on the previous year, but still they had been growing in importance and magnitude for a long time past. They were in a very large degree independent of any public Department. The duties discharged by the Commission were most delicate and responsible, and it was therefore desirable that the Commission should be a strong one, having the confidence of Parliament. The Government, therefore, thought it advisable to appoint Lord Hampton to the position of First Commissioner, as he was a statesman of great experience in public and official life, and it was desirable to have some one in Parliament who would be able to account for the action of the Commission, in case it should be questioned. The increase of salaries had for a long time been promised, and he believed was very well deserved by the officers of the Department.

said, he had not found fault with the appointment of Lord Hampton, but the Secretary of the Treasury had given the Committee no information as to the necessity for appointing an additional Commissioner and increasing the salary of the First Commissioner. If any one was inclined to question the Vote he should support him.

said, the constitution of the Civil Service Commission, as now arranged, was similar to that of other public Boards, such as the Inland Revenue Board, where a Chairman and two Commissioners received the same rate of remuneration as in the present case. It was difficult to say that there had been any immediate increase of duties as compared with last year, but there could be no doubt that for a considerable time past the importance of the Civil Service Commission had been increasing; and under the Order in Council which had just received Her Majesty's approval it was probable that more duties would be thrown upon the Commission than it now discharged. Hitherto the Commission had been in a position both important and invidious, and when their conduct was challenged it was difficult to say who was responsible. The object of the Government in placing Lord Hampton, a Member of the other House, at the head of the Commission was that there might be some one who could authoritatively explain the policy and proceedings of the Commission. Like the Audit Office, they acted to a considerable degree as a check on the proceedings of other Departments, and must be in an independent position, not subject to the direction of any Department over whose proceedings they were intended to be a check. By putting the Commission on a more important footing, they were doing what they could to strengthen it in the eyes of the public, and enable it more efficiently to hold its own in the various important duties it had to discharge. He thought the work to be done by the Commission was fairly worth the money proposed as compared with that paid in other public Departments.

asked, under what Act of Parliament the new Commissioner had been appointed; and why the Vote was introduced in a different manner from the other Votes, the Act under which the salaries were authorized not being quoted?

reminded the Committee that the Civil Service Commission was not constituted under an Act of Parliament, but by Order in Council.

did not think the reasons given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer sufficient to account for the increase of the Vote. It seemed that the work of the Commissioners would be more in future; but in that ease they should wait, and not have their salaries increased before they had the work to do. He thought £2,160 was too much to pay for bringing the Civil Service Commission into symmetry with other public Departments.

said, he should move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,700, for it was evidently time that the House should put a stop to the contemplated increase of all the Estimates. It was said that the work to be performed was of a delicate character. If it was considered that the person appointed to perform it was 76 years of age, it ought to be delicate work indeed.

said, he would support the proposed reduction, though larger than he would have desired; but it did appear as though what had been done was something like the creation of a sinecure. Sir Edward Ryan was very advanced in years, and a great deal of work could not have been required of him. But on his demise two gentlemen had been appointed to do the work which he had done—Lord Hampton with a salary of £2,000 a-year, or £500 more than Sir Edward Ryan had, and a new Commissioner, with £1,200 a-year. With the prospect of bad trade and a declining revenue, there would probably be a Nemesis, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might find it as much as he could do to make ends meet.

said, he felt bound to correct what was no doubt an unintentional misrepresentation of something which had fallen from him. What he stated was, that comparing this year with the last there was no special increase of work, but there had been a considerable increase of late years, and a still further increase might be expected in consequence of the new Order in Council. It should be remembered that Lord Hampton, though of advanced years, was a man of energy, was every day at his office, and took an active part in the discharge of his duties. He would have thought that anyone who had sat in the House of Commons with Lord Palmerston would not have laid down the rule that men advaneed in years were not able to work. Lord Hampton had by nature a great desire for work, and it had never before been suggested that he had ever flinched from it. As to the other Commissioner, Mr. Walrond, he had for many years ably filled the office of Secretary, and had well earned his promotion and the small increase of pay which accompanied it. Certain other arrangements had been made in the office which had led to the promotion of gentlemen who had been engaged in the Department, and whose salaries it would have been only reasonable to have raised even if these arrangements had not been made. The office of Secretary had been conferred upon Mr. Horace Mann, who had been acting as registrar, and he took some additional duties, and received a very small addition to his salary. Mr. Headlam, who had for many years been acting as chief examiner, was now promoted to the office of director of examinations, with an addition to his salary, which had been well earned by 20 years' valuable service. When it was said that there was no additional work, it must have been forgotten that the examination of officers in the Army had of late years been added to the duties of the Commissioners. He must repeat that as Questions were often asked in Parliament as to the conduct of the Commissioners, and the Government could only say that they were an independent body with whom Ministers could not interfere, it was an advantage that there should be some one—not necessarily in the House of Peers, though in that, too, there might be some advantage, inasmuch as he would be more dissociated from polities—who could give the necessary explanations and speak with authority.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to intimate that in consequence of the raising of the salaries, there had been a certain amount of saving in the office. But, on the contrary, though no additional clerks had been appointed, there was an absolute increase of £2,160 a-year in the office itself and £250 for writers.

said, he agreed with the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) that this was like the creation of a sinecure. For many years past the tendency of Parliament had been to keep down the Estimates, but now that we had got a new r⃩gime economy was at a discount. Not one valid argument had been adduced for giving the increase of salary to Lord Hampton.

contended that the men who had been all their lives in a particular Department, and had served the country faithfully, were entitled to advancement when an opportunity arose. If the opposite rule were to be adopted, and persons from outside brought into an office to supplant those who had all along worked in it, great damage would be done, and the class of Civil servants must inevitably be deteriorated. Nobody could object to Mr. Walrond'a promotion.

said, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) had not touched the point which would cause the Vote to be looked at with suspicion. A vacancy in the Commission occurred, and the Secretary was most properly appointed to fill it; but, beyond that, the objection was to the appointment of a new man, besides and above the other two, as an ornamental Commissioner, who received £500 more than was given to the working Commissioner who had been his predecessor.

protested against the idea that Lord Hampton was in any sense an ornamental Commissioner. [Laughter.] He meant a merely ornamental Commissioner. Lord Hampton had taken to his work with all the zeal he had shown in other Departments; he was thoroughly mastering the work, and there was no question of a sinecure at all. The appointment was made simply with a view of strengthening the Commission, and placing it on the same footing as the great Revenue Departments. The importance of an office was a good deal measured by the salary of its Chief, and the re-organization of the office on this scale had done something to strengthen its position. It was true that, notwithstanding a reduction effected by Mr. Headlam's promotion—a junior examiner being appointed with £300, instead of £800, a-year—there was not a saving in the whole office, but an increase. But the position of the persons in this office had been for several years under consideration by the Treasury, and it was felt that as their duties were increasing they deserved some increase of pay.

agreed that a stimulus was necessary to keep an officer in good heart. The chief objection of the opponents of the appointment was that where a vacancy occurred advantage was not taken of it to advance all those who formed the staff of the service a step in promotion. Nothing could have been more annoying to these worthy, steady, hardworking men than to find a nobleman from the outside promoted over their heads.

asked, whether there was any precedent for the appointment of an outside gentleman to a prominent position in the Civil Service at the age of 76?

said, it was pleaded by the Government that there was a great deal of new work to be accomplished in the office. If that were so, he should like to know what it was, and who was doing it, for he observed that the staff was, with the exception of Lord Hampton, exactly the same as last year.

reminded the Committee that while this appointment had been made of a nobleman to the highest office in the Civil Service at the age of 76, it was a rule of the service that men in a lower grade should be superannuated at the age of 60. Was this fair? Moreover, it was true that the late Sir Edward Ryan performed his duties with great ability at the age of 85; but how was it that three Commissioners were now required to do the work previously done by two, including one Commissioner aged 85?

said, he wished to point out the proportions in the increase of the Vote in question. Last year the Vote was £20,000; this year it was £22,000—that was to say, there was an increase of 10 per cent. It was said there had been an increase in the work of the Department, but the same thing was said by every one of the Departments every year. Why, then, should there not be 10 per cent of an increase allowed to all the Departments? The expenses of all the Departments, deducting the National Debt and Crown Land offices, amounted to £45,000,000, and if an increase of 10 per cent were allowed to all the Departments there would be a total increase of £4,500,000.

suggested that henceforth the Civil Service Estimates should be introduced by a speech in the same way as were the Army and Navy Estimates.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not answered the objections urged, and unless the matter was fully explained he should move to report Progress.

said, he would be exceedingly sorry for it to be supposed that he was wanting in respect to any Member of the House. He had given the only answer he could give, and he had no doubt that to most hon. Gentlemen it was satisfactory; but it appeared that there were other hon. Members to whom his explanations were not satisfactory. If they were not satisfied he was sorry, but he could not help it. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Samuel-son), he was not able at present to call to mind any precedent for the appointment of a gentleman of the age of Lord Hampton; but this he could say, that in appointing Lord Hampton the Government had appointed a man who was thoroughly competent for the work.

asked whether, if Lord Hampton should take a different view of any question affecting his Department from that taken by the Government, he would still be under the influence of the Government? [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No.] Then was he to be independent of the Government? [The CHAHCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Yes.] That was unfortunate, and quite contrary to usage. It was a doubtful precedent to appoint to an office of the kind a Peer of Parliament, who in the office he held should be perfectly independent of the Government which appointed him or of any succeeding Administration during his tenure of office. [The CHANCELLOER of the EXCHEQUER: The Ecclesiastical Commissioners are in the same position.] That was true enough; but the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were not paid by the Government, whereas Lord Hampton was. He thought it would have been far better had the Government, in selecting a successor to Sir Edward Ryan, appointed Mr. Walrond, a gentleman of great experience and ability, thoroughly acquainted with the Department, and who had gained the confidence of all connected with it.

said, he objected to the Vote on the ground that no case had been made out for increasing the number of permanent officials in the Department.

said, the facts were so plain and the defence was so lame, that he thought at least one more division should be taken on the matter. He had to express his regret that the name of Lord Hampton should be mixed up in such a transaction. The Government had set a bad precedent in appointing to an important office one of their supporters whose age, in all human probability, would soon render him incapable of discharging the duties for which he was to receive £2,000 a-year. He would move that the Vote be reduced by £500.

said, he could not see why, if Lord Hampton was not to do more work than his predecessor, he should receive a higher salary. He would therefore support the Amendment.

drew attention to the large sum derived from stamps paid by candidates for examination in the Civil Service.

said, those fees were a heavy tax on competition.

replied that the fees had been paid since the foundation of the Civil Service Commission, and there had been no change during the last few years. They were very varied, some being very small sums, while others amounted to £2 or £3. He would endeavour at some future time to give the hon. and learned Member such information on the subject as he desired.

complained that boys from the country were placed at a disadvantage by having to incur much larger expense than competitors from London or the neighbourhood in coming up for examination.

asked why those fees were exacted?

said, he found the system in existence when he came into office, and did not feel it to be his duty to deprive the Exchequer of any funds. As these young gentlemen, were seeking to obtain a reward which they could not get in ordinary life, it seemed only fair that they should pay some small amount of the necessary charge for ascertaining their qualifications.

inquired on what authority the Commissioners levied the tax?

said, he had no doubt they had the authority of the Treasury, but was not able to answer offhand.

considered that these sums, however small, were opposed to the principle of open competition.

expressed a hope that the Commissioners would not in future legalize such inclosures as had caused so much difficulty in regard to Epping Forest.

said, he was not aware that the Commissioners had had anything to do with the inclosures of Epping Forest. Two of them were barristers who had given particular attention to the law as it affected land, and the third was well known in agricultural matters.

said, he noticed an increase of nearly £1,500 in the Vote. Was that due to the cost of carrying out the Friendly Societies Act of last year?

said, it was, and he was afraid it would be larger next year, as there might be some additional charge for actuarial service. The item would be a permanent one.

in rising to move a reduction of £1,000 on the portion of the Vote applicable to the medical department, said, his object in doing so was not to oppose the sum voted by Parliament for public vaccination expenses in England, about £10,000 a-year, but to point out the injustice done to Ireland in that matter. The only State grant of any kind made to Ireland for the purposes of vaccination amounted to £400 a-year, and the medical department of the Privy Council withheld from that country the assistance in regard to the supply of vaccine lymph which it ought in fairness to receive. Medical men in Ireland were now obliged to take lymph from children's arms, and as the people had a strong objection to this practice vaccination had become extremely unpopular. The difficulty arose from the defective supply of vaccine lymph. Up to 1871 Ireland was supplied to a great extent with vaccine lymph, through the Cow-pock Institution in that country; and a greater supply could be obtained, if thought desirable, from England. In 1871, from some unexplained cause, it seemed good to the Privy Council to change the system in Iréland. The Cow-pock Institution in Dublin could not supply the whole country, and the Government offered to supply vaccine lymph if the Institution would reduce its charges from 2s. 6d. to 6d. The Cow-pock Institution complained of the conduct of the Privy Council. He did not grudge any increased Vote for England, but he was compelled by the Forms of the House to adopt the course he did to obtain justice. He would conclude by moving the reduction of the Vote.

suggested whether it would not be advisable to postpone the consideration of the Vote until after Wednesday, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had arranged to have a meeting with Scotch Members in reference to questions affecting Scotland similar to those which the Vote raised with respect to England. It would be better to hear what the right hon. Gentleman had to say on these subjects before passing the Vote.

said, that with regard to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) as to a breach of faith between the Privy Council and Ireland, he would have taken measures to inform himself on the subject if the hon. and learned Member had given him Notice of his intention to raise the question. He should be happy if the hon. and learned Member would confer with him on the matter. With respect to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), he did not see that any arrangements which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might make in relation to Scotland could possibly affect the arrangements under the Vote.

said, that what Irish Members desired to draw attention to was the fact that, proportionately keeping in view the different conditions of the two countries, more money was expended for vaccination in England than for the same purpose in Ireland. Ireland had of late suffered terribly from the want of vaccination; and, while he should be sorry to reduce the Vote for England, he thought that this was a proper opportunity for calling attention to what the state of matters in Ireland was.

said, that with reference to the grievance complained of in the case of Ireland, he had not had any opportunity of ascertaining what had previously been done in the matter, but suggested that if the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Melden) would call attention to it again, he should endeavour to inform himself more fully, and if it could be shown that there was anything in the present system which operated against compulsory vaccination in Ireland, he should be most cordially disposed to make the necessary change.

said, he did not agree with the President of the Local Government Board that the question of the arrangements under the Vote did not affect the case of Scotland. Under the head of medical department in the Vote, there was an expense of £24,900 for vaccination, &c. in England; yet the allowance to Scotland was only £500. The grants in aid to Poor Law schools in England was £36,500, while Scotland did not get a shilling. In England, the medical officers and inspectors of nuisances got £60,000, while in Scotland not one penny was given. Now, all these Votes for England ought to be objected to if Scotland was not to be properly treated in regard to the same matters; but he did not wish to raise a discussion until after the interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He therefore thought his request for a postponement of the Vote was a reasonable one.

said, he thought it was a matter well worthy the consideration of the Government whether free lymph should not be given to Ireland. In 1871 the system of giving free lymph was brought to a close; but there was the significant fact that following that there was the greatest outbreak of small-pox known in Ireland for 30 years.

explained that none of the charges were new; and, while admitting that the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Nolan) were deserving the attention of the Government, he hoped the opposition to the Vote would be withdrawn.

said, he thought the Vote ought to be postponed. The people of Ireland had reason to be dissatisfied that while £10,000 a-year was voted for vaccination in England, only £400 was voted for Ireland. He should, therefore, feel it was his duty to take the opinion of the Committee, as that was the only practicable opportunity they would have of dealing with the matter.

explained the advantages that resulted from vaccinating children from arm to arm—that was, from taking the vaccine matter on the eighth day from the arm of a previously vaccinated child and introducing it into the arm of an unvaccinated child. Such a mode of vaccination was called the "living" vaccine matter, which was found to be far preferable to "dead" vaccine matter, often found to be acrid, and sometimes putrid, a state which was apt to produce serious consequences to the patient.

said, he could not understand how knocking off the lymph for England would get it for Ireland.

did not see why the Vote should be postponed on account of the pleasure he was going to enjoy from an interview with the Scotch Members on Wednesday. What was proposed for England was what had always been done for England, and if there were circumstances which required a distinction in the case of Scotland that was a separate question. If he understood them aright, the Scotch Members did not want less done for England, but more done for Scotland. How the case might turn out upon examination, however, he did not know, and would rather not discuss now.

remarked, that although the Scotch Members had brought the subject forward on former occasions, they had not pressed it, trusting to subsequent Votes to put the matter right. That course had not met the reward they expected, and therefore now they must insist on the question being taken seriously into consideration. He would move that the Chairman report Progress.

thought it would be better to settle each case on its own merits. Scotchmen really had no cause to complain.

said, that six times as much was spent for vaccination per head of the population in England as in Ireland; and Irish Members only wished to bring Ireland in this respect up to the English level. They did not wish to reduce the English Vote, but the Forms of the House compelled them to bring the matter forward in this shape.

said, the object of the Scotch and Irish Members could hardly be attained by reducing the English Vote. He was always prepared to support the Irish Members in any way he could; but he could not on this question vote for a reduction of the English Vote, especially as it had not been shown to be too large.

explained that the present Vote had been readily agreed to for years; the various items of it sprung out of Acts of Parliament which were still in force.

said, he considered that there were two ways of treating the matter—by leaving local funds entirely to themselves all over the country, or by subsidizing local funds in every part of the Kingdom alike. Either they must do away with the unequal grant of contributions by taking advantage of the exigencies of the Government, or obtain a promise that equal justice should be done to Scotland and Ireland as to England.

thought that the Vote ought to be agreed to on its merits, and the other matters discussed on a subsequent occasion.

said, he had not proposed the reduction of any Vote for England. He had merely mentioned the fact that England got £25,000 a-year for vaccination purposes, including the payment of medical men, and Scotland only £500, while Scotland paid between a sixth and a seventh of the whole national Revenue. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer had an interview with the Scotch Members on the subject. They had great pleasure in listening to him, and all went away in great good humour, having no doubt from the right hon. Gentleman's kind words that he would make all right. Now, however, on returning to the Estimates they found the old rigid figures. The English expenses under the item bad increased from year to year, while the Scotch Grant for medical expenses was the same as it was 20 years ago.

said, he would be glad to hear the grounds on which the Grant was made for teachers in Poor Law schools in England, and what was the corresponding Grant in the case of Scotland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that favours to Scotland were included in the Estimates. He (Mr. Ramsay) was not aware of any item in which favour was obtained by Scotland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to the grant in aid of pauper lunatics. He was kind enough to make a concession to Scotland in consideration of the system under which lunatics were cared for in Scotland, which was altogether different from the English system. But the Scottish Members would never object to have the law relating to lunatics administered in the same way in England as it was in Scotland, and to let the Grant become what it might if the same system was adopted. But it must not be said, where the law was so entirely different, that a favour was granted to Scotland. He had to complain of the difference between the Grant for teachers for pauper schools in England and what was done in Scotland. [Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH explained that there were no exclusively pauper schools in Scotland.] He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to direct him to any Grant corresponding to the £36,600 proposed to be voted for the payment of teachers in Poor Law schools in England. Scotland had no such Grant. But the Scotch were taxpayers into the Imperial Treasury in the same way as the people of England. But although there were no schools in Scotland exclusively for teaching pauper children, there were a great number of the children of the poor educated at the expense of the parochial boards, and they asked that, the circumstances of Scotland being considered, they should get a Grant in proportion to the taxes they paid. They asked no favour—only justice; nothing more. That these Totes were the same from year to year was the matter of which they complained. So far they had got nothing more in consequence of their representations than courteous words. They wanted evidence of the sincerity of those words. No other course was open to them than to challenge the Votes put before them; because it was not competent by the Forms of the House for any hon. Member to propose an augmentation of a Grant.

said, that after what had been elicited from the Government he should withdraw his Motion.

asked, whether the £330,000 voted last year in aid of pauper lunatics in this country would be required, as the Committee had no information in reference to the expenditure of that Vote before them? He would also like to know, whether in future the sum of 4s. per week would be allowed for the maintenance of such lunatics in workhouses?, He believed that there was an increase of lunacy in the country, and that the question of the proper management of lunatics would have to be discussed sooner or later by that House.

said, that the sum mentioned was within a fraction of that which had been required. So far as the Returns went, there was no growth of lunacy in this country out of proportion to the increase of the population. As to the 4s., he hoped soon to see the day when full provision would be made for the lunatics in workhouses.

said, the abolition of the Mastership of the Mint was to be regretted: it gave a Minister means of rewarding great scientific merit it had been held by Sir Isaac Newton and other very distinguished persons. He should be glad to know from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer who was responsible for the coinage and designs at the Mint? Of late years a great deterioration had taken place in the designs; not very long ago a large coinage of sovereigns had to be recalled. As to the silver coinage it was most discreditable: some one might be found who could turn out coin worthy of the country.

expressed his surprise at the moderation of the Vote, and inquired whether the idea of acquiring a new site for the Mint had been abandoned?

said, that though nominally he was responsible, yet, in fact, the working of the Mint was under the direction of the Deputy Master, who was most attentive to his duties, and most anxious in every way to produce work which would be profitable to the office which he held. He was quite sure that if at any time his friend Mr. Fremantle came to him with a proposal on this subject his suggestions would receive warm support. But Mr. Fremantle laboured under this difficulty, that the Mint was by no means in the condition in which it ought to be. The service was carried on there in constant fear and trembling lest there should be a breakdown of the machinery, and suitable machinery could not be substituted without causing a stoppage of the work. Under these circumstances both he and his predecessors in office had been anxious to procure a site for the erection of a new Mint, the cost of which in the long run would not be very expensive, as they would be able to recover a large proportion of it by the sale of the existing Mint. Some two years ago there was a proposal to purchase another place, but it failed; and at the present moment negotiations were in progress to purchase some premises in the neighbourhood of Waterloo Bridge. They had been going on for a good many months, and, he hoped, would be successful. If that were so, it would be their duty to bring the question before the House. As to the coiner and engraver, payment was made for the work done, and that was all he knew of the matter.

said, that it was a mistake to suppose that silver and copper coinage was carried on at considerable cost to the country. So far from that being the case, there was usually a profit of about £100,000 a-year. He hoped the Deputy Master would be enabled to present to the House a profit and loss account in connection with the matter.

thought the site of the present Mint was better than any other that could be procured; but having gone over the place, he felt bound to admit that the building was so badly arranged that it would be impossible to make the necessary improvements without stopping the works, and therefore the only alternative was to erect a new Mint on another site.

put it to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the removal of the Mint to such a close neighbourhood as surrounded Waterloo Bridge might not be attended with injurious consequences to the health of the inhabitants.

said, he would admit that the residents in the neighbourhood of the proposed new site had objected to the erection of the Mint there, because the manufacture involved the production of injurious or disagreeable gases. But the Committee that two or three years ago sat on the transfer of the Mint, and before whom that point was strongly urged, pointed out that there was no necessity for such being the case. There were two processes employed in minting coin —one which evolved smoke and gases, and the other that did not; and the former process was, he believed, carried on in a neighbouring refinery that did not belong to the Government. An undertaking was offered before the Select Committee that if the Mint were brought into the neighbourhood of the Savoy, as he hoped it would, no melting should be carried on which would cause these gases to be evolved, and he would undertake that care should be exercised in these particulars.

said, the only fault he had, in common with the public, to find with the sovereign was that he got too few of them. The present Mint was in a very inconvenient place, and the building occupied a large space that might be better and more usefully turned to account, being better suited for docks, railway termini, or similar purposes. He did not see why the Mint should be kept at the East End if it was unhealthy, as was said, and the poor people be punished. It was better that it should be at the West End, where the inhabitants were better able to employ a doctor and take care of themselves than were the poor in the East. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would carry out the ideas shadowed forth, and give us a Mint worthy of the country, situated in a place more convenient and better adapted for its purposes than the present structure.

objected, as he had done from the first, to the erection of a new Mint on the Thames Embankment. That Embankment was not intended for such a purpose, and if a Mint was erected there it would be as great a nuisance as gasworks and other buildings which were so strongly objected to, and some of which had been already removed. He should really like to know why the place for coining money should be removed from its present position. It had long occupied the site. There was ample space for all purposes, a large sum had been expended on the building, and the people and businesses of the neighbourhood were adapted to the circumstances. He trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would inform the Committee where the new Mint was to be placed, and hoped the Thames Embankment, which ought to be an elegant place, but unfortunately was not, would not be selected as the new site, for no one could think it would be improved by such a class of building. He could only account for the desire to remove the Mint from its present locality, from there being somebody behind who wished to acquire the site for building ground for their own advantage.

said, the best answer he could make to the hon. Member for Southwark was to say that whenever the Government were in a position to make a definite proposition to the House they would do so, and then the House would be able freely to discuss it. The site upon the Thames Embankment upon which it was proposed to build the new Mint belonged partly to the Duchy of Lancaster, partly to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and partly to the Marquess of Salisbury, and it was in the neighbourhood of the Savoy.

in rising to move, as an Amendment—

"That this House considers that the Bill does not provide sufficient facilities for the regulation and improvement of commons in their present open condition, and is of opinion that, after the recent decisions given in regard to Epping Forest and other cases, where inclosures have been illegally and arbitrarily made, no inclosures should be permitted except under the special sanction of Parliament,"

said, he had been under the impression in listening to the excellent speech of the Home Secretary in bringing in this Bill that it was substantially the same measure as that of 1871, which was referred to a Select Committee and received the sanction of that House, but which was rejected by the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman, however, disclaimed that comparison, and rightly so, because it differed on many important points from the Bill of 1871. In some respects he was bound to admit that it was an improvement on that measure, but in other and more important respects it was far behind it. The clause which remitted the matter to the consideration of the Inolosure Commissioners before they gave their assent to any inclosure was a good one, and had been framed with the obvious intention of limiting inclosures as far as possible. The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Bill, seemed to be far from anxious to extend inclosures, and evidently wished that lands which could not be inclosed to the advantage of the public should remain uninclosed. He would not, however, enter upon any invidious comparison between the two Bills; but, having given much attention to the matter, and having done something to hasten on the progress of public opinion on this subject by those rapid strides which the Home Secretary had referred to, he might claim a right to criticize the measure. Its defects were these—The Bill did not provide any remedy for the protection of the public against the violent and arbitrary inclosures of common land of which they had had so many illustrations in past years, and which at a great expense had been declared illegal. The clauses for the regulation and improvement of commons would be nugatory and useless, and sufficient security was not provided that the interest of the agricultural labourer when inclosure took place should be properly protected. Before discussing these defects, he desired to say a few words on the extent of our commons and manorial wastes, and the history of legislation affecting them. Their extent had been estimated, sometimes at 5,000,000 acres and at other times at 7,500,000 acres; but we were now informed by the Home Secretary that the Inclosure Commissioners had come to the conclusion that the waste lands did not exceed more than 2,500,000 acres, of which only 800,000 acres were improvable. Since then an apparently more careful estimate had been produced in the Return of landholders, which had been called the second Domesday Book, and, according to that, the aggregate amount of uninclosed places and waste lands was only 1,500,000 acres, of which 1,200,000 acres were in England, and 300,000 acres in Wales. The Return showed the distribution of this waste land in the respective counties, and it appeared that Cumberland, Westmoreland, Yorkshire, and Devonshire, and the other mountainous counties, contained 960,000 acres, leaving only 266,000 acres for the other counties; and when 60,000 acres were subtracted for the New Forest, which Parliament had decided should be left open, and 40,000 for the Surrey Commons, the westerly winds over which contributed so much to the salubrity and health of London, and which the Home Secretary had admitted ought not to be inclosed, it would be seen that the quantity of land available for inclosures was reduced to a small amount. The Returns from Bedford, Bucks, Oxford, Hants, and other counties showed that that was the case, and that, as he had said, there had been great exaggeration as to the amount of these waste lands, and they ought to take care that the Government did not give any unnecessarily due facilities for these inclosures for private purposes by private persons. He quite agreed with the Home Secretary's statement that any food that could possibly be produced by the inclosure of these lands would be but a mere trifle, and that they must depend under unaltered circumstances on supplies from other countries, while the wastes and commons should be looked upon as health reserves for the benefit of the community at large. The difficulty in dealing with the question of commons arose from the fact that the legal position of the public and of the agricultural labourers was not in harmony with practice and facts. According to the strict technical law, invented by the feudal lawyers—and superseding a much wider and more popular law, under which undoubtedly the commons were the common property of the village or community—the commons were the property of the lords of manors, and the tenants of their manors, and the public had no right to them, no matter how long or how much they had used them for recreation, no matter how necessary they might be for the health of the district. It was true that the law had recognized the right of inhabitants of a village to the village green acquired by user and by the custom of playing games and dancing; but the law seemed to have drawn no analogy between the village and its green and the populous town or district and its common, no matter how close that analogy might be. By a miserable technicality a custom must be limited to a limited class or to a limited custom, and it was said that a custom for all the world to recreate and play games on such a common as Blackheath or Hackney, which were, in fact, playgrounds, was bad because it was too general. Technically, also, commons might be inclosed with the consent of lords of manors and their commoners, but in practice this consent could not be obtained; and by the old Statute of Merton, passed in the interest of agriculture, a lord of the manor could inclose provided he left sufficiency of common to the commoners. This statute was practically obsolete and only applied to common of pasture. The lord could not avail himself of it, and as the onus of proving that a sufficiency of common was left for the other commoners lies with the lord, it was admitted that this could never be done. In all the great cases which had occupied the Law Courts of late years, although the Statute of Merton was always pleaded, it had never since been attempted to show that a sufficiency of common had been left. Now, this being the very unsatisfactory state of the technical law, practically the case was very different. The commons were kept open by the adverse interests of lords of manors and commoners, by the impossibility of getting consents, by the uncertainty as to what the rights were and who were entitled to them; and it was the experience of ages that commons could not be lawfully inclosed without the sanction of Parliament. If it were not so, why the many hundred private Inclosure Acts, why the General Inclosure Act, why this Bill? So long as the commons remained open the public enjoyed them. The public were what the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) had called "dispunishable trespassers." In respect, however, of the commons in populous districts, this difficulty had arisen. By the growth of populations enjoying the common without stint or without any power on the part of the lords and commoners to restrain them, the circumstances of the commons greatly altered, and it became impossible or un- profitable for the commoners to exercise their rights. They ceased to turn out their cattle upon them, they no longer burnt the turf. People took the place of cattle, they were down the grass in lieu of browsing on it, the turf was more useful for games than for burning. The law, however, had not been pliant enough to recognize this practical transfer of user and custom, or to legitimize the public user which had thus ousted the private user. In ancient times, the commoners were, for the most part, copyholders, who were mere tenants of the will of the lord liable to be ousted at any moment, villeins and serfs who had no rights of any kind; but by degrees these customs of the copyholders ripened into right, and the lawyers of those days recognized that long-established custom gave sanction to right, and the conversion of villeins and tenants-at-will into customary copyholders with certain tenure, had always been looked back to by our law-writers and historians as an act of great justice and most advantageous to the country. But now-a-days the law failed to grasp the same principles, and to recognize the customary user of the people as one equally deserving of consideration. The Home Secretary very rightly dated back the change of opinion with regard to commons to the year 1865, when a very important Committee investigated the subject of the Commons round London. Though this Bill did not apply to metropolitan commons, yet the principles laid down by that Committee applied equally to all commons, or, at all events, those within reach of other populous places. It was contended before the Committee by the agents of the lords of manors that by the disuser of rights the commons practically belonged to them free of rights, and that they could inclose at will. The Committee, however, was of opinion after hearing much evidence, that the rights of common of the commoners, though disused, still subsisted at law sufficient to prevent inclosure, and that the commoners might be expected to put them in force to prevent inclosure. They rejected, therefore, a scheme for the purchase of the commons which would have involvedpaying£6,000,000 to £7,000,000 for that which the public had always used, and they recommended the scheme under which the commons might be placed under proper regulation and management for the prevention of nuisances and the maintenance of order, and under which the ratepayers' money could be applied for the improvement of the commons. The Committee further recommended the repeal of the Statute of Morton, on the ground that even in the agricultural districts, any attempt at inclosure of lands under the alleged authority of the statute would be entirely inconsistent with the more comprehensive legislation of the present day. The recommendation of the Committee with respect to the management of commons was afterwards adopted by Parliament and the Metropolitan Commons Act, under which some five or six commons had been placed under proper management. The Act was not without difficulties; but it would have been put into operation more frequently but for circumstances to which he should presently revert, and for the same reason the proposal to repeal the Statute of Morton was postponed. These circumstances were that immediately after the Report of the Committee there commenced a raid upon the commons near London of a most formidable character. Inolosures were made in all directions; 3,000 acres of Epping Forest were inclosed, and some 10 or 12 other commons were either inclosed or threatened. This led to a counter-demonstration. A society was formed for the purpose of resisting these inolosures, and to test the truth of the conclusions of the Committee of 1865, that inclosures were illegal and could be put down. Local committees were formed; public-spirited persons came forward; Mr. Augustus Smith sent 200 men to pull down the fences which had been erected by Earl Brownlow as lord of the manor. His hon. Friend the Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid) undertook to resist the inclosure of Plumstead, which had been made by an Oxford College. In Epping Forest the battle was fought for three or four years by a brave old labouring man named Willingale, assisted by friends of the cause. In all, some 10 or 12 suits were commenced, which occupied the Court of Chancery for many years. Ancient records were searched, manorial law was furbished up, and it was found that the old law of the country was quite equal to the task of putting down these illegalities. With one exception—that of Hampstead, where a compromise was effected by the Metropolitan Board purchasing the common for a comparatively small sum—all the cases were successful, and fully established the fact that the inclosures were as illegal as they were arbitrary and without consideration for the public. In the case of Epping Forest, the investigations of old Willingale's suit showed that the Corporation of London, as the owner of a cemetery, had rights of common over the whole forest. The Corporation, full of zeal for the public interest, was induced to put those rights in force, and it brought these suits, which ended only last year in the most complete victory, and in the practical restoration of 3,000 acres to the forest, and therefore to the use of the people. Pending these cases, he need hardly say that all questions of altering the law, or of repealing the Statute of Merton, were naturally suspended. But he thought the time had now come for a proper consideration of the question. They had practically shown that these inclosures were illegal; it was only a question of money. He felt confident that any inclosure could be put down. The question, however, arose whether the State should not interfere to prevent these arbitrary inclosures, to give greater protection against them, to stop useless litigation, to avoid the necessity of these circuitous actions, and to forbid all further encroachments, except such as received the sanction of Parliament, through the proper course of the Inclosure Commission. But of this he was confident—that no Bill would be satisfactory or lasting as a settlement of the question which did not deal with this matter by securing the public from these arbitrary and illegal inclosures. The second question he had to deal with was that affecting the regulation and management of commons, especially those within reach of populous places. The present Bill was very skilfully, he might say artfully drawn. It put in the foreground the clauses for the regulation and improvement of commons, and kept in the background the inclosure, and the Home Secretary, with perfect candour, told them that he hoped there would be many more applications for the one than the other. He wished he could think so; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman was under a delusion on that point. He knew it had been suggested by the Inclosure Commissioners that power should be taken to regulate commons; but he believed it to be an entire mistake to suppose that a lord of the manor would ever apply for the regulation of his common. What lords of manors wished to do was to inclose, and not regulate; if they could not get consent to inclose, they would not go to the expense of regulation. He would be told, however, that under the Bill local authorities would have power to initiate proceedings for regulating commons; but they must first get the consent of two-thirds of the persons interested, and as no scheme could be finally concluded without the approval of the lord of the manor, practically it came to this—that the scheme of the local authorities must necessarily be subject to the veto of the lord of the manor. That was a very poor substitute for the extension of the Metropolitan Commons Act to commons in other populous places. The true course was to extend the Metropolitan Commons Act to other populous places. With respect to the position of the agricultural labourer who was tenant of a cottage on a common, though he had strictly no legal right to the common, since such rights were attached to land only, and not to persons, still as long as the common remained open he exercised a right in lieu of the owner of the cottage which he occupied, and consequently was entitled to consideration. AH that the Bill provided to meet such cases was that it removed a limit contained in the Act of 1845 in regard to the amount of land that was to be appropriated as garden allotments or recreation grounds upon an inclosure taking place. The Committee of 1871 recommended as a minimum that one-tenth of the common inclosed should be set apart for such purposes. Many at the time objected, on the ground that that minimum was excessive; on the other hand, others thought it too small. Looking back at the miserable pittance allowed for gardens in the Act of 1845 to agricultural labourers, where inclosures had occurred, he came to the conclusion that grave injustice had been done. The Bill proposed in future to leave the matter to the discretion of the Inclosure Commissioners. He had the greatest respect for these gentlemen; they had done their duty honestly and according to the instructions of Parlia- ment; but the instincts of Inclosure Commissioners must necessarily be in favour of inclosure. For his own part, he did not desire to leave such matters entirely to the discretion of the Commissioners, and thought that it would be easier to lay down at least a minimum in the Bill. In conclusion, he would point out what appeared to be three grave defects in the Bill—1. It provided no remedy whatever against arbitrary inclosures, such as we had so many examples of, and, which, although they had been declared illegal after expensive and lengthy process of law, were certain to break out again. 2. It provided no adequate means for the regulation and improvement of commons within reach of populous places. 3. It did not sufficiently secure the interest of the labouring class in case of inclosure. Unless these defects were cured, the Bill would not be that lasting settlement which the Home Secretary desired, and which was equally in the interest of lords of manors, of commoners, and of the public. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.

said, that as a Member of the Inclosure Committee of 1869 he had gone carefully through this Bill with the Report of that Committee, and so far as he could find out the Resolutions and Report of that Committee had been fairly and honestly brought forward in the Bill. So far as he could see the Bill was one which, after the Amendments it might undergo in Committee, would be a very great improvement on the present Inclosure Act—bearing in mind the principle that they were endeavouring to keep the commons open for public use, and to provide suitable recreation grounds and garden allotments for the agricultural poor. The hon. Gentleman had urged three objections against it. He alleged that it would not prevent inclosures; but he had, while admitting the efficacy of the means already available for that purpose, failed to specify the remedy he would substitute for it. The hon. Gentleman said proceedings in Chancery were attended with great expense, but where questions of land arose, it was impossible to deal with them without calling witnesses into Court; but when those proceedings had been taken, substantial justice had been obtained. The next point urged by the hon. Gentleman was that the regulations for the improvement of the commons would prove nugatory, as the consent of the lord of the manor would have to be obtained; but then, if the lord of the manor refused his consent, the common would remain as it was—still an open space. With respect to the privileges of agricultural labourers, his hon. Friend admitted that a great improvement in their position would be made by the Bill; for not only would they, so long as they tenanted their cottages, enjoy the garden allotments, but the Inclosure Commissioners would have power to pay the original expense of bringing the allotments into culture. His hon. Friend had talked of the rights of the agricultural labourers who might have occupied a cottage near a common for six months; but his hon. Friend would find it very difficult to give such a labourer the same rights as a freeholder. The conclusions from "Domesday Book" were anything but reliable, as he had found it very inaccurate in every instance in which he had had occasion to consult it, and he feared a great deal of money and of pains had been lavished upon it without producing any very good result. The Bill, so far as he could see, carried out the recommendations of the Committee, by whom great attention was given to the subject, was simple in its character, and was calculated to do a considerable amount of good.

observed, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had given the House a learned speech on the subject, which he had listened to with much interest. But he must take exception to what he said respecting public rights. If by that expression he meant the rights of the inhabitants of the vicinity of the common, he was ready to assent to his view. He thought, however, the expression might be interpreted to mean the rights of the public generally, though resident in places which might be very distant from the public locally interested. He (Mr. Pell) thought that the great feature of the Bill—the feature which ought to give the greatest satisfaction—was, that it made provision for keeping open within reasonable limits all the open spaces in the country. That was a result which could not fail to be productive of good. Another good point in the Bill was, that whilst it would thus reserve to the use of the people places of much natural beauty, where they could enjoy seasonable and healthful recreation, it would disabuse the minds of the people of the very great prejudice and misconception that they had indefinite rights and interests in the property of commons where they had no such rights whatsoever. As regarded the labourers, nothing the House could do for them would place them in the position they formerly enjoyed before they lost the advantages attending the ownership of common rights; but because the Bill did not do that for them, it was was no reason why it should not still be accepted. He hoped that the hon. Member for Reading would not press his Motion to a division, because his speech contained nothing that was really hostile to the Bill.

said, that his objection to the Bill rested not on what it contained, but on what it omitted. The Bill was satisfactory so far as it embodied a great number of recommendations which had been made by three Committees; but he hoped that when the Home Secretary introduced this Bill he would have made a full settlement of the question by complete provisions for dealing satisfactorily with the subject. The omission which he thought the most grave, and which he wished to see remedied, was that relating to suburban commons. The Bill maintained the principle of the Act of 1845, and amended the procedure and ensured a fuller consideration of the interests of the Commoners, but it entirely ignored the principle of the Metropolitan Commons Act, which had preserved for the enjoyment of the pub- lic so many open spaces. The preservation of commons in the immediate vicinity of towns would devolve upon Town Councils and local Government Boards. Those bodies would be the only safeguards. They would have power to appear before the Inclosure Commissioners or Assistant Commissioners; but might often omit to undertake that difficult task in cases where inclosure ought to be resisted. Many of the provisions of the Bill were ineffective for their intended purposes, and there was no guarantee that a larger portion of land would be appropriated for allotments or gardens for the working classes than under the existing law. He would ask, if this Bill was to provide a complete system for inclosing land, why the Government should not prevent inclosure by any other means? The Statute of Merton, which was unfitted to present circumstances, but was often abused, ought to be repealed. If this Bill could provide for a full and fair adjudication on all right and claims other modes of inclosure ought to be prohibited. In his opinion, the Bill would not be perfect unless it contained some indication as to the manner in which inclosures were henceforth to be made.

feared that some portions of the speech of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) would mislead the public; and for his own part, he approved of the decision of the Law Courts—that people should not simply by wandering over property gain a right to roam upon it habitually. The best legal opinion had arrived at the conclusion that the Statute of Merton was nothing more than a declaration of the common law, and, therefore, that would remain even were the statute repealed as suggested. The only practical objection which had been raised bore upon the difficulty, in point of expense, of resisting the encroachments of lords of the manor, and the hon. Gentleman had spoken of the advantage arising in the case of Epping Forest from the Corporation of London happening to have a locus standi; yet when he (Mr. Sandford) proposed, in the Committee of 1865, that power should be given to the Metropolitan Board of Works of purchasing manorial or commoners' rights in the neighbourhood of London, so as to give them a locus standi, that suggestion was resisted by the hon. Member himself. [Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE dissented.] Let the hon. Member turn to the record of the proceedings—how his Motion was lost by only a small majority. In justice to the Members of the Committee who voted against him, however, he might say he believed they did not very well know what they were objecting to. He intended, in Committee on the Bill, to raise the question whether it would not be beneficial to give corporations of large towns power to purchase some commoners or manorial rights in their neighbourhood for the purpose of giving them a locus standi for the preservation of commons. As for the Amendment, it was hardly worth while, in his opinion, to divide the House upon it, for it did not assert any principle which might not be brought forward in Committee. He had the greatest confidence in the Home Secretary. During an experience of that House, extending over a quarter of a century, he had never known a right hon. Gentleman make himself so thoroughly master of the subjects with which he had to deal as the right hon. Gentleman, and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would cordially agree to any practicable suggestion for further protecting the rights of commoners. The appointment of a Standing Committee was a most important matter. It appeared to him that the whole protection of the public depended upon that, and he hoped the Committee would be formed of the most independent Members. If the appointment of that Committee were entrusted to the Committee of Selection or left in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman himself, he should be perfectly content.

said, a remark of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) threw light on this difficult and complicated Bill. The hon. Member said there were notions abroad that people living in large towns away from commons had a right to wander over those commons, and those notions he described as monstrous. The hon. Member said the object of this Bill was to restrain that right. He could not have more happily described the contents of this Bill. He (Mr. Fawcett) contended that those commons, although nominally belonging to lords of manors and commoners, were a great and valuable possession to be enjoyed not by the people in the particular locality, but by the people of the entire country, who liked to wander to those commons to see beautiful scenery or seek for recreation, health, and fresh air. If it was not the intention, it certainly would be the result of this Bill, if it passed as it stood, to curtail the rights which the entire people now possessed in the comparatively few open spaces which remained to us. When the Home Secretary rose to reply he hoped he would reply to the interpretation which had been put on his measure by one of his own supporters. He (Mr. Fawcett) had no wish to cast the smallest suspicion on the intentions of the Home Secretary. He read carefully the speech of the Home Secretary on the Motion for leave to introduce this Bill, but he was glad he was not in the House when that speech was delivered; because, captivated by the admirable sentiments of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, he might have committed the mistake of expressing approval of a Bill, simply from the speech by which it was introduced. Nothing could be more admirable than the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, who had, no doubt, intended that his speech should carry out the sentiments of his Bill. If the right hen. Gentleman could prove that the Bill would carry out what he said in his speech, he would find no more cordial supporter than he (Mr. Fawcett) would be. The central point of his speech was that he wished these open spaces to be preserved for the enjoyment of the public. He did not say anything about the monstrous idea of the public having any rights in commons. He (Mr. Fawcett) had read this Bill with the greatest care, and to aid him in the reading of it he called in a high legal authority. They had put the best interpretation on the Bill they could, and they had come to these conclusions—first, that the Bill provided no adequate security that the rights of the rural poor and of the public in rural districts would be adequately secured in the future; secondly, that the Bill provided no security that commons in the neighbourhood of populous towns would not be inclosed; thirdly, that as it stood the Bill rendered all those clauses which read so remarkably well with regard to the regulation of commons in the neighbourhood of towns inoperative; fourthly, the Bill continued to place confidence in a body of men—he spoke of them not personally but officially—in whom no confidence ought to be placed—namely, the Inclosure Commissioners, under whom, during the last 20 years, 400,000 acres had been inclosed, leaving only 2,000 acres for the poor, and 2,000 acres for public purposes. Yet everything was left to the mercy of the Inclosure Commissioners. If the Inclosure Commissioners had acted in the spirit of the speech of the Home Secretary the monstrous abuses that had been committed in the past would never have arisen, and there would be no necessity for this legislation. Looking at the conduct of the Commissioners in the past, it would be extremely rash not to tie them down more expressly by that Bill in the future. With reference to the rural poor, this Bill gave no security whatever that, in the case of any particular inclosure, an adequate amount of land would be reserved. It might be said that every one of the Provisional Orders would be submitted to Parliament, and that, if the reservation was inadequate, Parliament might reject the Provisional Orders. But they had experienced how difficult it was to overthrow a place of this kind, and they knew how ready both officials and ex-officials were to defend the policy of the Department. A recommendation was made that, in cases of inclosure, a minimum should be retained for necessary purposes. He wanted to know why that recommendation should be left out of the Bill. He believed that in the Committee which considered this question no one took a more active part than the present Secretary to the Treasury, who, indeed, if his memory did not greatly deceive him, constantly insisted on the importance of inserting in an Act of Parliament a minimum reservation of that kind. Again, every Member of the Committee would acknowledge that no conclusion was more forced upon them than that one of the most fruitful sources of injustice to the rural poor arose from the fact that whenever the Assistant Commissioner went down to a place to hold an inquiry he held it at 11 or 12 o'clock, or at an hour of the day when the poor were at work and could not possibly attend to state their objections. The inquiry usually lasted a very short time, and consisted of the hearing of an application for an inclosure, perhaps from a large landowner and the clergy- man of the parish. Scarcely was there an instance brought under the Committee's notice in which the inquiry was held at such a time as gave the agricultural labourer a chance of attending. He thought all that would have been remedied by the present measure. The Bill said the inquiry should be held at a "suitable time." Suitable to whom? To the landowner, or to the Assistant Commissioner himself? It did not say it was to be suitable to the poor. When they knew that these inquiries had been, so far as concerned the rural poor, an idle mockery and a farce, surely the Assistant Commissioners ought to be tied down by much more stringent provisions than those of that Bill. But the measure was still more incomplete in regard to suburban commons. The Metropolitan Commons Act of 1865 had worked admirably for the advantage of the people of London; and no argument had been advanced to show why the people of Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, and all our other great centres of population having commons in their neighbourhood should not have the same securities given to them in that matter as were enjoyed by the inhabitants of that metropolis. There was no great city in England which in proportion to its population was so well supplied as London with open spaces; and the loss of, perhaps, the only common near Manchester, Leeds, or Sheffield would be a greater injury to the inhabitants than the loss of a single common might be to the people of London. The Metropolitan Commons Act had worked so satisfactorily that any proposal to repeal it would not be entertained; and why should not privileges similar to those secured by it be conferred upon the populations of other large towns? If the proposed regulations of the Bill were likely to come into force, nothing would be better; but there was scarcely any chance that the clauses would prove operative, because a local authority could not obtain the confirmation of a scheme without the concurrence of two-thirds of those pecuniarily interested, and of the lord of the manor. Unless the Home Secretary was prepared to make radical changes in the Bill it would prove practically inoperative. Its clauses were vitiated, because it intrusted powers to Commissioners as if they had acted in the past on what the Home Secretary declared to be the principle of the Bill, whereas they had acted on exactly the opposite principle. In spite of all warnings and expressions of public opinion, they had done everything in their power to facilitate inclosure and to reserve a minimum quantity of land for recreation and for the poor; and it was this policy which it was the professed object of the Bill, and should be the desire of Parliament, to reverse. Indeed, the Bill did not repeal the Preamble of the Act of 1845, which laid down the principle on which the Commissioners were bound to act, and that was that it was desirable to facilitate the inclosure of land. But what the Home Secretary wished to do in future was not to facilitate, but to retard inclosure; and therefore his Bill ought to be based upon an entirely different principle from the unrepealed Preamble of the Act of 1845. If there had been a simple clause in the Bill that no inclosure should take place in future, except with the authority of Parliament, that would have produced a powerful effect. He knew now an instance of a common of which a few years ago not a single acre was inclosed; but every autumn lately when he had visited it there were 50 or 100 acres inclosed, and the commoners could not take any steps to resist it because a suit would cost from £1,500 to £2,000. This was not justice. It was a scandal which the House had power to prevent. Thousands of acres of land were being inclosed in this illegal and arbitrary manner. How had any illegal inclosure been prevented but by the public spirit of some influential person in the neighbourhood, who was willing to go to the expense of a law suit?—and the commons should no longer be left in such a state of insecurity. He should support the Resolution of the hon. Member for Beading, if it was carried to a division. But he hoped it would not be pressed, as he believed that the Home Secretary wished the Bill to be a good one, and that no doubt if it could be shown that the measure did not carry out his intentions the right hon. Gentleman would alter it.

said, he thought that the hon. Member (Mr. Fawcett) seemed to have argued in a circle. The Home Secretary, in this Bill, had recognized, to a greater extent than had ever been recognized before, the public rights, and the Bill contained great limitations upon the rights of owners, and also upon the Inclosure Commissioners. The objections that had been made against the Bill were groundless, and he believed that it would effect every object that could be desired.

said, he had nothing to complain of with regard to the manner in which the Motion which stood in the name of his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had been brought forward; but he must complain that the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) had made statements inconsistent with the tenour and terms of the Bill. He did not think he was exceeding the bounds of Parliamentary language when he said that a more unjust and ungenerous description of the measure it would be absolutely impossible to give. He would mention two instances in order to show how unfair the hon. Member for Hackney had been. The hon. Member said no provision was made by the Bill to secure the attendance of persons who ought to be present, and that the Assistant Commissioner would soon be able to do as he pleased. No doubt, unintentionally, the hon. Gentleman had misread three lines of the Bill. The hon. Member said the Bill provided that the Assistant Commissioner appointed to hold the inquiry should inspect the common, and should convene a public meeting at a suitable time and place; but there the hon. Member stopped, not completing the clause, which stated that the object was to "secure the attendance of the neighbouring inhabitants and of all persons interested," and yet the hon. Member maintained that the Assistant Commissioner would still be able to do exactly as he liked. Again, the hon. Member for Hackney had made a most unfair attack on the Inclosure Commissioners, asserting that they had acted in an unjust and unfair spirit in the interests of the lords of the manor and against the interests of the poor. The hon. Member added that they would do precisely the same under this Bill, as the Government had left everything entirely to their discretion. He must remind the hon. Member for Hackney of a speech which he made in Parliament two or three years age on this subject. The hon. Gentleman stated at that time that he was not opposed to inclosures; but that what he wanted to have dis- tinctly laid down was that each particular scheme should be submitted to a Committee of this House. What was the meaning of that speech? It was that the discretion should be taken away from the Inclosure Commissioners and the matter brought to this House for decision. But what did this Bill propose? The very scheme, the very framework of the Bill was to take away from the discretion of the Commissioners what to a very great extent was left to them before, and to bring every scheme, with all particulars connected with it, and all the objections to it, under the notice of Parliament. He repeated, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman's description was a total perversion of the terms of the Bill. One object of the Bill was not to have a hard-and-fast line drawn in any special case; but in every case to come for the decision of Parliament, taking care that Parliament should have full and ample information. The other object of the Bill was to prevent, as far as possible, the inclosure of commons and to give facilities for keeping them open for the benefit of the people, so that not only those having rights in these commons should enjoy those rights, but that the people enjoying the use, they had hitherto had of these commons, might have them improved, drained, and levelled for their enjoyment. The House would remember the old rhyme—

"The law condemns the man and woman

Who steal the goose from off the common;

But does not punish what's far worse,

To steal the common from the goose."

He had no intention of stealing a common from any goose, but to give every facility for the continued user by the poor labourer, the artizan, and the dweller in large towns of that beautiful scenery which they had hitherto enjoyed, but in an improved state.

asked that the Committee should be postponed to as long a period as possible, in order to give the country time to consider the provisions of the Bill.

in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to extend the jurisdiction of the Courts for hearing Civil Bill causes in Ireland, and for other purposes; said, it was a very important Bill to the people of Ireland. At present a Common Law jurisdiction was enjoyed by the Civil Bill Courts except in cases of libel, slander, breach of promise of mariage, and criminal conversation, to the limit of £40, and he now proposed to extend that jurisdiction to £50. He also proposed to give an equitable jurisdiction to those Courts. As regarded Admiralty cases, he hoped to deal with them by another Bill which he would lay before the House in a few days. The Government did not propose to deal with administration of the law of bankruptcy at present. This Bill was founded upon the English Act of 1865; but whereas the English Bill was limited to cases of £500, including personalty and realty, this Bill would be limited to £500 personalty, and also include realty to the value of £30 a-year. With regard to the testamentary causes the Bill proposed that the Chairman of the county, in those cases in which he was satisfied on affidavit that the deceased person had his last place of abode within the county, and that his personal property did not exceed £500, or his real property the annual value of £30, should have original jurisdiction. The salaries of Chairmen of counties would not be increased in consideration of the extra duties thus imposed upon them, but would be charged upon the Consolidated Fund, and travelling expenses would be allowed. It was proposed that the Chairmen of counties hereafter appointed should not be permitted to practise at the Bar, and that in future equal pay and, as nearly as possible, equal work would be given to all of them. For it was intended that the second and third-class Chairmanships should be gradually abolished; and finally, by the re-arrangement of districts, their number should be reduced from 33 to 21. By a separate Bill the offices of Clerk of the Peace and Clerk of the Crown would be united.

expressed a general approval of the Bill.