asked the Postmaster General, Whether the Post Office has not established direct communication between Manchester and the London Stock Exchange, Liverpool and the London Stock Exchange, and Glasgow and the London Stock Exchange; and, why a like facility is not afforded between the Dublin and London Stock Exchanges?

The Post Office did not establish direct communication between the London Stock Exchange and the Manchester and Glasgow Stock Exchanges; it simply continued the privilege of an arrangement which had been afforded by the late telegraph companies, and the continuance of which arrangement is justified by the large amount of business transacted. The number of messages passing between the London and Dublin and Stock Exchanges is insufficient to warrant the Department in giving up a wire exclusively for their transmission.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, If his attention has been called to the report of Dr. Thorne Thorne, which appeared on the 17th ultimo in "The Hampshire Telegraph" and "Sussex Chronicle" in respect to the sanitary condition of Portsmouth, and more especially to the two following cases, viz.:—

"In the overcrowded house of a tailor and dealer in second-hand clothing, a child was attacked with scarlet fever. Isolation was impossible, and a second child was attacked, one case terminating fatally. At the house of another tailor, where several cases occurred, I ascertained that at the date of the outbreak the mother divided her time between nursing her sick children and the manufacture of articles of clothing;"

in reply, said, his attention had been called to the Report of Dr. Thorne, which was a very important and interesting one, as to the sanitary condition of Portsmouth. The gist of that report was, not that there had been any actual spread of scarlet fever in Portsmouth in consequence of the practice of tailors making clothes in their own homes, but was to the effect that the authorities ought to provide further accommodation, with a view to the isolation of the disease in its early stages. The Report, which was dated January last, had been referred by him to the authorities of Portsmouth, and they had replied that they were taking steps to provide proper hospital accommodation for such isolation. The two cases of the tailors to which the hon. Member had referred were specially alluded to by Dr. Thorne, who might have gone further and given other cases. He had been in communication with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the subject, and he was not aware that at this moment there was anything which would show the necessity for taking further steps with respect to strengthening the provisions of the Public Health Act in connection with the matter.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Town Commissioners of Wicklow have been recently compelled to pay to Mr. Finlay, the Government auditor, seventeen pounds ten shillings and sixpence for taxed costs, and five pounds three shillings and fourpence, the auditor's charges for lost time, in relation to proceedings before the magistrates of Wicklow for the recovery of a surcharge of three pounds, in which the magistrates refused to order any costs; and, whether he, as a Member of the Local Government Board, has any control over such charges?

I am informed, Sir, that this surcharge of £3 was part of a disallowance of a considerably larger sum made by the Government auditor on the Town Commissioners of Wicklow for the year 1875. It had been illegally paid by the Commissioners to the Chairman for presiding at the election of Town Commissioners. He refused to refund it, but paid it without notice into the bank while the case was being heard by the magistrates. The magistrates in these circumstances did not consider themselves justified in making an order for costs, being probably unacquainted with the provisions of the law which enact that an auditor in such circumstances—

"shall be paid by the Governing Body all such costs and expenses, including a reasonable compensation for his loss of time, incurred by him in such proceedings, as are not recovered by him from"

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is proposed to apply the scheme of the Right honourable Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh University, commonly called "the Playfair Scheme," to the Customs London Establisment; or, if not, whether Her Majesty's Government have any other scheme in contemplation?

in reply, said, that the views of the Government on the immediate application of "the Playfair scheme" had been set forth in an Order in Council of the 12th of February, 1876. The outdoor establishment of the Customs had been already dealt with, and the other branches of that Department would be revised, in common with other branches of the Civil Service, according to the lines laid down in the right hon. Gentleman's Report and the Order in Council. The detailed application of the Report could not be promised unconditionally, as it might be subject to considerations of expenses and the varying circumstances of particular Offices.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Her Majesty's Government has yet received information from Egypt as to the alleged sale of three hundred women at Cairo a few days after the Egyptian Government had sent a ship of war down the Red Sea for the suppression of the Slave Trade; whether the statement of Captain W. R. Kennedy, R.N., to that effect is confirmed; and, whether that sale was in any way at the instance of the Egyptian Government; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government has remonstrated with the Khedive on such inconsistency?

, in reply, said, that Her Majesty's Government had received information in reference to the alleged sale of 300 women at Cairo from the Consul general at Cairo. The Consul general stated that he had made a most careful and minute inquiry into the statement, and he had not been able to find anything at all to substantiate the statement of Mr. Kennedy, which appeared in the newspapers last February. The Consul also stated that it would be, in his judgment, impossible that a public sale of slaves on so large a scale could have occurred without becoming generally known; and he added that it was the habit of the authorities at Cairo to capture the different batches of slaves that were attempted to be brought into Cairo, and to release them.

asked the Secretary of State for War, When para- graph 25 of the British Medical Department Code (India), viz.—

"In order to be qualified for holding an administration appointment in this country" (India) "it is required that an executive medical officer should have served as a surgeon for three years with a European regiment in India,"

Sir, it was not made general until the issue of the Warrant of 1876, but it must have been perfectly well known throughout the Department, because in 1867 it was necessary to pass over 60 or 70 officers to obtain the requisite number for India who had the qualifying service. With regard to the second part of the Question, there are medical administrative officers now holding appointments who have not complied with the condition of Paragraph 25, for the necessities of India having been supplied, some of the officers who were then passed over, as above stated, were promoted to administrative rank at home and in the Colonies. The effect of this was really unfair, as it gave some men long tropical service, and others an undue amount of home service, and so interfered with the roster; and, therefore, last year I considered it advisable, with the concurrence of His Royal Highness, to establish one system for promotion—namely, by selection, one of the elements of which was the necessity of having three years' Indian service. This does not in the least set aside the conditions of Paragraph 16 of the Royal Warrant of 1876, which lays down ability and merit as qualifications for promotion, as opposed to seniority, but not as excluding other grounds for non-selection—such as ill-health, inability to perform tropical service, &c,

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether a Memorial was received at the Colonial Office during the past year from the inhabitants of Jamaica, complaining of certain grievances under the new form of government instituted in 1865, and its defective administration, especially of the great increase of taxation and public expenditure, of public works undertaken beyond the means and requirements of the Colony, and of mismanagement in certain public departments; whether any instructions have been given, or anything done, to remedy the evils complained of; and, whether, now that a new Governor is about to proceed to Jamaica, Her Majesty's Government will amend the new form of government by introducing a certain proportion of members elected by the different districts, or by increasing the number of non-official members to be taken as far as possible from the different districts of the island, so as to afford an independent representation of the public opinion of the country?

Sir, a Memorial has been received (to the effect mentioned in the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Question), purporting to emanate from the inhabitants of the island of Jamaica, though bearing the signatures of only a very limited proportion of the population. The Memorial has been retained in order that the Secretary of State may confer with the new Governor, Sir Anthony Musgrave, who has recently arrived in England, upon the questions of alleged defective administration which are raised by the memorialists, and upon other matters of importance which have been brought to Lord Carnarvon's notice by gentlemen interested in the Colony. Her Majesty's Government have no intention at present of effecting any change in the Constitution of the Colony, and information to that effect has already been conveyed to the memorialists.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Government, having had in their hands for some weeks the evidence taken before the Royal Commission on Railway Accidents, is now prepared to introduce, during the present Session, any measure for the better prevention of accidents on Railways?

Sir, before deciding what legislation should be adopted in consequence of the Report of the Royal Commission on Railway Accidents, the Government have thought it desirable to confer with the railway companies as to what steps they would voluntarily take with regard to some of the principal recommendations contained in that Report. Until, therefore, the Government have learnt what course the companies will take, they are not in a position to state what legislation may be requisite. They hope, however, that good will result from the communications which are going on, and that the companies will agree together to carry out some of the suggestions of the Commission to secure greater safety to the public.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can give any information as to the progress of the Mission to the South African Republic; and, whether there is any truth in the statement that Her Majesty's Commissioner, Sir Theophilus Shepstone, has warned the Government at Pretoria that, failing an arrangement for Confederation,it would be necessary to annex the territory of the Republic to Her Majesty's South African Colonies?

Sir, there is no official information which can at this moment be given to the House, but from private communications received at the Colonial Office there is reason to believe that Sir Theophilus Shepstone has pointed out to the Government of the Transvaal the hopeless condition of anarchy into which the Rupublic has fallen and the imminent risks of further outbreaks on the part of the Native tribes, involving the greatest danger not only to the whole White population of the Transvaal, but to the peace of Her Majesty's Possessions in South Africa—a danger which would become very imminent if he were to return, leaving the Government of the Republic in no safer and stronger position than at present. Her Majesty's Governmant have no desere to interfere in the internal administration of the Transvaal, if the authorities are able to defend themselves and to maintain order; but failing this, Sir Theophilus Shepstone may obviously be compelled, for the protection of the lives of British subjects, both in the Republic and the neighbouring Colonies, to call in the aid of Her Majesty's troops now stationed for the purposes of public security on the frontier of Natal.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the promise, which appears from Colonel Stokes' letter to Lord Derby of 23rd February 1876, and the protocol of 22nd (Parliamentary Papers, Egypt, No. 9, 1876) to have been made by M. de Lesseps, namely, that the practice of re-measuring ships having Suez Canal Certificates issued by the Board of Trade should at once be discontinued, has been carried into effect; and, if not, what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to obtain the performance of this undertaking?

Yes, Sir. We believe that the promise has been carried into effect; and we are informed, upon the authority of M. de Lesseps himself, that the most stringent orders have been given to the officers of the Company not to measure vessels bearing the special certificate.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether any correspondence has taken place between the Foreign Office and the Italian Government respecting the introduction into this country of Italian children taken away from Italy in violation of the laws of that Kingdom; and, if so, whether such Correspondence can be laid upon the Table; and, whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared by diplomatic or, if necessary, legislative action to second the efforts of the Italian Government to put an end to this practice?

Sir, I have made inquiry at the Foreign Office, but do not find that there is any very recent correspondence on this subject. In March, April, or May, 1874, the Italian Minister did call Lord Derby's attention to the subject, and expressed a wish that this Government would avail itself of some means of applying the extradition principle to the case of children imported into this country under the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded. Lord Derby referred the matter to the Home Office, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State communicated with the Foreign Office on the subject, pointing out that there is no power of dealing with the case under any Extradition Acts; but suggesting that the Italian Government might prevent the egress of those children by refusing to grant passports, and that this Government would do all that could be done to assist them, by preventing the ill-usage of the children by those who had charge of them. I do not find that there has been any further correspondence on the subject; but there will be no objection to present what correspondence there is.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended to make any special allowances to the Offices and Troops serving in the Straits Settlements during the late outbreak?

Sir, it has been arranged that they shall have the same advantages as were enjoyed by the European troops sent to Abyssinia, and application has been made to the India Office to ascertain what those advantages were in order that they may be given to them.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has as yet made the promised inquiry into the circumstances affecting the fitness of Mr. William Ancketell to be retained on the commission of the peace for the county Monaghan, made public in the Belfast newspapers; and, if he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the Lord Chancellor's Report?

I submitted such information, Sir, on this subject as was in my possession to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who has, I believe, also received a statement from Mr. Ancketell himself. The Lord Chancellor has informed me that he did not consider himself justified in acting without further inquiry, as there is no complete authoritative report or other document to which, as finding the facts, reference could be made. He therefore recommended that an inquiry should be held into the subject by a Queen's Counsel, and a warrant is now being issued for that purpose.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, in the proposed scheme for the promotion and retirement of Naval engineers, it is intended that the provision by which all confirmed time from twenty years of age is to be counted shall apply to all chief engineers, or only to those chief engineers who have completed eleven years' service in that rank?

Sir, I regret that indisposition prevents my right hon. Friend from being present to answer the Question of my hon. and learned Friend. I will, however, do so for him, and beg to say that this provision will only apply to those chief engineers who complete 11 years' service in that rank. The chief engineers who have completed the 11 years' service will, under the new regulations, be allowed to reckon from three to five years more time than formerly—that is, the time they served as second-class assistant engineers.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is his intention during this Session to introduce any Bill dealing with the legal powers of the Collector General of Rates for the City of Dublin; and, if so, whether he will previously institute an offi- cial inquiry into the present working of the Collector General's office?

Sir, a Bill extending the legal powers of the Collector General of Rates for the City of Dublin in certain points has been recommended to me by the Town Council, the two Boards of Guardians of the North and South Dublin Unions, and the Collector General himself. It is very possible that some such legislation as has been recommended is advisable; but from the evidence taken by the Select Committee on Local Government and Taxation of Towns in Ireland last Session, I am inclined to think that some improvement might also also be made in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend, and I will consider whether such an inquiry should be instituted.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to withdraw our Military Attaché to the Embassy at Berlin; and, if so, whether he can state the circumstances which have induced the Government to adopt that course?

Sir, in reply to the Question of the hon. Gentleman, I have to inform him that we have not withdrawn our Military Attaché from the Embassy at Berlin. General Walker has resigned the office he has held with so much distinction, but the Government have not come to any decision not to fill it up.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any information has yet been received from Her Majesty's Consul with regard to the two outrages detailed by the correspondent of the "Manchester Guardian" of the 26th March—one of which outrages was stated to have occurred at Otchievo, in Bosnia, and the other at Glomosh, in the Herzegovina; and, whether the Government has received any further information of the state of the rural districts of Bosnia and the Herzegovina?

Sir, I am extremely anxious to give the House all the information that we have upon this subject, and it may be in the recollection of hon. Members that the day before the House adjourned for the holidays I mentioned that I had sent a telegram, as proposed on the 13th March, to Consul Holmes, asking him whether any outrages, such as had been reported in The Manchester Guardian, had come under his notice; and on the 14th I stated we received an answer from Mr. Holmes that he had not been able to hear anything of those outrages. Since the House adjourned we received two considerably long despatches from Mr. Holmes upon this subject; and I hope that these despatches will be amongst the Papers which will be laid before the House in a very few days; but if hon. Members will permit me, I will read one or two extracts which will give Mr. Holmes's opinion generally upon the subject. Mr. Holmes says on March 14—

"With reference to your telegram of 13th March, to which I have just briefly replied, regarding the statement that murders and outrages are on the increase in the north of Bosnia, I can only say that I have heard nothing to confirm this, nor, so far as I can learn by inquiry to-day, has any one else. It is well known that bands of insurgents, with Despotovich at their head, have passed the winter unmolested at Grahovo and Bihké, and that there are roving bands along the frontier; also that the desultory fighting between these hands and the Turks, which has been going on for many months, has long since had the effect of driving away most of the inhabitants, and no doubt murders and other outrages occur on both sides. I have lately been informed on good authority (not Turkish) that 12 Mussulman cattle dealers of Prujavor and Durbent, returning from Banialuka with the proceeds of their sales, were attacked at Zlatina by a band of insurgents and 11 of them killed. Probably this will lead to acts of retaliation, and I fully expect, now that peace has been made with Servia, and as the spring advances, all the unemployed and needy Slav patriots, aided and encouraged by Slav committees, will find their way into Bosnia, and cause a renewal of the brigandage on a large scale, which—ruinous to and deplored by both native Turks and Christians —it has pleased Slav sympathisers to call "insurrection." It is no wonder, then, that with these prospects those Christians who still remain should be anxious to quit the country, and I think that the unavoidable dilemma in which they are placed now, between their enraged Mussulman neighbours and their filibustering friends from without, has much more effect in determining their action than alleged atrocities on the part of the Turks, which it has been the fashion to take for granted."

"I have the honour to call your Lordship's particular attention to the enclosed copy of a letter from the Austrian Correspondent of The Times, which appeared in that paper of March 6. It gives an admirable description of the state of affairs in the North-west of Bosnia, and agrees with all my own information. In contrast with this statement I will quote and criticize a few extracts from a letter of an Occasional Correspondent of The Manchester Guardian, who writes from Knin, on the Dalmatian frontier, to show how incorrectly what passes in Bosnia, is represented by the Slavophiles, who, from their vicinity and facility for correspondence, ought to be better informed, if they desired to do so."

"Even in Serajevo, the capital of the Province, and where, if anywhere, the Osmanli ought to have some control over the native fanatics, the situation is deplorable. I have the authority of a European resident for saying that the whole Mussulman population has been armed to the teeth, that the Christian inhabitants of the city are daily insulted, and that gangs of fanatics patrol the streets at night, defying the authorities.' All this is utterly false, and the European Resident,' in giving this information to the writer to The Manchester Guardian, must have wilfully deceived him simply saying what, as a Slavophile, he thought it would be most agreeable to him to hear. It is true that the Mussulmans are armed, but scarcely anyone is to be found wearing arms in a town in which it is strictly forbidden. The Christians are not daily insulted. A few cases may naturally occur, but not to be spoken of as the writer evidently intends, as an intolerable persecution; and gangs of fanatics do not parade the streets at night, firing off pistols and defying the authorities, since I have returned here, and Mr. Freeman assures me that while I was absent nothing of the kind has ever occurred. The streets at night are undisturbed, and Serajevo is, and has been, throughout these events, perfectly quiet and orderly. The writer gives many other cases of murders by these ruffians.'"

"These cases may or may not be true, though, like everything else said to take place in this land of lies, they would, I imagine, be very difficult to substantiate. Nothing whatever, I may remark, is ever said or written about the murders and outrages committed by the Christian party, which, according to opportunity, have been, I believe, as hideous as those perpetrated by the Mussulman, but which, as the Turks for the most part have thought it more dignified to revenge than to complain, have had no chroniclers. I am quite aware that I am represented as a 'passionate Turcophile;' but I trust that your Lordship and my superiors in general will give me credit for speaking the truth to the best of my knowledge and ability; and that being the case, I can afford to pass over the disadvantage under which I labour, in common with the few who have any knowledge of affairs in Bosnia, in having to contend against the great majority of uninformed and prejudiced speakers and writers on the state of affairs in these countries."

May I ask the hon. Member, Whether the Government has or has not telegraphed to Consul Holmes to ask him whether he can obtain any information with regard to the two particular outrages mentioned in the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee?

I am not quite certain whether the right hon. Gentleman was present when some days ago I answered the Question put to me on this subject. I stated on that occasion that general instructions had been sent to all our Consuls on the subject of these alleged outrages. They were told, in the strongest and most peremptory manner, to report all outrages or atrocities which occurred in their districts. The right hon. Gentleman will see that it would cause an unnecessary multiplication of telegrams to ask for a report in each particular case, and that it is a much more convenient and satisfactory way of dealing with such matters than sending telegrams whenever Questions are asked in this House. By this means we should be supplied immediately with all the information of occurrences of the kind which came to the knowledge of our Consuls. The multiplication of telegrams on this subject has been very great. If the House will look at the Estimates it will be seen that a very large sum of money has been already spent in telegraphing; and I think we should not be justified in multiplying telegraphs unless we obtained some substantial evidence. We are anxious to give the House all the information we can on this subject; and I have no doubt that if these particular atrocities to which the right hon. Gentleman alludes have taken place we shall hear about them from Consul Holmes.

What I wish to ask is this—Whether the Government have taken any pains to inform Consul Holmes that intelligence of these atrocities had been received in England, and whether he was therefore asked to inquire if the accounts were true? The hon. Gentleman will see that there is a very great difference between a general request to send information with regard to atrocities Consul Holmes may hear of, and a special request to inquire about a particular atrocity.

In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I can only state that we have not sent a special request for information in regard to these particular outrages, because it was not necessary to do so. It would be absurd to do such a a thing after we have sent the orders we have done. We have regularly sent to the Consuls notices of these Questions in the House of Commons, and there is no instance during the whole of these occurrences where, when Questions were asked, our Consuls have not taken notice of them and sent us all the information they could obtain. I have no doubt when Consul Holmes sees that this question has been asked, he will inquire into the matter immediately in order to send information respecting it.

I wish, Sir, to give Notice that on Friday next I will, on going into Committee of Supply, move an Address for further Papers on the affairs of Turkey, and particularly for the Draft Protocol presented to Lord Derby by the Russian Ambassador on 11th of March; and also for any Correspondence with reference to the Russian Circular of the 19th of January and the Protocol of the 11th of March.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, When they might hope to receive the promised Papers respecting the South African Confederation, so that the House might be able to form an intelligent opinion of what was going on?

Sir, some Papers on the subject will shortly be ready for presentation; but I cannot say when it may be advisable to present them, on account of the present position of affairs, which may perhaps render it necessary that the Papers should be in a more complete shape before they are laid on the Table.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Deartment, If, before he brings up the Report of the Prisons Bill, he will state the terms in which he proposes to refer to prison labour?

, in reply, said, what he had stated in Committee on the Prisons Bill was, that he was disposed to preface the clause on this subject by a Preamble, stating that the intention of the Legislature was that prison labour should not press heavily upon any trade or industry if it could be avoided. That Preamble would appear on the Paper among the Notices of Amendments to be proposed on the Report.

objected to so considerable a Vote on Account as interfering with the due discussion of the several items, and moved to reduce it by one-third—namely, £1,348,700. His object was to bring the Vote down to what had been usual at that period of the Session.

would appeal to the Committee whether the Government had not done all in their power to bring forward Supply as early as possible. Owing, however, to the pressure of Business it had not been in their power to make the same progress with Supply as they had done last year. It appeared to be the wish of hon. Members opposite that the Secretary to the Treasury should this year make a Statement on moving the Miscellaneous Votes, and this Statement had necessarily taken some time, which, if otherwise employed, might have en- abled the Government to get a number of Votes. The hen. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) would see on examining the different items that the Government only asked for two months' Supply on account, and that request was neither unusual, unnecessary, nor unreasonable. The Government did not desire to withdraw the Votes from discussion so as to evade criticism, and he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.

objected to the charge of £500 for the Lord Privy Seal. The Vote had been supported against former attacks by the suggestion that the Lord Privy Seal was the odd man in the Cabinet, ready to take up any work that might arise which did not belong to other Departments. That had been disputed; and now the Prime Minister by accepting the office, had proved the incorrectness of the allegations. He should certainly propose to reduce the Vote by the amount charged by the Lord Privy Seal.

complained that the amount for these Votes on account was increased every year, and it was therefore time to put a stop to the system. These Votes on account prevented the House from having any control over the Expenditure, and he should therefore support the Amendment of his hon. Friend. He thought that by giving the Government as small a sum as was possible the House would exercise a greater control over them.

suggested to the Government the advisability of combining the two offices in future, and paying the full emoluments of both. For a rich country like Great Britain the Prime Minister was underpaid rather than overpaid, and he thought that the salary attached to the Privy Seal would be a willing addition to that of the Premier.

referred to the Vote for Law Charges and Criminal Prosecution (Ireland), for which was required on Account £14,500, and the Estimate for 1877-78 was £85,428. This sum exceeded the past year's Estimate by £5,000, and he asked if the whole of the amount was required for this year.

said, to the best of his belief, all the charges mentioned in the Vote were for the current year.

admitted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury had used due diligence in pressing forward Supply, but he objected to so large a Vote on Account.

suggested that the Vote for £500 on account of Lord Privy Seal should be withdrawn.

pointed out that it was not competent to omit any item after a proposal had been made to reduce the whole Vote, unless the Amendment were by consent withdrawn.

said, what was proposed was, that if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) would withdraw his Motion, the Government would propose to ask leave to withdraw the item of £500.

proposed to reduce the amount by the sum of £530,100. He had very reasonable grounds for asking the Government to accept that proposal, for the amount they would receive would be equal to any Vote on Account which had been made during the last five years, and he was not aware of any exceptional circumstances which could induce the Government to ask for a Vote so much in excess of past Votes. During the past few years the Votes on Account for Civil Service had varied from £1,037,000 to £2,039,000 at this period of the year. If the large sum asked for were granted, the only effect would be to prevent opportunities for considering many of the items of expenditure being afforded hereafter. The reduc- tion which was proposed would not be such as to occasion any difficulty in meeting the exigencies of the Public Service.

thought the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley would amount to little more than a protest. He did not know of any sufficient reason why the particular reduction proposed should be made.

contended that it was not so much a protest against the Vote under discussion which actuated the conduct of the hon. Member for Burnley, as an emphatic protest against the large increase that had of late taken place in the amount of these Votes on Account. He could not understand on what possible ground it was necessary to have more than three months' pay in hand for the Irish and Metropolitan Police. They were paid at very short intervals, and the Vote on Account was now asked for for the first time. The Government asked for £110,000 out of £431,000 for the Metropolitan Police, and for £275,000 out of £1,086,000 for the Irish Constabulary.

stated that the amount asked for was the least which was necessary. It was unavoidable to ask for some of the Votes on Account. As for the Irish Constabulary they were paid quarterly, and their pay was now due.

objected to an item connected with the Trade Marks Registration Bill—the sum for the carrying out of the provisions of which he thought would be thrown away, inasmuch as the Act in question was mischievous and unworkable, had inflicted considerable injuries upon manufacturers in the North, and would before long have to be amended.

in reply, said, it would be competent for the hon. Member to move the omission of all charges on this account when the Patent Office Vote was before the Committee.

wanted to know how it happened that the Vote for Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions (Ireland) had been raised from £5,422 to £10,422? The hon. Member the Secretary for the Treasury said a little while ago that to the best of his opinion all these charges were for the current year. He (Mr. Parnell) wished to direct the hon. Gentleman's particular attention to this special matter, as it was curious that the expenses for prosecutions and general law charges last year was £5,422, and this year it was nearly double. He wished again to ask him whether the whole of this £10,422 was incurred last year or this year?

said, with regard to the matter, he had to repeat what he stated the other night—that the provision for the Law Charges had been insufficient for some time past, and last year there was a Supplementary Estimate passed, but this was for the service of the year, and was not intended to cover arrears.

observed that that was not an answer to the hon. Member for Meath. What they really wanted to know was, if this £4,000 or £5,000 was the sum to defray the Phœnix Park prosecutions?

said, it was not. Certain legal proceedings which had arisen out of what were called the Phœnix Park Riots in Dublin were still pending on appeal, and therefore the accounts relating thereto could not be closed. I Not more than about £140 had been paid out of the public funds during the year ended 31st March, 1876, on account for the costs incurred by the then Irish Executive in reference to the proceedings in question. The current expenditure for Law Charges in Ireland had been in excess of the provision for three years running, and the House had granted Supplementary or Excess Estimates to make up that deficiency. It was thought right that that should continue to be so no longer, and, therefore, what was voted in these Estimates was for the year.

I want to know if the costs of the Phœnix Park prosecutions in which verdicts have been had against the Government have been paid? This is a matter of four or five years' standing, and we have not yet had a chance of discussing that transaction on a Vote of the House. If these are not those costs, when will those costs be brought before us to give us an opportunity of discussing the transaction?

said, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sullivan) was in error as to the present Vote. The transaction referred to occurred in 1871. He believed that the House had already voted a small sum this Session in respect of the costs incurred amounting to some few hundreds of pounds. There had been decisions in favour of the Government pronounced by the Court of Exchequer, and there were appeals pending, and until the question was determined all the expenses could not be finally ascertained. He believed the appeal would be heard during the present year.

wanted a further explanation. He spoke in the recollection of the Secretary for the Treasury when he said that he believed there was a sum of £6,000 in this present Session in a Supplementary Estimate for these costs of the Phœnix Park prosecutions.

No. That sum was for general legal matters connected with Ireland and included the small sum already referred to.

said, then he might be wrong. But £6,000 had been paid out of the public Treasury for the defence of the police who had acted with such severity against many poor people on the occasion referred to, the late Chief Secretary, and the Under Secretary for Ireland, and he wanted to know under what authority that was done and the money so applied? No public money should have been expended without the sanction of Parliament and it was a very unconstitutional proceeding to do as had been done in this matter.

said, he was glad attention had been called to the subject, because for years past they had been watching the proceedings of the House with the view of obtaining a favourable opportunity for discussing the matter. They knew that law costs to the extent of about £5,000 had been incurred by the Government as the result of the Phœnix Park affair, and they had waited in vain to see the items composing it brought under the consideration of the House. They had been aware in Ireland for the past eight or ten years that a practice highly objectionable on constitutional grounds had prevailed. It was the practice of indemnifying Government officials for illegal conduct. There could be nothing more injudicious than the carrying into effect of such a principle of indemnity. Irish Members wanted to know if it was true that the Government had swept through the Committee of that House, without conferring on its Members a fair opportunity of discussing the matter, Votes for thousands of pounds expended in the direction he had named. For his own part, he waited last Session night after night watching the Estimates, and at that time he had a suspicion that some day they would wake up and be told that the Vote had already been passed in the bulk of the Estimates. What he wanted to know that night was on what date it had been passed; and, if not so passed, when it would be brought into the Estimates? He did not hold the present Attorney General for Ireland personally responsible, but it was quite evident that a responsibility rested with somebody. Juries had again and again declared the conduct of the police and of the Government illegal, but upon a flimsy technicality the Government had recourse to an appeal. He appealed to the Government to let them have some definite information and explanation on the subject.

being about to put the Question—

said, that he did not think the Government ought to treat the matter with silent indifference. He really hoped some explanation would be given. Were they not intelligible questions? Could they be answered or not? Had large sums of money been applied to the defence of defendants in actions brought to recover damages for persons injured in the Phœnix Park riots? If the public money had been so applied, when was it voted by the House? It was not becoming on the part of Ministers to meet such a question with silence.

said, that be should be very glad if, at that moment, he could give them some precise information on the subject. He had no doubt whatever that considerable sums of public money had been paid to meet the costs of the defence alluded to. Those amounts had, no doubt, been accounted for at the proper time. The expenses of each year had been paid by the Votes of Parliament in each year. In the Estimates under discussion he did not believe that there could be said to be anything for prospective costs in the matter alluded to, for the simple reason that it had not been anticipated that any further costs would be required. He might, however, add that very little, if any, of the money had been paid since the present Government came into office, almost all the litigation having occurred under the administration of the late Government.

observed that the right hon. Gentleman's statement appeared to be directly the contrary of that of the Attorney General for Ireland, who had said that the Vote included a sum for these costs.

replied that he had referred to Excesses taken before Easter, and not to the Vote now before the Committee.

asked, whether the Government had made any provision in the Estimates of the year for the costs of any pending appeal?

considering the grave charge that had been brought against the Government by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), begged to move to report Progress. He thought that when a charge of such a description was made, and not answered directly or indirectly, such a course as he proposed should be adopted.

trusted that the hon Member for Stafford would not press his Motion to report Progress. Her Majesty's Government could not well be charged with refusing to answer questions upon this subject, because they absolutely knew nothing about it, the circumstances in connection with it having occurred before they came into office. He thought hon. Members would be satisfied by an assurance from the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary that inquiry should be made into the matter, and all information with respect to it given at a future time. So many questions were put to the Government upon various topics, that they must be walking cyclopœdias to be able to answer them off-hand.

wished to add to what had been stated by the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary and by the Attorney General for Ireland, that it was impossible for the Members of the present Government to inform the Committee precisely what was the amount which had been spent in the course of this litigation, because they were not in office when the chief part of the litigation was being carried on. His impression was—of course, he could not speak accurately on the subject at so short a notice—that information had been asked for and obtained as to the sums spent on those trials. At all events, it could never have been a secret that considerable sums had been expended by the Government on the conduct of these trials. If hon. Members representing Irish constituencies wished to raise any question with reference to these expenses, they should have done so upon the Vote for Law Charges in Ireland, in which, although not specially mentioned, these expenses were provided for. It seemed to him that the better course for them now to take would be to move for a Return of the sum which had been expended for this purpose. If, however, it was the intention of those hon. Members to object not to the amount of the costs incurred in this litigation, but to the policy out of which that litigation arose, it would be open to them to take that course on giving proper Notice. It was inconvenient that the subject should have been brought forward without Notice, and at a time when there was no expectation that it would be discussed, because the right hon. and learned Member for Londonderry County (Mr. Law), who was responsible for these proceedings having been taken, was not now in his place, although he had been in attendance on many previous occasions for the purpose of defending the conduct of the late Government in the matter. He (the Marquess of Hartington) trusted that if the subject were to be discussed on a future occasion due Notice would be given of the intention to bring it forward.

quite agreed with the noble Marquess that it was at an inconvenient time, and that the very best course the Government could take would be to assent to a Return setting fourth the money expended in defence of the actions raised. He did not think that anybody could have expected that the question would have arisen; but at the same time, since it had come forward, the Government should have no objection to give a clear explanation of the matter. However the decision might go, he would on a future day raise the whole question, and ask the opinion of the House upon it.

said, that if a Return of the expenses were moved for, he should be most happy to give every information in his power; and if the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Butt) would communicate with him on the subject he would, as far as possible, assist him.

wished again to appeal to the Government to reduce the large amount now asked for, and he hoped they would accede to his request.

complained that the Embassy house at Berlin had not been purchased in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee which had sat in 1870. We were now called on to pay £3,000 a-year for a house which might have been purchased for £50,000. It was clear from that that it would be wiser to purchase the house than to continue to pay the present rent, and he hoped Government would withdraw the Vote. He would not, however, move any Amendment.

said, he agreed in the main with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) that, as a rule, it was better to purchase a house than to take one on a lease, but that was only when they paid a fair and proper price for it. The Government were offered three houses in Berlin. One was Count Arnim's for £67,000, another at £60,000, and Dr. Strousberg's at £70,000. A competent surveyor was sent to Berlin to examine and report upon these properties, and he advised that the prices asked were excessive, and recommended that a lease should be taken of Dr. Strousberg's house. That had accordingly been done.

did not think that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was satisfactory. If the Government had purchased Dr. Strousberg's house at £70,000 the interest on the purchase money would, with other expenses, have been but £2,300 a-year, whereas they had chosen to give £3,000 a-year for 10 years, and at the end of that period the value of the property would doubtless be enhanced, and if they purchased it, they would have to give a larger sum than was now asked. It was the same with other Embassy houses; for instance, at Rome and Vienna. The house at Vienna was not a very good one. He contended that if a house had been purchased at Vienna for the Embassy some years ago, more suitable accommodation could have been obtained at much less cost. For his own part, he thought it a mistaken policy to allow our Ambassadors to be lodged in the present hand-to-mouth fashion. He was of opinion that the right principle on which to proceed was to purchase good houses for them in all the principal Capitals of the world, and not to hire them at extravagant rentals.

could state from his own experience that the Embassy house at Vienna, where he had received great hospitality, was a very comfortable one.

said, he had nothing to say against Sir Andrew Bu- chanan, from whom he also had met with great courtesy; but he still thought the house was not a first-class one. All he contended for was that the Government would have done better if 10 years ago they had bought an Embassy house in one of the principal parts of Vienna.

said, the charge for repairs of the Embassy houses at Pera and Therapia was excessive. The charge for Berlin was only £300, and for Paris £650; but the charge for the house at Pera was £916, and the house at Therapia £947. He also called attention to the addition charge of £12,000 for the Embassy house at Rome.

said, that when the sum of £21,000 was voted in February last for the Embassy house at Rome, he stated that £12,000 more would be required to complete the purchase. The charges for the houses—for there were two—at Constantinople were for special works in the maintenance of the buildings. They were much less than the sum voted last year.

said, there was a charge of £200 for repairs to the Embassy house at Madrid. Mr. Layard informed him yesterday that at least £1,000 would be required to be expended on it, and that it would then be a very bad residence. If the house were bought now, a great saving would be effected. It was a waste of public money to rent houses when they could be purchased at reasonable prices.

said, a lease for 10 years of the house at Madrid existed, and therefore they could not purchase at present.

objected to the purchase of Embassy houses. In 1831 the house purchased at Constantinople had to be pulled down, and temporary arrangements had to be made for the lodging of our Ambassador. The new building cost £200,000, and every precaution was taken against its destruction by fire. There was a reservoir constructed, pipes laid down, and every appliance adopted; but, after all, a fire occurred and the house was burnt down, because there was no water at the time in the reservoir, and the pipes leaked. There was no doubt a clerk of the works there at that time, as well as now, at a salary of £400 per annum, but all he appeared to do was to make out Reports to be sent to the Treasury justifying expenditure in the enlargement and alteration of the buildings. Wherever there was a building bought for an Embassy there was certain to be a great increase in the extraordinary expenditure, and even the salary of the Ambassador was likely to be eked out in order that he might be able to keep up a style befitting to his large establishment. He had no doubt that our Ambassadors were very hospitable persons; but he had not had the honour of testing it. If he asked the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what was called in Foreign Office parlance a ticket for soup he, no doubt, would give him one to every Ambassador in Europe, who would, no doubt, entertain him with very great distinction. The question was whether it was to the public advantage. It certainly was not a sufficient reason for paying such large sums of money for Embassy houses. He complained that when the £21,000 was voted for the purchase of a house at Rome no intimation was given that a further sum of £12,000 would be required. The report of the Diplomatic Committee, of which he was a Member, recommended, by a majority of 1 only—namely, 9 to 8, that these houses should be purchased. The maintenance of these enormous buildings, so far from being an economy, was a perfect waste of public money. For himself, he recommended leases at moderate periods.

said, whatever the majority was, the hon. Member's Report condemning the purchase of Embassy houses was not adopted, and the recommendation to purchase these houses remained as the recommendation of that Committee. He protested against Constantinople being singled out as an example. It was a very peculiar place. It was impossible to obtain houses there, except at very high rates, and the Embassy house had to be sufficiently large to accommodate not only the Ambassador and those who partook of his hospitality, but the attachés and the other employés of the Embassy. It was not fair to charge the Government with the fires that took place at Constantinople, as fires were constantly occurring in that city. Ho quite agreed that £400 per annum, and £50 a-year standing expenses, was much too large a sum to be paid to the clerk of the works there for the work he did: £100 a-year to some employé would do quite as well. The annual expenditure at Paris was £1,200; but such a house would now cost many thousands a-year to rent. They were giving £3,000 a-year for the House at Berlin; but if the £70,000 had been paid, this would only have been £2,100 a-year—an arrangement which was as improvident as could be imagined. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was so enlightened in these questions. He did not blame the First Commissioner of Works, who had been misled by the surveyor's report. He did not like to move the rejection of the Vote, but it was necessary to put a check upon the yearly growing expenditure in connection with Embassy houses, and he therefore suggested that the Government should postpone the Vote, and see if they could not in the meantime make more satisfactory arrangements.

said, he distinctly stated last February, when he moved a Supplementary Estimate of £21,000 for the Embassy house at Rome, that a further sum of £12,000 would be required. He did not see how a clerk of the works could live at Constantinople, and discharge his duties efficiently, on less than the salary and expenses now paid him.

said, that having been appealed to by the hon. Member for Christchurch, he would say a few words. Whenever cases of the purchasing of Embassy houses had been before the Treasury since he had had the honour of holding office, he had always taken an interest in them, and had favoured the purchase, except that on several occasions the terms had appeared to be excessive. But he was very sensible of the advantages of purchase, so well described by the hon. Member, where they could get the building on fair terms. It would, however, be unwise to postpone the Vote.

said, he was not satisfied with the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, and could adopt no other course than to move that the Vote be reduced by £450, which represented the salary and travelling expenses of the clerk of the works at Constantinople and Therapia.

hoped the hon. Gentleman would not divide the House; but now that the new works were about to be completed, allow the Government to withdraw the official in question, who was, he believed, a perfect nuisance at the Embassy. In fact, the Ambassador's wife could not move a chair from one room to another without his permission.

said, it was possible some arrangement might be made for the withdrawal of the clerk in question.

supported the reduction of the Vote.

said, that nothing was clearer than that, having engaged the services of the gentleman referred to, they were bound to pay him his salary; but still it was necessary to go to a division, as a protest against his retention in the appointment.

promised that all matters connected with the Vote which had been raised by hon. Members should be taken into serious consideration.

said, he could not allow the Vote to pass without remarking upon the very large expenditure incurred for officers in the House of Lords as compared with the House of Commons. The work done by the officers of the House of Commons was four times as much as that performed by the officers of the other House.

asked what arrangement had been made for the payment of Black Rod? That officer had hitherto been paid only a nominal salary; but rumour said he had received very large emoluments in fees.

said, the House of Lords paid their own officers. There had been no new offices created, and no new charges incurred. He had reason to believe that the House of Lords would propose that Black Rod should be paid a salary of £2,000 a-year in future, which would be a very considerable reduction from the emoluments that officer had formerly received. The fees would be paid into the Exchequer, and it was estimated that between £4,000 and £5,000 would be paid into the Exchequer in the coming year, and the gain, therefore, to the Treasury would amount to between £2,000 and £3,000.

pointed out that the charges for the officers of the House of Lords was only £8,000 when he was Secretary of the Treasury; now it was no less than £19,000.

said, of course if they kept an ornament they must pay for it. They were all quite aware that the House of Lords was an expensive ornament. The doorkeepers of the House of Commons were paid much less than similar officers in the House of Lords. The House of Commons sat for many hours every night, whereas the House of Lords scarcely ever had a late sitting; and yet, while the doorkeepers of the House of Commons received one £250, and the other £300 per annum, there were more of these functionaries in the House of Lords and they received at least as much, if not more, than those of the House of Commons for doing not a a tenth of the work. The pruning-knife of the Secretary of the Treasury might be well exercised in that branch of expenditure.

suggested that it might be worthy of consideration whether the offices of the First Lord of the Treasury and the Privy Seal, which were now both held by the present Prime Minister, should be permanently combined, and that the £2,000 a-year, to which the Privy Seal was now entitled by law, but which was not drawn by the present holder of that office, should be received by the occupant of the two offices when so united, in addition to the £5,000 now paid to him. The First Lord of the Treasury, although he had the largest share of responsibility and was put to great expense, was only paid £5,000 a-year, the same amount as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and various other officers of the Crown, and it was only reasonable that he should receive some increase of payment. He thought the time was opportune for granting some slight additional salary. Another point to be considered was that the Prime Minister had no social precedence except as Privy Councillor.

rose to Order. There was no payment for social precedence.

ruled that the hon. Member was not strictly in Order.

said, his suggestion was, that the two offices he had mentioned should be permanently united, and the salary of the Lord Privy Seal, which was now only nominal, added to that of the First Lord of the Treasury.

inquired whether any clerks had been admitted into the Treasury by public competition? His reason for asking the question was, that lie understood the clerks in the Foreign Office did not receive as high salaries as the clerks in the Treasury, because the positions in the one Office were not thrown open to competition while in the other they were.

said, there had been no examinations for admission into the Treasury during the present Government by open competition. There had been two appointments made within the last three years, and the gentlemen selected were transferred from the Admiralty, where there had been a redundant number of clerks.

asked whether the Government would take into consideration the salaries of the clerks in this Department, and raise them to a point equal to the salaries of the clerks at the Treasury. Such salaries had been raised at the Colonial and Home Offices.

said, it was stated the other day that it had become necessary to appoint a new Under Secretary in this Department. He wished to know who had been appointed, and whether it was a permanent one?

asked for an explanation as to what position the gentleman, if appointed, would fill?

said, the Secretary of State, after a full consideration of the matter, found it was impossible to get on with the work of the Foreign Office without the aid of a gentleman well acquainted with legal documents and with the preparation of them. Some years ago a gentleman with such acquirements was appointed to assist the Colonial Office. Sir Julian Pauncefote, who had for some time acted as legal adviser to the Colonial Office, had been appointed Assistant Under Secretary to the Department. The appointment was a permanent one, and the gentleman appointed would perform the double function of looking after such of the legal business of the Department as was not referred to the Law Officers of the Crown, and of taking a share in the current business of the Under Secretary's and the Assistant Under Secretary's Departments. Since the appointment of Sir Julian the work had been performed in a more satisfactory manner. With regard to the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, he had to state that his noble Friend at the head of the Department was most anxious to carry out economy in his Department. He had given much consideration to the question of the salaries, and last year and the year before a very careful inquiry was made with reference to the salaries of the clerks in the Foreign Office and the salaries of the clerks in the Treasury and the Colonial Office, and it was found very difficult to make a just comparison between the salaries paid in the Foreign Office and those paid in other offices. The Foreign Office, upon the whole, came to the conclusion that the clerks in the Foreign Office were not paid less than the clerks in the Treasury and the Colonial Office, because their hours of employment were different and they had different functions to perform. He could not hold out any hope at pre- sent that there would be an increase in the salaries.

said, it was only fair to remark that as a new appointment was requisite, a better selection could not possibly have been made than that of Sir Julian Pauncefote.

complained of the great delay in this office in making the Returns ordered by Parliament.

said, his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Dillwyn) spoke as if the Colonial Department had only to put its hands into a basket and produce a Return asked for. He would admit that there had been sometimes delays in the production of Papers ordered by Parliament; but it was due to the necessities of the case, and arose through the Office having to send to distant parts of the world for the information desired; and then, after waiting probably many weeks or months for the arrival of a mail, when it came, the Returns had to be compiled. He would, however, endeavour to secure that the Orders of the House should be fulfilled as punctually as possible, and no effort on the part of the Colonial Office should be wanting to promote the convenience of hon. Gentlemen. He might observe that there had been no reduction in the number of clerks, but a re-arrangement of their duties in the Office.

asked, why it was intended to abolish the Secretaryship of the Veterinary department; and at this time, when so much attention was necessary in reference to the cattle plague?

said, he thought there was a very large number of clerks in the Office in proportion to the amount of work which was done. No doubt, the Department issued very many statistics, but a large portion of them were of no value whatever. He doubted whether the inspection of foreign cattle had been sufficiently strict, and hoped that in future the Department would be administered with greater vigour. The sum of £6,000 was voted, and that seemed to him to be amply sufficient for an inspection which should guard this country against the importation of the cattle plague.

stated that Dr. Williams, who had been working very hard, was prematurely cut off this year, and he did not think the re-organization of the Office was completely arranged at the present moment. With regard to the working of the Office being rendered as efficient as possible, he could assure the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Barclay) that the Lord President took an immense amount of personal trouble in this matter. His noble Friend had been constantly watching the working of the Office during the last few months, and if the hon. Gentleman had any suggestions to make for the promotion of its efficiency the noble Duke would be very glad to receive them. The Department, he might observe, was not in his (Viscount Sandon's) hands administratively, being entirely administered by the Lord President of the Council; but he would communicate to him the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

alluding to the charge of £278 for special trains, asked what they were employed for by this Department?

said, the outlay was in connection with the visits to the Queen when special Privy Councils were held in the country.

asked for an explanation concerning the 18 clerks of the lower division who had been recently appointed.

asked, whether any Inspectors in England were paid out of local rates, or whether all were paid out of the Consolidated Fund, and what special duties they had to perform?

in reference to the remark of the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council, said, he had always understood that every Department was represented by some Member of the Government in that House, and that if the noble Lord was not the officer properly responsible for the Vote now before the Committee, it was desirable that the House should know who was responsible.

remarked, that he did not mean to say that he was not the proper officer to answer in that House for the Department, which, however, was practically not under his ad- ministration; but under that of the noble Duke. The 18 clerks of the lower division took the place of the 23 temporary clerks who were formerly employed.

bore testimony to the great exertions made both by the central and the local authorities to prevent the spread of cattle disease since its re-appearance in England.

explained, in reply to the hon. Member for Cavan, that in some cases it was desirable to appoint temporary Inspectors who did not come on the permanent Staff. They were sent down when any outbreak of disease occurred; and they also had to see that railway companies performed their duties; and that the local authorities did their duty. He believed the cost was defrayed out of Imperial funds.

said, what his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan wanted to know was, whether the expenses of these gentlemen were all paid out of the Estimates voted by Parliament; or were any of those expenses paid out of local funds, as in Ireland? Did any of these Inspectors discharge analogous duties to the Inspectors in Ireland?

replied, that he would give the hon. Member for Cavan the information asked for before the Report on Supply was taken.

expressed the hope that a Report with reference to the recent cases of cattle plague, showing how the disease had found its way into this country, and stating what action had been taken by the Veterinary department in dealing with it, would be laid before the House at the earliest possible opportunity.

thought the suggestion a very valuable one, and he would take care that some Report was laid on the Table of the House on the subject as soon as possible.

said, he desired to call the attention of the Committee to the enormous increase which had taken place in the expenditure of the Board of Trade in consequence of the passing of the Merchant Shipping Act of last year. He found that the total amount required for salaries and allowances under that Act was no less a sum than £47,138. He was not quite sure that it was contemplated, when the measure to which he referred became law, that it would be necessary to appoint such a large number of officials as had actually been appointed—namely, 170, and he must call attention to the fact that many of the gentlemen who had received appointments under the Act were officers of the Royal Navy already in receipt of pensions. He should like to know, and he thought it would also be satisfactory to the country to be informed whether the salaries of the surveyors of the Board were fixed in view of the amount of labour which they rendered to the public, or in view of the fact that they received additional sums of money in the shape of those pensions?

said, the Merchant Shipping Act of last Session was very much required, and was a very important one; and that being the case hon. Members should not now carp at the expense necessarily incurred in carrying it out. Every Act which was passed entailed a certain and justifiable outlay, and hon. Gentlemen should not forget that fact when they were doing all they could to press certain measures through the House.

said, he would admit the force of much that had been said in relation to the importance of the Merchant Shipping Act; but he did not think that credit should necessarily be given to the manner in which it was being carried out, and he would like to ask what were the results of the expenditure? There could be no objection to any reasonable and proper expenditure being incurred in carrying out an Act of Parliament, but the question was, whether the outlay which took place under the Merchant Shipping Act was an expenditure of that description. In connection with the subject he desired to call the attention of the Committee to certain proceedings which had been taken by the Board of Trade surveyors, and he must say that the Returns pre- sented by that Board to Parliament were either very misleading, or that the work which was being done was not only unnecessary, but was not at all what was contemplated or desired when the measure of last Session was passed. Parliament had desired one thing, and one thing only, in the legislation to which he alluded, and that was that the Board of Trade should interfere where it was necessary to prevent ships from proceeding to sea when they were in a dangerous condition. He had before him a long list of vessels which were said to have been detained by surveyors of the Board owing to unseaworthiness, overloading, or other causes. It was a list which was perfectly appalling; and he did not hesitate to say that if the Returns which had been presented to Parliament by the Board of Trade were authentic and accurate, and did not include a number of items requiring explanation, they would reflect upon the shipowners of the country and upon the underwriters more than any documents which had ever been laid before the House of Commons. But what was the actual state of the case? He did not say that the officers of the Board of Trade were not rendering excellent service to the country; but he desired to point out that Parliament was paying for certain things being done which were entirely unnecessary, and which the Legislature had never contemplated. Perhaps the Committee would be surprised to hear, but it was the fact, that what the Board of Trade had been doing was not to exhibit great care and anxiety in order to prevent the going to sea of unseaworthy ships, but to lay hold of vessels which were known to be unseaworthy, and which were consequently under actual repair at the time of their "detention." In other words, the Board went through the farce of "detaining" those ships when there was riot the slightest intention of sending them to sea; and then they were inserted in the official lists as vessels which the activity of the officers of the Board of Trade had prevented from going to sea when in an unseaworthy condition. For instance, a vessel called the Hope, appeared in the Board of Trade list. This ship had put to sea in a seaworthy state, but was obliged by stress of weather to put back to port, where, when repairing the damage done to her, a detainer was laid upon her to prevent her from going to sea. Ultimately, she was released; but the fact was that she was voluntarily placed by the owners under repair, and ought not to have appeared on the list at all. In another case a vessel, having met with heavy weather, broke a crank shaft; the owners could not afford or did not choose to repair her, and wished to have her laid up for sale. There was no thought of sending her to sea, but the Board of Trade stepped in and "detained" her. In another case the Board of Trade officials laid a vessel under detention, and ordered her cargo to be unloaded. Her owner appealed, and her cargo was ordered to be put on board again. The hon. Member went page after page through his Return, and read instances wherein ships were detained on alleged frivolous grounds; one of them, notably, on the statement of a drunken sailor, who stated unfoundedly that her pumps would not work. He (Mr. Reed) did not complain that vessels were detained when unseaworthy; what he complained of was that the Board of Trade did not lay cases of the kind he had mentioned before Parliament, and he emphatically objected to such vessels being paraded in the Returns of the Board of Trade as ships which would have proceeded on their voyage but for the vigilance of the Board of Trade surveyors. In some of those cases the owners were put to considerable expense, and in others owners resisted and refused to pay damages which they considered unjust. Those were matters which he considered called for explanation; and he hoped for the satisfaction of the House and the shipowners, for whom the Government seemed to care so much, that they would be given. He wished also to call attention to a statement formerly made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board with reference to the percentage of the vessels detained which had been classed at Lloyds and other offices. There was something he could not understand in that statement—that of the 50 ships detained since the Act of last year, 22 had been classed; but it now appeared that only 12 classed ships had been detained, seven of which had been classed at Lloyds and five at other Registry Offices. In other cases ships had been detained, simply because of imaginary defects. What he wished to point out was, that it was very injurious to the register offices and shipowners, as well as to the public, to have such ships, ships which had been classed and which were detained only because of some trivial defects, put into the same category as those which were detained for unseaworthiness. He did not wish to reflect upon the Board of Trade, or give the right hon. Gentleman any uneasiness; but the practical suggestion he would make was, that the Return, professing as it did to give specific information to the House, ought to be drawn up in the clearest possible form so as to give exact information as to the ground on which the ships had been stopped. They ought not in future to look down the list and see the names of ships which had been detained under the circumstances alluded to, and then be told they had been stopped for unseaworthiness. The authority of the House ought not to be used, as it now practically was, to injure ship property in the way it must be injured when owners found their vessels improperly classed with unseaworthy ships. He could hardly doubt that the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to give satisfaction to shipowners; but it never was intended to detain a vessel unnecessarily or to cast odium on its owner, unless it was in a disreputable condition. He had said a few evenings ago that he was not entirely satisfied with the appointments which had been made under that Act. He had been complained of for that, but he still felt bound to say that gentlemen had been appointed at high salaries to perform duties which they did not understand. A very large part of their duties depended upon their knowledge of the structural condition and the state of repair of the ships, and he was afraid that at the Board of Trade, as in other places, people made the mistake of supposing that people who had been to sea in ships necessarily understood their construction. But a ship captain was no more able to go on board a ship and say what was necessary to be done for her in the shape of structural repairs than a shipbuilder was to command her, and he knew, as a matter of fact, that a great number of these officials admitted that they did not even know the name of some of the parts of the vessels. He would say, however, for the credit of the Department, that they had usually given the chief appointments to men in every way worthy of them, and to officers who understood the technical details.

said, he could speak from his own knowledge of many similar cases to those of which his hon. Friend(Mr. E. J. Reed) had spoken, for during the past two or three years numerous complaints had been made to him with reference to the objectionable manner in which ship's owners had been dealt with by the Board of Trade. In one case which was brought under his notice, the ship had just arrived in port, and it was found that a small part of her bulwarks had been broken away. The captain had scarcely commenced to unload, when the vessel was arrested as unseaworthy. She was surveyed from day to day, and £15 was charged by the surveyors; and payment of the amount was forced from the captain by the Board of Trade, who would not release the vessel until the money was forthcoming. In another case, a ship had been arrested by the Board of Trade, acting upon an anonymous letter addressed to them in London. They sent off a telegram ordering the arrest of the vessel, and that order was complied with. Yet that letter was afterwards found to have emanated from a rival owner, and to have been inspired by unworthy motives. Such cases as these and others he could name reflected great discredit upon the surveyors. With regard to side lights, great complaints were made by smaller shipowners, such as owners of coasting vessels, who could ill afford to pay for the caprices of the surveyors. He had heard of a case in which the side lights of a ship had been objected to no less than three times by three different surveyors, who had each ordered a different pattern. At one port the surveyor insisted on the lights being altered. His order was complied with; but at the next port the ship put into, the surveyor condemned the new lights, and ordered others, and this instruction was also carried out. And then, again, at a third place, another surveyor had taken a different opinion, and had ordered other lights. He knew the Act of Parliament had not intended to deal with such cases; but it was a fact that a surveyor could and did go on board ships, particularly coasting vessels, and insist upon these alterations being made. If they found a ship wanting a rail, or some small thing of that kind the result was that she was arrested and detained until the repair was carried out. The surveyors were composed of officers in the Royal Navy, and it seemed to him that they were not proper persons to appoint to such a position. The ships of the Navy, as everyone knew, were fitted up in a style which was impossible in merchant ships, and an officer who had come from one of Her Majesty's ships, which had been fitted up without regard to expense, was likely to have notions of his own how a merchant vessel should be prepared for sea. He would naturally expect a higher standard of excellence in merchant ships than at all necessary when he examined them. If shipowners were to be obliged to fit up their vessels as ships in the Royal Navy were fitted up, those owners would soon be driven to the Bankruptcy Court. Then it was most unfair, he held, that merchant captains should be judged by the same standard as captains in the Navy. There were many cases where, in consequence of the assessors being Navy captains, captains of merchant vessels did not get the proper allowance made for them for thenature of their service as compared with that of the Navy. He should be happy to submit a list of the cases he had alluded to to the Secretary to the Board of Trade. He also stated that he was informed as a fact that the surveyors received £1 a-day as expenses in such cases where ships were detained.

said, the Returns of the Board of Trade were misleading with reference to the stoppage of classed ships, and he would mention a ease in which a vessel that was being repaired by the owners was stopped by the Board. The Returns led to the impression that classed ships were stopped, because they were unseaworthy, whilst in many of the cases, it was because the owners had not done a few necessary, but non-essential, repairs. He also reiterated the complaint made by the last speaker (Mr. J. W. Barclay) of a want of regularity and system among the Board of Trade surveyors as to what was really required to render a ship fit for sea. For instance, some of them had insisted upon particular lights, which were objected to at the first port the vessel came to. He thought there should be a more systematic survey, and that rules should be prepared for the guidance of the surveyors, in order that the shipowners might be secure from that harassment they laboured under at present. He did not quite concur with hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) as to the appointment of captains as Board of Trade surveyors. His experience went to show that many captains knew rather more than some shipbuilders, not only about the technicalities, but about building and repairing.

said, that the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) had complained of want of system in the inspection of ships by Board of Trade officers. The principal object of the Act of last year, however, was to introduce more systematic action and uniformity of practice, and in that it had been successful, for the blemish referred to had been reduced, if not altogether obliterated, by the Act of last year. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had complained of what he styled the enormous expense which had been incurred under the Act, and which he said amounted to £47,000. If the hon. Member had looked to the other side of the account, he would have seen that giving credit for the amount received by the Treasury, the expense was not £47,000, but, in round numbers, £13,000. The hon. Member further complained that a number of officers of the Royal Navy had been appointed under the Act by the Board of Trade; but the fact was that, so far as he knew, not one officer of the Royal Navy had been appointed to conduct the survey of ships alleged to be unseaworthy. Again, with respect to the complaint of the hon. Member as to the number of surveyors, it should be recollected that the House passed the Act with a full knowledge of the Staff that was to be employed, and it was now rather late to make a complaint on that point. With respect to the criticisms of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed), he would say that they amounted to a contradiction—that the Board of Trade had done too much and had done too little. They had acted simply in accordance with the intentions of Parliament in discharging the duty imposed on them. Reference had been made by the hon. Member to the large number of ships that were, as he said, unnecessarily detained, as they were not going to sea. Now, he (Sir Charles Adderley) thought that was a compliment to the Act of last year. One of the merits, indeed, a special one, of the Act of last year was that it limited the duty of the Board of Trade, as imposed on them by the Act of 1873, to stopping only unseaworthy ships when about to go to sea. The whole list of the quotations of the hon. Member for Pembroke was in praise of the Act of last year, as cases of the more offensive duty which existed before; and he would ask the hon. Gentleman to give him the list, and he would then state the real facts respecting every one of the cases mentioned, and would lay a statement of them on the Table of the House, and thus enable hon. Members to judge on what foundation the present statements were made. He believed that ex parte statements were generally without foundation. He had had a Return made and carefully revised, of all the ships which had been stopped since the Act of last year came into operation, and he found that all of them were being brought forward for some service at sea. He thought that the hon. Member for Pembroke must allow that his charge in that respect had fallen to the ground.

said, he could allow nothing of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman said he stopped those ships when they were brought forward to go to sea; but a ship which was brought "forward" need not be going to sea.

remarked that one of the benefits of the Acts of last year was that it only called upon the Board of Trade to stop a rotten ship from going to sea, and not when she was brought forward to prepare to go to sea, and he defied the hon. Member to adduce a single instance of a ship being stopped which was not going to sea. The next point of the hon. Member was the statement he (Sir Charles Adderley) had made to the House, in answer to a Question, as to the kind of ships which were detained during the three months after the coming into force of the Act, and the hon. Member thought the answer conveyed a reflection upon Lloyd's. So far from that being the case, it was the highest compliment that could be paid to Lloyd's. It was his (Sir Charles Adderley's) duty, in answer to the special question, to show that classification was no guarantee against unsafe ships being sent to sea, for out of 12 ships that were detained, six of them were classified at Lloyd's. And if the classification at Lloyd's, which was the most perfect, accurate, and trustworthy in the country, was no guarantee against a ship being sent to sea in an unseaworthy state, what guarantee could any classification have? No less than 50 per cent of the ships detained for defective hulls were classed at Lloyd's. The hon. Member then stated that the Board of Trade had appointed officers under the Act to perform duties they did not understand, and complained that more engineers had not been selected. It so happened that there was a considerable number of engineers, both amongst the principal and subordinate officers, and he could only say that all matters in reference to machinery passed under the eye of an engineer officer; but it must be remembered that many other subjects had to be considered and decided on by the principal Superintendents of Districts, and that the various requirements of the officers included a knowledge of seamanship as well as of engineering, and of the general work of ship artificers. The hon. Member might as well say that over a great landed estate the agent should be an agricultural engineer. On that ground, therefore, he took issue with the hon. Member. He hoped the Committee would consider that the Government had made some effort to perfect the survey organization throughout the Kingdom laid down by the Act of last year, and that they had effected this not only without increasing the burdens on the public, but with an absolute saving to the country.

observed that though there was no increased burden on the public, yet a large amount had been received in a form which created a tax on merchant shipping. He objected very much to the system of appointing naval officers and merchant captains to be surveyors of merchant ships. It by no means followed that seamen made the best surveyors. [Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY: They are not appointed under the new Act.] Not one? [Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY: No.] Then the sooner they were got rid of the better. He wished to point out that the right hon. Gentleman had not said how the ships referred to as being unseaworthy had been classed at Lloyd's. In his opinion not a single one of the ships had been classed A1.

expressed much surprise at the tone and substance of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he (Mr. Reed) had taken his instances from the old Act, but at least two of them were taken from the new Return. He could not admit that the Board of Trade had in all cases made a judicious choice of surveyors, or that they had always entered upon their duties in the proper spirit. The right hon. Gentleman said he would only answer his (Mr. Reed's) complaints, if he would give him a list of the vessels detained. All he could say was that all the details in his possession were at the right hon. Gentleman's service, and he should be glad to see that a public Department could be vindicated.

wished to explain that when the principal surveyor was an engineer, the second was always a sailor, and vice versâ. He would again remind the Committee that one of the improvements of the Act of last Session was limiting the Board of Trade to detain only those ships that were about to proceed in an unsafe state to sea. Before that Act passed the Board was obliged to detain ships on other grounds.

said, there could be no doubt that the Board of Trade sometimes stopped ships for very small matters; but he must honestly admit that the Board of Trade surveyors managed things fairly well. The Act had given the Board of Trade enormous powers, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would deal generously and discreetly with shipowners, because a vessel could not be stopped without serious damage to a man's property, and it was not right that ships should be stopped for the fees. It was too late to complain then, and he hoped the Board would not place unnecessary restrictions on trade.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, why it was that the Board had not provided standards of metric weights and measures? Some years ago a Bill was brought in and carried by the then hon. Member for Dumfries, by which metric weights and measures were legalized. No standard for the metric system had, however, been since provided by the Board of Trade. He saw that there was an item in the Votes for the expenses of attending the Congress on the metric system which met at Paris, and he wanted to know whether the Government meant at any time to prepare metric standards; and if not, whether they proposed to abolish the legalization of a system which it was impossible to test by standards?

observed that the real question was, whether the surveying officers had not been appointed in excessive numbers, and whether the effect had not been an oppressive action on merchant shipping. The general rule of the Civil Service of the country was, that when an officer received a salary which was a full remuneration for the duties he performed, any pension he might be in the enjoyment of merged in the salary. In the present case, however, a new rule had been established which the President of the Board of Trade had not at all justified. He objected also to the sum paid to certain officers of the Staff for appearing as experts, or producing documents in Courts of Law at the instance of litigants. In conclusion he moved that the Vote be reduced by £4,000, which sum, at the least, was enjoyed by the first-named officers in the form of pensions.

wished to ask a question with reference to a different branch of this Vote, and that was, whether the expenses of the Law Charges included the costs incurred by the Crown in the various attempts which had been made to subvert the law of Scotland with respect to the foreshore and have the foreshore conveyed to the Crown. Various attempts had been made to deprive individuals of their right to the foreshore. By the law of Scotland persons having the land adjacent to the sea had usually a right to the foreshore. The Crown brought an action a few years ago for the purpose of obtaining the right to the whole of the foreshore; but that action was according to the Scotch law decided against the Crown. He thought it was wrong that the Crown should try to establish rights which had never heretofore been known in the law of Scotland.

believed there had been an attempt on the part of the Board of Trade to defend the rights of the Crown with regard to certain foreshore in Scotland, and that it had failed; but he thought the Vote did not apply to that. The Vote proposed for the surveying staff was the inevitable result of the Act of last year. The whole staff had been transferred to the Treasury and the receipts also; and the two so nearly balanced each other that there was only a net charge of £13,000. As to the number of the new officers, he could say they were only 10, a number much smaller than was contemplated when the Act was under discussion. He could hardly conceive on what ground the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Rylands) complained of the Vote, or in what other way he would propose the carrying out of the Act of last year. The hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Sampson Lloyd) asked why this Department had not adopted the metric system. They had not done so simply because they had not been authorized by Parliament to do so. It was a matter not to be decided by any Executive Department.

said, it was a rule of the Public Service that if an officer in the receipt of a pension received new employment, his pension should merge for the time in the salary which he was to receive. He should very much like to hear, what had not been given, an explanation as to the way in which such of these officers as had naval pensions had been dealt with. And he would repeat the question, did these estimates bring a number of gentlemen for the first time into the Civil Service of the country?

asked, whether there would be 10 additional appointments under the new Act?

wished to know, whether the Government would ask Parliament to give them the authority which the right hon. Gentleman said they wanted.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would answer the questions put. Would a surveyor be entitled to receive a salary and a pension at the same time?

said, that as difficulty would have arisen in settling the rights of these gentlemen, it was thought advisable to transfer them with all their rights as they stood.

said, that 178 men appeared for the first time in the Estimates receiving an average pay of £300 each. Were these salaries formerly paid out of the Mercantile Marine Fund, or were they paid under some new scale settled between the Board of Trade and the Treasury? If their footing was a new one, then the Committee were entitled to apply to them the rule which was applied to all Departments—namely, that their salaries should be the whole sum which they received. While they were drawing salary the pension should be in abeyance.

said, he fully concurred in the remarks which had been made. He understood that the old Staff would be paid under this new arrangement precisely the same salaries and pensions as they were paid under the Mercantile Marine Fund. There were additional officers with additional duties, and their salaries were paid under the scale now before the Committee. The new ones received no pension.

Were they on the Civil Service Establishment before this new arrangement?

They were not. If they were, they would not receive pensions for both naval and civil service.

said, that this was so, no doubt. But these gentlemen, receiving pensions already, wore put in the way of receiving other pensions without passing through the Civil Service. This was, therefore, a re-organization.

had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have seen that all the exertions made on that side of the House were in his favour by assisting him to keep down expenditure. The Board of Trade had taken over from former establishments a large Staff without proper consideration, and thus all were liable to become civil servants, and to acquire pensions accordingly. The Board had not been sufficiently careful in the appointment of their officers, and had spent large sums which were unintelligible—for instance, £900 for "charwomen."

wished to know whether the transferred officers would in future be in precisely the same position as they had been in the past?

said, that was undoubtedly the intention and spirit of the arrangement, and he would take very good care, so long as he was at the Treasury, that it should be carried out.

inquired, whether they had been receiving from the Mercantile Marine Fund salaries with the same annual increment as it was now proposed to pay them.

replied that they were transferred precisely as they stood, no change whatever being made in their position.

again complained of the action of the Crown in attempting to establish a right to the foreshore in Scotland, and moved to reduce the Vote by £500.

said, the right to the foreshore in Scotland belonged to the Crown, except in cases where it was granted to the owners of private property; and it would be an unfortunate principle to lay down that, where a Crown right existed, that right should not be enforced.

hoped the Motion would not be pressed.

said, in cases where the right to the foreshore was vested in the proprietors by charter, there would be no difficulty in showing their right to it.