asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government have received, or will endeavour to obtain, any assurances from the Khedive of Egypt that the freedom and independence of M'Tese, the friendly chief or king of the Uganda territory in Central Africa, will be respected; whether the Government have sent, or will send, instructions to the British Envoy in Egypt that it is their desire that the independence of M'Tese should be respected; and, what arrangements have been made by the Government to carry out the Resolution of the House of Commons in April 1876, regarding the payment to the Church Missionary Society for the expenses incurred by its agents in the maintenance and protection of liberated slaves?

, in reply, said, that representations had been made to the Khedive of Egypt, and also to the British Envoy, Colonel Gordon, which he hoped would be the means of securing the freedom and independence of M'Tese, the Chief of the Uganda territory, and Her Majesty's Government had expressed a hope that the rights of M'Tese would be respected by the Khedive. In regard to the last part of the Question, relating to the liberated slaves, the words "Church Missionary Society" were not in the Resolution passed last year, but the Resolution was simply to make adequate provision for liberated slaves. Whatever he had said, however, he was prepared to stand by when the proper time arrived; but to give a grant from the public treasury to one particular society would be a matter of considerable difficulty. The subject, however, had not been lost sight of, but, on the contrary, several letters had passed upon it between the Government and Dr. Kirk, and he hoped before long that some information would be received by which the Resolution of the House of Commons would be given effect to.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a report of a recent game trespass prosecution in Perthshire, in the course of which one of the county constables gave evidence to the effect that on a particular morning he had watched Lord Kinnoull's game for five or six hours; that when requested by the head gamekeeper he was sometimes weeks so engaged; that he was not paid by the Earl of Kinnoull; that lie was watching every week in the month, and he believed every constable was the same, "it was their duty to do so;" whether one-half the wages of these constables is paid from the Imperial Treasury; whether it is the duty of constables to watch game; and, if not, whether he will take steps to prevent the employment of constables as game watchers?

, in reply, said, he was informed that the constable had misstated the facts of the case. Under the General Police (Scotland) Act, 1857, Section 7, the chief constable, on the application of any person, with the approval of the Sheriff, might appoint and cause to be sworn in an additional number of constables within the limits of his authority at the charge of the person or persons making the application. He was informed that the constable in question was appointed under the statute not simply to watch the game, but to keep order in the neighbourhood of Lord Kinnoull's place. The man was paid entirely in that way, and under the Act he became of course part of the police force; but the whole of the payment came from Lord Kinnoull, and not from the State. With regard to the statement of the constable, that it was his duty to watch game, all he (Mr. Cross) had to say was that it was not so. It was not the duty of the constable to watch game, and if found employing his time in that manner be would not be doing his duty as a constable, and would not be entitled to payment from the State.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can lay upon the Table of the House an authentic Copy of the Czar's Address to the Bulgarian people; whether Her Majesty's Government has any information confirming the statement of the "Times" correspondent at Berlin, a distinguished philologist, to the following effect:—

"That Prince Tcherkasski's design for the reorganisation of Bulgaria includes the introduction of the Russian language in the Army and Civil Service, and the immediate transfer of all the landed property to the Christians —the introduction of the Russian language involving the appointment of Russian civil and military officers, no Bulgarian being able to read a line of Russian unless he has studied the language or acquired it in Russia;"

and, if this be true, whether Her Majesty's Government will not protest against a proceeding inconsistent with the solemn assurances of the Czar and of the Russian Government at and before the commencement of the war? He might add, in explanation of the Question, that three different translations, each varying from the other, of the Czar's proclamation had already appeared.

Sir, Her Majesty's Government have received a copy of the Czar's proclamation in Bulgaria, and there will be no objection to lay it on the Table. With regard to Prince Tcherkasski, we have also beard from Bucharest that he is charged with the re-organization of Bulgaria, and is accompanied by 400 civil employés. As to the other parts of the hon. Member's Question, we have not received any official information, and therefore I need say nothing respecting it.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he can name to the House the Committee who are to investigate the question as to the stability of H.M.S. "Inflexible?"

, in reply, said, that Admiral Sir James Hope, Mr. George Rendell, Mr. Froude, and Mr. Woolley had been appointed to investigate the stability of the vessel referred to.

asked if the Mr. Rendell in question was the gentleman who had the contract for the completion of the Thunderer?

, in reply, said he was not certain that that was the case; but the Mr. Rendell in question was a very well-known engineer in the North, and was supposed to be fully competent to investigate such questions as would be placed before the Committee.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, If his attention has been called to the Report of Dr. Frankland upon the water supplied by the Southwark and Vauxhall Company—that it is "full of moving organisms, and contains an excessive proportion of organic impurity;" and, if he will take steps to insure a supply of pure water from that Company?

Sir, my attention has been called to the recent Report of Dr. Frankland to which my bon. and gallant Friend refers. But complaints bad previously been made to me by the Wandsworth District Board of Works as to the state of the water supplied by the Southwark and Vauxhall Company, which has for some time been unsatisfactory, and the Water Examiner has, by my directions, been in communication with the company on the subject during the last two months. On the 4th of July last I issued an Order directing that a special inquiry under Section 35 of the Metropolis Water Act, 1871, should be held by Major Bolton, and that inquiry will be held immediately. It is fair to add that the company have been incurring a large expenditure dur- ing the past year for renewal of their filters at Hampton and Battersea, a work which they admit to have been too long neglected. It remains to be ascertained what further works may be necessary to put this company's supply into a satisfactory state, and what effect the works already executed will have upon it.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, If he will state to the House the present condition of the Metropolis with respect to small pox; and, whether any and what measures are being taken or fostered by him to prevent or check the prevalence of the disease in the future?

Sir, according to the latest accounts there are 621 inmates of the five metropolitan hospitals. This number as compared with numbers ranging from 850 to 950 during April and May, must be considered comparatively satisfactory. There is also spare accommodation for 483 cases now available for the pauper and poorer classes of patients, so that there are means for the treatment of all who might require to be brought under care in the metropolis. It may be said, generally, that the epidemic is abating, and that the increased amount of accommodation available, together with increased activity in effecting removals and greater attention to vaccination, has enabled the authorities to hold the disease in better check than was the case when the last epidemic prevailed. Some of the Vestries have provided accommodation, and some Vestries and Boards of Guardians have taken steps by house-to-house visitation to insure greater attention to the practice of vaccination. Although, as I have said, the epidemic appears to be subsiding, it is not yet at an end. I shall, however, take care to have its history investigated and the experience of the last 12 months collected and put into shape, with the view of considering whether further legislation is required. Meanwhile, as the House is aware, I have caused several clauses, which I think may be useful, to be inserted in the Public Health (Metropolis) Bill.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, If the rumour that the Local Medical Department in India is about to be abolished and that the administration of the Army Medical Service in India is to be in future in the hands of the Indian Government only, is correct; and, if he has any objection to state the grounds of the proposed change?

Sir, the Government of India have for some time past had the whole question of the Army Medical Service in India under their consideration, but they have not communicated any conclusions. I am not, therefore, in a position to be able to state what modifications may be proposed, or the reasons for them.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What steps have been taken, and what further steps it is proposed to take, to secure payment to English creditors of debts incurred by members of the Persian Embassy in the year 1873?

In reply to my hon. and learned Friend I have to state that the steps taken in favour of the creditors of the Persian Embassy in 1873 are these—The applications of the different creditors that were sent to the Foreign Office have been sent to Her Majesty's Minister at Teheran, and some of them have been presented to the Persian Government. From the last reports it appears that the late Chargé d'Affaires of the Persian Mission in England had announced his intention of paying his English creditors whenever his circumstances would permit. It is not the intention of Lord Derby to take any further steps in the matter than by referring the applications of the creditors which may from time to time come to the Foreign Office to the Persian Government at Teheran.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, To state if the Public Works Loan Board can be called on to show Scotch loans, Welsh loans, and Colonial loans; also to render detailed statements of the separate loans outstanding on the date the new Board was formed, with rates of interest, duration of loan, and annuity to pay off the individual loans; also to show all loans to Harbours under the Passing Tolls, &c. Act, 1861, with details relating thereto?

, in reply, said, that a Return of a similar character was moved for in 1871; but he did not think it desirable such Returns should be made too frequently, as it would involve a serious interference with the business of the Office. He therefore hoped the matter would not be pressed. But he would consider, in concert with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, whether those Returns might not be made every 10 years.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of the Government that the State should assume the custody and bear the cost of maintenance of insane as well as of sane prisoners; and, whether, in the event of this not being so, the local authority on whom the cost of maintaining insane prisoners falls is entitled in the case of such prisoners to the Government allowance of four shillings per week which is given in the case of lunatic paupers?

, in reply, said, he must divide these prisoners into two classes. The first were those acquitted on the ground of insanity, but detained during Her Majesty's pleasure. Those properly were not criminal prisoners, and the fact that they were detained could make no difference. The Prisons Act made no change with regard to their maintenance. With regard to those persons who were convicted and afterwards became insane, so long as they were in detention under their sentences the whole expenditure would be borne by the State. When their sentences expired, owing to their being lunatics, it might be necessary to keep them in detention. They would then become pauper lunatics and chargeable to the county, and the Government allowance for pauper lunatics would, of course, be made in such cases.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether any proposals have passed, and, if so, whether they have been entertained by his Department, with a view to substituting military for civil employés in the Postal Telegraph Departments?

, in reply, said, it had been decided to employ the Royal Engineers in the Postal Telegraph Service to the extent desired by the Secretary of State for War, and, consequently, that the whole of the South of England from the Thames to Land's End would be placed under their charge.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of the Government has been called to the recent cruise in the Black Sea of the Russian Government steamers "Constantin" and "Vladimir," in the course of which they met no Turkish men-of-war, but on the contrary succeeded in capturing certain Turkish merchantmen; and, whether there is not reason to believe that the Turkish blockade of the coasts of Russia is so intermittent as to be "ineffective?"

Her Majesty's Government have been informed that the Russian Government's cruisers have captured Turkish merchantmen in the Black Sea; but the information at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government is not sufficient to enable us to say whether the blockade is efficient or not.

subsequently asked, Whether Her Majesty's Government were taking steps to inform themselves as to the efficiency of the blockade?

said, he had received no Notice of the Question.

said, he would put it to-morrow.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been drawn to a letter in the "Times" of the 13th inst., signed E. J. Reed, House of Commons, July 11th, in which it was alleged that, with reference to the Return, Navy (H.M.S. "Inflexible") No. 295,

"the figures given in the table on page 10 as representing the case are wrong in respect of both ships, as the sheet of diagrams and the small-type foot-note on page 11 clearly shows;"

also to the fact that the present Chief Constructor in the said Return, at page 19, makes grave statements against the greater portion of the ironclad vessels designed by the late Chief Constructor; and, whether, under these circumstances, he will not consider the desirability of an inquiry into the whole subject being made by a Select Committee of this House, instead of a limited inquiry by an Admiralty Committee as at present contemplated?

, in reply, said, he begged to inform the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he had seen the letter, and it was his duty to state that the Admiralty was not prepared to recommend either that the question relating to the Inflexible, or the larger questions connected with our iron-clad Fleet, past, present, or future, should be referred to a Committee of that House.

Then I beg to give Notice that to-morrow I shall repeat my Question in another form.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he has any objection to place upon the Table of the House the Despatches which reached the Admiralty on Wednesday night or Thursday morning last from Rear Admiral de Horsey reporting the particulars of the encounter of Her Majesty's ships "Shah" and "Amethyst" with the Peruvian ironclad "Huascar?"

, in reply, said, there would be no objection to lay on Table the Paper referred to; but in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, it would be very inconvenient to lay it on the Table until they were able to lay on the Table at the same time the judgment of the Admiralty respecting it. The Papers were now in the hands of the Law Officers of the Crown, and he trusted their opinion would not long be delayed.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Irish Privy Council have considered the expediency of relaxing the regulations prohibiting the importation of stock into Ireland from Great Britain, especially of sheep and pigs, which cannot convey any infection of cattle plague?

Sir, it has been thought better to retain these restrictions in force while any risk remained; and I believe the cordon which was established round the London metropolitan district has not yet been removed. But the Privy Council probably will shortly again allow the importation of stock into Ireland, especially sheep and pigs.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Who it was communicated to the Education Board information that Michael and Patrick Gurney, the teachers of the National School, Headford, county Galway, had attended a tenant right meeting; whether such information was anonymous; and, whether it is not a violation of the Board's own rules to attend to anonymous communications affecting the position of teachers?

Sir, I understand that the information on which the Commissioners acted in this matter was a report in a newspaper, which was forwarded to them, of a tenant-right meeting, in which report it was stated that Michael and Patrick Gurney were among the persons attending the meeting. I think a report of the kind could scarcely be held to fall under the rule of the Board against attending to anonymous communications.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called by a Memorial signed by 250 of the attorneys, merchants, tradesmen, and others, of the town of Driffield, to the fact that two men, of the names of Styran and Crowther, in the employment of Taylor's Patent Sewing Machine Company Limited, were sentenced by the justices at the Driffield Petty Sessions, on the 14th June last, to a fine and costs, amounting to £2 17s. 6d. each, or, in default, to six weeks' imprisonment; and, further, that notwithstanding this sentence, and the tender of the money on behalf of the men within seventeen minutes of the decision, the magistrates' clerk refused to receive it, and made out the commitment to the Beverley House of Correction, omitting entirely that part of the decision which gave the men the option of a fine; and, whether he will recommend compliance with the prayer of the Memorial?

, in reply, said, that if the facts of the case were as stated by the hon. Member, he would at once have acted in accordance with the suggestion made in the Question; but he was assured by the magistrates that the facts were not as stated. The men did not get the option of a fine, but had been convicted of stealing, and that under an Act of Parliament according to which the magistrates had, in their judgment, no option but absolute imprisonment. Indeed, he was assured by the magistrates that even had they possessed the power, they would not have exercised it. The whole matter as to the fine and costs of each prisoner amounting to £2 17s. 6d., and the option, probably arose from some statement made by the Chairman of the Bench at the beginning of the proceedings, but which had nothing to do with the final determination which was arrived at.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether Her Majesty's Government is prepared to take steps to secure to the Irish work- house national teachers the same privileges as regards results fees earned under the conditions laid down by the Commissioners of National Education as are possessed by the ordinary national school teachers?

Sir, the National Teachers Act of 1875 allowed the Board of Guardians of any Union to vote results fees to the teachers of the workhouse school. But I do not think it would be possible to place these teachers on precisely the same footing as other teachers in this respect. Their general position is very different, and in some points much superior, to that of the ordinary national teachers.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the reduction from £80 to £45 recently made by the Treasury in the salary fixed in 1874 to be paid to the clerk of the peace for the county of Londonderry in respect of his services under the Land Act of 1870 has been made with the knowledge and concurrence of the Lord Lieutenant or Lord Chancellor of Ireland; and, if he will lay upon the Table any Correspondence between the Treasury and the Irish Executive upon the subject of that and similar reductions?

Sir, this reduction has been made in accordance with the general arrangement on the subject which was arrived at in 1874 by the Treasury, with the concurrence of the Irish Government. This arrangement was to fix the salary for a term of three years on the average number of days occupied in the work during the three preceding years, allowing £3 3s. a-day for each day's attendance at land sessions, whether business was done or not; and a certain addition for office expenses. On this basis the salary of the clerk of the peace for county Londonderry was fixed at £66 3s. for salary and £13 17s. for office expenses, making a total of £80. But when, in the present year, the time came to revise these salaries, it was found that in the three years since 1874 the business had so much decreased, as compared with the three years before 1874, that the salary, calculated on the same basis, must be reduced to £45. I do not think the correspondence would give any more information than that which I have stated to the House, and therefore I do not propose to lay it on the Table.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is true that rinderpest has again broken out in a dairy in the metropolitan district; if he will state the circumstances; and, whether any attempt was made to conceal the disease by the owner of the dairy; and, also, whether the dairy was previously under inspection?

Sir, I am very sorry to say that a fresh outbreak of the cattle plague has been detected at Bethnal Green in a shed containing 10 cows, seven of which were affected by it. They were all slaughtered at 5 P.M. yesterday, after being condemned by the Inspector of the Privy Council, Mr. Cope. The owner did not make any report of the sickness amongst the cows, as required by the Order in Council. The origin of this outbreak, I am sorry to say, has not been traced as yet. Fortunately, the Order under which no animal is to be allowed to leave the metropolis alive is still in force, and also the Orders under which the Privy Council deal with cattle plague in the metropolis. This afternoon we have passed an Order in Council restricting the movement of cattle in the metropolis north of the Thames except for immediate slaughter; and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that we will take every step to check the outbreak as far as we can.

said, the Government did not think that the case of Messrs. Cowing and Deadman, who were imprisoned upon an order for payment of costs in their unsuccessful suit against the Crown, but were afterwards released by the order of the Government, was one in which compensation ought to be given.

, in rising to move—

"That, having regard to the recommendations made in 1874 by the Select Committee on Public Departments (Purchases, &c), this House is of opinion that the recent appointment of Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office is calculated to diminish the usefulness and influence of Select Committees of this House, and to discourage the interest and zeal of officials employed in the Public Departments of the State,"

said, that the Committee in question was appointed in 1873, and numbered amongst its Members three of the present Ministry and two ex-Ministers. They devoted the greater part of their time to an inquiry into the Stationery Department, which they found to be sui generis in its relations to the Treasury, being, in fact, practically under the control of the Treasury, of which its head was an executive officer. The character and extent of the work in the Stationery Department were shown by the fact that in 1872–3 £484,000 was expended in contracts for paper, printing, bookbinding, and small stores, and the total expenditure, taking the Post Office, the Gazettes, and other, branches, amounted to a total of £680,000. Of these, the sale and distribution of Parliamentary Papers came to £100,000 a-year. There was also, under its roof, a department which had to do with the Gazettes, yielding a profit in 1874 of £27,000. It was, in fact, a miscellaneous Department, demanding in its head much knowledge and experience. The Committee did not regard the late Controller (Mr. W. R. Greg) as being fully acquainted with the t stationery trade, the fact being, as he (Mr. Holms) believed, that he was appointed by Lord Palmerston, very much because he was a man of literary attainments, and not because he was acquainted with the stationery trade. He entered upon his office perhaps under the impression that he was to some extent free to do what he liked. It had indeed been said of the office of Controller of the Stationery Department, that it was "the Deanery of the Civil Service." It appeared that Mr. Greg was not well acquainted with the duties of his office, nor was it to be wondered at, seeing that he only came down for a few hours at the end of the day to sign cheques, money orders, and documents of that kind. Fortunately, he had next to him a gentleman, Mr. Reid, who showed such knowledge and ability that it was believed that, if he had not been in a secondary position, a great saving might have been effected. Since 1874 the Department had been under leading strings to the Treasury, and the present Secretary to the Treasury was well acquainted with its details, and during the last two years good work had been done. The amount saved last year, for example, on certain items of the Vote of £494,000 was £45,000, or something like 9 per cent; and he was told that a saving of £25,000 additional was anticipated on other Votes next year, making, on the whole, a saving of over £70,000. Now, that sum was a saving in the work done for Home Departments alone. Well, in relation to the Indian Department they were bound, he considered, to pay attention to it; and it was to be hoped that there would be a saving in work done in that Department to the same proportion. But although the Stationery Department had been well managed since it had had the assistance of the Secretary to the Treasury, the House could not always expect to have the aid of one who was so well versed in the business of the Department. What was wanted, therefore, was that the Controller of the Stationery Office should himself be practically acquainted with his work. The Committee accordingly recommended that at the next vacancy provision should be made for placing under one officer, who should possess the requisite technical knowledge of stationery and printing, the control of all the details of the Stationery Office and the management of the London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Gazettes subject to the Treasury. They also reported that great public convenience would be attained if the whole arrangement of the sales and the distribution of Parliamentary Papers and Government Papers were under the care of the Controller, and that a central depot might be established. The spirit of the recommendations of the Committee was, that the head of the Department should have his duties somewhat increased, and that he should be practically acquainted with the trade, as if he were really a stationer. The evidence taken by the Select Committee was very voluminous, and as to any part of the Report, there was very little difference of opinion, while in respect to the Stationery Department, the Committee were unanimous. They could not expect a first-rate man for the salary paid to the late Controller, but it would be better to pay £2,000, £3,000, £4,000 or £5,000 a-year to get such a man. The question was, How far did the recent appointment to the head of the Stationery Department meet those recommendations? The gentleman appointed was Mr. T. Digby Pigott, against whom he had not a word to say, everything he had heard of him being greatly to his credit. But who was Mr. Pigott? He was first introduced in the year 1859 as a temporary clerk in the War Office, and became one of the establishment in 1860. Subsequently, he became Secretary to the several Under Secretaries of State for War, and upon one occasion was Secretary to a Royal Commission—that upon the Promotion and Retirement of Army Officers. When appointed to the office of Controller of the Stationery Office he was one of 101 junior clerks in the War Office, being 69th upon the list, and in receipt, he believed, of £300 or £400 a-year. It was not pretended that he possessed the qualifications laid down in the recommendations of the Committee; he was not exactly the man the Committee had had in mind in making those recommendations. Indeed, the Secretary to the Treasury stated, in reply to a Question put on the 18th of June last, that Mr. Pigott did not possess any technical knowledge of stationery or the like, adding, however, that the Prime Minister had given careful consideration to the Report of the Select Committee. Well, if the noble Lord had, he (Mr. Holms) could not but think that a very different man would have been appointed. He was afraid that in this, as in some other appointments made by the Prime Minister, the interests of the country had not been foremost in his mind, and that there had been something behind. How was it in the present case? He did not know what was behind; but he understood that Mr. Pigott was a son of the late rector of Hughenden, who, he believed, with his family, had rendered valuable assistance to the Prime Minister in that county which he had so long and so creditably represented. Was such an appointment, he asked, fair to the country? Was it fair to the Civil Service? Either the position was to be regarded as a sinecure, or it was not. If the man to hold it should be well acquainted with the duties to be performed, then Mr. Pigott was not the man. If, on the other hand, it was to be considered as a prize for State purposes, it would not be contended that Mr. Pigott had rendered such valuable services to the State as that he should be appointed. The predecessor of Mr. Greg, the late Mr. M'Culloch, was not only eminent in literature, but was perfectly well acquainted with the details of the Department over which he presided. Mr. Greg was not, but he was eminent in literature. Mr. Pigott knew nothing about stationery, nor was he eminent in a literary walk of life. In the Department itself might have been found a man who stood next to Mr. Greg, and was every way suited to the position of Controller. He alluded to Mr. Reid, who was in receipt of £700 a-year, and there was also the editor of the Gazette, who received about £800 a-year; and it had been owned by the Secretary to the Treasury that there were many able men in the Department. But if even that were not so was it not possible to find a suitable man outside it? Surely it was. He could not believe that the appointment would be defended by any right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench. But he came to the broad question of the value of Select Committees of that House. Was the House of Commons prepared to admit that Select Committees which had done good service in the past with respect to public Departments, and the expenditure of public money were to be regarded not as a reality, but as a sham? Were their recommendations to be treated as mere waste paper? He did not believe so; for if they were, then he could not but think that hon. Members would lose all interest in serv- ing on them or in moving for their appointment. Then the House should consider the effect of such an appointment on the Civil Service generally. It would produce a feeling of great disappointment, for had the promotion been within the Department a step would have been given to 50 or 60 employés. Instead of that, the Service would see that a junior clerk had been lifted from the War Office and placed at the head of a great public Department. It was not a little remarkable that a Royal Commission of which Mr. Pigott had acted as Secretary, was the Commission on Retirement and Promotion in the Army, the object of which was to obtain a flow of promotion in the Army; but if a flow of promotion was good for the Army, was it not also good for the Civil Service? He hoped the House would support the Resolution, as in doing so it would establish its own dignity and authority, and enter an emphatic protest against the appointment which had been made. As Chairman of the Select Committee to which he had referred, he felt it his duty to draw the attention of the House to the subject, and to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

seconded the Motion. He was a Member of the Committee presided over so ably by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms), and he fully concurred in the conclusions at which it had arrived. There was great necessity for the Motion which had been made, for he believed that, unless the House of Commons pronounced a decision on the question on the present occasion, the principle of political patronage would be extended in a direction that had already gone too far. His own practical experience, extending over 45 years, had led him to the conclusion that men ought to be selected for public appointments on account of their qualifications and the knowledge of the duties to be entrusted to them; and unless they proceeded in that direction more than they had done hitherto, not only would additional expense be entailed upon the country, but the work of the nation would not be properly performed.

, as a Member of the Select Committee, wished to add a few remarks, and in particular to direct attention to the character of this Department. It was in reality rather a sub-department of the Treasury than an independent Department, and consequently there was no reason why the head of it should be a person of political importance. He ought, rather, to be thoroughly acquainted with the paper trade, which, almost more than any other trade, abounded in technicalities. In fact, a knowledge of the printing trade was essential in order to direct the Department efficiently, and it must necessarily be difficult for a junior clerk in the War Office, not possessed of that knowledge, to perform his duties satisfactorily. Many gentlemen who had been long employed in the Stationery Office came before the Committee and gave most valuable evidence. Their position had been ignored and a younger man was promoted over their heads. This would, of course, tend to discourage all those gentlemen who had been superseded, and could not be for the benefit of the Public Service. He had no knowledge of the gentleman who had been promoted to the office, but he regretted that the appointment had been made. If Select Committees were to be of any value, their Reports ought not to be passed over without being fully and carefully considered.

said, the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms) and the remarks made by him, together with those with which the hon. Member for Wenlock (Mr. A. H. Brown) had supported it, raised a somewhat false issue with regard to the functions of Select Committees of that House. Both those hon. Gentlemen had spoken as though the appointment of Mr. Pigott to the Controllership of the Stationery Office, instead of the appointment of someone who possessed "a technical knowledge of stationery and printing," was an appointment calculated to diminish the usefulness and influence of Select Com- mittees. Moreover, the language of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down would rather lead the Committee to suppose that the whole object of the Committee of which he was a Member had been to consider what ought to be the organization of the Stationery Office; that the Committee had spent two years in considering that subject; and that it had made with reference to it a recommendation which had been summarily set aside. Now, he did not think that this was doing justice to the Committee of which the hon. Gentleman was a Member. That Committee did not spend two years in considering so minute a point as the character of the person who should be placed at the head of the Stationery Office. It was a Committee appointed for an important purpose— namely,

"To inquire into and report upon the existing principles and practice which in the several Public Departments regulate the Purchase and Sale of Materials and Stores."

The Committee sent in a Report containing no fewer than 134 paragraphs, and only a portion of one paragraph had been specially referred to in the present discussion. Undoubtedly, the recommendations which the Committee made with reference to the Stationery Office formed one of the most important parts of the Report; but they had also made a great many other recommendations with regard to that Department. Those recommendations had been carefully considered, and to no inconsiderable extent acted upon by the Treasury. Looking to the general principles on which the Stationery Office ought to be administered, he found the Committee did not recommend any alteration in the control of the Office by the Treasury. As had been acknowledged by the hon. Member for Hackney, the Treasury, since the Committee was appointed, had bestowed a great deal of attention on the management of this Department. His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury and his hon. Friend the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Winn) had, in fact, introduced no inconsiderable improvements into the working of the Department, and had made a considerable reduction in its expenditure. It was not therefore fair to say, even if the recommendation as to the choice of the person who should succeed the late Controller was not acted upon, that the recommen- dations of the Committee were treated as being worthless. The Treasury had endeavoured to carry into effect some of the recommendations of the Committee with but partial success. For instance, with regard to the publication of a cheap edition of the Statutes and the arrangements to be made for the sale of the Papers of the two Houses of Parliament, the Treasury, in deference to the recommendations of the Committee, had made attempts which he believed had not, thus far, proved successful. And now he came to the question of the selection of a proper person to be at the head of that Department, which, in the view of the Committee, was to be, not an independent Department, but one under the control of the Treasury. Undoubtedly, the Committee did recommend that the gentleman who succeeded Mr. Greg as head of the Stationery Office should possess a technical knowledge of stationery and printing; and when the appointment came to be filled up he was aware that his noble Friend (the Earl of Beaconsfield) had his attention especially directed to that recommendation, and that he gave it his consideration. [Laughter.] Well, but his noble Friend took a different view of the necessity for appointing a gentleman who was technically acquainted with stationery and printing, and therefore might be said to have been connected with the trade, from that at which the Committee arrived. The responsibility in this matter did not rest with the Committee, but with the First Lord of the Treasury, and there were several considerations which would naturally present themselves to his mind when he had this appointment to fill up. It would be a matter of some difficulty and delicacy to take a person out of the stationery trade and appoint him to the office of Controller. It was by no means certain that they would be able to find among the successful members of that branch of trade one who, for the remuneration the Treasury could offer, would be disposed to abandon a business he was conducting with success in order to accept this office. Therefore, the choice among those in the trade was, to a certain extent, limited; and, of course, if they took a man who had been uusuccessful in business, objections would be raised to him also, and the same would be the case if the man appointed were connected with any particular house in the trade. Altogether, the choice of a man for an office of so much importance involved many considerations beyond those which appeared to enter into the view taken by the Committee, and it was not enough to take a man with merely technical knowledge. The Prime Minister, upon whom, as he had said, the responsibility rested, therefore, acting on the best of his judgment, came to the conclusion that it was not desirable, at least at the present time, to seek for a gentleman possessing the peculiar qualifications referred to. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) himself doubted, from the observations which had been made on the present occasion, whether the Members of the Committee themselves were in their own minds so thoroughly persuaded of the necessity of the appointment being made on the principle laid down in the Report; because the hon. Member for Hackney said that they should either have taken a gentleman who was practically acquainted with the trade, or promoted the gentleman who was second in command in the existing Stationery Office. However reasonable it might be, the suggestion of that alternative showed that the Committee did not consider it absolutely necessary that the person appointed should be practically acquainted with the stationery and printing trades. No doubt, if Mr. Reid, the second in command, were appointed, they would have a gentleman whose merits were very high, and in whom the Secretary to the Treasury and the hon. Member for Lincolnshire had the greatest confidence. On the other hand, it was not a necessary rule that promotion must always take place within each Department, and reasons might easily be suggested why a man might be advantageously brought in from another Department. He would come with a fresh mind and bring a fresh eye to bear on any abuses which might exist. The hon. Member for Hackney said that Mr. Pigott was not a man who, from his previous services, was entitled to what he humorously termed the "deanery of the Civil Service." If this were to be regarded as an honorary appointment, with but little work to do, given to men for good services in other Departments of the State, no doubt Mr. Pigott would not be a proper person to select. But he was selected as being a man comparatively young, who had jus- tified by his character and abilities the expectations formed respecting him when he first entered the Public Service. It was said, and great stress was laid upon the fact, that he was the son of the former vicar of Hughenden. His noble Friend (the Earl of Beaconsfield), with whom he had had some conversation on the subject, told him that he had very little personal knowledge of Mr. Pigott, except that he had on his early introduction to the Public Service been pointed out to him as a young man of great ability, and likely to be a valuable public servant; that he had watched his career with some interest on account of his connection with a former vicar of Hughenden, and had uniformly found that he was spoken of very highly by those who had had opportunities of observing his career. He had been employed from time to time in duties rather above the ordinary duties of a clerk, and had been selected for particular services of an important character. He was in the prime of life, with 17 years of Public Service, and had shown himself to be a really good man of business. Under his charge there was every prospect that the work of the Department would be well performed. These, and no others, were the reasons which, as he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was informed by the Prime Minister, influenced him in making this appointment, which he did with a consciousness of the arguments that could be used for and against the selection of men in the trade, and with a full sense of the good services and merits of Mr. Reid, the second in the office. He believed in the personal fitness of Mr. Pigott, having observed his career from time to time since he entered the Public Service. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not think that these circumstances at all justified the censure which it was proposed to pass upon the appointment.

said, he was not at all disposed to regard the affair from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer). At a time when they were doing their best to improve the status of the Civil Servants, it would be an unfortunate course to adopt, and altogether a departure from sound principle and common practice, if they were to say to men who had nearly reached the top of the tree—"No matter how long your services, or how great your efficiency may be, you will not be promoted to the headship of your Department, but we shall take a junior clerk out of another office who knows nothing about the business and appoint him over you, in order to have the advantage of a fresh mind. He did not know how far that doctrine might be carried; but if a man was to be appointed not because of his knowledge and experience, but because he came from somewhere else, and knew nothing of the particular business he would have to discharge, then, indeed, it would be a sorry look-out for the members of the Civil Service, who entered through the painful door of competitive examination in the hope that if they did their duty they would be promoted to the highest offices in the Department in which they were placed. That appeared to him to be the most salient point in the present controversy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer doubted whether the best course in filling up this office was to appoint the man who had the most practical experience; but in any case, it was, to say the least of it, very singular that when the claims of two men of equal experience conflicted, a third, of no experience at all, should be chosen. The present action of the Government seemed to him to be a most extraordinary way of carrying out the recommendations of the Committee. Several pages of the Committee's Report were occupied with recommendations affecting the Stationery Office, and the paragraph to which the Motion referred was not dashed off by the Chairman, or some particular Member, but it was prepared with very great care, and was considerably altered in its wording, and it was ultimately passed heartily and unanimously by the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had said that the Prime Minister had not thought fit to adopt the recommendation of the Committee, but those words might have two meanings. Either they might mean that the Prime Minister had carefully considered these recommendations, that he approved of them, that he had looked about inside the Department to find a man capable of fulfilling the requirements, but that, unable to find one, he had, as a last resort, appointed Mr. Pigott; or that, without the least inquiry or consideration, he had given Mr. Pigott the post off-hand. What he wanted to know was, whether the recommendation of the Committee was carefully considered by the Government, and was the appointment made afterwards, or was it made without any consideration whatever, and simply by the whim of the Prime Minister? The House was entitled to an answer to those questions, and he could only say that if Mr. Pigott had been appointed by the Prime Minister in the way he had suggested, the House should show their disapproval of such a proceeding by agreeing to the Motion of his hon. Friend.

said, it would have been much more satisfactory to the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms), with whom he had sat on the Committee, if the Prime Minister were able to be present, and then no doubt the House would have had an able and amusing speech in defence of the appointment. But no one would say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his ingenious speech had defended the appointment, though he had made certain excuses for it. But if the House of Commons really wished to see the position in which it was placed, it must go back and consider this as only one of a series of similar appointments which had been made since this Government came into office, and had formed the subject of animadversion in the House. A noble Lord who had sat in the House (Lord Hampton) had been placed at the head of the Civil Service Examiners, another right hon. Gentleman (Sir Seymour Fitzgerald) had been appointed a Chief Commissioner of Charities, and they had had a most remarkable and humiliating debate relative to some of the legal departments of the present Government as to the appointment of Official Referees. These latter appointments had turned out to be entirely useless, and no one would forget the speech of the late Attorney General (Sir Henry James) on that subject. But what were the facts with respect to the present case? The Committee inquired into five great public Departments, and of these they found only one working in a very efficient manner—namely, the Admiralty, which was the result of the appointment of the Purchaser of Stores. All the rest were found inefficient in their working, but the most defective of all was this Stationery Office, under which there was an expenditure of something like £600,000 a-year. He did not wish to say anything of the late head of that Department (Mr. Greg); but no one who heard the evidence of that gentleman could doubt that he really knew practically little of the working of the Stationery Office, and he had to apply constantly to the second in command (Mr. Reid), who had been passed over in this appointment, for any information. If it was true that the Secretary to the Treasury and the hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Winn) had been able to effect a saving of £45,000 a-year in one portion of the Stationery Office and expected to be able to save £20,000 in another, could anything prove more strongly the necessity for reform in the entire Department, and the value of putting a practical man at the head of it? The printing and stationery of this country had grown to an enormous amount. When Mr. Greg was appointed, it was not because he had any practical acquaintance with its working, but because he had claims on the Government and was a distinguished literary man. He, too, like Mr. Pigott, had been brought in from abroad, and the consequence was, that the office when inquired into was found to be grossly extravagant, seeing that it only required the efforts of two Members of the Government to save this enormous amount of money. The recommendations of the Committee had been disregarded, and disregarded in favour of something worse than that which they recommended. What was the reason for that miserable piece of economy—the reduction of the salary from £1,200 to £1,000 a-year? Was it from a lingering suspicion on the part of the Prime Minister that it was not right to give this gentleman, who had been placed in the office over the heads of others, the full salary, or with the idea that the country would be conciliated by this paltry saving? But what the country required was to have efficient men, and to pay them good salaries; and in the present case he maintained that the appointment was ridiculous, as the Government ought certainly to have chosen some one who was well acquainted with the minutiœ of the Department, and was able to control the expenditure on pens and blotting-paper. Would any person connected with commercial affairs appoint a man at the head of a great busi- ness dealing with £600,000 or £700,000 per annum without any practical experience of the business? And the business of the Stationery Office was almost all of a technical nature. This and the other appointments that he had alluded to showed that public efficiency was not the only thing considered. He had no doubt that so long as his hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith) was Secretary to the Treasury, the Department would be well looked after; but he might be succeeded by some one who had not so much practical knowledge, and he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) was afraid that it would then be discovered what a mistake it was to place a junior clerk in the War Office at the head of the Stationery Office.

felt that he should be guilty of undue reticence if he did not say a few words on this subject. He did not know of the vacancy until he heard of the appointment of Mr. Pigott; but it was only due to that gentleman to say, although no discredit had been cast on him by any speaker, that he had been undervalued. Mr. Pigott was a man of great capacity, and although only a junior clerk in the War Office, he had duties to perform which brought to him almost every kind of knowledge. He acted as private Secretary to Lord Pembroke while he was at the War Office. He was also Secretary of the Promotion and Retirement Commission; and the manner in which he carried out the difficult business which came before him showed him well qualified for any appointment that might be bestowed upon him. He (Mr. Hardy) always understood that this was one of what they called the great Staff appointments of the Public Service not necessarily to be filled up by the elevation of those from the lower ranks in the office. When a member of any Department of the State had displayed great efficiency, he naturally looked forward to promotion in any other office which he might be competent to fill; and he ventured to say the Prime Minister had had opportunities of knowing the qualifications of Mr. Pigott, and had watched his career in a manner which others might not have done. It was said Mr. Pigott did not know the details of the Stationery Office. He (Mr. Hardy) spoke as filling an office in which he had been placed over the heads of every department in the War Office; yet he had entered it with as little practical acquaintance with the duties of the office as any could well be; and he was called upon to discharge duties involving not only great principles, but many details. The real question, however, was this—a man when placed in a position of this kind might gain his knowledge from those about him, and if he was capable of turning his abilities to account would soon be able to utilize the information he gained; and he believed that Mr. Pigott, coming with great capacity and a fresh mind, would be found capable of dealing both with principles and details in the new position in which he had been placed. Surely this was a better principle than that of keeping a man in one constant narrow groove out of which he could not step without losing his balance. He believed Mr. Pigott would vindicate the choice which the Prime Minister had made, and show that in making the appointment he had only done his duty to the public.

said, he had listened to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the utmost astonishment and regret. It was only requisite to look at the faces of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to perceive the painful position in which they felt themselves placed. They must not blink the charge; it was a charge of jobbery in one of the great public Department—a most serious and grave charge made against the head of the Government for disregarding the high trust placed in him in appointing a most important salaried officer, and really no answer had been made to it. He entirely declined to be led away by the arguments of the Secretary of State for War, as they in no way applied to the point at issue; and that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was altogether fallacious and misleading. The office required a knowledge of details and technicalities with which Mr. Pigott was admitted to be altogether unacquainted. A Select Committee had investigated the subject, and reported on the necessity of practical qualifications for the Department. It had made recommendations which had been disregarded. The Report of the Committee had been set at defiance; and what was the defence? Absolutely nothing. It was worse than nothing—it amounted to a confession of the whole thing. There was barely an attempt to justify it. The challenge had been made and the House must vindicate itself. Were they to submit silently to these jobs? What right had the Government to disregard not only the recommendations of a Committee, but every rule of plain common sense and honesty, by placing a man in a position who confessedly did not possess the requisite qualifications for it? The Government were in this way demoralizing the public offices. They were utterly destroying the esprit de corps in the public Establishments by drafting a young man into an office through influence, and placing him over the heads of men who had stood the test of competitive examinations, and were devoting themselves to the thorough knowledge and efficient discharge of their duties in the hope of promotion in the Department. He must refuse to follow the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hardy) into a discussion of the personal qualifications of this gentleman—his character was stated to be of the highest kind, and his qualifications might be equally high. The charge was one of an improper exercise of patronage by the Government, in utter disregard of the recommendations of a Select Committee. Was this, or was it not, a type or specimen of other appointments which had been complained of, but which they had no proper opportunity of bringing before the House? He hoped the House of Commons would not ratify, but would utterly condemn the appointment, which was a gross job, and as to which, after listening to the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), he must say he thought there was no defence.

also objected to the personal question of Mr. Pigott's qualifications being introduced into the discussion. As regarded them, he could, from having served in the War Office, bear witness; but, in his opinion, that circumstance did not warrant his appointment in the face of the recommendation of the Committee. As a Member of it, he felt certain that if the Members could be re-assembled they would by a large majority declare that this appointment had not been filled up in conformity with their Report and opinion. The head of this Stationery Department, under Mr. Greg, was a public servant of long experience and great intelligence; yet he had been passed over in favour of a younger man taken from another Department, who knew nothing whatever of the duties. It could not be expected that men who had qualified themselves to rise in a Department by the hope of promotion would be otherwise than discouraged by such treatment.

said, that he, as another Member of the Committee, could not agree in what had just been said, and was by no means sure that the Prime Minister had not exercised a very wise discretion. He remembered that the Committee were all dissatisfied with the manner in which the Department had been conducted, and the question was whether it might not be the best thing to bring new blood into it. If the case had been his own, he, as a business man, would have followed the same course. The gentleman appointed might not at the present moment be thoroughly practical, but they should not forget that every man must have a beginning—even the hon. Member for Hackney must have had a beginning—and therefore he (Mr. Bates) could not support the Motion of the hon. Member.

said, that if the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Bates) were to follow his deduction to its natural conclusion, when he had to find any fault with one of his captains for the command of his steam-ships, that captain would be superseded and some one would be brought in from the outside who knew nothing about seamanship. [Mr. BATES: I have no steamships.] The same remark would apply equally to sailing vessels. The Department to which they were referring was a great merchant department, with a purchase of £600,000 a-year, and he appealed to any merchant whether he ever knew an instance of a man taken from a department without any knowledge of the particular technical branch, and put at the head of a merchant department of £600,000, or even £60,000 a-year. If merchants were so to conduct business they would conduct themselves into the Bankruptcy Court in a short time. The question, they were told, had been left in the hands of the Treasury. But where was the Secretary to the Treasury'? If he had been in his place, he (Mr. Mundella) should have asked him whether he could not have found a man practically conversant with the duties, and whether he had been consulted by the Prime Minister in regard to the appointment? The fact was—there was no use in mincing words about it—his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Watkin Williams) had characterized this appointment in its true words, and he (Mr. Mundella) agreed that it was a gross job. They had had a succession of them. It was but two years ago he had to denounce the appointment of a gentleman in his 77th year to the head of the Civil Service, and what happened at the time? Why, a gentleman, only 50, in the prime of life, was placed on full pension for life, so as to make room for someone else. It was through such jobbery as this the mistake as to green coffee and the other disgraceful errors of the Crimean War occurred—the attempt to put a square peg into a round hole—and it was time it was put an end to. He must again refer to the language of the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Bates), which, as a business man, he (Mr. Mundella) should have been ashamed to use, and would ask him if he had known cases in which men taken from one branch of business had proved themselves thoroughly efficient in the new?

said, that the hon. Member had just asked if he (Mr. Bates) had ever known a man taken from one situation and put into another with success? He would say, yes.

said, he had listened to this debate with great attention and very great pain. He had come down to that House perfectly unprejudiced and anxious to vote for the Government. He would not go so far as to say it had been a job, but he could not help feeling that the public interests had not been well consulted by this appointment. It did not appear that this gentleman had shown any qualifications for this appointment which had justified the Government in putting him over the heads of those who were well qualified. He did not think the House ought to sanction such an appointment, and he should feel it to be his duty to vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney.

, who had a Motion on the Paper on going into Committee of Supply, on Civil Service Estimates, Class IV., to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the expenditure for the promotion of Science and Art should not be exclusively confined to institutions in London, Edinburgh, and Dublin,"

said, that as by the Rules of the House he could not then move it, he should call the attention of the House to the subject. The Motion was almost similar in terms to one which had for some time been on the Paper of the House in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Isaac). He (Mr. Chamberlain) offered to second the Motion; but when the time arrived, the hon. Gentleman withdrew the Motion without communicating with him; but the matter was really of too much importance to be treated in this fast-and-loose manner. The constituency which he represented (Birmingham) was very much interested in this question, and many corporations were also interested; and he ventured, therefore, to think that he should be justified in stating their case, and asking for it the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. In the Civil Service Estimates for the present year there was proposed to be taken for institutions in the metropolis, including Museums and the Parks, a sum of nearly £400,000, and that was without taking into account the amount of the grant for South Kensington, which was expended in the country in furtherance of Schools of Science. There was a further sum of £50,000 taken for Edinburgh and Dublin. Towards those grants the inhabitants of Birmingham had to pay twice over. He had calculated that the town of Birmingham had to contribute nearly £4,000 towards them, and in addition to that they had to find a sum of nearly £8,000 per annum towards their own free libraries and local parks. He did not raise this question in any spirit of provincial jealously, for he was prepared to admit the exceptional position of the metropolis. It might be said with truth that a national collection should be placed in the metropolis at the expense of the nation; but that argument did not apply to the expenditure on the public parks, and still less to that which the Bethnal Green Museum involved. He did not complain of such expenditure. It produced most admirable results, adding as it did to the pleasure and happiness of great masses of the people, and tending to elevate and refine their minds. It was, too, in some sort, a commercial investment, as it was calculated to enable artizans the better to compete with those of other nations. His complaint was, that they did not carry this principle far enough, for these institutions were centres of instruction; and if they did good, it became important that they should be a little more liberal in cases where it could be fairly shown that greater good could be done for less money. If those institutions were brought home to the people there was hardly any limit to the extent to which they would be appreciated. He was very anxious to see established in our great centres of industry a Museum of Art and Manufacture appropriate to each district, and those would be seen by the people who would benefit by them. The way in which these institutions were appreciated in the Provinces was shown by the fact that the number of visitors annually to the Birmingham Museum was about 300,000; that, too, in a place of 370,000 inhabitants. That number of visitors was much greater proportionately than was to be found at any of the metropolitan institutions; and results equally extraordinary could be stated in connection with Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, and other provincial towns where such institutions existed. At the present time, the Government were doing either too much, or too little in this matter. Either the grants made to London should be confined to purely reference collections, or, what he would infinitely prefer, the Government should give a much larger sum, supplementing the grants to London by moderate grants to the Provinces. He did not suggest what would involve any very large demand on the Treasury, and he trusted the Government would give the subject due consideration. A comparatively small sum would be sufficient for the purpose, if, as he supposed would be the case, the Treasury were to make a rule that such contributions should be made only to centres of large districts and important industries, and in proportion to contributions from local sources. It was true that provincial communities were at present legally able to tax themselves to the extent of 1d. in the pound for the purpose of establishing museums and libraries; but in Birmingham all this money went to the Free Library, and they had therefore no means of establishing an industrial museum.

said, he felt great pleasure in supporting the suggestion of his hon. Friend. In Nottingham the people were making great efforts to improve themselves in objects of science and art; and he hoped the Government would respond in the right spirit to the proposal of the hon. Member for Birmingham. He entirely concurred in the suggestion that the grants should be made in proportion to local contributions, and considered that the acceptance of the proposal would be quite in accordance with the objects of the Education Department. The grants would be most properly made where there existed a disposition on the part of the people, in towns like Nottingham and Bristol, to take an interest in collections bearing upon the particular trades of the locality, and to study higher subjects than were ordinarily cultivated in provincial towns.

also supported the recommendations of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham. Our public expenditure in aid of science and art was, to say the least, by no means excessive, and, although large sums were spent on museums in London, Edinburgh, and Dublin, yet he thought it might with advantage be increased, especially in the way of grants to large centres of industry where such institutions had al- ready been established by local effort. We were in many respects far behind other nations in regard to the encouragement given to science and art, and it must be admitted that the attention we had been bestowing on technical education had not been bestowed a moment too soon, considering the competition of other countries which we had to sustain. The people of Leicester were, like his hon. Friend's (Mr Morley's) constituents, making great efforts to improve themselves in objects of science and art; and they felt that London, in justice to other large cities and towns in England, should not have the largest amount of money voted to it in aid of those objects. He therefore trusted the Government would see their way to giving the question their favourable consideration.

said, that, on behalf of the large city he represented, he also desired to support the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain). He believed that without any expenditure of actual money a great deal more might be done for the Provinces than was now done. As an instance of that they were told the other day by the Government that a valuable picture by David Roberts had been refused by the Commissioners of the National Gallery, because they already had pictures by Roberts in that Gallery. But why should the picture have been refused on that account? Surely it might have been taken, and sent to some provincial town. He recommended that when the Commissioners of the National Gallery had various pictures by the same artist, they should send some of them down, if not permanently, at all events temporarily, to towns in the country, where at least they would be very much appreciated.

said that, while in common with everyone else, he should be glad to see the establishment of museums and galleries in the great centres of population and industry, yet the House must feel that the question raised was a very large one. As a matter of fact, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nottingham (Mr. Isaac) withdrew his Motion on the subject, because he thought that, from its importance, it could not be properly considered at this period of the Session, and he expressed his intention of bringing it forward on the most convenient occasion next Ses- sion. He could assure the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chamberlain) that the Government did not undervalue the subject at all; but the House must see that it was not one which could be conveniently pressed on the Government at the present time. He must beg, therefore, that it would not be so pressed, especially as it involved a very great financial question. The hon. Member for Birmingham had expressed his regret that some of the admirable works at the British Museum were not able to be circulated. This reminded him of the great advantage which the country derived from the South Kensington Museum, which was now, in fact, a gigantic circulating museum. Some 18 years ago a series of specimens only were sent out; but since then almost all the principal objects in the Museum, except those of great rarity or delicacy, were sent on their travels at different times through the Provinces. It was said that much was not done for the Provinces; but the fact was, that out of the whole amount of £130,000 spent yearly for Science and Art schools only about £10,000 was spent really on London objects—that was to say, about £120,000 was really spent on provincial objects.

said, he excluded that from any calculation. There still remained about £400,000 a-year which was spent on the London institutions.

pointed out that it was rather difficult when different Votes were put together by the hon. Member—some coming within his own province and others being under the control of the Treasury only, and in no way under the Privy Council Office—to say exactly what proportion of these votes were made for London only, and how far the Provinces shared in them. Still, the fact remained that a large proportion of the money was spent on provincial objects. Hon. Members were apt to forget what an immense benefit the Provinces derived from the Science and Art Vote in the way of aid to Science schools, of which there were 1,100 throughout the country; Art-training schools with their 17,000 students, public elementary schools, and for scholarships and other objects. The grants for the Museum at South Kensington included various items which were for local museums, and the loans to these museums and exhibitions were very large, there having been some 3,000 loans of objects and 5,200 paintings and drawings during last year to museums and exhibitions in the country. A great deal, therefore, was already done in the direction indicated by the hon. Member for Birmingham, it being very much the same line as the authorities of South Kensington Museum, acting under the Privy Council, were anxious to follow. "Whether it would be possible to go further in another year he (Viscount Sandon) was not in a position to say at that moment. The present was a time when the resources of the country were rather straitened, and a strict economy was therefore very properly exercised by those who controlled the public expenses, so that the hands of Ministers in charge of the various Departments were much tied as to incurring fresh expenses. The Government, however, would not overlook the question. It would receive careful consideration, and when it came on for discussion next year, as proposed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, he hoped that the Government would be able to give an opinion one way or another.

said, that the noble Lord was quite justified in adopting that line of argument with regard to the South Kensington authorities; but he wished to point out that what the hon. Member for Birmingham wished to argue was that there were large museums and collections in London which, while they were there, were of little use to the Provinces. The British Museum, for instance, and the National Gallery, were practically of no use except to London, yet every one knew that they contained many duplicates which would be most valuable to the Provinces, and the offer of some important pictures was sometimes declined on behalf of the National Gallery. He attributed the great advantages of the South Kensington Museum to the fact of its being under the management of the Minister for Education, and advocated the placing of the British Museum and the National Gallery under the same authority. In France the Minister of Education was responsible for all the museums, and constantly sent collections into the Provinces; but in England, the management of the Galleries was, so to say, dislocated, and not under one authority or one Minister; and such a person might, without any additional expenditure, be able to do a great deal for the cause of artistic education.

wished to call the attention of the Government to a matter which had often been mentioned before, but which he thought could not be mentioned too often, until some remedy could be found for the existing evil. He referred to the lengthened periods during which persons were kept in prison before trial. The principle near London was, that there should be a gaol delivery every month; but he wished the House to consider the situation of persons in the rural districts. According to the last Return, 12,000 persons were in prison, and of these 7,000 had been there for more than a month, and were consequently worse off than if they had been within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court. More than 3,000 had been in gaol for two months; 826 prisoners had remained untried for more than three months, and 86 for more than six months. That was a scandalous state of things, explainable, perhaps, but not the less disgraceful, and it was most serious as it affected those prisoners themselves. He found by the Returns that many prisoners were detained for a long time in prison in Essex. Bristol, Norwich, and other places before being brought to trial. In Birmingham there were 16 persons kept in gaol four months before being brought to trial; in Northampton there were 13 prisoners who were more than four months in gaol before being brought to trial; and in Kent, 13 more than four months. In Lancashire there were 100 prisoners who were kept in gaol more than four months before being brought to trial. He was well aware that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had brought in a Bill last year to remedy the evil, but it would not apply to such cases as he (Sir William Harcourt) was now calling attention to, as it only affected the Winter Assizes. He took the numbers from Returns presented this Session, and the cause of these numerous detentions was not far to seek. They were due to the fact that from July to December not one Judge could he found to deliver a gaol, and prisoners committed in July could not be tried till December. It was not necessary to expatiate on the consequences of so discreditable a state of things. Let the House imagine the case of a man committed to prison in July or August, and kept in prison from his family until December before being brought to trial; and let them also reflect that the man might be innocent. They could not find a Judge to try him. This ought not to be tolerated by the House or the country. The Home Secretary might say that in all these cases, prisoners might be brought up to London for trial; but he (Sir William Harcourt) doubted it. Another defect in their judicial system was, that when the Assizes happened to be fixed at the time the quarter sessions were to be held, the quarter sessions were put off until the Assizes were over, and prisoners who stood for trial at the quarter sessions were consequently detained in gaol longer than they ought to be. This had happened in the county of Lancaster, where the quarter sessions were fixed for a particular day in the hundred of Salford. The Judges, anticipating the ordinary time of the Assizes by one week, appointed for the Assizes the day on which the sessions were to be held. The consequence was, that the sessions could not take place until after the Assizes were over. The sessions were postponed for a month, and the Judges could not try the prisoners. The result was, that the trial of 100 persons had to be put off for a month. That, however, was simply a case of perverse mismanagement. It was the fashion to denounce the Long Vacation, but, after all, what would be thought of a Government office in which work was suspended for so long? The question was, whether there could not be some arrangement by which the administration of justice should go on continuously like the business in other Departments. He knew he should meet with opposition from lawyers who, as well as Judges, liked long vacations. But when prisoners, some of whom might be innocent, were locked up for so many months without a chance of being brought to trial, the Long Vacation became an amusement which was cruel. He felt confident that some of the Judges, to prevent such treatment, might remedy the evil by holding extra Assizes, instead of taking their usual holidays. But even that fell short of what was needed. Much might he done by a better organization of the labour of the Judges and their distribution for the purposes of these extra Assizes, for, at present, much of their power was frittered away all over the country under the system in force. Two eminent persons were sent down to a little country town to try two or three prisoners and a month was devoted to the circuit, during which the Judges did not sit half the time. He moved last year for a Return which though very imperfect and difficult to understand still gave some facts which showed the waste of judicial power. In 1876, for instance, two Judges were sent down to try cases in Hertfordshire, Essex, Kent, and Sussex, and 19 days were appropriated to the purpose. During these 19 days one of the Judges sat nine days and the other 10. Nothing was more obvious than that if one Judge had been sent down he would have done all the business. Time was wasted by this want of forethought and care in the distribution of our judicial power. The Returns for which he had moved, and which were now on the Table, showed many instances of this fact, and pointed immediately to the necessity for a better distribution of that power under some central authority, either the Home Secretary or the Lord Chancellor, who should have the power of fixing when and where the Judges should hold Assizes to effect a speedy gaol delivery all over the country. Such a central authority would effect the object, remove a gross public scandal, and prevent gross injustice. If instead of fixing weeks beforehand on two Judges to go hero and two Judges to go there, we kept a reserve of judicial power in London and sent down Judges as they were wanted, the number of Judges we had now would be sufficient, and we should not hear the complaints that were heard at present.

, said, that this subject had already been discussed at some length at an earlier period of the Session, when he was obliged to refuse anything like an assent to the proposal which was made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, for the reason that, although discussed in Committee, when the Report was brought up, a clause was proposed to the effect that every prisoner who had been three months in prison without trial should be released, unless some application to the contrary should be made to a Judge in the matter showing that there were reasons for a longer detention. Without dissenting from the principles of the clause he was bound to resist it, because there was no machinery by which it could be carried out. He quite agreed that three months was quite long enough for any prisoner to remain in prison untried. That was the case in all cases to be tried at the quarter sessions, and some scheme should be invented by which it would be extended to prisoners to be tried at Assizes. When the clause was introduced, the discussion rather took the shape of an attack against the Government; but he was glad to say there had been nothing of that kind now. This was no new matter, and the first step had been taken to remedy the grievance; because, until this year, a person might have committed an offence early in July and not be tried till the following March. By the Act passed last year we had practically criminal Assizes three times a-year, instead of twice as formerly, and in December last there was not a single prisoner waiting for trial in any gaol in England. The Act, therefore, had been so far successful, and the figures which had been presented to the House were now inapplicable. He did not see why by some machinery they should not have gaol deliveries four times instead of three in the year. Whether that might be done by applying the Winter Assizes Act he was not prepared at once to say. All he would say at present was, that he had been for some time in communication with his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor on the subject, and the matter had also been laid before the Chief Justice for consultation among the Judges, and he thought a scheme might be devised by which untried prisoners might be drawn together in separate centres and tried in different counties. This important matter, he repeated, had been under the consideration of the Home Office for some time, and he should be happy to do everything in his power to remedy the inconvenience that was now complained of. In regard to the Long Vacation, it was fixed by Act of Parliament to commence on the 10th of August, and that was the reason why the Assizes had been held earlier this year than in previous years; but he would take care that next year there should be no chance of inconvenience arising again from the Assizes clashing with the quarter sessions. Having said so much as to the trial of prisoners, ho would not go into the larger question of the apportioning of the labours of Judges, and having stated his views frankly, he hoped they might now be allowed to go into Committee of Supply, as it could be of little use in further discussing a subject which was under consideration in so many quarters.

had only one word to say. He was very glad to hear that the inconvenience of last year was not to recur, but instead of leaving the decision to the Judges, it would be left either to the Home Secretary, or the Lord Chancellor.

expressed the opinion that it would have been better to have constituted this Office an entirely new establishment, instead of imposing double duties upon officers of the Admiralty Registry Office, who already had adequate duties to discharge.

wished to know, what were the regulations that had been made by the Home Office with regard to the salaries and travelling expenses of the nautical assessors, for which a total sum of £6,000 was put down in the Estimates?

asked, whether it was to be inferred from one item in the Vote that fees were paid to unpaid justices, as well as to stipendiary magistrates?

said, that the Supplementary Vote, respecting which a Question had been asked a few days ago, was between £1,700 and £1,800. With reference to the payments to magistrates, justices received no fees; but stipendiary magistrates, whose business was, in some cases, greatly increased by wreck inquiries, were paid. With regard to the assessors, it had been decided to transfer their appointment to the Home Office, and practically there had been no change in their remuneration. As regarded the office of Wreck Commissioner, the gentleman who held that office was second to no man in the qualifications necessary for the discharge of the duties attendant upon it. The arrangements so far were tentative, it being desired to ascertain what was the amount of work and where it would have to be performed.

inquired where the Court of the Commissioner of Wrecks would be finally located?

said, it was not yet finally decided where the Commissioner was to sit, whether at Westminster or elsewhere; but several places had been tried, and that found most convenient would ultimately be decided upon.

asked, who was the Chief Registrar, as he understood the chief portion of the work was done by the assistant Registrar?

said, he was unable to give the name of the Chief Registrar, but the scale of fees payable in the Office had recently been increased, on the recommendation of the Legal Departments Commission.

said, the Office had been a failure from its institution by Lord Westbury, in 1861 or 1862. It was the laughing stock of the legal Profession, and it was very seldom resorted to for the purpose for which it was established. The amount received for fees was only £776, as against £5,418, the total amount expended on the Office. That had been going on for 15 years at a cost to the nation of £150,000. Surely something ought to be done to make it self-supporting. It should either be made useful, or it should be abolished.

thought the system of registering titles might be made profitable if properly managed. In Scotland the system was universal, and it produced a profit to the revenue of £10,000 a-year.

said, if there was to be a Registrar of titles he ought to be well paid.

said, that the Act passed by Lord Westbury for registering titles had undoubtedly been a failure, as people would not take advantage of it. When the Act was passed it was expected that persons would take advantage of it to register their titles, as by doing so it would give them an indefeasible right which could not hereafter be disputed. Two years ago an amending Act had been passed under which some titles had been registered, but certainly not as many as might have been expected; but no doubt the advantages of such registration would be felt by the holders of property, and that the office of Registrar would hereafter be one of importance.

said, that nothing had been stated to justify the Committee agreeing to the Vote. He did not believe that people ever would register their titles, and he should, therefore, move that the Vote should be disallowed.

pointed out that if the Committee accepted the proposal of the hon. Member for Swansea, it would be practically taking upon itself the responsibility of repealing an Act which was passed after full discussion only two years ago. The whole question of the existence of the Office of Registration of Titles, and the salary to be paid to that officer, had been discussed at the time the Act passed creating the Office, and it was now too late to take exception to the existence of the Office, or of the salary to the gentleman who filled it.

remarked that apart from the point suggested by the hon. and learned Attorney General, the registration of titles to land was an object so desirable to be attained that he hoped the Vote would be agreed to. The flaw, if any, was now in the law, and not in the Department, and he could not therefore support the Amendment. He hoped that the registration of titles would be adopted as a practice before long.

pointed out that if the Committee refused the Vote, they would in reality be preventing the Government carrying out an Act of Parliament.

complained that the salaries of the gentlemen of this Department had been settled without any knowledge of the amount of work they would have to do, but when once appointed they could not be got rid of.

said, if there had been one thing more clamoured for than another it was for the registration of titles. Under such circumstances, when the law was passed, it was most necessary that a first-rate man should be made Registrar. A most able lawyer had been appointed, and it was no reason why, because the Act had not succeeded, he should be deprived of his salary. He supported the Vote in the belief that registration of titles would speedily become general.

observed that at one time there was a great demand for a system of registration, and the Act was passed as an experiment. He never thought it was likely to succeed, because, unless a person really wished to sell, it was not likely he would take the trouble of registering. He could not agree to the proposition of the hon. Member for Swansea, particularly as no Notice of opposition to the Vote had been given.

said, he would not press his Motion, but hoped the Government would take the subject into their consideration, and arrange the Office so as to make it more useful.

said, he believed the Act under which the Registrar of Titles was appointed was a dead letter. He should like to know how many titles had been registered?

said, he could not, off hand, state the number of deeds already registered under the Act; but it was clear that some landowners had availed themselves of the measure, for a sum of very nearly £800 had been already received by the office in payment of registration fees. If his hon. and learned Friend had given No- tice of his Question he would have been prepared to give an answer to it.

said, he would move for a Return on the subject.

asked, what means had been adopted to prevent frauds in regard to the accounting for fines in the police courts?

said, the subject came before him as Chairman of the Committee on Public Accounts, and they found that rules had been drawn up by which they hoped an efficient check had been secured.

called attention to the different scales of gratuities paid to the police doing duty at certain public buildings in London, and suggested that a uniform scale should be established.

said, that representations on the subject having been made to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, a Minute had been recently drawn up under which the payments in question would be equalized in future.

pointed out that the Vote was increasing year by year with great leaps and bounds. This year the increase was more than £50,000. In all cases where one person provided the money and another had the spending of it, that might be expected to be the case. Nearly 300 local authorities had a claim to the spending of this Vote, and they fixed the number of men and their scale of pay, and under the arrangement made in 1874 the Government provided no less than half the expenditure. Moreover, the Government Inspectors stimulated expenditure. The subsidy had been raised in 1874 from one-fourth of the cost of the police to one-half, but the charge on the Exchequer had more nearly trebled than doubled between 1873 and 1877. When the proposal was made by the Government in 1874, with the full approval of the House, to double the subsidy, it was distinctly regarded as only a temporary arrangement. This clearly appeared from the language used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time. A Bill was brought in, which was to remain in operation for only one year, suspending the limit placed by the previous Act on the Government subvention. In 1875 the Home Secretary proposed to introduce a measure dealing with this question of the police in reference to subventions; but when it came to be printed it was found to be nothing more than a Bill continuing for 12 months the Suspensory Act, if he might call it so, of the preceding year. The right hon. Gentleman said, on the second reading, that he was prevented by the pressure of other business from dealing with the whole subject. Another Continuance Bill was passed in 1876. He hoped that the subject had been under the consideration of the Government; but if not, he hoped it would receive their earliest attention, as under the present temporary arrangement it was obvious that we must expect a very large annual increase in the Vote. He agreed with the Home Secretary that the whole subject of the police ought to be considered. The police force for the counties and boroughs in England and Scotland numbered 21,000 men, sub-divided into nearly 300 different armies, varying very considerably in numbers from one man upwards. Such a system did not tend to the efficiency of the police force. He did not want the right hon. Gentleman to adopt a system of centralization, and to convert the police forces of the country into a single army under his own control and patronage; but still he thought the Government might consider whether they could not advantageously amalgamate some of the small forces with the larger ones. He should like to know the course the Home Secretary intended to pursue this year with regard to the subvention, whether it was to be put on a more permanent footing, or whether they were to have another Suspensory Bill on the subject?

admitted that the increases had been growing rapidly since the augmented Grant had been made by the Treasury to the police forces of the country; but although the increase in the present year amounted to £52,000, this was a decided diminution on the last year's Vote, which amounted to £74,000, and which was owing to the attempts made by his right hon. Friend to bring about something like a system. Until the passing of the Treasury Minute of August, 1876, the Home Secretary had no control over the numbers or the pay of the police forces in boroughs; but since then, in order to deal more satisfactorily with cases of increase, all the localities had been asked by circular to send in their estimates at a given time, so that they might be considered together. Any increase in the number of men and the pay was only sanctioned where it was shown to the entire satisfaction of the Home Secretary that both were absolutely necessary. As to the Bill regulating the subvention being simply an annual Bill, he agreed that the subject was one which required attention. There were a good many subjects, however—superannuation being one of them—which would have to be carefully considered before an alteration of the existing system could be made. With regard to the amalgamation of the small boroughs with the counties, every facility was at present given for it. He quite agreed that such amalgamation conduced to efficiency. Many small boroughs, which preferred to retain their independence, were not in receipt of the Government Grant. Now that the Report of the Select Committee on superannuation had been presented, one obstacle to dealing with the whole subject had been removed.

hoped that the Home Office would give great and serious consideration to this enormous Vote, as the increase was due to the additional wages given to the police. He did not see why the increase in the number of the police should be arranged according to a hard-and-fast line, and that small country towns should be expected to maintain as large a force in proportion as mercantile towns. In that way they were induced, against their own convictions, to raise the strength in order to get the Government Grant.

said, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson) had disavowed centralization, though he appeared to have recommended it. If the Government attempted to take the police into their hands, as they had the prisons, they would find a very stout opposition from behind, if not from the front Opposition benches.

said, so far as he had been able to calculate from the Returns prepared by the Home Secretary and from the Civil Service Estimates, the number of police throughout the Kingdom was upwards of 40,000, and the annual cost chargeable alone to the Exchequer at least £4,000,000. It was, however, impossible for any private Member of Parliament to make out, from the existing confusion in the Police Returns of the Kingdom, either the numbers, the grades, the pay, or the charge for the various forces of this kind. He had on several occasions suggested to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State the importance of having a complete Return of all the Police and Constabulary in the United Kingdom, together with the grades, the pay, and various other charges, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to furnish a still more exact account than that now stated of the police force of the whole country.

expressed his willingness to do what he could to give the House the information desired by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down. With regard to the increase of the police, when the police system was first started it was left to the different jurisdictions voluntarily to provide the requisite number of police. Many of them, however, did not readily comply with the necessary requirements of their districts, and eventually the Act was made compulsory. Although a great number of local justices did their duty in providing the proper number of police according to the Act, there was considerable difficulty in pressing upon the various localities to raise the strength up to the standard which, in the opinion of the Home Office, was requisite for the particular districts concerned. But no hard-and-fast line was ever drawn, either by himself or by any of his Predecessors. The number of police depended upon the nature of the district, and the kind of population in it. Sir George Grey, he believed, thought one policeman to a thousand of the population might be considered as a limit; but he did not lay down any fixed rule on the subject. The pressure thus put upon localities by the Home Office under the Act accounted for the first increase that took place in the number of police. Two special safeguards were in operation. One was, that in order to obtain the Treasury subvention, the locality must have a certificate from the Home Secretary that the number of men in respect of whom the contribution was required was not in excess of the number needed for the maintenance of the peace of the district, and also that the scale of pay and the cost of clothing were reasonable and proper. In that way the efficiency of the police force was secured, without interfering with the freedom of the locality in governing the police. He thought that every possible facility should be given to local jurisdictions to amalgamate the forces of their districts, but he should be sorry to see anything like centralization established in a matter of this kind.

said, he was glad to hear the disclaimer of the right hon. Gentleman as to centralization.

said, the regulation of the police was, on the whole, conducted with economy by the municipal authorities, and he did not think the Government subvention had increased local expenditure.

pointed out that the difference in expenditure on the various convict prisons was enormous, and it was very much higher than it ought to be. In the present Vote there was an estimate for new buildings and alterations of £22,720, £10,000 of which was to be expended at Millbank and Wormwood Scrubs. It seemed to him that in Government establishments or buildings, it was customary, as soon as a building was completed, for some one to suggest improvements which occasioned considerable outlay.

replied, that the estimate in the present Vote for new buildings was absolutely essential, as the hon. Gentleman would have seen if he had taken the trouble to go to Millbank.

called attention to the case of young children under six years of age who did not under the present regulations receive the benefits of those industrial schools. He had a letter from a gentleman who was one of the highest authorities on that subject, and who spoke of a school under his charge in which there was not a child under six. He urged that if a small payment were made for such children a great number of them would be saved from a life of vice. He would, therefore, appeal to the Home Secretary whether there could not be some change made in the existing regulations, so as to prevent the mischief arising from leaving those young children to fall into evil ways, instead of sending them at a small expense to institutions where they would be brought up well and industriously.

stated that the matter to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had referred was the subject of a correspondence which was still going on between the Treasury and the Home Office. He could not say more than that on the question at the present moment.

, who had given Notice that he would move the reduction of the Vote, said, that after the discussion which had occurred last Monday, when the Home Secretary held out an assurance that an investigation would be made into that establishment, he did not think it necessary on the present occasion to press for a reduction of that expenditure.

said, he had drawn the attention of the Committee more than once to the great expenditure incurred at Broadmoor Asylum, because (he thought it was not desirable that they should make criminals of any class the pets of the State. The great expenditure at Broadmoor was, he believed, caused in some degree by the fact that a number of its inmates were not insane, but worked mischief when they had the opportunity. He should regret if it were supposed that in any notice he had taken of that institution and of the extravagant expenditure, as he regarded it, incurred for it, there was any censure upon the Council of Supervision. He acknowledged that the State was under obligations to those gentlemen for doing what they conceived to be their duty under the circumstances; but he thought, with all deference to them, that they took a mistaken view of their duty by the expenditure of so much of the public money on a very worthless part of the community.

, as one of the Council of Supervision, whose acquittal by the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay) he was glad to hear, wished to say a few words with regard to the remarks which that hon. Gentleman had made. The hon. Member had condemned the expenditure of so much money on what he called a most worthless part of the community. Now, he would remind the hon. Member that Broadmoor was in no sense a prison. When it was first founded, it was expressly stated by the Lunacy Commissioners, that it was intended to be as much of a hospital and as little of a prison as possible; and as a matter of fact convict prisoners—that was to say, prisoners who were sent from convict prisons to Broadmoor in consequence of having become insane—had ceased to be sent there. Broadmoor was essentially a place for the reception of persons who, by the very hypothesis, were not criminal, but who had committed in a state of insanity, acts which would otherwise have been criminal. Therefore the policy of the State had been to treat those persons not as criminals, but as patients; and, unless that distinction was kept in view, they would argue that question on wrong premisses. He was glad that the Home Secretary had lately paid a visit to Broadmoor, because he felt sure that, unless people had seen the place, they could not form any idea of the expense necessary for its maintenance. It included an extensive acreage, with enormous buildings, the cost of maintaining which was extremely heavy. Then, again, the Staff of attendance employed there was necessarily large, entailing a cost of 45 per cent of the total expenditure. The attendance at Broadmoor were 20 per cent of the inmates; whereas, in ordinary county asylums, he believed the attendance were about 10 per cent. That arose from the immense proportion of male patients at Broadmoor. In pauper lunatic asylums the number of male patients was about the same as the number of female. The present estimate was considerably less than that of last year as that was less than that of the previous year. There had been a diminution since 1872 of about £6 a-head in the cost of the patients. An objection had been made to the dietary of the prisoners. Now, it was well-known to medical men that the recovery of these unfortunate people greatly depended upon good living. Broadmoor was one of the healthiest localities in which any class of patients could be placed. The mortality was only 2¼ per cent. There was no institution of that class in the Kingdom which could show anything like so small a mortality among the patients; in fact, it seemed to be a place to which persons who wished to live long should be sent. Would the Committee allow him to read a few figures to show the ratio of mortality and the cost of maintenance in four different asylums? In the City of London Asylum the dietary cost 6s. 11d. per head weekly, and the mortality was 4·89 per cent; in the lunatic asylum in the county of Bucks the dietary was 6s. 5¾d. per head weekly, and the mortality was 8·28 per cent; in Sussex Asylum the dietary was still lower—namely, 4s. 10⅝d. per head weekly, and the mortality 13·94 per cent; in Wilts, where the dietary was lowest—namely, 4s. 7¾d. per head weekly, the mortality rose to 16·96 per cent. Now, in Broadmoor, the dietary was about 5s. 9d. per head weekly, and the mortality about 2¼ per cent. That showed the importance of good dietary, if we cared for the health of these people. He could not give the hon. Member for Falkirk much hope of further reduction at Broadmoor. We could get rid of Broadmoor. We could introduce a totally new system for criminal lunatics But as long as this establishment was at Broadmoor he did not believe it would be possible materially to reduce the ex- penditure. If we sold Broadmoor, with the view of erecting an asylum elsewhere, we should have to do so at a great sacrifice, and he believed we should dearly purchase the change. It was a costly building in the first instance. It cost a great deal to put it into a decent state of repair, and considerably more to keep it in a complete state of repair. He should advise the Home Secretary to consider very well before he consented to any change of the asylum.

agreed with very much that his hon. Friend (Mr. Walter) had said as to Broadmoor. But as to the mortality at Broadmoor, according to the last Return to which he had access, he thought there were 20 deaths among a total of 500 patients, which would be a mortality of 4 per cent. That, however, was, no doubt, a very low mortality. He believed the average mortality in the pauper lunatic asylums in England was about 7 per cent. But he must remind his hon. Friend that the patients of Broadmoor hardly corresponded with the general class of patients in the county lunatic asylums. He agreed with his hon. Friend in thinking that good diet had a great advantage. Some years ago, attention was drawn to the high expenditure at Broadmoor Asylum, and he thought there was a little point on which the expenditure at present was rather large. He knew that some of the inmates required a strong hand. But there was one class of officers the same in Broadmoor as in other asylums—he meant the class of clerks and stewards. As to the management of stores at Broadmoor, there was a steward, an assistant storekeeper, and two assistant clerks, if not another clerk. At any rate, there were four persons to keep an account of the stores. He could not imagine how all these persons could be required to do that work. Probably, the accounts were kept by double entry. Now, in an asylum with which he was acquainted there was about the same number of patients as in Broadmoor, but the account of the stores was kept by one officer, and he was quite ready to show his books to any man in England. He (Mr. Floyer) did not know that there had been an error of half-a-crown in a period of 40 years. He would recommend that the accounts at Broadmoor should be kept in a simple way as at the institution with which he was acquainted. He perceived by the last Report of the Commissioners that out of the 500 inmates at Broadmoor 49, or 10 per cent, were confined to bed. That was much above the average in ordinary asylums. There appeared to be an unusually large number of inmates confined to bed at one time, and he thought this was a matter that should be inquired into. It was a delusion to suppose that these lunatics could be maintained at the same cost as ordinary lunatics were in county asylums, still he thought that some reduction might be made in the cost of the institution.

explained that the authorities at Broadmoor had to collect some £7,000 per annum from different Unions and parishes all through England, with which they were in connection, and that this work involved a very large amount of correspondence, which fully occupied the time of the clerks. The whole of the clerical work was performed at Broadmoor, and not in London, which accounted for the comparatively large sum which such work at that establishment cost.

thought that the inmates at this institution, whether they were regarded as criminals or patients, cost more than was necessary. The lunatics at Perth did not cost half so much for maintenance.

thought it was right that the attention of the Government should be directed to this Vote, and especially to that part of it which related to the salaries paid for the administration of justice in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was understood by some hon. Members of the House to have promised last year, that he would give lull consideration to the whole of the Scotch judicial system in order that economy might be secured. He (Mr. Ramsay) had already drawn the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that they had a great many officials in Scotland. The Judges in their Sheriff Courts, who were rather underpaid than overpaid, were excessive in number, and he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had the power, if he would but exercise it, to reduce the number of these Judges. But, instead of reducing the number, they were asked some years ago to increase them. The right hon. Gentleman had sanctioned an increase in Glasgow at a very recent date, but there he (Mr. Ramsay) believed that it was needed. The Returns which were obtained of the duties performed by the different Sheriffs in Scotland must, he thought, have satisfied the right hon. Gentleman that some change was necessary, and he had hoped that before that time, he would have inaugurated something more comprehensive than anything that was provided for in the Sheriffs Courts Bill, which was now before Parliament. The subject was one of much importance to Scotland, and he could not therefore allow the Vote to pass in silence. He trusted that arrangements would be made by which, as he had said, greater economy might be secured for the future without any diminution of efficiency.

remarked that in this Vote were lumped together several subjects between which there was no necessary connection. He wished to call the attention of the Committee to the Vote for the General Register of Sasines. It appeared that the Estimate for the present year was £19,142; but hon. Members would see, by a foot-note, that the fees charged in that Office for the work done last year amounted to £28,968, so that the Government, while paying nothing for the services performed, had got nearly £10,000 of profit out of the title-deeds of owners of houses and lands in Scotland. He thought that was a very objectionable state of things. Moreover, it was in violation of an Act of Parliament. But what he wished particularly to call the attention of the Committee to was that, notwithstanding this enormous profit, which he held to be illegal in a certain sense, the clerks in the Office complained that they were overworked and underpaid, and that there was a want of management on the part of the heads of the Office, A printed paper had been circu- lated amongst hon. Members, being copy of a Memorial sent to the Treasury, setting forth the complaints of the clerks. Hon. Members would see that the first item in this branch of the Vote was £1,000 a-year for the Keeper of the General Register of Sasines. The clerks had complained to him that this gentleman, at the head of the Office, was not there above a quarter of an hour each day; that, practically, there was no control whatever over the Office; and that the consequence was that when promotions took place, the senior clerks were not always promoted. They complained, in fact, that there was a want of knowledge in the head, owing to the want of personal presence and superintendence, and that great injustice was thus done to the clerks. They complained in the Memorial that one clerk had been absent for three years; that his salary was continued to be paid as if he was an active man in the Office, and that the other clerks had to do all the work which he would have done had he been present, or which his successor, if appointed, would do. He wished the Secretary of the Treasury to understand that he was not going into the Department of Searches at all, which was a different department. The Lord Advocate had, he understood, that matter under his consideration, and he had no doubt that he would get it arranged in the proper way. He spoke of the clerks in the Register of Sasines Office. He was not going to move any reduction on the Vote at present; but he gave Notice that if the same state of things continued for another year, and he was spared to be there, he should move a great reduction in the salary of the head of the Department, who was now paid £1,000 a-year. That the public should pay this salary for attendance of not more than a quarter of an hour a-day was a most reprehensible thing in a public Department. That he was a man of great ability, he admitted; but if all the ability of Edinburgh was centred in him it would still be indefensible that he should not give sufficient time for the proper superintendence of an office where more than 100 clerks were employed. He thought it was the duty of the Government to see that justice was done to the clerks, and that the Office was put upon a more satisfactory footing.

said, that the matter to which his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had called attention, was a grievance of very long standing. They, in Scotland, had set a very excellent example of establishing and maintaining a free registry of land; but he thought it was a hard thing that their position in that respect should be made the means of levying, in some sense, a special tax upon Scotland, inasmuch as the fees taken were much larger than the expenses incurred. He hoped that any surplus of receipts would be devoted to increasing the efficiency of the Department, and that indexes would be brought up to date, so that one might be able to lay his hands upon all the burdens which attached to any particular property in any part of Scotland.

said, the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had referred to a considerable balance which appeared upon the account as earned by these particular fees; but he must point out to him that the increase had been rapid within the last two or three years. There was a reduction of the fees charged in the Office in 1873. In 1873ߝ4 the income was £23,948; in 1874ߝ5 it was £25,409; and in 1875ߝ6 it was £28,968. There had, therefore, been a very large increase of fees suddenly; but it was not by any means certain that that increase would be maintained. He would take care that the statement which the hon. Member for Edinburgh had just made should be inquired into. It was the desire of the Government that the Office should be most efficiently maintained in every respect, and no effort would be spared to secure that result.

said, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the case of "O'Byrne v. Hartington," arising out of a savage assault committed by the Metropolitan police upon peaceable citizens at a public meeting held in the Phoenix Park, Dublin, in the year 1871, called for the discussion of political grievances. The police were ordered to disperse the meeting, but the manner in which they were to disperse it was not indicated. The fact was, however, they were led by an official whose name had not transpired, and the manner in which they dispersed it was by bludgeoning the speakers and also the reporters, as well as a considerable number of the persons who came to listen to the speeches. If this attack was not directed by the noble Lord the Marquess of Hartington, he should like to know who the official was that ordered the police to make it, and whether he still held office and received pay under the Vote? If he did, he should move to reduce it by that amount.

said, that the transaction was one which had occurred before the present Government came into office; but a trial in connection with it, which lasted 41 days, in which the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington), the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, Mr. Burke, the Under Secretary, Sir Henry Lake, the Chief Commissioner of the Dublin Police, and two of its inspectors, were defendants, was held before the late Irish Chief Baron, and a verdict was returned for the defendants, which was confirmed on appeal. That, he thought, was the most satisfactory reply he could give to the hon. Gentleman, as it was clear from the decision of the Courts that the police had acted under lawful authority on the occasion to which he referred. The decision was given upon those grounds and was given upon much broader grounds in relation to the other defendants, which it was not necessary for him to enter into.

did not wish to say much upon the subject, but thought the Committee ought to know how the matter stood. It was six years ago that this unfortunate transaction took place. A number of people were assaulted by the police, and severely beaten. Two persons brought actions; and at the time there was such an intense feeling in the House of Commons on the subject, that it was promised there should be an investigation by the Government into the conduct of the police when the litigation was concluded. A sum of money exceeding £10,000 had been spent in defending the defendants in those actions. The first trial lasted upwards of 41 days, and in the middle of those 41 days the progress of the trial was interrupted for two months in consequence of the leading counsel having to go away. The jury found a verdict against the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington), and decided that the meeting was legal, and that was sufficient to make them responsible for the acts of the police. That portion of the verdict could not be disturbed; but, notwithstanding, the inquiry had never been held, and the police had escaped on the ground that they had not received notice.

rose to Order. He asked whether the hon. and learned Member was entitled to go into this matter on a Vote for the salaries and expenses of the police officers?

said, he was not saying a word about the cost of the prosecutions.

said, the hon. and learned Member was perfectly in Order in discussing the subject.

said, all he wished to say was, that anyone who read the evidence would be satisfied that the verdict of the jury was that the meeting was a legal one.

maintained that neither the noble Lord the Marquess of Hartington nor Mr. Burke was responsible for what happened in the Phœnix Park in 1871.

said, that whatever discredit attached to the affair rested upon the late Executive, not the present.

said, that no such occurrence could have taken place in England without some official being punished. If the police received no orders, then it was against the police the action should have been brought, and it would have been more candid for the noble Lord to have declared at once who were the real culprits. It was of importance that there should be an expression of the opinion of Irish Members on the subject. When he heard of the proceedings, he said if the law did not assert itself, blood would be shed, and within a few weeks of the occurrence two policemen were shot in the streets of Dublin, and everyone knew that that was because the Executive did not exert themselves. In that way two innocent men lost their lives.

, while he acknowledged that the late Administration were to blame for what happened, could not agree that the present Government were altogether free from responsibility. Notwithstanding that, as had just been admitted by the right hon. and learned Attorney General, the Government had escaped upon a technical point, instead of acknowledging their moral responsibility, they still continued to defend actions brought against them for damages. In 1866 Lord Derby's Government obtained the legal opinion of Lord Cairns and others as to their right to disperse by force a meeting in Hyde Park, and that opinion was against such a right, even after giving notice. What notice was given people that they were to be illegally butchered that day? A few wretched handbills distributed the night before. The present Government shared the responsibility attaching to their Predecessors, inasmuch as they opposed actions brought to recover damages inflicted on poor persons, and carried appeals from Court to Court, using for the purpose the power of the purse and the public money without any permission from Parliament—using it, as be contended, immorally and improperly. It was true it was late to reopen the question six years after; but it must be remembered it was only this year they were able to discover how much money had been spent. It amounted to the enormous sum of £ 10,000. Where was that to stop? He hoped the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) would bring the question up on Report, so that there should be a full discussion.

said, he was no supporter of the present Government. He was opposed to them in principle and in detail. [Laughter.] Yes, in detail, and he had much pleasure in voting against them that evening when they were in a minority. But he must admit, as he had said before, that whatever disgrace attached to the Phoenix Park riots did not attach to the present Government, who were bound to continue the actions commenced by their Predecessors.

said, he had desired to raise the whole question upon the previous Vote for Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions; but he was precluded from doing so, from the fact that when the Vote was passed he was accidentally out of the House. He thought it was his duty to raise the question as regarded the conduct of the police upon that Vote. The right hon. and learned Attorney General had not yet answered the question, whether the superintendents of police, or whoever they were, who set this attack in motion upon unoffending citizens in Dublin were still in the force. If they were not in the force, he had no objection to the Vote passing.

said, that the riot had taken place six years ago, and unless a minute investigation were made, it would be impossible to say how many officers who took part in this affair W6re now in the force. The Reports had not been before him, and he was unable to answer the question.

said, that in the Report for 1873 of the Public Accounts Committee, it was stated that the accountant of this force did not give the security which was required by Act of Parliament.

said, be could not say off-hand whether the security had yet been given, but he should inquire into the matter.

said, he would call attention to the matter on the Report of the Votes to the House.

said, there was an item of £11,000 odd for travelling expenses. He wished to know whether that sum included the travelling expenses of prisoners?

said, if the prisoners were conveyed any distance the police were authorized to take conveyances, and those expenses were included.

said, there were one or two matters of principle which he wished to draw attention to. The first was that in the Estimates the extra police and old stores were included in one item, so that it was impossible to find out what was the amount voted for either separately. He also thought that in the item of election disturbances it ought to be distinguished how much was for extra police being sent to elections, and how much for actual election disturbances. The third point was, that a sum of £194,868 for pensions was included in six or eight lines, so that it was impossible to find out what the amount of individual pensions was. He thought the money ought not to be voted next year unless more information was given.

thought the object of the hon. and gallant Member was a really good one, and agreed with him that the receipts from extra police and old stores ought not to be included in one item. He did not know whether a distinction with respect to the election disturbance items could be made, but he would endeavour to do so if it was possible. With regard to the pensions, if the hon. and gallant Member's wish was carried out it would necessitate the printing of 5,000 or 6,000 names; but he thought that fuller information might be given with respect to the new pensions.

said, the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary had been most unusually uncandid. [Cries of "Order!"]

said, the hon. Gentleman was not in Order in using the words "candidly for him."

said, he wished to refer to the case of—

rose to Order. The hon. Member had not withdrawn the expression.

said, he had not been asked to do so.

said, he must call upon the hon. Member to distinctly withdraw the word.

said, he would have done so before had he been asked, but would not do so on the ruling of an ex-Chairman. He wished to know, what was the amount of the pension of the late Inspector General, Sir John Wood, in order to move the reduction of the Vote by that amount?

asked, what was the reason for there being an increase of £19,000 this year for pensions?

said, explanation should be given why, in counties where the force was not up to its normal strength, a charge for extra men was still imposed. It was believed in Ireland that in order to balance the increasing Vote for superannuation the Government contemplated imposing an additional charge for the maintenance of the barracks on the counties. It was also held that the real reason for Sir John Wood's retirement were the recent scandals in the force. He wished also to know why the Constabulary code of rules was kept a secret, while the Army regulations could be purchased for 1s.? He wished to know, if he moved for these regulations, would they be laid on the Table? If the payment of the backpay of a dismissed constable, afterwards re-instated, was included in this Estimate, why was it not done in an open and above-board manner, so that the House could understand, and hon. Members, if they desired it, challenge it?

said, the back-pay was included in the Vote. As to the rules of the Constabulary force, they were now under revision, and it would therefore be especially inconvenient to lay them on the Table of the House. Even, however, if this were not the case, he did not think it would be well to lay those regulations on the Table. As to the retirement of Sir John Wood, it was owing to ill-health, and with a pension of £1,080. His retirement was in no way connected with matters which had been referred to. The arrangements for the extra charge to counties had not been altered since the present Government came into office.

asked, why a county should be charged for an extra force, when the extra force was not in the county?

said, the explanations of the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary were so far satisfactory that he should not move to reduce the Vote. He would take that occasion to assure the right hon. Baronet that in using the word "uncandid," he did not mean to impute anything disrespectful.

said, he did not immediately stop the hon. Member when he used the words which he had employed, as he did not catch them. But his attention having been drawn to those words, he must say it was not in Order to use them.

, replying to the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), explained the extra charge made to counties. Supposing a county were entitled to 100 men and there was an average number of 10 vacancies per 100 over the whole of Ireland, that would be a fair proportion of vacancies upon the whole county. Then, supposing the county required more men than 90 for its service, those men were sent and charged extra.

wished it to be understood definitely and unequivocally, did the Government formally declare that the Constabulary rules were of such a nature that Government were afraid to lay them before the House? That was a serious question, and he wished a plain answer to it.

said, that he knew of no case of Constabulary rules being published, and he could not consent to such a proposal.

complained that the officers of the Constabulary were not appointed by open competition. The nominations were in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary, and the Inspector General of Constabulary. That tended to perpetuate caste distinctions, as the nominations were practically limited to the friends of old officers and the hangers-on of the Castle circles. They would rather see the force officered entirely by Englishmen or Scotchmen under open competition than see it entirely officered by Irishmen upon the hugger-mugger system of nomination.

had stated, on a previous occasion, that he failed to see his way to the introduction of open competition.

said, he proposed that the same kind of in- quiry should be made into the circumstances of the Irish county prisons as the Home Secretary had undertaken to make in the case of the English prisons. As to the inspection of convict prisons, he had listened to the debate raised the other night by the hon. Gentleman, and he concurred fully in every word which fell from his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cross) on that subject. He thought it would be well that there should be some such visitation of convict prisons instituted as his right hon. Friend had described; but the subject was not without its difficulties, and he doubted whether it would be possible to deal with the matter in the Irish Prisons Bill. He hoped, however, to deal with it as soon as his right hon. Friend and he were able to arrange some system which would apply to both countries.

called attention to the great injury which the Irish and Scotch taxpayers would suffer if the Irish and Scotch Prison Bills were not passed this Session.

hoped that both of the Bills alluded to by the hon. Member for Meath would be passed, and that their progress through the House would not be in any way impeded.

complained that in preparing these Estimates the small allowances to clerks of the peace under the Land Act of 1870 had been considerably reduced by the Treasury, without any opportunity being given to those gentlemen of being heard against reduction.

said, the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) had failed to show that for the amount of work done under the Land Act of 1870, clerks of the peace would not be sufficiently remunerated by the reduced allowances.

said, the clerks of the peace had notice that the allowances were subject to revision in 1876, and he contended that the allowances, as revised, were ample for the work they had to do.