asked the honourable Baronet the Member for Walsall, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that Petitions purporting to be signed by over 13,000 "working men and other inhabitants of Naas and adjacent districts, in the county of Kildare," have been presented during the present Session against the Irish Sunday Closing Bill; whether he is aware that these Petitions are signed exclusively by men; that the sheets are simply long lists of names without any addresses; that Naas is a town the total population of which in 1871 was a little over 3,000, and that according to the Census Returns for 1871 an adult male population of 13,000 qualified to petition Parliament does not exist within a radius of twenty miles of the town; and, whether the Committee on Public Petitions intend to take any action in this matter?

asked the honourable Baronet the Member for Walsall, as Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions, Whether it is not the fact that the signatures attached to the anti-Sunday closing Petitions from Dublin, which, out of an adult male population of 70,000, purport to bear the signatures of 90,000 male adults, are very largely in the same handwriting, and that the addresses of the Petitioners are almost entirely absent; and, whether the Committee will be prepared to receive evidence as to the bona, fide character of the Petitions in question?

in reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney), said, it was true that the signatures attached to the Petitions were very largely in the same handwriting, and addresses were almost entirely absent; but he must remind hon. Members that the affixing of several names by one person was an informality more or less incident to all large Petitions. With regard to addresses, although, no doubt, it was most desirable that they should be given—and the Committee on Petitions by a mark indicated that they attached an enhanced value to Petitions containing them—addresses were not required to be given by any Standing Order, nor did the absence of addresses vitiate Petitions. Therefore, if the matter rested there, the Committee would not have recommended the House to take any further action. With regard to the Dublin Petition, he was bound to say that since the Notice of the hon. Member for Wexford County (Mr. O'Clery), the Committee had been led to believe that other irregularities had occurred. The Census Returns had been referred to; and the Committee were now considering whether it would not be their duty at their next meeting to make a special Report on the matter, which was the only further action the Committee could take. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member—whether the Committee would be prepared to receive evidence as to the bonâ fide character of the Petitions in question—the Committee had no power to take any evidence unless on special reference by the House. It remained, there fore, for the House, on the presentation of the Report, to say whether they should take such a course.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in view of the vacancy in the honorary office of Lord Clerk Register for Scotland, Government will, as was done for several years without detriment to the public service, carry out the provisions of the statute 24 & 25 Vic. c. 71, s. 1, which enacts that

"from and after the passing of this Act no salary or fees shall he payable for or in respect of the said office?"

Sir, I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware—but certainly his Question does not disclose the fact to the House—that the provisions of the Act to which he refers were virtually overridden by a subsequent Statute—namely, the 31 & 32 Viet. The point is now under the consideration of the Government; and I cannot, at the present moment, give any definite answer to the hon. Gentleman as to what their decision may be.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If, considering the loss of life in the Mines of the United Kingdom, he will arrange for the discussion of the Resolutions on that subject some day before the Easter holidays?

Sir, I very much wish I could; but I am afraid, in the present state of Public Business, it is impossible.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will appoint a Select Committee to consider the question of reporting the Parliamentary Debates?

Sir, I think it would be a very convenient course to appoint a Select Committee on the subject, as it is a matter that largely interests the Members of the House. We have, as I mentioned early in the Session, made a provisional arrangement with Mr. Hansard on the subject; and it would be convenient that both that arrangement and the whole subject should be referred to a Select Committee, and therefore I shall take the earliest opportunity of moving for a Committee.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the evidence given before the court of inquiry into the colliery explosion at Blantyre, showing frequent violation of the provisions of the Mines Regulation Act; and, whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the conduct of the manager of that colliery with a view to the cancellation of his certificate according to the thirty-second clause of the Mines Regulation Act?

Sir, I think that provision of the 32nd clause of this Act is a very useful one, and I have sometimes, at the suggestion of the Inspectors of Mines, put it in force to show the managers of mines that they are practically on the same footing as captains of ships, and are liable to the loss of their certificates; still the Secretary of State can only act on the information he receives. In this case a Special Commission, consisting of an eminent advocate and a Chief Inspector of Mines, was appointed to inquire into the causes of the explosion. When they sent in their Report no mention was made of the section in question; and, thinking this was a case in which their attention should be drawn to it, I asked them whether they would give me any information on which I could act against the manager? The reply they made was that, in their opinion, it was not a case in which any action ought to be taken.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, having regard to the stipulations of the Treaties of London of 1841, of Paris 1856, and of London 1871, relating to the Straits of the Dardanelles, in these words—

"Treaty of 1841.—The Sultan on the one part declares that he is firmly resolved to maintain in future the principle invariahly established as the ancient rule of his Empire, and in virtue of which it has at all times been prohibited for ships of war of Foreign Powers to enter the Straits of the Dardanelles and of the Bosphorus, and that so long as the Porte is at peace His Highness will admit no foreign ship of war in the said Straits. And their Majesties the Queen, &c. on the other part engage to respect the determination of the Sultan, and to conform themselves to the principle above declared.

"Treaty of 1871.—The principle of closing the Straits is maintained, with power to the Sultan to open the Straits in time of peace to the vessels of war of friendly and allied Powers in case the Sublime Porte should judge it necessary in order to secure the execution of the stipulations of the Treaty of Paris 1856;"

I cannot think, Sir, that it would be convenient at the present moment, and in answer to a Question, to discuss the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I can only say that Her Majesty's Government consider that they are perfectly justified, under the circumstances, in retaining the British Fleet where it is.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Government intend to continue the Board of Education in Scotland beyond the 6th August next, when the Board of Education (Scotland) Continuance Act will expire, and when the provisions of "The Education (Scotland) Act, 1872," in regard to the supervision of National Education in Scotland, unless they are further interrupted, will take their course?

Sir, it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose a renewal of the Continuance Act; but they intend to propose some measure with regard to the supervision of elementary education in Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he can state when the Return "Army (Courts of Inquiry and Courts Martial)" for which an Address was moved on the 8th day of May last, by the late Sir Colman O'Loghlen, will be laid upon the Table of the House?

Sir, the latest regimental Returns were received on Saturday last, and the general Return will be laid on the Table very soon. Great delay has arisen in obtaining Returns from distant places.

asked Mr. Attorney General, By what authority the Great Seal hitherto appended to Letters Patent for inventions has been abandoned, and a smaller wafer seal representing only one side of the original been substituted; whether this change is legal without Act of Parliament; whether this change reduces the cost of patents; and, whether Letters Patent under the new seal would be as valid as under the Great Seal, if tested in a Court of Law?

in reply, said, that the small wafer seal referred to had been attached, by virtue of the Act passed last Session, entitled, "An Act making provision for the Preparation and Authentication of Commission and other Documents issued from the Offices of the Clerks of the Crown in Chancery." He did not know that the substitution of the smaller seal would reduce the cost of patents; but he was clearly of opinion that the patents sealed with this seal would be as valid as those sealed with the Great Seal.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the fact that Russia has refused to allow the proposal of Her Majesty's Government to admit Greece to the expected European Congress?

No, Sir, it is not true that the Government of Russia has refused to assent to the representation of Greece at the Congress; but it is true that the Government of Russia has raised a question as to the footing on which the Representative of Greece should be admitted.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Her Majesty's Government will consider the proposal made by Mr. Bagot, in his work on Accidents in Mines, for the systematic organization of Life Brigades in the Mining districts for the purpose of rescuing Miners from the effects of after-damp and other noxious vapours; and, whether the Government will appoint a Select Committee to report on the various plans suggested for gaining safe access to a Colliery after explosion?

in reply, said, he had obtained a copy of the book written by the young mining engineer referred to by the hon. Gentleman, but he had not had time to consult the Inspectors of Mines about it; and, until he had done so, he could not answer the latter part of the Question.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the Bill for consolidating the Criminal Law announced in Her Majesty's Speech will he soon introduced, insomuch as the probability of passing the measure would be increased by its early introduction even though the Second Reading may have to be postponed for a time?

in reply, said, he should take the earliest opportunity which could be afforded him of introducing the measure referred to by the hon. and learned Member.

said: Sir, during the passage of the Civil Procedure Code—which is a Consolidation Bill—through the Legislative Council in India last year, a Schedule was inserted repealing the Lord's Day Act. As this insertion was not germane to the Act, and as it was on other grounds objectionable, the Government of India were directed to introduce a Bill repealing this Schedule. They have objected to this Order on the ground that, in their belief, the most important part of the Lord's Day Act was not applicable to India, and have not as yet introduced any repealing Bill. The Civil Procedure Act has not yet been assented to by the Home Government.

said, he felt it his duty to take a course somewhat extraordinary in consequence of the Answer he had received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that was to move the adjournment of the House. ["Oh!"] If hon. Gentlemen opposite would hear him, he would occupy but a very few minutes; if, on the other hand, he received interruption, he would speak much longer.

rose to Order, and desired to ask the Speaker whether he had not already ruled, in similar circumstances, that a Member who was dissatisfied with an Answer to a Question put on the Paper could not raise a dis- cussion upon it by moving the adjournment of the House?

I have repeatedly pointed out to the House that such a course is highly inconvenient; but I cannot say that the hon. Member is not within his right in taking that course if he thinks proper. At the same time, I am bound to observe to the hon. Member that any language of a threatening character addressed to Members of this House is out of Order.

said, he was sorry if he had in the least degree violated the Rules of the House, and he apologized at once. But, independently of the Answer he had received, it was his duty to make a statement. The Home Secretary had admitted, in answer to a Question put to him a few nights ago, that the Mines Act of 1872, as well as the Mines Acts that preceded it, had done an immense amount of good, and that no one knew that better than he (Mr. Macdonald) did. He would venture to say that no one was more sensible than he was of the benefits which the Mines Act of 1872 had produced. At the same time, it was not the good which had been done to which he objected; it was that which had not been done, and that work which the Mines Act, if properly carried out, would have effected. He had culled hastily from the Mines Reports a statement of the lives lost in the Swaith Main, Blantyre, Kearsley, and other recent accidents, the total number being 535; and he ventured to say that every one of those lives was lost in violation of the rules laid down by the Mines Act. The other day The Times, in a leading article, carefully guarded itself against calling one of these explosions an accident. It was a prostitution of language to call these accidents. They should be described as a scandalous waste of human lives. If it were in keeping with the language ordinarily used in the House, he would call this sacrifice of life "murders in the mines." But what he had to object to was this—they could discuss plans night after night affecting armoured vessels, but his was a question which in a short period of time involved the loss of 535 precious lives.

The hon. Member has already given Notice that he will bring this matter under the consideration of the House; and, although he has not fixed any day for the purpose, I am bound to say that in these circumstances his observations are now altogether irregular.

bowed to the Speaker's decision. He now left the matter in the hands of the House; and it was for hon. Members to answer to their constituents with regard to whether this sacrifice of life should continue. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.

could assure the House that whenever the question was brought forward he should be quite ready to give a full history of the working of the Mines Act, and to enter into every particular; but the House would feel that this was not an occasion on which he should be called upon do do so. He was bound to say, in justice not to the Inspectors, but to the mine owners, that the hon. Member had a Notice on the Paper nearly the whole of last Session accusing them of malpractices, and that he did not bring the matter before the House at all. He did not say the hon. Member was not perfectly right, if he thought proper, in putting such a Notice on the Paper; but it was to be regretted that he did not take some opportunity of bringing the subject before the House; and, having had the matter on the Paper for so long a time, it was an unusual proceeding to endeavour to bring it forward in this way at the present time. He could assure the House that every effort had been made for a number of years to enforce the Acts; and the hon. Member had more than once publicly thanked him in the House for the course he had taken on the occurrence of accidents. The Inspectors were doing their best to see that the regulations were carried out; but he wished to say, in the most kindly spirit, through the hon. Member, to those employed in mines, that there was considerable difficulty in preventing them running risks through their own carelessness. He did not desire to impute blame in any way; but if mines were to be worked with due regard to life, care and caution must be exercised by all concerned. It did not rest upon owners and Inspectors only; but it rested also upon miners themselves to see that due care and caution were taken. The Inspectors had considerable powers under the Act, and if miners saw anything going wrong they could call an Inspector to the spot immediately. He could answer for it, that no notice had been received, whether it were anonymous or not, without it being duly attended to. But, as he stated the other day, the duty of an Inspector was of a much wider scope than simply receiving and attending to these complaints. The Act must be worked in such a way as not to take away the responsibility of owners for the safe working of their mines; but it was the duty of the Inspectors to spend their spare time in going from place to place, above ground and under ground; and this duty, which had always been impressed upon them, he believed they performed to the full extent of their opportunity. He could only say that the sooner the hon. Member brought the Motion forward the better he should be pleased.

begged to say that he would withdraw his Motion for adjournment. At the same time, he wished to add this explanation—-that he took the ordinary course last year to get the question discussed and failed in the ballot. That was the sole reason why he did not bring it on.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty a Question of which he had given him private Notice, Whether in the Correspondence relating to the execution of a native on board Her Majesty's ship "Beagle" is included a despatch from Commodore Hoskins to the Admiralty, calling their attention to a certain point—the competency of the officers concerned; and, whether he has any objection to lay on the Table the answer of the Admiralty to the Commodore?

I think it would be more desirable that the answer of the Commodore should be laid on the Table together with the despatch to him; and I propose to do so when the answer has been received and considered by the Admiralty.

rose to call attention to a matter of principle, bearing on the question of the Government coming forward year by year and proposing Supplementary Estimates. In 185 7 the Civil Service Estimates amounted to £9,396,000—last year they had risen £21,756; and even that was found insufficient; and they were now called upon to vote £338,000 to complete the Services of the year. Moreover, on looking into this Supplemental Estimate, he was afraid that one of the great checks this House had established over the expenditure was being evaded. It was a primary rule of their procedure that if a saving was made under one head of the Votes, while under another head the Vote was exceeded, the saving on the one could not be used to supply the excess of the other; the balance must be returned into the Treasury, and a distinct Vote applied for to cover the increased expenditure of the other. But that was not so as regarded sub-heads under the same Vote—in that case the excess of one sub-head was frequently applied to make up the deficiency of the other. Now, in looking into the Estimates, he frequently found that the money voted for one purpose had been applied to another. For instance, in Class IV., under "Science and Art Department," it was reported in the Appropriation Account that they had exceeded the amount voted to them by more than £12,000; but they had taken various sums that had been saved under other sub-heads, and which ought to have been surrendered to the Exchequer, and applied them to sub-heads, the Votes on which had been greatly exceeded. The Report of the Auditor General said—

"The sum thus voted proved insufficient to meet the charges thrown upon these sub-heads, hut the matter was met by the saving on the other sub-heads, and the total amount of the head was not exceeded."

also complained of the increase in Supplementary Estimates, thinking the time had come when the House should try and remedy this state of things. He pointed in particular to the increase of expenditure on the Royal Palaces. Whatever was required for supporting the dignity of the Royal Family he was in favour of being given with a liberal hand; but there was a large expenditure connected with those Palaces not in the occupation of the Crown that could be avoided. He strongly objected to these vacant Palaces—so far as the expression referred to the Crown—being inhabited by other parties. If it be desirable for the dignity of the Crown to have the means of benefiting individuals, then let money be voted, to enable the Crown to give funds to parties to hire suitable houses. It was unwise to continue the bad practice of housing respectable people in Palaces. He likewise complained of an increase in expenditure on law and justice, which the people could not get administered, of no less than £1,500,000 within seven years. Then as to the transference from one head of money voted to it to another, he pointed out that this was an evasion of the law. Last year the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was called to this point, and he now again called attention to it, and particularly asked for attention to this bad practice on the part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. He pressed upon the hon. and gallant Member that no sum of money should be taken from the one purpose to which it was voted and applied to others. He did not mean to say that the sum first voted should always be held to have been sufficient for the purpose. No doubt, circumstances might occur to necessitate a Supplementary Vote. But the necessity should be fully established before the Treasury permitted any such estimate to be put forward. Where such need should arise, then he proposed that a sum should be set apart for meeting deficiencies, and that a Department which went to that fund and got assistance from it should be obliged to come before the House at the earliest possible moment, and ask it to make good the deficiency in the fund. As an instance of the irregularity, he referred to the application to Dover Harbour of money which had been voted for other harbours, and expressed a hope that measures might be devised by which a more effectual control over the expenditure would be secured to the House of Commons.

said, the twofold objections of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) were rather contradictory. The hon. Member had demurred to the extent of the Supplementary Estimates, and then with equal force to the system of applying money voted for one purpose to another. So far as theory went, he agreed with the hon. Member for Swansea, and with the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine (Sir George Balfour), as to the un-desirableness of having Supplementary Estimates at all; but he was bound by what was practicable. Supplementary Estimates were chiefly due to three or four causes. It was, first of all, the custom, the wholesome custom, to regulate the Estimates more closely in accordance with the Services for which they were intended than formerly. The Estimates were also presented to the House at a much earlier period of the year, and it was obviously impossible in a case in which sums so large in amount were involved to form as correct an estimate for 14 months as for 12. It must also be borne in mind that there was a source of expenditure over which neither the Treasury nor the other public officers had a very great control—he alluded to those instances in which extensive operations were being carried on in the nature of contracts. Another source of expenditure was that which, however great the sums laid out might be, was in itself actually reproductive, whether in a money point of view, or in that of the general convenience of the public service, and with respect to which, after the expiration of the year, it was therefore deemed advisable that a further outlay should be incurred, That remark applied to such Services as our Postal and Telegraphic systems. Motions made in that House, he might add, were a further cause leading to expenditure, and although he was quite of opinion that it was not desirable to transfer the amounts voted under one sub-head to another, he would ask the House what the alternative was to be? He quite agreed with the hon. Member that the control exercised by the House over the Public Accounts was, to some extent, ex post facto; but the greater part of the expenditure could only be decided and apportioned by the Departments themselves. The House, however, had, besides its proper control over the Departments, the right of questioning their heads, and thus obtained an additional guarantee for the propriety of all expenditure. He hoped the House would be satisfied with that practical control which it already possesed.

Sir, I cannot think that the statements of the hon. and gallant Gentleman(Colonel Stanley) are perfectly satisfactory, although I am willing to give to the Treasury credit for desiring to check as far as possible the transfer of Votes of money from one purpose to another. I had the honour formerly of being on the Public Accounts Committee, and that was a point which was continually under our notice. I quite agree that this Committee does watch Estimates with a great deal of jealousy; but they are not able to prevent large sums of money voted for the purposes of one sub-head being applied to another subhead without coming under review by the House; and, so far as this practice is adopted, I am quite sure it must have an evil tendency in increasing expenditure. I know, and so does the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that in every Department outside the Treasury there is a continual pressure put upon the Treasury to provide more money for the permanent service of the Crown. The effect of this is, that there is obliged to be a constant endeavour, on the part of the Treasury, to keep down expenditure. When the Estimates are presented to the House and fully criticized, and the House votes certain sums of money, it is quite true that these criticisms have a tendency to check undue expenditure; but you lose a great part of that control if the Votes of this House can be made use of to the extent of putting the sums so voted from one sub-head to another sub-head. The object of the Exchequer and Audit Act, under which it is necessary to surrender to the Exchequer all amounts not expended by the Departments, was clearly for the purpose of preventing the improper application of money Votes; and my hon. Friend is only seeking to apply the same principle on a smaller scale in connection with the sub-heads of expenditure under the different Departments. I believe the Treasury would find that the course recommended by my hon. Friend (Mr. Dillwyn) would strengthen their hands in resisting the demands of public Departments; because the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Stanley) knows perfectly well that there will be numbers of such applications made to the Treasury to sanction expenditure by putting it from one head to another. Supposing the Treasury were perfectly aware they could give no additional sum without a Vote on Supplementary Estimates, it is quite clear their hands would be strengthened by adopting the suggestion of my hon. Friend (Mr. Dillwyn). Now I come to the next point. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that which is quite true—namely, that if the proposal of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) were adopted, it would increase the Supplementary Estimates. Of that there is no doubt. My hon. Friend objects to the large volume of Supplementary Estimates for this year; but we would very much rather have additional Supplementary Estimates than that the House of Commons should lose its control over the Votes for certain purposes. We are quite willing for these Supplementary Estimates to be introduced if the Department for which they are voted is able to put before the Treasury sufficient justification for the expenditure contemplated, and if it could be shown that such expenditure was urgent and necessary. I am quite willing to admit that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has given good reasons why there should be Supplementary Estimates introduced when they were shown to be necessary; but we are only anxious that such Supplementary Estimates should be kept down to the narrowest limits. I do hope that, although the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not given my hon. Friend much encouragement, in the next financial year he may be inclined to look more favourably upon the proposal, and that the rule shall be laid down that no sum of money shall be applied for any other purpose than that for which it is voted, and that any sums required for unexpected emergencies shall be placed in the Supplementary Estimates, so that the House shall have control over the expenditure, and every opportunity of considering the application of the money for the purposes in which the Treasury shall sanction it.

who had on the Paper a Notice to call attention to the method of warfare pursued by Her Majesty's troops and others acting under the Imperial authority in South Africa and Northern India, and to move—

"That such proceedings, if unchecked, are calculated to discredit the Government amongst civilized nations, especially in the present crisis;"

said, he did not think he should be justified in detaining the House by a reference to all the topics which had been brought under their notice by the hon. Member. He did not think it necessary to discuss on that occasion the policy of the annexation of the Transvaal Republic, or the confederation of South Africa. The annexation of the Transvaal was a matter of the past, and the confederation of South Africa was, he hoped, a matter of the future. Neither of these questions had in any degree been raised by the Notice of Motion placed on the Paper. He might, however, state that such a Memorial as the hon. Member had spoken of was, he believed, being signed by some of the inhabitants of the Transvaal; but he might remind him that it had never been pretended that all the inhabitants of the Transvaal had unanimously agreed to annexation. There had always been a portion of the people who objected to it; but he did not believe that these views were shared by a majority, much less by the whole, of the people. When the Memorial of which the hon. Member had spoken reached the Colonial Office, it would be attentively considered. There must, of course, be every wish on our part not to interfere unnecessarily with either the local feelings or prejudices of the Transvaal inhabitants. The hon. Member proposed to call attention to the method of warfare pursued by Her Majesty's troops and others acting under the Imperial authority in South Africa. He had in some way coupled that system of warfare with the subject of the confederation of our South African Colonies, and suggested that the original Kaffir outbreak was due to the confederation scheme, and that it had spread in consequence of the mode in which the first outbreak was suppressed. But surely nothing had more commended the scheme for the confederation of South Africa to the Parliament which adopted it than the knowledge that it was the foundation of a Native policy which should be identical in all the South African Colonies, with the object of securing good government and civilization to the Native tribes of South Africa. The hon. Member had used very hard terms with reference to the conduct of our troops and Colonial Allies in the suppression of the outbreak. He spoke of it as bloody and cruel—"merciless atrocity" was one of the phrases he used—and he compared it with the most terrible horrors perpetrated by Bashi-Bazouks. Now, he had listened with the greatest possible attention to hear any statement of facts by which such language could be justified. He had read with great care all the despatches on this matter, which were now in the hands of Members, and which recounted fully the history of the outbreak up to the end of last year, and he had failed to discover anything in them to warrant the language which the hon. Member had employed. The hon. Member never referred to these despatches, which he could scarcely have read; but he quoted certain letters which appeared in The Times, and all he gathered from them to justify the terms he had employed was that some huts had been burnt and some women and children captured. If they had not been captured, most probably they would have been starved. But he challenged the hon. Member to produce any instance of cruel or improper treatment of either the women or children who were captured. No doubt there was the burning of the Native kraals, but that was a necessary, though a regrettable, incident to such warfare; and any hon. Member who had read the despatches would see that such an occurrence had only taken place when absolutely necessary for the suppression of the rebellion. The hon. Member had talked, without proving his words, of the excesses perpetrated by our Native Allies. It was not likely that these auxiliaries could be subjected in all respects to the strict discipline to which our own soldiers were accustomed. But nothing could show more thoroughly how ardently Sir Bartle Frere desired complete discipline than the decided action he had taken in order to secure that all the forces should be subject to the General Commanding-in-Chief. If there had been any excess in the past it had been due to the system, against which Sir Bartle Frere had strongly objected, of separating the command of the Imperial, Colonial, and Native troops. But, to the best of his knowledge, the charges brought forward by the hon. Member, whether against European or Native Forces, were entirely without foundation; and he most strongly protested against such accusations being made—without far better grounds than the hon. Member had adduced—against men at a distance from their native land who were endeavouring, amid the greatest possible difficulties, to do their duty.

said, he had the utmost confidence in Sir Bartle Frere; but was afraid that there might be too great inducement in hot blood to put down disturbances with too strong a hand, and it was therefore desirable that the attention of Parliament should be called to the matter.

asked for an explanation with regard to the first item, which was a charge for fitting up apart- ments in Kensington Palace for the Inspector of Buckingham Palace. He had never yet heard of that office, and he should like to know whether it was a new appointment, and, if so, why the Inspector had apartments allotted to him at Kensington Palace? It was an inconvenient plan to make one Royal Palace the lodging-house for the Inspector of another. There was a further Question which he had to ask with reference to an amount for repairs of a stable at Hampton Court. It was said that a large stud of horses was kept there, and that they were sold. It would be satisfactory to know whether the proceeds of the sale went, in its entirety, to the Exchequer, or in what way any part of the proceeds was disposed of?

said, that with regard to the Inspector of Buckingham Palace, the appointment was not a new one. During the past year the late Inspector had died, and the fresh appointment had involved the refurnishing of the apartments, inasmuch as it was found that the rooms were much dilapidated from the prevalence of dry rot. The salary of the Inspector was provided for in the Civil List.

objected strongly to giving apartments in Palaces in the occupation of the Crown to officers like Inspectors. It was necessary for the Crown to have every comfort and convenience; but the residence of Palace Inspectors had no connection with that comfort, seeing that the Palace of Kensington had been given up to individuals having no claim to live in Palaces; and as regarded officers employed to look after the buildings, it would be far better to give the Inspector a lodging allowance, and let him find his own apartments. The occupation of any part of this Palace by such functionaries, or by any other private individual, was objectionable; a Palace ought not to be turned into a poor-house. No doubt, many persons in the Royal Palaces might deserve well of their country, and many were well selected for bounty by the Crown; but it would be an economy in administration, as well as a proper course for individuals, not to allow them to occupy Royal palaces.

asked what could be done with the rooms in the Royal Palaces if they were kept un- occupied, in accordance with the hon. and gallant Baronet's suggestion? If unoccupied, there would be just the same charge for repairs, and the damage to the rooms from damp would be much greater.

said, it seemed that the occupation of the rooms had not been able to stop the dry rot, which was now proposed to be removed by spending money that the Committee was called on to vote.

observed that there was a now item in the Estimates. It was for the erection of a school at Hampton Court Palace. He wanted to know what was the meaning of a school there, how it was occupied, and for whom required? He had understood that there were only a few ladies living at the Palace, and of course their education was completed.

said, that an old-building which contained a schoolmistress's house had been pulled down. It was necessary to build a new school-house for the children of the soldiers and persons employed about the Palace. It was not a new school, having been instituted in 1840; was maintained by voluntary contribution, principally from the ladies in the Palace, by the children's pence, and by the Government grant. It was under Government inspection.

would like to have some information as to whether the items that had been alluded to were the commencement of a new expenditure? He did not remember any Vote last year, and therefore supposed the Supplementary Vote was on account of an expenditure without a Vote.

said, that it was a new Vote, and it was anticipated that £300 would cover the whole cost of the building.

remarked that the Supplementary Estimates voted by the House ought not to have been for new works. It was a small matter, but still the principle was the same. It would be convenient if some of the officers of the Government would let them know in all cases in which they asked for a Supplementary Vote, whether it was for the commencement of a new work. When a new work was begun, the House ought to know all about it. It was said these works would only cost £300; but it was a bad principle not to let the House know whether or not it was voting for the commencement of new works.

said, that no doubt, it would be in the knowledge of hon. Members that last year the House sanctioned certain items for the buildings. Those repairs, and the extension of those repairs, involved the removal of the school-house, and the Vote was only for the completion of repairs which had already been commenced.

complained that it was very inconvenient that the Commissioner of Works did not issue an annual Report, in the same way as was done by the Board of Inland Revonue. The House never had any precise information from the Commissioner of Works in the shape of an annual Report as to how he spent the public money. Instead of imposing on the hard-worked Secretary to the Treasury the arduous task of explaining to the House the state of the Civil Estimates for the enormous amount of £23,000,000, each responsible Minister should perform that duty for the portion of the funds which were under his control.

thought it would be very desirable to have a Report from the Commissioner of Works, similar to that of the Inland Revenue Commissioners. He was glad to see the President of the Board of Trade in his place, and he would take the opportunity of suggesting to him that his Department, comprising, as it did, a multitude of sub-departments, should also adopt the plan he had mentioned. It would save a great deal of time, and Members would not require to ask for so much information as they now did in the shape of Parliamentary Returns.

thought the Estimates might be prepared in a way which would give much more information to the House, and prevent loss of time in asking about doubtful items. It would be extremely convenient, and cost a comparatively small sum, to have full details printed for the House.

before the Vote was put, would like some information with reference to the school. Was it a new school, or was it an alternative school for one which had already existed? The House had a perfect right to inquire into the circumstances under which the new school was required.

said, it was not a new school. It was attended by 40 or 50 boys, chiefly belonging to the soldiers and to persons who were employed in the Palace.

in reference to the charge for extensive repairs at the Stud House at Hampton Court, complained that money had been wasted upon it. If the Government intended to keep up a stud of horses, it should rather turn its attention to breeding useful horses, than such as were now turned out at Hampton Court. The horses that were, now bred there had neither bone nor substance, and were, after a few years, only fit for cab horses. Every year it was more and more difficult to get the right sort of horses, and if horses were bred at all at Hampton Court, they should be of a useful character.

asked for an explanation with regard to the duties of the Inspector of Buckingham Palace?

said, that the Inspector to whom the hon. Member had referred was paid out of the Civil List, and not out of the Estimates. His duties were those of a rather superior clerk of the works; he had to examine and report upon the state of the buildings. The Inspector received £300 a-year from the Civil List.

asked for an explanation in regard to the works which had been carried out at Marlborough House. The sum which the Committee was asked to vote was a large one, and what the country would require to know was that the work had really been satisfactorily done. There was no doubt that every Member of that House, and every person out of it, was desirous that the House in which the Heir Apparent to the Throne resided should be properly drained, and, in all other sanitary respects, rendered perfect.

said, that when Marlborough House was being got ready for His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, about 15 years ago, all the works were then inspected by Sir James Pennethorne, the eminent architect. Since that time, the building had been under the charge of His Royal Highness, who employed his own staff and sanitary-engineer. When, unfortunately, typhoid fever broke out last year at Marlborough House, and Prince Albert Victor took the fever, as well as some other members of the Royal Household, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales applied to the Government with a view that they should have the whole of the drainage overhauled. The Office of Works was commissioned with that duty, and when the proper officers went into Marlborough House, they found that the drainage was in a most dreadful state. Drains ran in from the street, and from the direction of St. James's Palace; and there were runs for rats all over the place. The whole of the arrangements had been changed; the defects had been thoroughly removed; and Marlborough House had now been drained, he might say, on the most scientific principles. During the whole of the time the works had been going on, His Royal High-ness's medical attendant, and Mr. Raw-linson, of the Local Government Board, had been in constant attendance, and had thoroughly approved of everything that had been done by the Office of Works. There were now no drains within the house; they were all outside and ran direct into the main drainage, passing down by the Horse Guards. From the information which he had received, he believed that Marlborough House was now the best drained residence in London.

remarked that the right hon. Gentleman had made a very satisfactory statement as to the sanitary condition of Marlborough House. It was, however, rumoured abroad that, notwithstanding the present admirable drainage of that residence, it did require, in the opinion of one of the gentlemen whom the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned, periodical flushing; and he (Dr. Lush) should like to know how that had been provided for?

believed that the arrangements for flushing were also perfect. An officer of the Office of Works, who had been to Marlborough House only two or three days ago to try the flushing, had informed him that everything was as perfect as possible.

expressed his satisfaction at the statement of the First Commissioner of Works, and asked him whether the Committee were to under- stand that Marlborough House was the property of the country?

replied that, under the Act 13 & 14 Vict., the house was to be held, as now, during the joint lives of Her Majesty and the Prince of Wales. Subject to that provision, it was public property.

said, he desired to say a few words in reference to the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens. In the first place, he should like to have some explanation of the items of £1,900 and £1,000 for fencing the Edinburgh Arboretum Grounds, and for restoration of Inverleith House respectively. Then for re-arranging the heating apparatus in the Palm House, Royal Gardens, Kew, a sum of £1,900 was charged. Now, he would put it to his right hon. Friend, who did his duty remarkably well, that this Palm House was, after all, a very shabby concern on which to expend so large a sum of money. While on the subject of Royal Parks, he should like to ask his right hon. Friend why he paid no attention to the north side of Hyde Park? On the south side he planted tulips, hyacinths, and rhododendrons; but the north side he left in a state of desolation, so that one might fancy he was travelling in places such as owls frequented and made a noise at night. The people living on the north side of Hyde Park were an aggressive people; and unless the right hon. Gentleman did something to improve it, they would refuse to grant him the money that he wanted.

thought that his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury was somewhat ungrateful, or else, perhaps, he had not been into the Park lately. [Sir ANDREW LUSK: I was there yesterday.] It was only last year that he (Mr. Gerard Noel) asked for a considerable sum of money for the purpose of improving the north side of Hyde Park; and if the hon. Gentleman would only walk from the head of the Serpentine to Lancaster Gate, he would see in course of construction very beautiful flower walks, similar to those on the south side. With respect to the Arboretum Grounds at Edinburgh, they comprised about 36 acres, and were handed over last Whitsuntide to the Government on the understanding; that they should maintain them in the future as a pleasure ground and a scientific garden. As to the Palm House at Kew, he thought it was one of the most beautiful things of the kind that it was possible to see, and the re-arranging of the heating apparatus had been rendered necessary by the damage caused to it by the floods of last year.

wished to give an explanation in reference to the Arboretum Grounds and Inverleith House. The latter was the mansion house of an estate in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh, for which the inhabitants of that city were, as he thought, so foolish as to give about £26,000, and then to make a present of it to the Government on consideration that they would maintain it in all time to come. One reason assigned for the gift was that the Botanical Gardens, which belonged to the Government, were found to be too small for their purposes, and it was intended that this property would be joined to them, Inverleith House becoming the residence of the Professor of Botany, who was charged with the superintendence of the Gardens. This hope, however, had not been realized. The house was burned down soon afterwards, and the Insurance Office had paid to the Government a sum of £1,547. He believed that the authorities of the Botanical Gardens, at the time the property was handed over to the Government, contemplated, in addition to the present botanical school, the teaching of forestry with a view to the qualification of young men going to India. If ever the Government got a good bargain they got one in this instance.

said, that he altogether objected to this Vote, inasmuch as the principle involved in it amounted to this—that the city of Edinburgh was to have grants made out of the Imperial funds for the purchase of a local Park. If this were to be done in the case of Edinburgh, why should not Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, and other large towns have provided for them public Parks paid for out of the Imperial Exchequer? He thought that the time had come when Parliament ought to exercise some control over the expenditure of money for this purpose, and moved that the Vote be disallowed.

said, that as he had had something to do with this matter, he was in a position to give an explanation to the Committee. The Queen's Park in Edinburgh was let as a sheep-farm, for about £800 a-year, consisting of many hundred acres. At one corner of the Park was the Queen's Palace, and adjoining was a small estate, the owner of which died some three or four years ago. The -trustees of the deceased, with a view to preserve the amenity of the Palace, offered the estate to the Government at a very moderate rate; but they refused to buy it. Efforts were made by the local authorities in Edinburgh to induce the Government to purchase it, not as a Park for the City, but in order, as he had said, to preserve the amenity of the Queen's Palace; but they still refused. After a time the trustees sold the estate with the house upon it to some speculative builders, who set to work to erect workmen's houses on the ground. Those houses would be within 200 yards of the windows of the private apartments of the Queen's Palace; and another representation was made to the Government about the monstrosity of allowing such a thing to be done. At length the Government agreed to buy the property. But it was the old story of the Sybilline Books—they refused to give the small sum asked for it, and they afterwards gave above £5,000 more for it than the sum at which it was first offered to them. The reason was that the speculative builders found that they had made a very good bargain for their purposes; and it was not at all unreasonable that they should sell what they had purchased to the best advantage. His answer, then, to his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) was, that this money was required, not to provide a Park for Edinburgh, but to improve the amenity of the Royal Palace.

thought that the explanation which had just been given by the hon. Member had made the case rather worse than it was before. The hon. Gentleman had said that the land was necessary for the amenities of the Royal Palace; but the Palace of Holyrood was one in which no British Sovereign had resided in their time, nor was one ever likely to reside there. And when the hon. Member told the Committee that the projected buildings would have been within 200 yards of a Palace which was only used for the election of Scotch Peers, he must say that he did not see in that a sufficient reason why so large a sum of public money should be spent in purchasing this land.

thought that the hon. and learned Baronet who had just spoken was in error, because, if his memory served him right, Her Most Gracious Majesty had put up at Holyrood so that for the time being it was a Royal residence. And it might happen that Her Majesty would again put up there. He thought that the explanation given by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) was a very satisfactory one indeed. The only thing to be regretted was that the Government did not buy the estate when it was offered to them at a very reasonable price; for anyone who was acquainted with the place must admit that it would be very undesirable to allow this land to get into private hands. This was to be noted as well, that it was not because of its being a benefit to the Palace it was to be added to the great Park for the people.

remarked that most of them had probably looked down upon the Palace of Holyrood and been struck with its charming situation. Therefore, so far as its surroundings were concerned, he did not think there could be any necessity for purchasing this additional land. Many of their Royal Palaces—as, for example, St. James's Palace and Buckingham Palace—were surrounded by houses of all classes; but he had never heard that any great objection was entertained by Royalty to being so surrounded. He thought that this was a most exorbitant sum to ask the British Parliament to vote; and if the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) went to a division he should vote with hirn.

wished just to mention that the main reason for making this purchase was that a change had taken place in the occupancy of the house and ground in question. They had been occupied as a private house and garden, and as long as they remained so they were no injury to the site of Holyrood Palace. When they wore first offered to the Government, there was a likelihood that they would still be retained for that purpose, and there seemed to be no reason for going to any expense in purchasing them. But afterwards they were bought with a view to the erection of lodging-houses, and one effect of that would have been to spoil the amenity of the view. Another would have been that a right of way which existed through a portion of the Royal Palace would be largely used if these buildings had been erected. As had been stated, the Palace of Holyrood was occupied from time to time. The year before last the Queen was in Edinburgh for several days, and during that period she resided in Holy-rood Palace, and gave, he believed, several entertainments, and saw company there. Therefore, it was not quite reasonable to speak of it as being a Palace that was unused.

expressed a hope that his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) would withdraw his opposition to the Vote. There was a national interest taken in Holy-rood Palace, and a desire entertained that Scotch historical monuments should be preserved. The Committee could not but regret, however, that the offer of the trustees had not been accepted by the Government.

said, he only rose for the purpose of pointing out that, as regarded public Parks in the North of England, there was hardly a single instance in which it was not alleged as one of the great grounds for the purchase of these Parks by the locality, that the ground was likely to be bought by speculators. Therefore, it appeared to him that there was no reason why this money should, in the present case, be spent by the country generally; and he thought that the charge ought to be borne by the locality.

was not going to oppose the Vote exactly upon the ground which he had heard stated; but he wanted to give a little advice to his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Gerard Noel who looked after these matters—

"This additional sum was required for the completion of the purchase of the Clockmill or Belleville estate immediately adjoining Holyrood Palace, and carrying' with it a right of way through the Queen's Park, it having been found impossible to purchase the property with the amount (£15,000) previously voted for the service."

said, that this was the first time he had ever heard the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) in that House advocate the expenditure of public money. Whenever any Irish Vote came on there was not a more energetic opposer of it than the hon. Member, who would not vote a single penny for any purpose in Ireland. Whenever public money was asked for public Parks in the Metropolis no complaint was made, and the money, without stint, was voted; but if it was asked for other parts of England, for Scotland, or for Ireland, if it was granted at all, it was granted in such a niggardly manner that it was not worth having. If this Vote was for the benefit of the public, he, for one, would not oppose it; but such was not the case. He thought this Vote was the most monstrous one that was ever proposed, because it was really for the purpose of preventing houses being built near the Palace of Holyrood. If it had been for a public Park it would have been different, because he was quite willing that public Parks should be purchased in the North of England, in Scotland, or in Ireland. But when the money was wanted to remedy a sentimental grievance in connection with Royalty, there seemed no difficulty in getting it. On the ground, therefore, that this Vote was asked merely to prevent the erec- tion of dwellings for the citizens of Edinburgh, within sight of the caretakers of the Palace, he would oppose it. But there was a much more serious objection to the manner in which the money was sought to be obtained. He asked the House to look at the precedent it would be setting. The sum of £15,000 was originally asked by the Government for the purchase of this Clockmill property, upon the faith of a statement that a contract was entered into for the sale for this amount; and the consent of Parliament having been obtained upon this statement, a further sum of £3,569 was immediately required to complete the purchase. If they established this as a precedent, it would be followed again and again. What was there to prevent a Government asking the assent of Parliament to the purchase of a property, or to the expenditure of a sum of money, upon the ground that the bargain was a good one, or the expenditure small; and having established a principle by this means, then to turn round and ask for a Supplementary Vote. An inducement was also held out, by a procedure similar to the present, for persons dealing with the Government to extort money. With reference to the Clockmill estate, the owners were willing to sell for a much smaller sum than was now asked; but when they found Parliament was willing to vote the money, they raised the price, and even now they had no guarantee that if this additional sum were voted they would not be asked for a still further advance. Inasmuch as Her Majesty visited Holy-rood Palace only once in about a quarter of a century, he hoped this Vote would not be granted; especially in the obnoxious and dangerous way in which it was asked for, which was to supplement a Vote already obtained.

said, if the "hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had known anything of the locality, he could not have made the speech he had. He did not seem to be aware that Holy-rood was an old historic Palace, occupied almost annually by some members of the Royal Family, and annually by a Representative of Her Majesty, who kept a sort of Vice-regal Court there, as the Lord High Commissioner to the Church of Scotland. It was eminently a Royal Palace. It was situated at the extremity of the Queen's Park, which was probably one of the finest Parks in the Kingdom, and contained the whole of Arthur's Seat, from which was obtained most picturesque and beautiful views of the surrounding country. This magnificent property might be greatly deteriorated if the Clockmill estate was let for building purposes. The Government proposed—and very properly—that the estate should be acquired, and there was no objection made to this last year, when the sum of £15.000 was voted for the purpose. That, however, proved insufficient, and the purchase was now opposed, because a comparatively small additional sum was asked, for. He hoped the Committee would agree to the grant of this surplus sum, in order that this addition might be made to the Park—not so much with the view of enlarging it as to prevent the erection of buildings which would destroy much of its beauty.

supported the Vote, because he considered that this was not merely a local matter, but an improvement to one of Her Majesty's Palaces. To a large town an estate of a few acres, placed quite at the corner of the Park, could not be of the importance that some hon. Gentlemen seemed to imply this was to Edinburgh. The purchase was quite out of the way of those who walked in the Park, and had nothing to do with the amenity of Edinburgh. The estate was in the market; a builder got hold of it, and was proceeding to build working men's houses upon it. Surely it was the owner of the estate adjoining—the Crown—who should look after the amenity of this public property, and not the people of the town. It was not the business of the holder of the small property to add to the amenity of an adjoining estate, but to make money by selling it for building land. If he did that, no doubt he would get £18,500 for it. If the Government chose to sell it, they might make even more money out of it in the course of time, for the value of such land was rising rapidly all round the city of Edinburgh. It seemed a most logical matter that the Government should purchase this small corner of ground in order to improve the amenity of an estate and Palace belonging to Her Majesty. The hon. and learned Member who had just spoken (Mr. Meldon) had accused him of never defending anything Irish in the case of expenditure. The fact was, he grudged expenditure whenever it was unnecessary or extravagant, either in Ireland, Scotland, or England; and if the hon. Member would look at the Estimates submitted to the House year by year, he would find there was about six times as much voted for parks, buildings, hospitals, and all kinds of things in Ireland as there was in Scotland.

was quite satisfied that this Vote would be thoroughly popular with the country, and hoped it would be passed.

thought the Government were seriously to blame for not having purchased this land at the price at which it was offered to them last year; and if it were possible to bring that home to any individual concerned, he certainly should go with his hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Gourley) in resisting this Vote. There was certainly great culpability on the part of someone who administered public affairs in losing the opportunity of purchasing at a reduced rate. But there was another side to the subject, which he was sure would commend itself to the opinion of everybody in that House when they came to consider it. Holyrood Palace and the adjuncts to Holyrood Palace were not by any means a local question, but had an historical interest, extending over many centuries, to the whole of this country. It was alleged that this Royal Palace was occupied only once in a century; hut, in fact, it had distinct functions from year to year as a residence of Her Majesty's Representative. He could not conceive a more absurd notion than that the object of this purchase was to enclose the Royal residence from contact with certain houses to be occupied by the labouring class. There could be nothing more fallacious. The Royal Palaces in every part of this Kingdom were surrounded by buildings of all clsases, and it was no part of the policy of Her Majesty to cut herself off from any class of her subjects. The essential point of this purchase was a right of way. If, unfortunately, advantage was taken by those who were* sharper than Her Majesty's Government to purchase this property in order to ask an enhanced price for it, and if, in consequence, the right of way had been parted with, he thought this sum would be wisely expended in preserving this privilege.

said, it seemed that Scotland got very little money from the Exchequer. ["No, No!"] He had always complained that both Scotland and Ireland got very little money from the Exchequer, and he intended to vote with the Scotch Members. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) was a man of very economic disposition, especially when it came to be a question of a Vote for Ireland; but he thought it was better policy to support than to oppose the hon. Member in this Vote, for the Scotch Members wanted it, and were the best judges whether it was needed, and he hoped to get their support in turn, when it came to' be a question of a grant for Ireland.

asked if the purchase of this estate had been completed?

said, it had been completed.

said, that some of the arguments he had heard were calculated to make Irish Members vote against this grant. It was a question whether this was really necessary for Holyrood House, and whether, looking to the fact' that Holyrood House had very rarely a Royal visitor at all, it was of any remarkable use. It was said that Holy-rood Palace was the residence of Her Majesty's Commissioner on Ecclesiastical affairs—["No, no!"]—then Her Majesty's representative of the Kirk of Scotland—the Lord High Commissioner—and that he during his residence held a sort of semi-Court. If they were to compare the circumstances of Holyrood House in Edinburgh and of the Parliament House in Dublin they would find a difference. The Parliament House of Dublin was turned over to a banking corporation, while they had not only large sums to keep up Holyrood House, but large sums for all sorts of extensions and additions to it; because it was used for the purposes of the Presbyterians of Scotland. The argument brought forward was one to a large extent intended to recognize the Ecclesiastical dignitaries of Scotland. He certainly had his mind made up to vote against this demand, especially looking to the very slovenly manner in which the bargain was concluded; but he thought' he would take the advice of his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Nolan), and just for the special purpose of overwhelming the Scotch Members with kindness, he would bow to their wishes and vote with them.

said, he liked to have everything honest and straightforward, and he could not understand why it should be so objectionable to have lodging-houses erected close to the Queen's Park. He knew there were tenements near to Holyrood to which criminals ran for refuge, and he understood that this estate was closer still; but now the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had told them that this land was some distance off, in an out-of-the-way corner, and he wanted the amenities of the Palace to be maintained, and the Palace kept from being overlooked. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give them some further information on the subject.

said, the hon. Member did not know the ground, or he would not speak of its being in an out-of-the-way corner, far away from the Palace. For himself, he did not care much about the "amenity" of the Palace; but he did care something about the amenity of the Queen's Park, which was really the people's Park of Edinburgh, and the little piece of land in question went right into the middle of it, and was surrounded on three sides by the Park. He should be glad if the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) and his Friends would vote for it; because, undoubtedly, they had a splendid Park at Dublin—Phoenix Park—which was kept up at the national expense. It was very desirable that Edinburgh should have this improvement made on its public Park.

said, the objection to the Vote arose from the fact that it was an increase from last year, and it ought to be explained why, when the sum of £15,000 was granted for the purchase of this particular estate, the purchase was not carried out at the time. It was setting an exceedingly bad precedent to have a Supplementary sum added to the original Vote.

entirely corroborated what had been said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) on this question. It was not a question of advantage to the city of Edinburgh, or of an addition desired by it at the public expense to its public Park. It was entirely a question concerning the Royal Palace, and the money, if granted, would be for the benefit of the Inhabitant of that Royal Palace—Her Majesty herself. There was an argument in favour of the Vote which had not been brought forward. It had been the policy of the First Commissioner of Works for several years past to endeavour to clear away a number of buildings in too close proximity to the Royal Palace, and if this purchase was not carried out, and these new houses were allowed to be built, it would be abandoning the advantage gained by clearing away the other edifices in the neigh bourhood of the Palace, and losing the benefit of the public money spent for the purpose. The hon. Baronet (Sir Andrew Lusk) had urged the claims of the north side of Hyde Park to have crocuses, hyacinths, and so forth, placed there, and the improvement of this Park in Edinburgh stood on exactly the same footing, and, therefore, he claimed the hon. Baronet's vote in favour of the grant.

said, there was a remarkable difference between Scotch Members on this matter, some saying the ground was entirely for the amenity of the Palace, and others that it was to increase the public Park. He would like if the Scotch Members could agree among themselves before making appeals to the House. He was told this Clockmill estate was 15 acres in size, and that they were going to add 15 acres to 800 acres. It seemed to him that the party who was selling this property was making a Jew's bargain of it. The House should set its face against such a thing.

was sorry that the explanation given in the foot-note to this Estimate did not convey the whole history of this transaction to the minds of hon. Members. The facts were simply those as stated. The House last year passed a Vote of £15,000 for the purchase of this estate, and it was distinctly understood by the Treasury that that sum would be sufficient to complete the purchase. But the agent, after receiving his instructions, believing it to be his duty to secure the estate, and acting on his own responsibility—he did not say whether he entirely agreed with him or not—closed the bargain for a higher sum than had been voted. [Mr. MONK: With the permission of the Treasury?]. The matter was exactly as he had stated. The bargain had to be concluded. The agent, acting on his own responsibility, had concluded the bargain at a higher price. For a long time the Treasury refused—and he ventured to think his hon. Friend would say they rightly refused—to sanction this further payment, or to submit any Supplementary Estimate to the House respecting it. Having, however, gone so far, it came to this—either to throw up the bargain altogether and be placed in the position in which the were in the first instance, or else to have the property vested partly in the name of the agent and partly in the name of the Crown. A choice of evils was thus presented; but it was perfectly impossible that they could submit to a joint conveyance or a joint occupation in having the property vested in private individuals side by side with the rights of the Crown. On consideration, therefore, and not without very grave censure being passed upon the person who acted in the manner he had described, the Government, on the whole, thought it better to place the matter in a Supplementary Estimate, and to obtain the sanction of the House for getting out of the difficulty in the way they thought best. He hoped that, having given this explanation, the Committee would allow the Vote to pass.

thought it desirable the hon. and gallant Gentleman should state whether the agent who had acted in the manner described was a public officer, or simply a local lawyer, to whom was entrusted the purchase of this property.

replied that the individual in question was the Law Agent for the Woods and Forests for Scotland, who was paid by fees, and was not in the receipt of a salary.

complained strongly of the expenditure upon Spurn Head, for which he understood they were asked to vote this sum. Originally, a very large sum was spent upon the harbour there, and year by year expenditure was going on upon it, while no explanation was ever given. The very useful Return of the Expenditure on Harbours since the first year of this century, which had, on his Motion, been laid before the House, showed that out of nearly £10,000,000 so spent, about £30,000 had already been laid out on Spurn Point. He complained very much of the continuance of this expenditure, not because he was unwilling to give money for harbours, but because he saw no earthly use in periodically voting away money as to which no Return was given, and no information supplied as to the object or utility of this outlay. They were constantly asked, upon these Estimates, to vote money for one purpose which was meant to be applied to another. Here was a case in point. The Government wanted £600 for works at Spurn Point, and they took it from Votes granted for other places. It was unfair to take money meant to be devoted to Harwich, Ramsgate, or Dover, and apply it to this harbour; but this was what had been constantly done, and though it was no new thing, it ought to be put an end to. In the Appropriation Accounts, he found that no less than £1,000 was spent upon Dover Harbour, which was taken for another purpose. Now, no Member could keep himself acquainted with the expenses of these different harbours if the Board of Trade was allowed thus to transfer money from one harbour to another. More than that, he found on turning to' page 43 of these Estimates, in the Vote for "Civil Contingencies," a Vote of £1,470 for the Port of Dover; and he appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of the Treasury to prevent money intended for Dover Harbour being applied for elsewhere than in the regular Vote for Harbours.

rose to Order. He did not think the question of Dover Harbour arose on the Vote.

did not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman out of Order in thus illustrating his argument.

said, "he was on the Committee for Dover Harbour, and he had not there heard any allusion to this sum of £1,470 as an expense in connection with that investigation. But more than that, it appeared that though voting money nominally for Dover, the Committee was in reality granting funds, part of which, it would appear, was for Spurn Point. In regard to Spurn Point, he thought they were throwing good money after bad. But what he complained of most was this system of transference; and he suggested that the Board of Trade, whose President never said one word about the harbours under its control, should follow the example of the Inland Revenue and Customs Departments in presenting annual Reports. Nothing would please the country better than to receive an annual Report from the Board of Trade, containing a record in black and white of what had been done with the harbours not only under the Board, but of all the harbours in the United Kingdom. No one could be more ready than he to recognize the good temper and the straightforward manner in which the President of the Board of Trade met any request for explanation; but so long as they were without an annual statement such as he had indicated, there would be dissatisfaction with the way the Harbour Department of the Board of Trade performed its duties.

desired to remind the Committee that to Spurn Point considerable importance was attached, and that the House voted sums each year for the purpose of making good defects that must from time to time arise in the works. During the past year Sir John Coode recommended that certain works should be completed before the winter came on, and these works came to £650. Of that sum £500 was derived from savings on the other harbours—at least it would not be so immediately required upon these other harbours—and the Vote now asked for was the balance which they required to cover this outlay.

objected to the system of anticipatory savings, which was simply asking more for a particular purpose than was wanted for that purpose, and then applying the so-called saving to some other object. He did not object to vote money which was really called for; but he did object to vote it without knowing what it was for, and he would not be a party to a vicious principle which would by degrees sap and undermine the control which the House of Commons had over the public expenditure.

said, that, so far as he was aware, the saving in question arose from certain works considered necessary, but which it was not imperative they should go on with at once; while there could be no question about the urgency of the works at Spurn Point. Under these circumstances, the transference took place without either inconvenience or injustice.

said, the Board of Trade had spent a very large sum upon works of this nature, with very little result indeed. More than that, the Harbour Department of the Board of Trade failed to furnish the House with that information as to results which every branch of an office spending public money ought to supply. This method of voting money for one purpose, and then for the President of the Board of Trade to use it for another and very different purpose, was likely to lead to negligence, and, in the interests of the public service, it should cease. SIR ANDREW LUSK was of opinion that when money was taken for a special purpose, it should be devoted to that purpose, or else returned into the Exchequer.

expressed the hope that when they had passed this sum, the item would be removed from the Votes. The Vote had been continued from year to year almost beyond his recollection, and he was sure the Committee would be glad to hear when the Monument would be completed. They all desired to have the opportunity of visiting it, and being assured—as he trusted they would be—that their expenditure had been satisfactory.

trusted, before the First Commissioner of Works answered this touching appeal, he would consider whether he could, not give some promise to the Committee that this would not be the last time upon which this Monument would be mentioned in their Estimates. Like his hon. Friend, he felt a great relief to think that the work had gone on so far. Anyone who had studied the history, and considered the tone of art, in England for a quarter of a century and more, would be glad to see it so far completed; but he was bound to direct the attention of the Committee to the fact that the so-called completed Wellington Monument, which was soon to be thrown open to the public, was miserably mutilated from what the artist designed it to be. In the conception of the great artist who designed it, it was to be crowned by an equestrian statue of the Duke; but a former First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Ayrton), a gentleman who, as they knew, had a strong conviction that he had a taste, and a strong way of enforcing what he believed to be taste—cut off that statue, and the Monument would now be what was called completed without it. Everyone who could at all appreciate or grasp the original design, or recollect the examples in Italy from which it was derived, must know that, in its present shape, the Monument gave a very inadequate idea of its artist's genuine conception.

regretted that the kind of taste for saving the public purse which characterized Mr. Ayrton was not more frequently exhibited, and he was bound to say that he had never known a more efficient administrator.

said, the Monument was now practically completed, and in a few days he hoped it would be open to the public. He would not express any opinion regarding it, farther than to say that he believed it would be admitted to be one of the finest Monuments in London. As to the remarks regarding the original design, and whether anything could now be done to carry it out more fully than had been done, that was a matter of consideration.

feared, large though their expenditure had been upon this matter—and it had much outgrown the limits originally fixed for it—that they had not got what they had expected, and what he believed they had a right to expect.

called attention to the excavation at the east end of the Museum, which Lad now been in existence two years, and had become a large pond. It was a nuisance to the neighbourhood, and the exhalations arising from it were very offensive. He hoped it would be promptly filled up.

was afraid he could not give the assurance that it would be filled up till the building was finished.

said, before asking the Committee to pass this Vote, he hoped his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works would give them the comforting assurance that something would be done to carry out the recommendations of the Committee presided over by his hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Baillie Cochrane), of which Committee the First Commissioner was an active Member, as was also the present First Lord of the Admiralty. It would be in the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman that very strong recommendations were made as to the necessity and in-dispensability of completing the block of Public Offices down in that part of London. In the Committee two competitive schemes were advocated—those of Sir Henry Hunt and Mr. Mitford. Mr. Mitford's scheme would put the buildings further to the north, and give a straight roadway from St. James's Park to Charing Cross. From what they heard the other day they might assume that this scheme did not most prevail with those in authority, and it would be necessary to fall back on Sir Henry Hunt's plan, of building the Public Offices north of Great George Street. This Vote might be a small instalment in favour of that scheme. He trusted it was so, and that the right hon. Gentleman would take that opportunity of stating exactly what progress had been made.

also asked for some further explanation in reference to the Vote. The Select Committee which sat last year had had several plans before it for the erection of Public Offices, and he wished to know to which of these the purchase of the house in Great George Street had reference; because it was obvious that before the Government purchased land they ought to have decided upon the plan they were going to adopt, and where the Public Offices were to be situated. The Committee had looked very favourably on the proposal to build Public Offices on the land at present occupied by Drummond's Bank, and go right down Parliament Street to the Admiralty; and he wished to know whether the Government had decided to adopt that suggestion, and, if not, where the new site for the Public Offices was intended to be?

said, he was hardly in a position to state what the intentions of the Government were in reference to the recommendations of the Committee which sat last Session. With respect to the Vote under discussion, it was for the purchase of a house in Great George Street, which had been offered to the Government on advantageous terms. The Committee would remember that the Government had already purchased several houses in that street.

asked for further information on the subject. The Committee was quite aware that several houses in the locality referred to had been purchased; but was it intended to acquire the whole of the north of Great George Street, with a view to the erection of Public Offices there? Were the Government acting under the powers of any Act of Parliament in making these purchases, or were they acting in anticipation of an Act being passed?

said, the principle upon which this purchase had been made was the same as that on which other houses had been purchased in the neighbourhood—that was to say, offers of a favourable kind having been made it was thought desirable to take advantage of them and purchase detached houses on reasonable terms, the Government feeling convinced that whenever a great purchase might have to be made, they would be in a better position by having already acquired some of the leases at moderate prices. Of course, the money was not lost, as it was invested in houses that paid rent, and were not unremunerative. With regard to the plans for the erection of Public Offices, submitted to the Committee, that of Mr. Mitford, which involved carrying the Mall through into Trafalgar Square, was, no doubt, a very fine one, but it would also be a very expensive one. The chief recommendation of that proposition was that it would have been a great metropolitan improve- ment; but the Government would not feel justified in expending the public money in effecting metropolitan improvements. The other plan—that of Sir Henry Hunt—would, no doubt, meet the requirements of the Public Offices; but it would involve a large expenditure, and the present was not an opportune moment for incurring it. The Government did not, therefore, come forward at present with any proposal on the subject.

was curious to know the amount of the legal and other expenses connected with the purchase?

said, the expenses were £303, out of which £200 was paid to the solicitor, and the remainder to the surveyor.

said, he did not rise to object to the Vote, but he wished for a fuller explanation of its specific object. This was a new expenditure, not contemplated when the Civil Service Estimates were submitted; and, therefore, it was desirable that something should be said as to the circumstances under which it was asked for. Unless those circumstances were of a very remarkable character, the Government was scarcely justified in asking in the Supplementary Estimates for a Vote which ought to be placed in the Estimate for the year. He objected to it on these general grounds, though, no doubt, the Vote might prove to be a very valuable one. He thought the discussions on Votes as between Ireland and Scotland were very much to be deplored; the money ought to be considered to be voted not on the principle of giving so much to Scotland and so much to Ireland, but on the merits of each particular proposition submitted to the Committee. They ought not to hear suggestions of bargains being made between Irish and Scotch Members for returning each other's support in reference to money grants. The main consideration in all such matters that ought to guide the judgment of hon. Members was whether the object to which the Vote was to be applied was a good one.

replied, that if the hon. Member looked to the Preamble of the Dublin Science and Art Museum Act, passed on the 14th August last year, he would find the following words:—

"Whereas it is expedient to promote the study of science and art and literature in Ireland, and for such purpose to make provision with respect to the erection of a Science and Art Museum, and the establishment of a National Library in Dublin, and with respect to such matters as are conducive to the above purposes, or incidental thereto, &c."

did not find fault with the amount of the Vote, but asked for further explanations as to its meaning? The Vote was for the Science and Art Museum, Dublin, and the explanation appended to it on the printed Estimates was that it was in consideration "for certain lands, buildings, &c, and also for certain Collections and Libraries;" but what, he asked, was meant by the latter? He was old enough to remember that when the noble Lord at the head of the Government had a seat in this House, and desired the House to grant money for the purchase of objects of art, he specified the treasures he proposed to buy. That was the proper course to take. The Estimates said certain "Collections and Libraries;" what collections and libraries were meant? It ought to be fairly stated what the money was wanted for, and not put down in that indefinite way which would cover anything.

said, this was not making a grant of additional money to Ireland, but it was merely pulling up arrears. It was a notorious fact, that for many years, Ireland never received the same amount in proportion to England for instruction in Science and Art. Even the sum now granted was a very small one, and something more was re- quired to put Dublin on the same footing as London, in reference to science and art teaching1.

again pressed for some further explanation of the Vote? He desired to know that value would be received for the money.

said, he was afraid his hon. Friend had failed last Session to watch the progress of the Bill which had now become an Act of Parliament. This Vote was simply in compliance with that Act, and was the engagement to which the hon. Gentleman himself was a party. By Section 5 of the Dublin Science and Art and Museum Act, it was provided that—

"The consideration to be given or paid by the Commissioners for the transfer of the Society's lands, and the Collections of the Society, shall be a sum of £10,000, to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament."

asked for an explanation of the items?

said, the Vote showed a large increase over last year, and it was too bad that there should be no information given by the President of the Board of Trade as to the cause of this increase. Many parts of the world still required to be provided with lighthouses, and it was not fair that the Committee should be called upon to increase the Vote year by year for one or two lighthouses without any explanation being given, either as to the state of these lights, or as to why some coasts were so favoured by the Board of Trade, to the neglect of other coasts.

said, there were several sums under this Vote that were made up of one numeral and two cyphers. Of course, such a method of making up accounts was free from embarrassment and easy to calculate; but it was strange that the level amounts should always be reached. Under one sub-head, for instance, the oil that from delay in shipment was not charged in the Estimates for the year was put down at £700; the wages of the crew of the extra tender at £500, and Repairs at £600.

thought some further information ought to be afforded to the Committee upon the item of £290—the expenses of a lightkeeper returning to England, and sending out a new lightkeeper to the Falkland Islands. It appeared a large sum; and although there might be no occasion to divide about it, the Committee ought to have particulars as to how it was spent.

said, the item of £290 was charged in consequence of a lighthouse keeper having to be sent out by the Trinity House to the Falkland Islands to fill the place of another who had fallen ill. Other items were for the repair of the various lighthouses in harbours, and for the accommodation of an assistant lightkeeper. As to the observations of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), some of these payments were for contracts entered into for the year at specific amounts.

said, it was impossible that it could have cost £290 to send a lightkeeper out to the Falkland Islands in a boat. Less than half the amount would have paid his passage.

said, the hon. Gentleman must remember that there was also the expense attendant upon the return of the lightkeeper who had been replaced, and was obliged to come home.

asked for some explanation of the payment to counsel who did not form part of the recognized staff of Parliamentary draftsmen. The Select Committees which sat two or three years ago on the Office of Parliamentary Counsel laid down that he should be responsible for all Bills drafted; but, since that time, it appeared that the principle then laid down had been departed from, and that large sums were now paid to counsel outside the Office for drafting Bills.

said, it struck him that this was one of the most objectionable Votes in the Estimates. They paid under the Estimate £3,000 a-year to the Parliamentary counsel, £2,000 to an assistant counsel, £200 to a clerk, £150 to another clerk, and there were other small expenses—in all £5,500. They also took in the original Estimate for additional assistance, £1,700 as fees to counsel. The Government now asked them for £900 in addition; so that while the total expenditure under the Estimates for Parliamentary counsel, with clerks and expenses, came to £5,500, they actually were asked to pay, in addition to the original sum, £2,600 as fees for other counsel outside the Office, or an increase of one-half over the sum first asked for. This was most objectionable, and he felt quite unable to comprehend the meaning of it. The note put down was to the effect that a large additional expense outside the Office had been rendered necessary in consequence of the Bills introduced into Parliament during the Session of 1877. The Session was generally admitted to have been a barren one; but it certainly had not been barren in counsel's fees. Unless he had a satisfactory explanation, he should be inclined to move the reduction of the Vote.

said, the explanation in this case was not a very difficult one. The Treasury was very conscious of the inconvenience that would result in having, in any case where it could be avoided, to go to counsel outside the recognized staff for assistance in preparing Bills. At] the same time, he must remind the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, that although it was true that the number of Bills which passed last Session might not have equalled some more productive years, still a large number of Bills were prepared and laid on the Table which passed some of their stages, but which, owing to various circumstances, did not arrive at maturity. Those Bills had to be prepared by a draftsman. One of them—the Bankruptcy Bill—cost in preparation between £800 and £900, that measure having been most expensive on account of the many complicated provisions it contained. The Parliamentary counsel was obliged to employ outside assistance, partly from the strain in his own Office, and partly from the technical nature of the Bill. The same explanation applied to another Bill. The Treasury endeavoured, as far as possible, to see that the preparation of Bills connected with the various Departments was conducted through the Parliamentary Draftsman's Office; and an additional Minute had been recently circulated, calling attention to the constitution of the Office.

objected to the amount of the Vote. He said he had some doubt as to the expediency of the Commission altogether, and he certainly saw no reason why the cost of it should go on increasing year by year, as it had done for some considerable time past.

wished to know whether the Civil Service Examiners had been engaged elsewhere than in London? It was very desirable that facilities should be afforded to such young men as wished it to be examined locally; otherwise the expense would be so great that many men whom it would be advantageous to have in the Civil Service of the country would be debarred from presenting themselves for examination. If examinations took place in local centres, he should not think it would be necessary to maintain as large a staff of Examiners in London as might otherwise be necessary.

said, the Examining Staff was not a permanent body, but were engaged with reference to the particular examinations which had from time to time to be held. Last year there was an increase in the number of candidates for the Army examinations, and a decrease in the others; but there was, at the same time, a costly examination held at the instance of the Privy Council Office. There was, he might say, an increasing disposition to hold the examinations locally, wherever practicable, on account of the mutual convenience; but it did not necessarily follow that the fact of their being so held would decrease the number of Examiners necessary to be engaged in London.

referring to the new regulations in regard to the examinations for the Indian Civil Service, said, the Civil Service might have conferred great advantages upon England and Scotland; but in Ireland the advantages had not been found to be nearly so great. In England and Scotland education was so widely diffused that almost all the places of honour and profit in the Civil Service were within the grasp of young men who might aspire to them; but in Ireland they had no forms of higher education really intended to reach the mass of the people. The consequence was that in Ireland the talent of the country was lying waste and unproductive; except in so far as some young men, who had not in Ireland the means of completing their education, had obtained as much as possible in their own country, and had then completed the work in England, before presenting themselves for examination. It was the fact, however, that certain recent regulations issued by the Government had shut out conscientious Roman Catholics from the benefits of the Indian Civil Service examinations. Down to a recent date Catholic students, educated in the Catholic University in Ireland, who passed the examination for the Indian Civil Service, became entitled on so passing to allowances of £150 for the first and £200 for the second year devoted to the study of the Native languages and other matters with which it was necessary for the student to become acquainted before he could usefully enter the Service. As he (Mr. O'Donnell) was informed, Her Majesty's Government, in cases where Catholic students come up for examination, refused to grant them the ordinary sustenance allowance which was still granted to the non-Catholic persuasion, which system he did not think just. A young Irishman had no chance of entering the India Civil Service unless he abandoned Catholic University teaching, and accepted that of one of the mixed Universities in England. Oxford and Cambridge were, however, considered by no means advantageous in a Catholic point of view. It thus happened that Catholic students who passed the Indian Civil Service examination would be deprived of the allowance given to their Protestant compeers unless they went to Universities in England and Ireland which were contrary to their religious convictions. He could not see that the Civil Service Commission had claims upon the support of Irishmen, seeing that its operation was unfairly worked for the benefit of one class of Her Majesty's servants and the disadvantage of another. He should be glad to hear that he was misinformed; but he was afraid that matters stood as he had been informed.

said, he wished for some explanation of the great increase in the charge for pauper lunatics. The original estimate was £470,000; the present additional sum required was £50,412. The foot-note to the Vote was a somewhat curious one, and required that something should be said concerning it. The note was as follows:—

"The number of pauper lunatics in respect of whose maintenance the grant of 4s. a week is made proved much higher than had been expected in consequence, to a considerable extent, of the additional asylum accommodation which had become available."

said, there had been an extraordinary increase of this Vote in recent years, and the fact was not explained to his satisfaction by the foot-note, which stated that "it is also necessary to provide for certain Arrear Charges properly belonging to 1876–7."

said, he could not wonder that an explanation of the Vote should be asked, although the growth of the Vote was both natural and unavoidable. The excess could not, however, have been anticipated, because the repayments in respect to pauper lunatics were not made until the completion of the half-yearly audit, which began shortly after Michaelmas, and was not completed so as to become a charge upon the Department until Lady Day, or even later than that, in the following year. Many of the lunatics now chargeable were in private houses before they entered the asylums as pauper lunatics. His hon. and gallant Friend was probably aware that a very large asylum was opened last year in the county of Middlesex, capable of accommodating 1,700 patients. Another large asylum was opened in Lancashire. All these additions to the number of asylums came suddenly on the Department. They could not be known beforehand, inasmuch as the Department had no means of ascertaining what additional accommodation was about to be provided by counties and boroughs. When, however, new asylums were erected, lunatics were placed in them by the operation of the law, and the policy of Parliament most distinctly had been to relieve the ratepayers somewhat from the higher and excessive charge which the maintenance of lunatics in asylums undoubtedly entailed. It was said that many of the inmates of lunatic asylums were persons who ought not to be there at all. Well, that had been found out too late. The asylums had been built under the provisions of Acts of Parliament, and the policy of the Commissioners for many years had been to get the lunatics maintained in these asylums, and not to allow them to be kept either in the workhouses or amongst their friends at home. That being so, the asylums became full, and then it was discovered that many of the chronic and imbecile cases in the asylums might perhaps as well have been out of the asylums, if there were other proper places for them. The County Government Bill, introduced by him in the present Session, contained provisions for the cheaper maintenance of lunatics of this kind, and he believed that that would prove to be one of the most useful parts of the measure. During a series of years, as his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had found, there had been a large increase in the total number of pauper lunatics maintained in asylums; and as from time to time new asylums were opened, a still larger number of cases would be swept in, and that, of course, must cause a further increase in the Vote. There was no doubt, however, that the whole of this money-was properly expended, and no subventions were paid till after the accounts had been duly audited.

could not help thinking that, in consequence of the grant of 4s. per head, there were in the lunatic asylums a great number of cases which ought not to be there. It was necessary, by some means or other, to sift the cases; and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would be able to meet this difficulty before another 4s. per head was granted; for,, otherwise, Parliament must insist that a cheaper provision should be made for lunatics. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the County Government Bill would meet the case to a very considerable extent, and he had no doubt that counties would be willing to avail themselves of that clause.

thought there had been a very great disposition to sweep into lunatic asylums and to treat scientifically a class of people who might very well be retained in their own homes. He came from a county—namely, Fife—which was supposed to be peculiarly lunatic. For a long time past he had seen lunatic asylums growing and growing; but he must say his own impression was that a very large proportion of those people were those who in Scotland were called "Fifeish," and need not be treated scientifically in asylums.

said, that in the county with which he was connected there was a complaint that the subvention of 4s. per head in the case of lunatics resulted in persons being sent to the asylums who ought not to be placed there. He was very glad the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had brought this matter under the attention of the Committee; because he had a strong impression that the rates were increasing in volume, and he doubted very much whether the country got a proper return for the expenditure. He hoped that the Government would bear this in mind, and that they would not be so ready as they had hitherto been to grant subventions which tended to very heavy expenditure.

thought the Report of the Select Committee on Lunacy, which was presented last Session, should satisfy hon. Gentlemen that there was very little ground for believing that the people of this country were becoming lunatics in greater numbers than they did formerly. At the beginning of the pre- sent century they had few places for the confinement of persons afflicted with mental disease. But since Parliament had seen fit that asylums should be provided, it was but natural that the relatives of persons suffering from mental disease should take advantage of those institutions, and that Poor Law Guardians should remove lunatics from the wards of workhouses. Those circumstances were the chief cause of the apparent increase in the number of lunatics.

observed that, at all events, there was an increase in the number of pauper lunatics. He was visitor of the pauper lunatic asylum in the county of Kent for several years, and he might mention that during the last few years the county had been obliged to build a very large additional asylum. His right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War resided in that part of the county, and probably knew something about it. Undoubtedly, it was a fact that the number of pauper lunatics had very largely increased, and that it was still on the increase. It had been alleged that the great amount of railway travelling was one cause of lunacy; but, at all events, that did not affect the pauper class, and it remained for the medical faculty to find out the reason for the increase. He could not join his hon. Friend opposite in deploring the large addition of persons in the asylums; because, in his judgment, it was much better that lunatics should be under public supervision, instead of being kept in private houses of the smallest description, where they could not be properly looked after, and where they, by their presence, would often be doing serious injury to the other members of the family. For that reason, he was desirous that this sum should be voted.

thought that a certain class of lunatics might be maintained at a cheaper rate in detached portions of the asylum buildings set apart for their reception. The right hon. Gentleman had not shown sufficient grounds for his proposal that a considerable addition should be made to the number of lunatics sent to workhouses.

denied that he had ever advocated anything of the sort. He had advocated sending them to their imbecile asylums.

having had experience in the management of a large lunatic asylum, wished to point out that asylums were maintained for two objects. The first was to cure persons mentally diseased, and he did not think the country would grudge the expenditure of money when it was likely to restore the valuable gift of reason to those who were unhappily bereft of it. A considerable percentage of the patients were cured; but a large class who were not cured drifted into what might be called chronic lunacy. The latter class, he thought, might be drafted into other houses maintained on a less expensive scale than the lunatic asylums. Whether such houses should be separate buildings or attached to the lunatic asylums was a matter of minor consideration. The point he wished to bring before the Committee was that the chief function of asylums was the cure of lunacy, and not the detention of those who were incurable.

said, the House was first told that the Mint was to be removed to a spot near White-friars, and next that it was to be removed to a place near the Savoy. He wished to know whether it was intended to remove the Mint; and, if so, where it was to be removed to?

was afraid he could not give his hon. and learned Friend, at this moment, the information he required. The subject was under consideration.

said, one item in the Vote was for "loss on worn silver coin withdrawn from circulation," and it was said that "more worn silver coin had been sent in from the Colonies than had been anticipated." Was it to be understood that this country was to bear the loss on the wear of silver coin in the Colonies? In some Colonies the dollar was the current silver coin, while other Colonies—notably Australia—used the shilling, and had a Mint of their own. He wanted to know whether this country was to bear the expense of re-coining the dollar or the shilling, where there was a Colonial Mint? Considering the present state of the silver question, the charge might become a very large one indeed in the course of a few years.

requested the right hon. Gentleman to repeat his question on some other occasion. He could not give an answer off-hand.

said, that a part of the Vote was for "otherlegal charges," and the Vote explained that the excess was caused by the heavy expenses of the Wigan Church case. Now, he complained that the Public Works Loan Commissioners had not exercised sufficient diligence in the discharge of their duties in lending money on the security of the Wigan church rates. The country had already lost a large sum, and being further called on to vote a considerable sum for legal expenses incurred from insufficient security having been taken, he pressed the Government to postpone the Vote until explanatory Papers had been placed upon the Table.

admitted that the result of the litigation had not been satisfactory; but the Government had no alternative but to adopt the course they recommended to the Committee.

hoped the Vote would not be pressed until the Papers referred to had been produced.

considered the figures inserted in the Vote were misleading, and required explanation.

said, with regard to the Wigan Church case, no doubt the result had not been, on the whole, satisfactory. Still, it was not a matter for which either the Treasury or the Government could be held responsible. In 1870 the Public Works Loan Commissioners took proceedings in the Court of Queen's Bench for the recovery of the debt due in respect to the Church, and they got a verdict; but this verdict was subsequently reversed.

asked that the Vote might be postponed until they had before them all the Papers relating to the matter. He com- plained of the manner in which many of those loans were obtained; and it was desirable there should be the utmost publicity given to all the facts connected with them. The detailed accounts of all the loans by the Public Works Loan Commissioners were seen to be in arrears for more than seven years. It was time that full and complete accounts should be rendered. Indeed, it would be easy for the Public Works Loan Commissioners to issue an annual statement of all the loans outstanding.

described this loan as a public scandal, and said it had long been viewed in that light by the people of Wigan. The fact was that the Church authorities in Wigan obtained several thousand pounds from the Public Works Loan Commissioners, and the Commissioners had incurred heavy legal charges in endeavouring to get the money back. They had failed to obtain repayment of the money, though they had appealed to a Court of Law; and it appeared to him the whole business was a blunder on the part of the Commissioners. No doubt the Secretary to the Treasury was correct when he said the Government could not be blamed for the prolonged litigation which had taken place; but the Committee had a right to have all the facts before it, prior to being asked to vote this money. He should not have spoken with so much confidence on this subject had it not been for the fact that a year or two ago a clergyman in Wigan sent him an account of the proceedings, and characterized them as a public scandal, to which attention ought to be drawn. The Church authorities got hold of several thousand pounds, and the authorities from whom they obtained it were unable to get it back again. What the Church authorities in Wigan ought to have done was to have raised the money in some manner or other, in order to prevent the legal proceedings which had taken place.

said, the Vote they were now asked for was not money advanced to the Church, but money expended in legal proceedings trying to get the other amount back again. They had not only lost the money which was originally advanced, but the amount now objected to, which had been expended in trying to get the other sum back. No doubt the Treasury had done their duty; and he did not see how they could save the money if they postponed the Vote.

contended what the Public Works Loan Commissioners had done formed a very bad precedent, and that they ought to be put in possession of all the Papers, and have further time for discussion before passing the Vote.

considered that there was a discrepancy in the Vote which had not been explained.

admitted that it might have been more correct to have stated the Vote in a different form; but the whole of these expenses had arisen out of proceedings which the Public Works Loan Commissioners thought it necessary to institute, and those proceedings had been defeated by the decisions of the Courts of Law. MR. RAMSAY said, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman admitted the Estimate might have been more correctly stated, he should withdraw any further opposition.

Mr. Raikes, I propose to withdraw this Vote. The money is not at present required. It was put into the Estimates in order to afford hon. Members an opportunity of discussing the subject of a provisional arrangement entered into between the Treasury and Mr. Hansard with a view to improve the report of our debates; but, as I stated in answer to the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) at an earlier period of the evening, I think it will be convenient that this arrangement should be referred to a Select Committee. It will, therefore, probably be the most convenient course to take any discussion which may be desired on the appointment of the Committee. I say this the more because we are now in a difficult position as regards time; and I must point out that unless we are able to finish these Estimates to-night—which I am afraid will be rather difficult—we shall be obliged to ask the House to sit to-morrow morning. Possibly, we may even then be in some difficulty in getting through the Estimates this week. In order to get the Appropriation Act for these Supplemental Estimates passed before the close of the financial year, it will be necessary we should get the Vote passed, and, if possible, reported by Saturday. Thursday—the next Government night—has been promised long since to the Scotch Members for the discussion on the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Bill, and I cannot propose to disturb that arrangement. Therefore, if we are not able to finish the Estimates to-night, I must ask the House to sit to-morrow morning. I do not wish to occupy further time; but I withdraw the Vote now before the Committee.

said, he understood the arrangement which had been entered into was this—that Mr. Hansard was to have £3,000 for the purpose of publishing extended Reports of the proceedings of the House during the meetings in Committee and late at night.

rose to Order. There was no Motion before the Committee, the Chancellor of the Exchequer having withdrawn the Vote.

The hon. Member (Mr. J. Cowen) is perfectly in Order, because the Question before the Committee is that the Vote be withdrawn.

said, he was not accustomed to speak without having something to say; and, if the hon. Gentleman would only wait, he would find he had something to state which was quite appropriate to the Motion before the Committee. As he understood, the Government had promised to give Mr. Hansard £3,000. Now, in consequence of that promise, Mr. Hansard had entered into certain engagements in respect to reporting. The question he (Mr. J. Cowen) desired to ask was whether, now that the Government proposed to withdraw this Vote, the engagement with Mr. Hansard would be fulfilled? If that engagement was not carried out, it must place Mr. Hansard in an extremely unpleasant and disadvantageous position.

The arrangement entered into with Mr. Hansard is a provisional one, and for the remainder of the financial year, which ends on the 31st of March. It was also to be subject to the approval of the House. I hope there will be no difficulty in meeting the claim of Mr. Hansard.

was very sorry the right hon. Gentleman had been obliged to withdraw this matter to-night. In his opinion, it was a very good proposition; and, if Mr. Hansard had made arrangements to carry on this reporting, it was scarcely fair to withdraw the Vote in this way. Let them be fair to Mr. Hansard; and, if the Vote was not to be proceeded with to-night, the sooner it was brought forward again the better. Many hon. Gentlemen had come down to the House to support this Vote, and they had been placed in rather awkward circumstances by its having been withdrawn.

said, he understood that on the appointment of the Committee the Chancellor of the Exchequer would allow the discussion on the subject to take place.

did not understand and required explanation as regarded two matters mentioned in the Vote. First, there was an item of £107 for drafting a Bill to amend the law relating to the registration of assurances in Ireland; and, in the second place, £300 was charged for travelling expenses. Perhaps this latter sum had something to do with the late alteration in the personnel of the Chief Secretary's Office; but, as a rule, he thought too much expense was incurred in travelling between Dublin and London. It was certainly one of the disadvantages of having the nominal seat of Government in Dublin and the real seat of Government in London; but these repeated journeys had to be made by officials who looked upon them, no doubt, as very pleasant trips at the expense of the country. In these days of the telegraph and the Post Office, he considered they might well be able to cut down this item of expenditure.

said, it was absolutely necessary that a certain number of journeys should be made between the Government Offices in Dublin and London, and this number must vary from year to year. As to the charge for drafting the Bill for the Registration of Assurances, it was prepared by a gentleman with eminent qualifications for the task. After it had been very fully gone into, a Royal Commission was appointed to consider the whole matter, and the Bill would be of use to that Commission.

asked how it was that the salaries of the Admiralty Legal Branch had been omitted from the original Estimate?

wished to remind those hon. Members who cried out for the luxury of a Public Prosecutor, what they had in store if such an appointment took place. The present Vote was an example of what they would have to provide in the shape of legal expenses.

admitted that the cost for criminal prosecutions during the past year had been very considerable. The amount of legal business now transacted for the Treasury, and which was borne on the Navy Estimates for the year 1876–7, caused an increase of something like £6,700, which had to be provided for. That constituted a transfer simply from the Admiralty to the Treasury, which it was deemed desirable to make for the sake of uniformity. A further increase of the Vote was due to the expenses which had been incurred in certain protracted criminal eases.

protested against the growing custom of unduly prolonging criminal proceedings in their earlier stages. A great deal of time was wasted in that way; while juries were subjected to a very severe and, in his opinion, quite unnecessary amount of inconvenience and even positive suffering.

expressed his concurrence in the view which the hon. Baronet had taken. The enormous increase of £21,000 under the head of criminal prosecutions was, he thought, due to the re-duplication of evidence before the Police Courts, and afterwards before the Judges. It was now, in fact, the practice to try a man twice over, and he had observed with, surprise that in the cases of the Queen v. Meiklejohn and the Queen v. Benson, the proceedings had occupied a longer time before the magistrates than when the defendants had afterwards been tried at the Central Criminal Court. In his opinion, that length of time was unnecessary; for all the magistrates had to do was to ascertain that there was a strong primâ facie ease against a prisoner, in order to justify them in committing him for trial.

said, he entirely differed from his hon. and learned Friend who had just spoken, and hoped that no magistrates would be so far misled as to follow his advice. Unless a case were thoroughly investigated before a magistrate, very great dissatisfaction would, he thought, be the result. A magistrate, he contended, instead of being satisfied with a merely primâ facie case against a prisoner, should hear all the evidence which could be adduced against him, so that when he was placed upon his trial before a Judge, he might know what it was which he was called upon to answer. It would be a gross injustice to a prisoner if he were sent to prison upon what to the justices might seem a primâ facie case, and at his trial he were to be confronted with any number of witnesses, not one of whom had he seen, or had an opportunity of cross-examining, or of rebutting their evidence. The public were very jealous, indeed, upon the subject of a prisoner having a fair trial; and he hoped no change would be made which would tend to lessen their confidence in the fair administration of justice.

was not surprised to see so large a sum as £21,000 charged in the Estimates, when the protracted trials which had so much excited the attention of the public last year were taken into account. He looked upon the charge, however, as most preposterous.

suggested the propriety, in the case of very long and complicated trials, of giving juries somewhat ampler remuneration than they received at present. The country, he thought, would not grudge the outlay for such a purpose, and it would tend to popularize the jury system.

objected to the item of £231 for Medals and Prizes. The standard of education, he contended, in the Queen's University in Ireland was ridiculously low, and to lay out money upon it as proposed was neither more nor less than subsidizing a great institution to degrade public instruction. He had some personal experience of the results of the system pursued in the University. He recollected having obtained a Scholarship in modern languages, a second in political economy, and a third in law and jurisprudence; but he had had a competitor only on one occasion, and he, having failed, was rewarded with an exhibition. In the Queen's College, Cork, too, he found that exhibitions were last year given to all the unsuccessful candidates. Such a system' under which some sort of prize was awarded to everybody was productive of evil both inside and outside the University. The attraction of an University degree was perverted to a lure to draw pupils from the schools of the country before they were really fit to go to the University. But when to the attractions of a degree those of pecuniary emoluments were added, the result was still more injurious to the schools, for it directly tended to lower their standard of education. If there were a high standard for the examination at the University boys would not, of course, leave the public schools until they had become masters of that high standard; but once a low standard of examination was established, then, of course, confusion was carried into the whole system of intermediate education. The Government had promised to introduce a Bill dealing with intermediate education in Ireland. He did not know what the proposals were which they intended to make on the subject; but one of the first steps they ought to take, he maintained, was to reform or remove a so-called University which was pushing down intermediate education and driving the grammar schools of Ireland back more and more into the condition of elementary schools. There was, he might add, no end to the variety of the degrees conferred by the Queen's University, which the Committee was asked to encourage by granting money to be laid out in prizes and scholarships. The University did not in any way deserve the patronage of the House of Commons; and to squander the money of the State upon it would be not to support, but to injure and degrade education. The Queen's Colleges were first established purely for the purpose of giving liberal and general instruction to the youth of Ireland. It was not even contemplated to have in them professional schools, or that a University degree should be given to engineering or medical students. Now, however, from the hour an engineering student entered the University to the hour he left it with his degree, he was not required to attend a single class of general liberal education. In the same way, the 500 medical students, accounted a credit to the University, could not be counted as University students; and the institution that palmed them off as results of a University system was not acting fairly by the country; and those parties who were trying to hide the failure of the Queen's University were not discharging their trust to that House nor their duty to Ireland; but, on the contrary, were doing all in their power to support a sham education which was a failure and a mass of false pretences. He did not say a word against the medical education which was given in the University as medical examination. They knew that before the Queen's University was established there were medical schools at Cork and at Belfast; but no one thought that on that account general education was provided for at Belfast and at Cork. He looked upon these things as part of the same system of conferring small pecuniary rewards and petty distinctions, which were only of value so far as their nature was unknown. The gold medal at the Queen's University only represented that the man who held it had been successful in a competition against men very imperfectly educated. He might have a certain amount of special knowledge; but his gold medal was no mark of general culture. He had known men of the University plucked in competition against boys scraped together from schools of the better sort. The gold medal carried with it no guarantee of culture; and he protested against an institution conducted on such a principle, and against public funds being any longer voted to bolster it up. He should be glad to hear any explanation the Government might have to offer—but he could not suppose it would be satisfactory?—for pressing this extra demand on the public purse. If it were satisfactory, however, he should be happy to accept it; but he made those observations in the hope that they might learn something from the Government that might preclude the necessity for further proceedings against that institution.

said, that the hon. Member who had just sat down had on a former occasion, in the present Session, called attention to that subject, when he had brought in a Bill affecting the Queen's University and the Queen's Colleges; and he had told them that evening that there had never been any contradiction to his statements, and that there could be no doubt those institutions were an entire failure. He took care, on the last occasion when he introduced this subject, that there should be no answer to his statements upon it, for he talked out his own Bill, and so sufficiently prevented a reply. On this occasion, he (Mr. Plunket) was quite prepared-and on future occasions, also, he should be prepared—to answer him, in a manner which he trusted the hon. Member would judge—from the sample he (Mr. Plunket) was now about to give—to be ample and adequate. It would, of course, be out of Order for him (Mr. Plunket), at present, to refer further to what passed when the hon. Member introduced his Bill. But from the reply which he (Mr. Plunket) would now make to the latest utterance of the hon. Member, perhaps the House would be satisfied as to what amount of credit should be attached to what he said. The hon. Member, in stating his case against these institutions, no doubt ought to be able to speak, as he claimed to do, with some authority on the subject, as it was altogether in them that he acquired whatever knowledge he possessed; and among the Irish people, ever since he left the Queen's College, he had been, as they learned from the Irish papers, devoting himself to the task of denouncing and calumniating the University in which alone he obtained his education. The hon. Member had certainly made some very serious charges this evening; but he had not directed them against the political principles, or the system of education adopted in these Institutions; and he would confine himself to that which he had brought forward—namely, that which he alleged to be a gross excess of prizes given in the Queen's Colleges. Having condemned these institutions as a huge machinery for the degradation of learning, one might have thought that the hon. Member would have gone on to describe the sort of graduate that was turned out by a system whose machinery he had so much disparaged; for it was a matter of no small importance to the public what kind of value was to be attached to these degrees. He (Mr. Plunket) would explain his own ideas on this subject, in order that the House might contrast them with those of the hon. Member for Dungarvan. A University graduate should, he held, be one whose mind was stored with the fruits of deep and earnest study; whose habits of thought had been refined by the influences of ancient and modern classics, and whose manners had been polished by intercourse with the best and brightest spirits of his time—one, in fact, who enjoyed that most winning of all charms—the character of a scholar and a gentleman. Such a man would certainly secure in his College career the respect and affection of his companions, and would probably carry with him through his life a well-deserved popularity. The hon. Member had, however, assured the House that the graduates of the Queen's University were the exact opposites of all of this; but the only argument he had adduced in support of that assertion was that he had—in order to exemplify the kind of article turned out by the damaging process he had described—exhibited himself to the House as one who had obtained successively three prizes and a degree in the Queen's University. So far as that illustration of his proposition went, it was not for him (Mr. Plunket) to dispute the fulness of the proof. This much, however, he would say?—that in the Profession to which he had himself belonged in Ireland, some of the most distinguished men he ever met—men who were at the head of that Profession—were the graduates, and the distinguished honourmen, of that very University, and of those very Colleges which the hon. Gentleman had assailed. It had been his misfortune to be beaten by some of these—and he was proud to have been defeated by them. But he need not go outside the walls of that House for confirmation of those statements, for next to the hon. Member for Dungarvan on the benches opposite sat one of the hon. Members for Galway Town (Dr. Ward)—a Member to whom the House always listened with pleasure and advantage—and he had been an alumnus and a Professor of the College at Galway, and he appealed to that excellent and popular Member as another proof of what the Queen's University could do. The hon. Gentleman who introduced that Resolution had, in support of his ease, boldly stated a number of cases, without giving any notice, and with which, therefore, he (Mr. Plunket) could not at that moment pretend to grapple in detail; but he had also told them, generally, that the students who were professional students in the Queen's Colleges and the Queen's University were wholly devoid of any general education, except such as they might have accidentally scraped together in going through those institutions. Well, he could tell the House of many of his own friends in Ireland—men eminent for their learning—who did get there the remarkable scholarship and ability he had found in them. But he would ask the Committee to permit him to read to them what the fact was, as stated by one of the officials whose business it was to manage the affairs of Queen's University, and they would then see how far it was true that professional knowledge only was absolutely necessary for the degrees and honours of the University. [Having quoted from the Secretary of the Queen's University, to show that there was no remission of the Arts curriculum, in order to enable professional students to come in, but that the Arts studied in the general curricula were, to a considerable extent, incorporated in the requirements of professional students, the hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that no one went to these institutions except for the sake of getting the prizes.] He would not detain the Committee by going through the whole of the prizes; but he would just state a few facts which he also had on the authority of the Secretary of the Queen's University. At the examination, in October, 1877, to the prizes obtained at which that Supplemental Estimate had reference, it appeared that 363 candidates were examined. Of that number, 66 received prizes; about one in six received honours of the first and second class; but to the candidates for the higher degrees, only about one in 14. He could state that as an absolute fact with regard to the Queen's University; but he would compare that result with the University of Oxford, and he was informed by the same authority that whereas about £5,000, including £4,500 of public money, was annually distributed among 810 students, giving about an average of £6 for each student, in the University of Oxford there was distributed annually about £80,000 among the 3,000 undergraduates, which gave an average of about £26 per student. Therefore, by the arguments of the critics of the Queen's University, the reason why Oxford got more students was that it bribed them four times as much! He (Mr. Plunket) asserted that those attacks stood without proof, and had really no substantial foundation whatever. He (Mr. Plunket) stated himself that he had met over and over again, in every walk of life, most distinguished men and ripe scholars, who had been turned out by those institutions. He knew that the Art students were, as a rule, even more busy and more earnest in their work than those who attended the University, and he took the reason to be, that they belonged to a class who did not go to the University to pass away their time. They were men who looked to their University studies as the means whereby they might afterwards earn their livelihood in the world, and who thus acquired knowledge that was useful to themselves and to the country. And were Englishmen and Scotchmen to be made to believe that they had devoted time and trouble for nothing, and that the degree they had obtained was so bad it had no authority and gave no guarantee It was a most unjust proceeding. It implied that those who gave away those prizes had been guilty of a gross abuse of their trust; that they had lavished honours where they were not wanted; that they had given degrees and awarded standards of excellence that were unfounded and untrue. And he said it was unjust and untrue to stamp all those young men who had worked hard to win those distinctions, and trusted to go out into the world and make their way with them, to tell the assembled Commons that it was all a sham and a humbug, and that they deserved nothing for their pains. How harsh must be the acrimony—how vindictive the enmity that instigated these calumnies? Such cruel charges ought not to be brought forward on no more attractive argument than the hon. Gentleman had, in his own person, offered. He would now only say, in addition, that if the hon. Gentleman should think it prudent again to bring forward accusations of that kind, and gave him a fair opportunity for dealing with them, he would undertake to answer him fully; but he hoped that, as far as the present occasion at least was concerned, he had satisfactorily and adequately fulfilled his expectations.

said, he had had the honour and the pleasure of a long connection with the Queen's University, and many of the most pleasant and most useful of his days had been passed under its shelter; but, at the same time, they must not shut their eyes to facts. The Vote had been before the House for years, and they were now asked to go another step in strengthening an institution which had been set up in Ireland in direct opposition to the wishes of the people, and set up by a Government which, at the same time, refused to meet their wishes. They were asked to make further provision for the requirements of youth in Ireland, at the same time that the House was aware that the people of Ireland had all along protested against those institutions, and had asked that, at least, the House would allow those who had conscientious convictions against them to possess one of their own, to which they might go, and to which they might send their own children. That was the whole issue before the Committee. They had a fair right to demand an explanation on that point. It was true the prizes were not great, but they were large for a poor country; and there was this remarkable fact—that those portions of the Queen's University which dealt with Art was founded by that House, and endowed by that House, for the purpose of spreading liberal education in Art. If they came to the Colleges of the country—to that of Galway, for example—they found an extraordinary state of things. It was true that at Belfast they had more students on the lists; but at Belfast there were peculiar conditions in connection with the Presbyterian Church which made the number relatively large. In Gralway College, however, they found students exceedingly few. Galway, in fact, had not more than 40 students, and Cork not more than 50. It was a fact, that in the whole Province of Munster they could not get more than 50 students to enter for the Art education given in the College at Cork. What he said was this—that Munster, with a large Catholic population, and that the great mass of the Irish people, refused, from conscientious motives, to avail themselves of those institutions. He did not object to their keeping them up; but he did object to their trying to force into them the Irish people, who refused, from conscientious convictions, to enter them. That was a point they had brought before them again and again; and when they persisted in refusing them their rights and in keeping up a system of religious intolerance, how could they wonder at their coming thence from Ireland to protest against their conduct? He thought they could meet the case very fairly. He could not see how they could even obtain in Galway and in Con-naught the fair results of their expenditure in money under the present system, while they refused them their just claims. Could not they give one College, say in Dublin—anywhere, in which a Roman Catholic could get his son educated without wrong to his College? What they proposed did not meet their just and conscientious convictions, and they would not dare act in a similar way in Scotland or in England. The Queen's University was a purely State University, and the whole education of Ireland was in the hands of the State, which Mr. John Stuart Mill had declared to be the worst state of things a nation could be under. That was the case in Ireland, however, from the primary school up to the University. On national grounds, therefore, they were bound to prevent their continuing to do in Ireland that which they would not do in Scotland or in England; and they must object to the Vote as one which would strengthen an institution which the Irish people disapproved of, unless they would meet their views in another way.

observed, that last year an arrangement was made with the Irish Party in reference to this Vote. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) had a Bill to which he attached great importance, and he had a sufficiently good position in the House to be able to ask the Government to give a day for the discussion of it without making any conditions. It was then understood that there was to be no debate on the Queen's University Bill—no substantial debate, at least, as to its principle—in -return for the Government allotting a day for a debate on the Catholic University Bill. That arrangement was faithfully kept by the Irish Members. The Irish Members voted in great force on the Catholic University Bill, and there were more than two to one in favour of the Bill. But when the news of the division was received in Ireland—of the large Irish Vote in favour of the Catholic University, and the still larger English vote against it—and when the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland was read, there was very great indignation excited. He thought the feeling in the country was that the people would be very sorry to see any money voted for the Queen's University without protests on their part, and protests as strong as the forms and customs of the House would permit. The House must also remember that when these Colleges were established the Irish revenue was not large,, and Ireland did not contribute so much to the Exchequer as it received. But now matters were changed; and after paying for the large military forces retained in Ireland—including the Constabulary—Ireland contributed a large sum to the Imperial Exchequer. As a consequence, every penny spent on these Universities came out of the pockets of the Irish people; and, therefore, even hon. Gentlemen opposite would surely admit that there was reason for the great indignation felt in Ireland that they were not permitted to spend their money in their own way. They had no objection to secular Colleges, and would readily vote money for them, if there were any secularists in Ireland; but they did object to Protestant Colleges being endowed and Catholic Colleges not being endowed, although the Catholics, from the manner in which the taxation was arranged, so as to fall on the lower classes, bore the greater part of the expense of that endowment. As a consequence, they had to maintain a system of education which they disliked, and which he would not say they despised—because it did a certain amount of good—but he would say that they had to pay for an education that they disliked. Though the system proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) was not a wise system, yet his Party infinitely preferred to let each sect do the best they could for themselves than to accept the present system, by which they were handicapped and placed at every possible disadvantage. It so happened, owing to a variety of circumstances, that they had not been able to protest as strongly as they would have liked against this Vote. The hon. and learned Member for the city of Limerick (Mr. Butt) did not bring in his University Bill until last year, because other measures stood in the way. But now circumstances had changed. They had discovered that hon. Gentlemen opposite were opposed to endowing a Catholic University, and knew what their course must be. It was true that they were helpless, and could not prevent their money being spent in a way they disliked; but, still, they could show their feeling on the subject to their countrymen by making a vigorous protest. He should very much wish to see the debate adjourned. The day previous was St. Patrick's Day, and many Members had not yet re- turned to the House. They had joined in voting the £700,000 asked of Ireland by the Government—for that was their proportion of the £6,000,000—for war preparations, and he now called upon the House and the Government to refuse to waste this money upon the education of the children of Ireland.

said, he would not follow either of the hon. Gentlemen who had last spoken into the very intricate subject of Irish University education, because there would be other and more satisfactory opportunities of doing so. He did not question the absolute propriety of the course they had taken; but he did think that this particular moment was not the best moment for the Amendment brought before them, or a peculiarly suitable means for discussing so great and wide a subject. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), who spoke with even more than his usual impetuosity, argued, from the fact of his being a prizeman of this University, that the University did not afford sufficient means of education.

said, he must beg to correct the hon. and gallant Member. In the first place, he never used the argument; and, in the second, as a joke this assertion was sufficiently played out already.

said, if he had been led into a misrepresentation, of course he would immediately withdraw it; but there was no doubt that the hon. Gentleman did press very strongly on the House that the standard of education was not such as to justify this large number of prizes. For his part, he thought that to go into an elaborate examination of the various systems of prizes which obtained in various places would not be a very profitable expenditure of public time. The point they had to deal with was that this system of prizes had been established for a considerable time in the Queen's University—he was told that the same system obtained at Cambridge—the prizes had been awarded, and it was not for one moment intended or attempted to be established that the candidates who had won them were in any way inferior to their predecessors. It was true that the number of prizes was in excess of last year; but that was due to the larger number of students in the University, and was no reason why these prizes rightly earned should be withheld. As to the very small item of excess, he thought that was very fully explained in the foot-note. The hon. Member for Dungarvan was so fully acquainted with the subject that he need not state what the prizes were, except to say they were distinctions of an exceedingly moderate character. He trusted, after this explanation, that the Committee would sanction the Vote.

said, that several hon. Members from Ireland still wished to speak; and, therefore, he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would take any more Votes after this? It was then a quarter-past 1; and as the last two speeches had each taken 20 minutes, if three more Members spoke the Vote would not be taken before a quarter-past 2.

said, he thought this a very reasonable proposal. The Government would finish this Vote, and take the rest of the Estimates at a Morning Sitting next day.

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted money for war purposes, and the Irish Members now freely offered him what he was tendering to them. It was really too bad thus to cram money down their throats that they did not want. Was it consistent, also, thus to take money with one hand and throw it away with the other? If money was wanted for the defence of England, let the Government take what they were needlessly squandering on this monstrous imposture. He complained very much of the Irish Members for allowing four Sessions to pass without bringing this matter up, and informing the House of the real nature and character of these Queen's Colleges. He knew something of the way in which these prizes were given; and he believed that if they stopped 20 men going through Temple Bar, and out of the 20 selected 10 of the most stupid, that 9 out of the 10 would get prizes in the Queen's Colleges in Ireland. In fact, to a certain class of students in Ireland this was a most profitable trade and occupation, and they were enabled to support themselves upon these prizes, so few of the men at these Colleges were genuine students. He hoped his Friends would resist to the last this attempt, not to spend money in the spread of educa- tion, but to bribe young men to take part in a system which otherwise had no merit.

said, his object in moving to reduce this Vote was by no means to afford amusement to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but to raise a thorough protest against this so-called University. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) was the advocatus—he would not say diaboli, but certainly the advocate—of an extremely unprepossessing defendant, and he seemed to have been very imperfectly informed even in regard to the poor merits of his very bad case. He would not refer to the personal remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman, especially as he enjoyed the advantage of an audience by no means favourable to himself; but in an assembly of their countrymen the hon. and learned Gentleman would soon find on whose side the feeling was. The hon. and learned Gentleman, to controvert his statement that in the medical schools the education of the students was purely professional, declared that they learnt chemistry and zoology. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman was more proficient in legal than he was in medical matters. It must be something new to the medical men in that House to learn that zoology and chemistry were outside the ordinary course of education of a medical man. The hon. and learned Gentleman also called attention to the wonderful fact that students of engineering were required to know a certain amount of geology and mathematics! It was with arguments of that sort that the hon. and learned Gentleman had been instructed to meet the facts quoted. Let the hon. and learned Gentleman ask the Professors what they thought. Professor Thompson, who formerly was a master of a school at Edinburgh, relating his experience to a trans-Atlantic audience, declared that, as a Queen's University Professor, he had to do the same work of elementary teaching as he did in Edinburgh. "Most of my first year students come to me utterly innocent of Greek," said the Professor, and yet the hon. and learned Gentleman extolled the character of the examination which admitted these students. He could produce any amount of evidence to this effect. Again, in the Report of the Endowed Schools Commissioners would be found what the schoolmasters had to say on the deleterious effect of the Queen's University College examinations upon the standard of intermediate education. The hon. and learned Gentleman, of course, had no exact acquaintance with the Queen's University system. He only came forward and volunteered his championship, because he found an Imperial institution under criticism, and because his sympathies were naturally attracted to the defence of a system which was condemned by the vast majority of his countrymen, and was defended by none but Members of that Party which had ever trampled on the rights of Irishmen. The hon. and learned Gentleman had compared the Queen's University with Oxford, and pointed out that while in Oxford one student out of every seven received prizes, in the Irish University the proportion was one in 14. But did he take the trouble to ascertain how many Arts students there were among the 300 and odd so-called University students whom he had quoted? If he had, he would have found that the proportion of prizes to students was by no means one in 14. He said nothing, be it remembered, against the quality of the professional teaching in the medical schools, because that was good and sound, and the medical degree was held in just honour. What they wanted in Ireland was the establishment of a University system, giving broad, liberal, and general culture. It was the Arts Faculty that had been a total failure in the Queen's University. First, it was a total numerical failure, and then, in defiance of the protests of the Queen's University graduates, the standard was lowered and the examination made a sham. This was a charge he had made, and would continue to make, till they had extorted from the Government a full and thorough examination into the system of Arts examination in the so-called Queen's University of Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman who, doubtless, meant to be accurate, said that he was only distinguished for his opposition to the University after he had left it. Had the hon. and learned Gentleman been better acquainted with the subject, he must have known that both as an undergraduate and as a graduate he (Mr. O'Donnell) was con- spicuous by his exposure of the evils of the system. He scarcely agreed with his Colleagues (Dr. Ward and Major Nolan) in their desire for the endowment of secular Colleges; but all he did say was that the Government were welcome to endow Colleges for mixed education, for Presbyterians, Protestants, Hindoos, and Mussulmans, if they choose; but the Catholics had a right to a system of education in conformity with their religious convictions; and as long as they were refused their share of the common taxation towards the support of an educational system in conformity with their views, they could not be expected to sanction the grant from their pockets of funds to be spent in the support of institutions intended to sap the religious convictions, to injure the faith, and to flout the religious opinion of the vast majority of the people of Ireland. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £231, the sum required for these extra prizes.

said, though the ability shown by hon. Members who were graduates of the Queen's University seemed to prove that the education given was scarcely so bad as they stated, yet he must remind the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) thought the Galway College so complete a failure that he left it out of his Pill on University Education. Apart from the question of the goodness or badness of the teaching, they had a right to consider what the majority of the nation thought. Now, in Ireland, 97 per cent of the people were Catholics, and he would venture to say that during the last 10 years not a single Catholic parent had sent his sons to a Queen's University. He hoped the Vote would not be allowed to pass without the most strenuou sopposition; because only in that way would they convince the Committee and the country how sincere was their demand for denominational teaching, not only in primary and intermediate education, but in University Education.

moved to reduce the Vote by £56. Hon. Gentlemen would see that there were five items in this sub-head. The first had just been challenged, and now he challenged the second, because he believed his constituency would wish every item of this Vote to be disputed. This was a question of great importance to Ireland, and he very much wished they might be allowed to adjourn the discussion till the next day. In the last division, so far as he could judge, but two Irish Members voted with the Government, while 20 voted against them. That division was a very fair representation of the feeling of the people of Ireland. For the last four Sessions they had hoped that the Government would do something for denominational education in Ireland. They believed that up to last June; but now that hope had vanished, and they could only do all that lay in their power to show the feeling of Ireland as regarded the present system.

said, everyone must acknowledge that it was only reasonable for hon. Gentlemen opposite to take any fair opportunity of discussing the principle of the grants to the Queen's Universities in Ireland; but he would venture to point out that the present occasion was scarcely the most convenient for raising the question. This was not the main Vote, for that would be proposed later on in the Session, but was merely a small Supplemental Vote to make up for some slight expenses incurred during the year, and to reimburse money already spent.

said, some of his hon. Friends were prepared to remain all night, if necessary, to oppose this Vote. It was unprecedented for the House to be in Committee of Supply from a quarter to 5 till nearly 2 o'clock in the morning; and he thought Progress should be reported. The Irish Members were determined that not a single penny of public money should be granted for the maintenance of the Queen's Colleges and University—founded, as they were, upon a system of education abhorrent to the vast majority of the Irish people—without the most strenuous resistance on their part. The Government must look this fact in the face. He wished to express his opinions on this subject; but the hour was so late, that it was utterly futile for him to attempt to do so. He moved to report Progress.

said, the opportunity which the hon. and learned Member asked for would come when the regular Estimates for the year were brought up for discussion. The Vote which they were now asked to reject was for the payment of gentlemen who had done their work in the belief that they would be paid. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Nolan) could scarcely wish the Committee to reject that item.

hoped that the Motion to report Progress would not be pressed, because that would make it seem as though his Friends wished to waste time, which was by no means their object. But the Government must be made aware that a change of resolution on this subject had taken place in Ireland, and that as the Representatives of the feeling, he and his Friends were determined that while they had a vote to give, or a voice to raise, this system should be opposed.

thought there were very strong objections, as a general rule, to Motions for reporting Progress; but in this matter there was more involved than the mere question of the comparative freshness or fatigue of hon. Members. The English people were perfectly ignorant on the whole question of Irish education, and at that hour the organs of public opinion were not likely to take much notice of a protracted, technical discussion. The Chief Secretary had spoken of the smallness of the Vote, and had said these gentlemen had done their work. But this question of the appointment of Examiners required to be discussed very fully and thoroughly. The Queen's Universities, not merely in the point of view of religion, but of Liberalism, and of free development, was based on the most vicious principles, and was a State University in the worst and narrowest meaning of the word. Everything about it came from the State, and it had no autonomy or self-government. Even one of its Professors at a meeting totally unconnected with the University, could not speak on the Land Question in Ireland without being threatened with a loss of his Professorial position. He really thought the discussion might be adjourned till the next day. ["Divide!"] Those cries showed that the House was in no humour for a careful and technical examination of the merits of the question, the public Press was gone, their constituents would have no opportunity of deciding the merits of the case, and therefore he hoped the Motion would be persisted in.

said, the most emphatic protest against the course the Government had taken was contained in the fact that at half-past 2 an adjournment was refused. He would not be a party to renewed Motions for reporting Progress, nor would he lend his sanction to any policy of obstruction; but he must refuse to withdraw that which he had made.

moved the reduction of the Vote by £36. At that hour of the morning it was not necessary to give any reasons for his Motion. He would say, however, that the views of the Catholics on this question were also shared by the Irish Protestants. He believed in a very short time a very strong public opinion would be manifested on this matter in Ireland.