, who had given Notice of his intention to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Questions as to the appointment of Colonel Wellesley to be First Secre- tary of Embassy at Vienna, said, that in consequence of a letter he had just received from the hon. Gentleman, stating that he was too poorly to be in the House, he would put those Questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I am perfectly prepared to answer the Questions now.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that Colonel Wellesley, an officer of the Coldstream Guards, has been appointed First Secretary of Embassy at Vienna over the heads of 95 diplomatic servants of the Crown, many of whom are well tried public servants, who have served their Country in different quarters of the globe for many years; whether he is the same Colonel Wellesley who was referred to in a Debate of July 9th last Session as having been placed over the heads of 900 Majors of the Army, many of whom had seen varied and active service, while he had never been employed out of England; whether he is the same Colonel Wellesley who had personal differences with the Grand Duke Nicholas of Russia last year, while employed as Military Attaché to the Russian Army in Roumania; and, supposing this to be the case, whether he can give any explanation of the appointment?

Sir, I very much regret that my hon. Friend the Under Secretary is confined to his house by indisposition today. He has sent me this communication—

"Colonel Wellesley has held a diplomatic appointment for several years, in the discharge of which he has, in the judgment of Her Majesty's Government, displayed remarkable skill and tact. He appeared to them to be better qualified for the duties of the secretaryship at the Court in question than any other person at their disposal, and for that reason he was appointed. Promotion in the diplomatic service is not bound, as the hon. Gentleman appears to imagine, by any strict rule of seniority. The following is from one of the rules made by Lord Granville in 1873, in accordance with the recommendation of the House of Commons' Committee of 1871:—

"'Rule 18 of Regulations for Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service.—Generally, in regard to all promotions whatever in the Diplomatic Service the Secretary of State will not be restricted by claims founded on seniority of membership of the profession from making any such selection as, on his own responsibility, he may deem right.'"

After the unsatisfactory answer I have received, I beg to give Notice that I will take the earliest opportunity of bringing this appointment before the House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true, as stated in the pubic journals, that debtors under detention in prison are compelled by new regulations purporting to have been issued under the Prisons Act, 1877, to eat their meals and keep the surplus food in their cells; pass 21½ hours out of 24 in solitary confinement; that they are allowed only 2½ hours for exercise, the prisoners being marched out into a yard and kept at a distance of ten or twelve paces from each other, so as to prevent talking, and warders are stationed at convenient spots to see that the rule of silence is observed, the debtors in effect being almost treated as criminal prisoners; and whether these rules are to be relaxed?

, in reply, said, he had heard that some of the recent rules had unfortunately been misinterpreted in some of the prisons, and that the consequence had been that some of the gaolers thought that an alteration had been made in the previous practice. On hearing these complaints, one of the Commissioners went down, and explained what the rule was intended to convey. Since then there had been no further complaint.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it will be possible to arrange to afford any workmen in the various Government departments, who desire to visit the Exhibition at Paris, a short leave of absence for that purpose?

, in reply, said, the matter really rested with the heads of the various Departments. The Treasury would make no objection, if arrangements were made for the work of the absentees to be discharged by others. The Treasury, however, had no control over the Departments in these matters.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What progress, if any, has been made in the negotiations alleged to have been entered into with Roumania for prolongation to the close of the present year of the existing Customs tariff on British goods imported into that country, so as to protect such goods from the onerous and almost prohibitory duties which would be imposed upon them after the 13th of May if no such prolongation be agreed upon?

Sir, I understand that the intelligence has been received to-day that the Roumanian Chambers have authorized the Government to extend for three months the most favoured nation clause to goods imported from countries which have not yet concluded Commercial Treaties with Roumania.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If it is contemplated, since the introduction of the system of enlistment for short service, either to modify or abolish the penalties and disadvantages that non-commissioned officers and soldiers of good character are subject to for marrying without leave?

, in reply, said, that no penalty, as the hon. and gallant Member appeared to suppose, attached to soldiers marrying; but the number who were allowed quarters and rations in barracks by regulations had been restricted to 4 per cent of the strength of the regiment within a comparatively recent date. He was not prepared to suggest any alterations in the present regulations.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What is the number of the forces at present employed for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the Possessions of Her Majesty's Crown, including those to be employed at the depôts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the training of recruits for service at home and abroad, but exclusive of the number actually serving within Her Majesty's Indian Possessions; and whether, by the addition of the Native troops which it is proposed to remove from India, the number of forces so employed will exceed the number authorized by Parliament, viz., 135, 452 men?

Sir, the Native Indian troops of Her Majesty are not, and never have been, reckoned in the numbers mentioned in the Mutiny Acts. The Native Indian troops recently ordered to Malta are not, and ought not to be, reckoned in the number mentioned in the Mutiny Act of the present year. The number of the Forces mentioned in the Mutiny Act of this year is 135,452 men. This is an Establishment separate from that of the Indian Native troops, and on this Establishment the present number is 136, 167 men, being 715 over the authorized Establishment; but that is accidentally owing to the fluctuations in recruiting, which I believe are constantly occurring. This is exclusive of the Reserves recently called out, which are added to the Establishment by the operation of existing Acts of Parliament. These are about 35,000 men.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the movement of Indian troops to Malta, Whether it is the fact that the Officers Commanding Indian Regiments of Cavalry and Infantry, being entitled to Indian rates of pay wherever they serve, will be receiving at Malta some £1,700 a year each, or rather more than four times the rate of pay drawn by the Lieutenant-Colonels of British Regiments serving side by side with them; whether the number of British Officers of these Indian Regiments, being, on the Indian establishment only seven officers each, had not been increased, as on all previous occasions of their embarking for service out of India, up to from fourteen to sixteen officers each; and whether each of those officers, even the junior wing subaltern, will not receive, on Indian rates, as high an amount of pay and allowances as the Lieutenant-Colonels Commanding British Regiments in the same garrison?

Sir, perhaps I may be allowed to answer the Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The officers commanding Cavalry and Infantry Indian regiments at Malta will receive—the former about £1,836 a-year, and the latter £1,716. The pay and allowances of lieutenant-colonels commanding English Infantry regiments are about £564, and that of English Cavalry regiments about £698. The number of English officers in these Indian regiments has been increased, not to the extent which the hon. and gallant Gentleman assumes in his Question, but to the same extent as in the case of the Abyssinian Expedition—namely, one combatant officer and one doctor, making, I think, a total of eight combatant officers and two doctors. Assuming that the junior wing-officer of an Infantry regiment is a subaltern—which, I am bound to say, is not always the case—he would draw £396 a-year, as against £564, which, as I have stated, is the pay of an Infantry colonel of an English regiment.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Officers commanding Militia Regiments are entitled to recommend the name of an Officer for a commission in the Line for every hundred Reserve men furnished to the Army from their Regiments, in compliance with War Office Letter, 16th April 1870?

Sir, when the Circular Letter to which the hon. and gallant Member refers was issued, the Purchase system was still in operation. A large number of Army Commissions are now annually given to Militia officers, and the Circular in question must be taken as being practically superseded. Since 1873, I may add, that upwards of 800 Commissions have been given, which exceeds the proportion to which Militia regiments would be entitled under the Circular.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has yet ar- ranged for the supply of information regarding Local Taxation indebtedness and Government for Scotland, similar to that supplied for England and Ireland?

Sir, on this subject a Commission has been appointed by the Treasury, under the Presidency of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), with the view of arranging some uniform system for all parts of the United Kingdom, and of eliciting such information as the hon. Member requires as to the local taxation and indebtedness.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the new arrangements with regard to gaols necessitate the immediate compulsory retirement of certain governors of gaols still able to discharge their duties; and whether the burden of their superannuation would fall upon the counties or boroughs served by the officers selected to be discharged, or whether under such special circumstances it will be charged on the general taxation of the country?

, in reply, said, that 37 gaols had been closed, and, of course, a good many gaolers must have been thrown out of employment. As far as possible, those whose services were most valuable had been transferred to other gaols. With regard to those gaolers who had to leave the service, the actual pension would no doubt have to be paid out of the local rates; but the Treasury would take upon itself, under the Act of 1877, all that which was due to compulsory retirement.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is now able to name the time when the Report of the Royal Commission on Noxious Vapours will be laid upon the Table of the House?

, in reply, said, he had communicated with the Chairman of the Commission, but was unable to state when the Report would be laid on the Table.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he intends to make any permanent or temporary addition to the separation allowances granted to the wives and children of the men of the Army and Militia Reserves who have been lately summoned to the Colours?

Sir, in answer to the hon. and gallant Member, I have to repeat what I stated the other day, that I have received as yet no complaint whatever from the persons who are concerned, though individual members of Boards of Guardians have written to me, officially and otherwise, on the subject. The question of any increase is a very large one, and it affects not only the Army Reserve men, but raises many other questions in connection with similar services. I felt myself bound, therefore, to consult with certain of my Colleagues as regards this measure. I do not think it would be possible, with a sudden summons, such as that which the Army and Militia Reserve men have received, altogether to avoid hardship in particular cases; and I cannot suggest any system of Government grants which would render cases of hardship wholly impossible. It must be remembered that this is part of the contract under which the men have been receiving their Reserve pay; and, taking it in connection with the fact which I have already mentioned, that there has been no well-founded complaint brought to light, I have not thought it consistent with my duty to recommend any increase, under present circumstances.

Sir, I rise to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer the Question of which I gave Notice on Thursday last—namely, Whether he can state when the Estimate for the expense of the movement of Indian troops to Malta will be laid on the Table, and when the Government intend that the House should take that Estimate into consideration? I may, perhaps, also take this opportunity of saying that, in consequence of the answer just given by the right hon. Gentleman to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James), it is my intention to move on an early day a Resolution, as to the exact wording of which I do not now bind myself, but of which I will read the general bearing —namely—

"That no Forces may be raised or kept by the Crown in time of peace, without the consent of Parliament, in any part of the Dominions of the Crown, excepting only such Forces as may he actually serving within Her Majesty's Indian Possessions."

Sir, we are endeavouring to obtain the information which is necessary to make the Estimate, we shall have to lay on the Table, as perfect as it can be. I am not able to name an early day for its discussion, but I would propose this day fortnight—Monday, the 27th—for the purpose, if the noble Lord thinks that would be a convenient time; and perhaps that day could also be taken by him, if he thinks fit, for moving the Resolution of which he has given Notice.

According to Notice, I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can give me any facilities for the discussion of the Resolution on the Eastern policy of the Government, the terms of which I have placed on the Notice Paper?

Before my right hon. Friend answers that Question, I should like to ask him another, of which I have given him private Notice—Whether his attention has been called to the resolution passed by acclamation at a crowded meeting of Scottish working men at Edinburgh on the 30th ultimo, as follows?—

"That this meeting hails with satisfaction the Circular of Lord Salisbury, as a sure indication that the honour of the nation is safe in the hands of the Prime Minister, and gives Her Majesty's Government due credit for maintaining, with much patience and forbearance, the policy determined upon after the solemn assurances of the Czar," to allay apprehensions, "which were published at his own request in The London Gazette of the 26th of November, 1876; this meeting is also of opinion that every loyal subject should rally round the Government, in order to maintain the good faith, the material interests, the power, the very safety of the Empire, now endangered by the Treaty of San Stefano;"

and, whether, seeing that the Motion now on the Notice Paper (International European Congress) in the name of the hon. Member for Gravesend, is the result of that Edinburgh meeting, he will afford any facilities for the early discussion of that Motion?

asked the hon. and gallant Member for Gravesend (Captain Pim), Whether the meeting which he had described as consisting of the working men of Edinburgh was not a meeting merely of Conservative working men?

I have to point out that the Question of the hon. Member for Edinburgh cannot be put, as it does not relate to a Bill or Motion before the House.

Sir, the Question of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), and also that of my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Pim), will, I think, be best answered by a reference to the Notice which has been given by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. I apprehend that the Motion, of which the noble Lord has given Notice, would be one to which it would be the duty of the Government to give the earliest day consistent both with the convenience of the House and with the interests of the public service. I have suggested to the noble Lord this day fortnight; but if the noble Lord thinks an earlier day is important, I will endeavour to arrange for offering him one. I fear that it is not possible for me to give the hon. Member for Birmingham what he desires.

said, he had understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state that the Reserve was now 35,000 men. He wished to ask, Whether those 35,000 men were to be included in any Estimate?

Sir, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer that Question as well as I can without Notice? These men are already included in the numbers as far as this—that they appeared under the head Army and Militia Reserves in the Estimate of the year. Of course, when the Estimate was prepared, those men were not in the position they are in now. Although I did not happen to be in the House when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his Financial Satement, yet I thought my right hon. Friend distinctly stated the fact that a Supple- mentary Estimate would have to be taken for certain Army Services, which would include the Reserve. The Army and Militia Reserve Acts contained specific provisions as to those Forces.

Sir, with reference to what has fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as to the day which he was good enough to offer for the consideration of the Resolution of which I have given Notice, I think it would be best that I should have a short time for consultation both with my own Friends, and, perhaps, also, if he will allow me, with the right hon. Gentleman himself; and I have no doubt that the arrangement, as to the day, will be communicated to the House in the course of to-morrow. A word or two fell from the right hon. Gentleman which, I think, might possibly lead to misapprehension. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose that the Motion, of which I have given Notice, would necessarily replace that of which Notice had been given by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain). Now, I wish to point out that my Motion and the Resolution of the hon. Member for Birmingham are of an entirely different character. The Motion of that hon. Member calls in question, as I understand it, the policy of the Government, not only in reference to the despatch of Indian troops, but in regard to several other matters. I express no opinion whether it is desirable or not that such a Resolution should be brought forward at the present time. I wish to point out that my Resolution expresses no opinion whatever as to the policy of the measure, but merely raises a Constitutional point as to the manner in which that measure has been taken by the Government.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, considering the great interest taken in all parts of the kingdom with regard to the Bill now before the House for the repeal of the 23rd clause of the Poor Law Amendment Act, he would give facilities for obtaining a day for its consideration?

Sir, I am perfectly aware of the interest which that Bill excites, and I should be glad to see it brought forward and discussed. But it is not in my power to offer my hon. Friend any Government time for the discussion of it. Perhaps, by looking at the Notice Paper, he may find a day — perhaps Friday, the 31st May.

said, one of the grounds on which he had moved the Adjournment of the Debate on a previous night was his belief in the illegality of the action of the Government in bringing the Indian troops to Europe. He was confirmed in that view by reference to the opinions of high legal authorities expressed in previous Parliamentary debates. He need not, however, pursue a subject which would be fully discussed on the Motion of which the noble Lord had just given Notice. Another ground for his Motion had been his belief, that the conduct of the Government in not communicating to the House at the earliest possible moment their intention to move Indian troops to Malta, ought seriously to engage the attention of the House. He felt that a slight had been put upon Parliament. It was evident that at the time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his Financial Statement, he was aware that the Government had decided on bringing over those troops, and that that operation would cost a good deal of money. The House had been told that the Government had at that time accepted the measure in principle; but it seemed likely that it had been meditated fully a week before. That view was borne out by the circumstance that, on March 28, Lord Derby said—

"The Cabinet have arrived at certain conclusions which, undoubtedly, are of a grave and important character, and in the measures which they propose I have not been able to concur."

Those words had been used a week before the Budget Statement was made, and it had been generally thought on that side of the House that Lord Derby, in speaking of conclusions and measures in the plural, had wished to indicate that his resignation was not entirely due to the calling out of the Reserves. It was true that when the Prime Minister rose, he attributed, with the adroitness of which he was master, the noble Lord's resignation solely to the calling out of the Reserves, many hon. Members of the House of Commons who were present, and who had watched the course of the Prime Minister in former days when he was in the Lower House, were not misled by this. If there was any grave measure decided on involving the expenditure of money, the House had a right to expect that it should be made a party to it. Nothing concerned the House more nearly than financial measures, and yet a week after this important decision had evidently been taken by the Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made no provision for the expense which was about to be incurred. He had read with the greatest attention the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Budget; but he could not see any intimation of the most indirect kind that it was intended by the Government to ask for further Supplies. The Chancellor of the Exchequer undoubtedly stated that the Naval and Military Departments had committed themselves to an expenditure beyond that which had been brought into the Vote of Credit, and that a considerable sum would have to be provided for the calling out of the Reserves; but he never intimated—what must have been in his mind at that time—that the Government intended to bring over Indian troops to this country. He made no statement with respect to that proposal to the House, and he made no provision for the necessary outlay. That was so serious, that he could not let this Bill pass its third reading and let it go forth to the country that no one came forward to challenge such a course. The Government, in fact, had taken, in reference to the matter, the most high-handed course he had ever known—that of bringing over troops from a foreign country. ["No, no!"] Not a foreign country! What was it, then? These troops were not within the control of Parliament; they were not within the Mutiny Act; and they were not voted by this House. He would advise hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were so willing to accept the bringing over of these troops, to look back upon the debates of 1775, and see what course their Predecessors—the country Gentlemen of that day—took. A Tory Government was then in power. Lord North was in the height of his power; it is recorded that he treated the question with unbecoming levity; but the course taken by the country Gentlemen convinced him that he would not be allowed to have his own way. They separated from his Party, and forced him to bring in a Bill of Indemnity, for they knew well how to uphold the rights and honour of Parliament. Into the legality of the question he would not enter. That was a question which would be debated hereafter; but the Government, at any rate, had pledged the House to an expenditure which it must vote, or he did not know how the money was to be found. Suppose the House was to refuse this Supply, which had been illegally incurred—and they would find the greatest Constitutional lawyers of past days said that such expenditure had been illegally incurred—who was to pay? In the first instance, the Indian Revenue was to advance the money. Would the hon. Member for Hackney be satisfied that the Indian Government should pay the money? Would it come out of the pockets of Her Majesty's Ministers? Lord North had no hesitation in agreeing to introduce his Bill of Indemnity, because he said it would tend to keep his head on his shoulders. Now, the heads of those right hon. Gentlemen whom he saw opposite to him were not, he imagined, at the present moment in danger; but were their purses? They had brought troops from India without the consent of Parliament, and if Parliament did not provide the money required, who was to pay it? No doubt, the Government relied on their majority; and it was true they had at their back a majority who followed them generally with the same simplicity as a flock of sheep followed their leader. They could not, however, always count on that; and, certainly, if he and those who sat around him on the Opposition benches were upon the other side of the House, the front bench would not have dared do such things; for there was in the Liberal Party that independence which would have turned its Leaders out of Office without the smallest hesitation if they had violated the Constitution in the way in which he believed it had been violated in the instance to which he was referring. He was delighted to hear the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate)—one of the true Constitutionalists in the House— behind their backs—[Laughter]—well, not behind their backs, but as one of their supporters who sits behind them —criticize the action of the Government from a constitutional point of view. It was worthy of him, and just what they might expect from one who really valued the Constitution. If this money were to be found, it must be by increasing taxation, or by adding to the Debt; and he should like to know which course it was intended to pursue? They were now voting the third reading of the Bill that provided the Ways and Means of the year, and yet they had an indefinite amount of expenditure before them which had been in no way provided for by the Government. Was it not, he would ask, a monstrous position in which the House was thus placed? It was a position which the House, to his knowledge, had never before been called upon to accept. Was the necessary outlay to be met by taxation, or by increasing the Debt? That was a question to which the House was entitled to have an answer before it passed the third reading of the Bill. Not only was this matter not brought before Parliament at the proper time, when it was considering the financial position of the country, but no communication was made for a fortnight afterwards, although the House sat for 12 days—from the 4th to the 16th—after the Budget was brought in. For 12 days the House was kept in ignorance; but, on the 17th, the day after Parliament rose, this matter was communicated to the newspapers. Was that, he would ask, a proper mode of dealing with Parliament? He regretted that the Prime Minister was not in the House, because, if he were, he (Mr. Vivian) should use terms of a much more unmeasured character with regard to this proceeding. His own belief was that the Government was under the glamour which his Eastern mind cast over them. He did not see in their action anything of the Anglo-Saxon mind. There had been a want of frankness, a want of candour—another word rose to his mouth, but he would not utter it—a representing of the objects in view in one way when they should really be represented in another. That did not impress him with the reverence for British statesmanship which he had always desired to entertain. They had sent the British Fleet into the Sea of Marmora with a lie in its mouth—was a British Fleet ever sent any where with a lie in its mouth before? They said that they sent it through the Dardanelles for the purpose of protecting the lives and property of British subjects; but no one would dare to state now that such was its object. Why did they not come forward to state the real purpose for which it was sent there? They sent it there so that they might assert their right to a voice in the settlement of the Eastern Question. He did not agree in the course taken. It was an act of blustering and swash-bucklering; but when they did it, why did they not come forward and speak out their minds? Then, look at the question of the Vote of Credit. The Government said they wanted it to give them strength in the Congress; but we now knew what their views about the Congress were. A very small question had arisen; he, at least, thought it a very small point, and so did the rest of Europe; but it had prevented the meeting of Congress, and no one knew whether it would ever meet. There was not a single Power in Europe which agreed with the British Government in the objections they had taken.

said, he had not taken part to any extent in the debates of that House, but he had sat long in that House; and he thought he knew the Rules. They were told that none at all, or only a very small portion, of the £6,000,000 would be expended; but a large part of it had been spent in warlike preparations. He could not understand how anyone was justified in spending such a large extra sum of money in warlike preparations, unless they thought war must ensue. He would not attempt to go into the general matters of the Eastern Question; but he would say again that he thought the Government would tender him their thanks, or ought to do so, for affording them an opportunity of explaining the course which they had taken on this occasion. He implored hon. Members opposite not to be led away by any Party motive to support measures which were opposed to the best interests of the country. He had no object to serve, so far as Party was concerned; but he prayed hon. Members to consider the responsibility of employing Indian troops within the dominions of this country—in Gibraltar or in this Kingdom. By the action of the Government, and by the concealment of their action, they had involved Parliament in a great expenditure, without its consent. That course was unconstitutional and illegal, and a slight had been cast on hon. Members on both sides; and it behoved the Government, on the earliest possible occasion—the present time—to explain to Parliament why it was that they did not communicate to Parliament at the time they came to the resolution, that it was their intention to bring over the Indian troops, and why they did not include the expenditure in their Budget.

Sir, I am not aware whether it is the desire of the House at present to enter into a full discussion of this question; but I feel it necessary to rise at once, after the observations which have fallen from the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. H. Vivian), to make some statement with respect to the points to which he has called attention. I wish to bring under the notice of the House the very peculiar way in which the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter. There are two distinct questions that may be considered. There is, in the first place, the most serious and important question whether, in advising Her Majesty to order the despatch of troops from India to Malta without the previous approval or consent of Parliament, we have been guilty of a breach of constitutional propriety. If we have so offended, there can be no doubt at all that we have incurred a grave responsibility, and that the matter is one which ought to be fully discussed and decided by Parliament. Notice has been given this afternoon of the intention to challenge our course upon this matter; the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) also intends to raise the question; and there can be no doubt that it is the right and duty of Parliament to discuss the course which has been pursued, to put the Government upon their defence, and to have a clear understanding whether what has been done has or has not been constitutionally right? But my hon. Friend the Member for Glamorganshire does not desire to raise that question at present; and I think, therefore, that it may be more convenient to argue it on a future occasion. It is not, I think, for the convenience of the House, that it should be discussed upon the third reading of a Customs Bill, upon which it is impossible to take the sense of the House upon the grave issue that has been raised. It will certainly be more convenient to reserve it until the Supplementary Estimate is brought forward, or until a direct Motion on the subject is made. Then, there is what may be called the subordinate question—namely, whether, assuming that the course which has been taken has not been unconstitutional, the Government are not still to blame for not having, as a matter of frankness and respect towards Parliament, and also on the ground of public convenience, made known their intentions at the time the Budget was brought forward? As I understood the hon. Member, it was this second question alone that he desired to raise. If so, the course he has pursued has been a most inconvenient one; for, while professing not to argue the question whether the measure adopted by the Government has been constitutional or not, he has, throughout his remarks, assumed that it was unconstitutional. Of course, if we are to assume with him, that we have been acting unconstitutionally, and taking a step which subjects us, if not to the loss of our heads, at least to an enormous pecuniary penalty, surely it is scarcely worth while to consider whether we have been wanting or not in courtesy? The major offence is one that entirely overrides the minor. If the hon. Member wished to challenge us upon the comparatively narrow ground of the financial effect of our policy, he should have abstained from complicating his statements with some of the general remarks he made upon our course and policy. He should have abstained from raising a question as to the ground upon which the Fleet was sent to the Sea of Marmora, which is really a part of the larger question of our general foreign policy. I will not follow him into this part of his speech; but I must emphatically repudiate and condemn his statement, that the Fleet was sent into the Sea of Marmora with what he is pleased to call a "lie in its mouth." When we come to discuss that question fully, I shall maintain that the grounds on which the Fleet was sent into the Sea of Marmora were truly stated. That there have been changes in the situation, that varying circumstances have rendered it necessary for us from time to time to take steps and contrive measures which were not previously contemplated, is perfectly true. That is a part of the history of the whole of these diplomatic transactions, and can only be properly considered in connection with the subject as a whole. Such statements as that to which I have referred can only be made for the purpose of prejudicing the House. I must also challenge the extraordinary doctrine laid down by the hon. Member, that no nation is justified in expending money in warlike preparations unless it intends going to war. If that doctrine were correct, we should be very great sinners indeed; because, whether wisely or not, we have certainly been proceeding throughout upon the principle that it was our duty and our highest policy to spend money on warlike preparations in order to secure peace. Having said these few words, which have been forced from me by the remarks of the hon. Member for Glamorganshire, I will now come back to the point upon which the House has a perfect right to demand an explanation—namely, why it was that I did not make any statement to the House at the time the Budget was introduced, or in the course of the 12 days that elapsed between the introduction of the Budget and the rising of the House for the Easter Recess? If I am asked why I made no reference to this matter in the Budget speech? my answer is simple—because I was not in a position to do so; because it could not be said that the measure had been determined upon in such a manner as would enable me to present anything whatever in the nature of an Estimate to the House. It will be convenient for me to mention one or two things. It was on the 27th of March that the principle of calling upon a certain number of the troops from India to go to a Mediterranean garrison was considered by the Cabinet and was accepted in principle by the majority of the Cabinet. On that Wednesday, the question, being then put in a general and broad form, was discussed in the Cabinet and was accepted by the Cabinet, and that was the last meeting of the Cabinet attended by my noble Friend Lord Derby; and on the 28th—on the Thursday—his resignation was placed in the hands of Her Majesty. As soon as Lord Derby had resigned, there were changes necessary in the various Departments, and those changes affected two Offices particularly concerned in dealing with this question—the War Office and the India Office; and it was not for two or three days that these appointments were finally made, and that the present Secretary of State for War entered upon his duties, and that my noble Friend (Lord Cranbrook) went to the India Office. They undertook their Offices when the decision had been taken that in principle the calling of the troops from India was a measure that it was desirable and right to take. But, between the decision that the measure is right in principle, and that it is to be adopted, the House will perceive there is a considerable interval—and it was the bounden duty of my two right hon. Friends to consider, very carefully, the possibility of giving effect to this decision—the mode in which, the extent to which, and the time at which, effect should be given to it. For that purpose, it was necessary they should enter into communications, not only between themselves, but with the Government of India; and so it was that, at the time I made the Budget Statement in this House—the 4th of April—though, of course, I was aware that the measure was approved in principle, I could not have said—if I had been questioned upon it—whether that measure would or would not come to be adopted in practice at all. I could not have said that the difficulties in discussing details would be overcome. In fact, the communications were then going on; and it was not until the 12th of April—as late as that—that the first telegram was sent from this country to India authorizing any preparation whatever to be undertaken. That telegram was this. It was from the Secretary of State for India to the Government of the Viceroy—

"Preparation for sea transport sanctioned. Malta is the destination of Native troops to be sent from India."

That was the first authority given, and that was given on the 12th of April. On the 16th of April the Viceroy telegraphed that the troops had been detailed for embarkation, and that the necessary orders had been given. Of course, communications had been going on; but it was not until the 12th of April that any orders were given authorizing the spending of any money, and it was not until some days afterwards that the final orders were given. Now, the questions which we must put to the House, and the questions which hon. Members ought to ask themselves, are two—first, was it necessary—was it the duty of the Government before taking any step of this kind—to have obtained the approval of Parliament? That is a question which at the present moment is sub judice. It is a question which we are to argue when the proper occasion arises, and upon which we shall feel ourselves bound to argue that we were not bound by any such obligation. But, if we were not subject to any such obligation, was it expedient at that time, when we were making these inquiries, considering the details of the measure and considering its difficulties, was it desirable that we should, before our minds had been finally made up, have brought the matter before Parliament and raised discussions upon questions which might have been questions of embarrassment and difficulty? That is a matter which we had to consider. I think the House will see that there may have been considerable inconvenience even on the present occasion; and to have laid that down, then, as a principle for all future times, would have been exceedingly embarrassing; because, if the moving of troops, being on the hypothesis within the power of Her Majesty, is to be arrested and discussed, and all the doubts pointed out, then serious difficulties might arise, and the hands of the Government might be seriously impeded. But, I am asked, what has become of the constitutional control of Parliament over the employment of Her Majesty's Forces? Well, I say, the constitutional control will be untouched in this matter. I wish to point out that the House must always bear in mind that the question they have to consider is, whether the preparations that are made are to be regarded as made in contemplation of war or in contemplation of peace? Now, if the question is to be regarded as in contemplation of war—if it is supposed that war, unhappily, is to break out—it will undoubtedly be a duty to come to the House and make very different financial proposals from those which have been made, and Parliament will maintain its complete and full power of refusing Supplies to enable the Government to carry on war. On that point there can be no doubt. But, supposing the question is one of dealing with the military resources of the Empire in the expectation of peace, the question is raised, whether there is anything in the act that has now been done which so disturbs the financial arrangements of the year, as to justify anyone in saying that the financial arrangements submitted on the 4th of April were arrangements which would have been viewed in a different light if this particular measure had been decided upon and had been communicated to the House, and formed part of the Estimates laid before the House? With regard to this, I venture to say that it is altogether fallacious to say we are committing Parliament to any large expenditure for which no provision was made, or that the Budget would have been different to any extent if the details of this movement of troops had been settled upon, and had been distinctly stated to the House. I wish to point out that the expense, talked of as one of enormous magnitude, is not likely to be anything like the amount which some hon. Gentlemen seem to contemplate. The mere expense of bringing 7,000 troops from India to Malta is an item which I am not at present able to state precisely in figures; but it is an expense which will be of moderate dimensions, provided the troops are only brought there for a short time, and that further necessity does not arise for their employ- ment on active service. If that necessity arises, then the condition is changed, and then we should have to come with other proposals and other Estimates before Parliament; but, assuming that this is only to be regarded as one of those measures of precaution which we have thought it right to take, the expenses will be of a comparatively insignificant character. Now, what was the nature of the Budget which I submitted on the 4th of April? I wish hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to pay particular attention to the nature and structure of the Budget? I did not attempt in that Budget to provide for everything that would have to be spent within the year. I called attention to the fact that there was a considerable sum which had been spent in the preceding year, and paid for by the issue of Exchequer Bonds, which must be redeemed within a limited time. I stated that there would be a certain amount required for extinguishing the ordinary deficit for the year. Besides that, I said there would be Supplementary Estimates for carrying on the Services analogous to and continuous of those for which the original Vote of Credit of £6,000,000 had been granted. And what I proposed to do by asking for the additional taxes was, if these Ways and Means were given to me to extinguish both the deficit that was anticipated for the year, to pay off Supplementary Estimates, and leave a margin over towards the extinction of the Debt that remained from the previous year. I said the Supplementary Estimates might be £1,500,000. I said frankly that I could not say precisely what the sum would be. I calculated that, with the amount which the Army and Navy stood pledged to, and which would enable the Reserves to be kept on foot for three months, the sum of £5,000,000 would very probably be expended, and I proposed that that amount should be extinguished within two instead of three years as I originally proposed. If it should happen that an additional £500,000 should be required for moving these troops, it would make very little difference—it would only be that we should extinguish so much less Debt in the time. Even if the cost should run up to £750,000 or £1,000,000, it would only amount to this—that we should not be able, out of the ordinary means granted this year, to pay off so much of the Debt incurred in the previous year; but the taxes, if continued for another year, would enable us to pay off in the time originally contemplated—three years. That was the general financial position; and it was not a matter of that vital importance to the Budget, that I should include that which I was unable to give. It would have been quite impossible, on the 4th of April, while my right hon. Friends the Secretary for War and the Secretary for India were examining the question in detail, and when it was quite possible that from day to day they might have found it encumbered with difficulties which would have prevented any action being taken, to have mentioned the matter to the House, and still more to have made it part of an Estimate. Only consider what might have happened, supposing I had come forward, on loose information, with a chance Estimate for the movement of these troops? We might have found that it was not convenient, and not possible to move them. What would have been the effect of proposing to bring the Indian troops, and then not bringing them? Why, it was just one of those movements it was important to keep secret till its success was insured. I wish it could have been kept secret longer—it was rather a 'surprise to me that it got out so soon as it did. I should have been glad if it could have been kept secret until the troops were quite ready and on the point of starting, because it was just one of those movements—assuming that Her Majesty's Government had the right to make it—which they were bound to order in such a way as to do all in their power, humanly speaking, to make it successful. If it were a bad and audacious thing to take the step at all, and to take it on our own responsibility, it would have been much worse than an audacious thing—it would have been most blameworthy and almost criminal—if we had taken such a step without taking all the precautions in our power to make it safe and successful. We believe we are justified by the letter and spirit of the Constitution in the act we have taken, and I believe, when we are challenged on the point, we shall be able to justify all we have done. We do not in the least shrink from a full discussion and any searching criticism that may be passed upon us. This we will say—that in what we have done we have acted, as we think, for the best, and on our own responsibility; and we shall, as soon as possible, lay before Parliament an Estimate, which shall give the House an opportunity, if it does not take any other, of pronouncing on our conduct, which we place, with the greatest confidence, in the hands of the House.

said, that without entering upon the Constitutional question, they were entitled to consider the finances of the Government for the year, which he would proceed to discuss, merely remarking that the £6,000,000 were voted to strengthen the hands of the Government on entering a Congress, the meeting of which it had been doing its best to prevent. The Budget was open to a graver charge than that it disturbed the relations of direct and indirect taxation, and that graver charge was that it was inadequate to the financial requirements of the country. The right hon. Gentleman passed on to next year a deficit of between £1,500,000 and £2,000,000, to be met by £600,000 of arrears of income tax. Thus deliberately to start with a deficit was bad in fact, and bad in appearance to the eyes of foreign countries. It was, in fact, objectionable, being as if we were in danger of war, and to foreigners it would suggest that the nation which boasted through the mouth of its Prime Minister that it could carry on an indefinite number of campaigns, shrank from the burden of partial preparation for war. It was admitted that the expense of moving the Indian troops was not provided for, and it could be provided for only in one of four ways—either there must be increased taxation and a Supplementary Budget, or the charge must be left as a remanet to next year, or the new Sinking Fund must be suspended, or there must be a loan. Every one of these courses was objectionable. If they were to have recourse to a loan, they would be proceeding further on the evil course on which they were already launched—boasting of paying off Debt by this now Sinking Fund and increasing the Debt at the same time. Thus they created a delusion; because, while people were led to believe that great efforts were being made for the reduction of Debt, they were contracting Debt in another form. It appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman might have provided, and ought to have provided, for the expenditure necessary for the transport, pay, and maintenance of these Indian troops in the Budget which he recently introduced to the House. The right hon. Gentleman told them that the calling of Native troops from India was in principle adopted by the Cabinet on the 27th of March, that Lord Derby resigned on the 28th, and that the change of Offices caused delay; but the phrase resolved upon in principle was a very elastic term. He found by a telegram, which had appeared in the daily newspapers of the 7th of April from Calcutta, only three days after the Budget was introduced, but nine days before the House adjourned, that the intention of the Government was known and understood in India. All furloughs, it was said, were stopped, and an Expeditionary Force of Native troops was regarded as certain, whether for the Persian Gulf or elsewhere was uncertain. He could understand, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, that the actual order for the troops to embark was not given till the 12th; but he could not reconcile the telegram from Calcutta with the suggestion that no preparations were authorized till the 12th. How could that be reconciled with the fact that five days afterwards the details of the expedition were announced in this country? He hoped the Secretary of State for War would give some explanation of this. If the matter were so far decided, both in principle and in fact, while the Budget was under discussion, the right hon. Gentleman could and should have given the House some information at least approximately with regard to this expenditure, as he did for the Army Reserves. At all events, he should have mentioned, when the Budget was under discussion, that he would have a further Supplementary Estimate to lay before the House for an expedition about to start from India. The only reason the right hon. Gentleman had to offer the other night for his reticence was, that keeping back the information had kept down the expense of transport. How this could be was not apparent, as it prevented competition on the part of shipowners; but now he told them there were other reasons. When the Government was going to take such a step as this, it was important to its success, he said, that it should be kept secret. He hoped the Secretary of State for War would explain, when he replied, in what way the success of the movement of bringing Indian troops to Malta depended upon secrecy. If the Government intended to land those troops in order to strike a sudden blow upon an enemy, he could understand the importance of secrecy; but he could not understand the importance of secrecy in the mere bringing of 7,000 men from India to add to the garrison in Malta. On the contrary, it appeared to him that the argument went all the other way. Had the Government really desired to produce an effect upon the military Powers of the Continent, and to show what resources England possessed, surely it would have been desirable to have stated in the House what they contemplated doing—to have said—"We have these forces, and are bringing some of them to Malta; we have more behind, and we will bring them also, if necessary." To have said that, and to have obtained the assent and consent of Parliament to what was proposed, would have produced an undoubted effect in Europe. They would have strengthened their position, instead of now subjecting themselves to criticism ex post facto for conducting this matter in a manner which almost seemed to give rise to a doubt whether they could have induced Parliament to adopt it. He thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite had treated the House rather cavalierly the other night in regard to this question. He had stated that the bringing of these troops from India to Malta was neither more nor less than a direction for them to move from one part of the Empire to another—ordering a regiment from Aldershot to Hounslow, or vice versâ—he had spoken as if the step had nothing striking or novel about it; and he had said that there was no necessity to communicate that step to the House, and that, in such cases, it had not been the practice to do so. He would tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer something which it had not been the practice to do. It had not been the practice to bring into the Dominions of the Crown in time of peace troops which had not been voted by Parliament either as to the number of men or as to money. The right hon. Gentleman told him that the constitutional control of Parliament remained untouched, as it would have the opportunity of refusing the Supplies if it disapproved of the step which had been taken by Her Majesty's Government. That was no doubt true. Yes, theoretically true; but, as these troops out of India could not be charged upon India, Parliament would have no option, and must provide the money. Moreover, when they were dealing with troops peculiarly circumstanced, as the Indian Army was, they ought to be specially jealous of the rights and privileges of Parliament; the Government ought to have consulted the wishes and disposition of Parliament before bringing them out of India. He should like to fortify himself by citing an authority on this subject greater than his own. On the 3rd of March, 1864, General Peel stated, with reference to the employment of Native Indian troops in China and the Straits, that if any part of the Native Indian Army could be thus employed without a Vote of that House, the Crown would have a force altogether removed from Parliamentary control. None of these checks—the Mutiny Act nor the Votes of men or of money in Supply—applied to the Indian troops. The result of the points insisted upon by General Peel was, that in subsequent years, both the men and the pay of the Native Indian Army employed out of India in Hong Kong or the Straits Settlements were voted by Parliament. There would be found in the Army Estimates, with scarcely any interruption from 1864 to 1871, Votes for these purposes, until in 1872, those troops were recalled to India, and were replaced in Hong Kong and the Straits Settlements by British troops. The right hon. Gentleman said that the expense with regard to this expedition would not be very great. Well, "great" was a relative term, and the House would know, when the Supplementary Estimates came before it, what the cost would be. But in 1871, the cost of 1,750 men of the Native Indian Army maintained in the Straits Settlements or Hong Kong amounted to £50,000 and if the cost of the troops now despatched to Malta were proportionate, a rule of three sum would show that the expense of the pay, maintenance, and transport of these troops would be considerable addition to the deficit of the right hon. Gentleman. It was said that the transport, the pay, and maintenance of these troops were to be charged on the British Exchequer. Were they to understand that the pay thus spoken of referred only to the extra pay the troops were to receive in consequence of coming out of India, or did it include their normal pay, and that India would be relieved of that charge? [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: The whole pay.] He did not know whether he need follow the right hon. Gentleman further on the structure of his Budget, which was of a very loose character, and left much to next year and to the chapter of accidents; but it appeared to him no light matter, on financial grounds, that the Budget should be so loosely constructed as to begin by leaving a large deficit to stand over to another year, and while the Budget was under discussion, a considerable addition was made to that deficit. It was no light thing if we were to have, immediately after the first Budget of the year, a Supplementary Budget and additional taxation. As a matter of sound finance, he contended that the first and foremost of the duties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to endeavour, in the Budget he submitted to the House, to lay before it the whole estimated Expenditure and the whole of the Ways and Means, so far as it was in his power to do so, for the entire year. That was what the right hon. Gentleman had not done. Of course, emergencies would arise. An emergency was something unforeseen and unexpected; but was this unforeseen and unexpected? It was no such thing, and an approximate Estimate might as perfectly well be given of this expenditure as of that for the Army Reserve or the extra labour in the Dockyards. If they once admitted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might, in the first instance, submit a loose Budget, then an extraordinary Budget, an amending Budget, or a rectifying Budget or Budgets, with the multifarious names familiar to Continental financiers, then the control of the House over the finances of the country was virtually gone. If such a course were sanctioned avowedly or tacitly, the House would be forced to appoint a Standing Finance Committee, to watch from month to month the shifting Estimates of Expenditure and Reve- nue. He must say that the step which the House induced the right hon. Gentleman to take on the third reading of this Bill—namely, to give the House an opportunity of considering the financial position of the Government as a whole by the light of the new revelations we had had—was perfectly justified by the circumstances, and he thought that, on consideration, the Government itself would come to the conclusion that no other course ought to have been followed.

said, the right time to raise the question as to whether the action of the Government in this matter had or had not been constitutional, would be when the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition brought forward his Resolution, and therefore he did not intend to discuss the subject now. He only wished to make one remark with respect to what fell from the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. H. Vivian), which ought not to remain uncontradicted. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the Indian Army as "a foreign army," as if they were mercenaries, and seemed to think he had found a most important precedent in what the country Gentlemen had done in 1775, when Lord North employed Hanoverian troops in the American War. The hon. Gentleman called upon the House to do what the country Gentlemen did in 1775, when they entered a patriotic protest against the action of the Government. But the cases were not parallel. The Hessian and Hanoverian troops employed by George III. were, as everybody knew, employed under Treaty between this country and other Powers, and Parliament did quite right to protest against the action of the Government of that day. But, when the hon. Gentleman asked the House to do what was done in 1775, he could not have consulted Parliamentary History to much purpose. A Gentleman named James Lowther—he did not know whether he was any relative of the right hon. Gentleman who now bore that name—moved a Vote of Censure on the Government for their action with regard to the Hessian troops, and, on a division, the Government of the day had a majority of 220 against 83. He hoped any similar Motion of Censure on Her Majesty's Government would be attended with the same result. It seemed to him that we formed a part of a great Empire, and that we ought to be very careful of what we said about our fellow-subjects of the Indian Army. If the hon. Gentleman had looked into the Indian Mutiny Act, he would not have spoken of the Indian troops as he had done, or of the action of Her Majesty's Government as if it had been of the same kind as that of the Government in 1775. Under the Indian Mutiny Act, all recruits made the following affirmation:—

"I—solemnly affirm in the presence of Almighty God that I will be faithful to Her Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors, and will go wherever I am ordered by land or sea, and will obey the commands of the officers set over me, even to the peril of my life."

He maintained that this placed the Indian soldiers, as regarded their military position, on the same footing with soldiers serving in this country, and there was no reason to suppose that there was the slightest difference between the relations of the Imperial Government to these troops and those of any other of Her Majesty's Forces; which, by the Acts of 1858 and 1860, had been completely consolidated in one Imperial Army. He had no desire to enter into the constitutional question; but, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson), and others outside the House, had cited precedents confirming their view of the case, he might remark it was well known that the Native Army of India had on several occasions been employed out of India—namely, in Persia, in Egypt, in Abyssinia in 1867, and twice in China—he believed in the years 1841 and 1860. He defied anyone to show that there was the slightest difference between those cases and the present one. The simple question was, whether the Crown was invested with the power of moving troops without the consent of Parliament? He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had disposed of the question of urgency and secrecy in the conduct of this business. With regard to the composition of this Force, the Government had the necessity imposed upon them of being very careful as to the mode in which, and the time when, they should communicate their decision to Parliament. Considering that we had only a small standing Army, it was a good thing to bring Indian troops to our aid in dealing with this emergency, as he might term it. The right hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson) seemed to speak with contempt of the notion of an emergency, and said that an "emergency" must necessarily be something "foreseen." This was not so. It was at the present moment an "emergency" for the Government to pass the third reading of the Bill; but it had been foreseen a long time ago, and the same was the case with our national "emergency." This was not necessarily an act of defiance; but it was intended to prove to Europe that the Parliament of England would support, and was supporting, the Government in resisting any aggression or any breach of Treaty that might be threatened. The Government were responsible for carrying out the arrangements in such a manner as to secure success. The action of the Government in removing these Indian troops had, in his judgment, contributed more than anything which had been done for a long series of years to bind to ourselves upwards of 200,000,000 of British subjects who were our fellow-subjects in the Indian Empire.

thought the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. A. Mills) had proved too much; and ventured to ask, if the act of Her Majesty's Government in bringing Indian troops to Malta was to produce the good effect upon Europe which the hon. Member said it would, why did not the Government do it in the face of the world and with the sanction of Parliament? Why was this act, which was said to meet with admiration from Europe, done in a way which could only be said to be technically within the power of the Government, and certainly contrary to the ordinary practice of any constitutional Government that ever existed in this country? The other night he (Mr. Henry) seconded the Motion for Adjournment, because he was much struck by the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which had been repeated today, that the movement of the troops had, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, become known somewhat too early for the convenience and advantage of the country. The right hon. Gentleman even expressed a wish that the movement had remained concealed a little longer, in order that it might be quite sure of succeeding. What was the success desired by Her Majesty's Govern- ment? He would prove by dates that the chief object was to get the Budget passed before any discussion upon the matter could be raised in Parliament. That involved a grave charge against the Government. The right hon. Gentleman had fixed the date, and had told them that it was determined, at the Cabinet Council of the 27th March, that the troops were to be called from India; but it was also at that Cabinet Council that the decision was taken to call out the Reserves, which was followed by the resignation of Lord Derby. This was the beginning of an entirely new policy, and the bringing of troops from India was of immeasurably greater importance than calling out the Reserves. The Government took Parliament into its counsel about the Reserves; but the calling of the troops from. India they did not communicate to Parliament, because they knew perfectly well that the act was of doubtful legality, or, if not absolutely illegal, was certain to cause great discussion and meet with opposition in the House. During the last few years they had been subjected to a policy which proceeded from the Oriental tendency of mind to theatrical effect and surprise, which was to be found in the Prime Minister; but which, he thought, could never have found favour with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Within the last two years, there had been a very noticeable change in the practice of the Government. The Government at one time used to answer Questions candidly, keeping nothing in the background, giving explanations, or refusing to give explanations; but of late the Government seemed to revel and delighted in mystery and theatrical effect. The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night was a speech which might have proceeded from some person who was a master of technicalities, and was of a forensic character —such as might be heard in a Petty Sessions Court. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told them he did not know how much it would cost, and, therefore, could not propose an estimate; but such an evasion as that was of no avail when a constitutional question of this kind was before the House of Commons. What was the use of bringing these 7,000 Indian troops to Malta, except to show the world that if they could do that, they could bring 50,000 to this country, and that would not involve a small expenditure. The House would be able to see that the intention of the Government was simply that the Budget should pass without comment. Unusually strong efforts were made before the Recess to bring the Budget through the House, and if it had not been for the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell)—to whom the House was not always ready to recognize its obligations, and who had insisted on the adjournment of the discussion upon it until after the Recess—they should not have had the opportunity at the present moment of discussing the unconstitutional conduct of Her Majesty's Government. He (Mr. Henry) had not attempted to criticize the general conduct of Her Majesty's Government on Eastern affairs, nor had he said one word as to the wisdom of bringing troops from India; but he solemnly protested against the system of which the Government seemed now to be enamoured, of doing things behind the back of Parliament for the purpose of producing the surprise and admiration of foreign countries. This country had been strong hitherto; its diplomacy had been straightforward, and it had exercised great influence and had maintained its reputation abroad; because, whatever Government was in power, other foreign countries knew that the Minister, in all important matters, would be backed by a majority in Parliament. As it was now, nobody could tell what was the next surprise in store. It was just as competent for the Government to bring over a number of friendly Fingoes, who were fighting our battles at the Cape, or a troop of Maories from New Zealand. These were surprises against which they had a right, and it was their duty, to protest; and it was on that ground that he ventured to second the Motion for the Adjournment of the House the other night, in which he expressed his earnest hope that hon. Gentlemen on both sides would not even now allow the Budget to pass without recording a very strong protest against the conduct of Her Majesty's Government.

Sir, I should not have taken part in this debate but I feel, that as an independent Member, I ought to take this opportunity of protesting as strongly as may be against the course taken by Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman told us on Thursday night, when he very reluctantly agreed to the Adjournment which enables us to discuss the third reading of the Budget Bill, that he could not tell what it was that the Adjournment was proposed for. I hope the right hon. Gentleman sees now that those who supported the Adjournment of the Debate had some reason for wishing it to be adjourned. Why, the discussion of this Budget—this most unexampled Budget, considering the circumstances under which it has been introduced—is most Important; for the taxation of the country is a matter which ought to be considered very seriously by this House at all times, and especially when we are laying additional burdens on the country, and when the country is suffering from almost unparalleled financial difficulties. The Budget Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) has pointed out, was introduced before the Recess, and the greatest pressure was put on the House so as to pass the stages of the Bill with the least possible discussion, and the effect of it was that this Budget, which will impose a very large amount of taxation on the country, was actually hurried through its stages without any sufficient discussion; and the House, instead of enforcing economy upon the Government, had abdicated its functions in obedience to the cry raised by the noisy "Jingo" Party. The Government has made use of its position in the House and in other places, in order to excite in the public mind the belief that there was some great national emergency which ought to induce hon. Members to give carte blanche to the Government. The result is, that at the present moment, while Her Majesty's Government are spending far more money than has ever been spent in a time of peace, there has been scarcely anyone bold enough to raise his voice in opposition to that expenditure. Let me just remind the House for two or three minutes of the fact, that the ordinary Expenditure of the country—for the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer divides his Budget into ordinary and extraordinary Expenditure, which, I think, is a very dangerous precedent—that the ordinary Expenditure this year has amounted to a sum which is altogether unexampled. I find, that under the Estimates of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he proposes that we should raise taxes—leaving out of view the amount received from the Post Office, the Telegraph Service, Crown Lands, and Miscellaneous Receipts—to the extent of £70,000,000, for the present year. Why, Sir, in 1870–1, the total amount of the Expenditure in the Army and Navy and Civil Charges, and on account of the National Debt, amounted to £63,000,000; so that, in point of fact, there is an increase, since 1870–71, of over £7,000,000 a-year in the taxes imposed on the country. But while the ordinary Expenditure is rapidly increasing, we are now threatened with an extraordinary Expenditure, which is positively going on by leaps and bounds; and not only is there this very large amount of extraordinary Expenditure, but we are brought face to face with this fact, that over and above that extraordinary Expenditure, the Government are adopting measures which will necessarily cost a very large sum of money. I entirely agree with the former speakers in complaining, that when we were asked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the proposals in his Budget, not only did he not give us the full information which we have a right to expect, but, I think, in the course of his speech, he used language which was actually calculated to mislead the House, by diverting its attention from the possibility of any such extraordinary Expenditure as that which the Government now contemplate. I noticed that when the right hon. Gentleman—and I have now before me a report of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on the subject—alluded to the possibility of increase of Expenditure, he particularized the class of expenditure under the Vote of Credit, and he told the House that any further sums which the Government might require would be for analogous purposes to those which he had provided for in the Vote of Credit. It was quite clear that the assurance that additional Expenditure under the Supplementary Estimates would be incurred for purposes analogous to those provided for in the Vote of Credit, would necessarily divert the House from any idea that the Expenditure was to take the form which it was now clearly shown to take. Now, the right hon. Gentleman, I think, has entirely failed in giving any sufficient reason for thus withholding information with which Parliament ought to have been furnished. The Government had met the complaint that they had withheld from the House before the Recess the fact of their intention to bring over the Indian Native troops, by alleging their desire to maintain secrecy in the matter for diplomatic reasons; but that plea was altogether inconsistent with their course of action throughout the negotiations, which had erred on the side of too much openness and menace. We had Parliament called together at an early period, and the idea that the Government were about to take some extraordinary measures for the maintenance of British interests was then anticipated. We had a Vote of Credit of £6,000,000 at the time when it was believed that the money would not be spent. I have no doubt in my own mind that the real reason why this matter was not mentioned to the House of Commons was because it was a great innovation—a great interference with the Constitution of this country. I do not intend to go into that ground, which will be occupied in a subsequent debate; but I cannot help feeling that if the Government had come down before the Recess, and had announced in a fair and candid spirit that they did intend to take this unusual step of bringing these Indian troops, in order to assist in the British policy which the Government intended to pursue, any such intimation would have received the serious consideration of the House of Commons. I have no doubt that there would have been a very long and a very animated debate on that question, and that hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House would have been willing to sacrifice, if necessary, their Holidays to discuss the course which the Government proposed to take. I have no doubt that the object of the Government in keeping back this information was to get rid of the opportunity of Parliament discussing this innovation in the practice of the Government in this country; and I cannot help believing that one great object that the Prime Minister had in view was to create a new precedent in regard to the management of the affairs of this country, and that he would get, by means of this innovation, without any discussion, or the previous knowledge of Parliament, under the seal and authority of the Royal Prerogative, the right to bring the Native Indian troops into Europe. I am strongly of opinion that the course taken by the Government is one which is a slight to the House of Commons, and detracts from the Privileges of Parliament. I shall not go into the constitutional part of the matter; but I cannot help differing from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when, in reply to a criticism on the conduct of the Government, he said they had a constitutional right to despatch troops from India; but that, under the Bill of Rights, we might rest assured that no Indian troops could be brought into this Kingdom. If we are to have the sort of interpretation which the Government seem inclined to put on Acts of Parliament, I do not see that we have any certainty of protection under the Bill of Rights. I am quite aware of the difficulties that we are placed in on this side of the House in maintaining the rights of Parliament. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glamorganshire, who spoke with such effect, that if the Liberal Party had occupied the Treasury bench and had attempted to strike this blow at the public rights of the House of Commons—I have no hesitation in saying they would have found many Liberal Members who would have resisted such a proceeding on the part of the Government. I can recollect in the last Parliament, when our Friends sat on that bench, and when what were called the "Collier and Ewelme Scandals" took place. Even in such a matter as that, there was an outcry raised on the Opposition side of the House, which was responded to to some extent by hon. Gentlemen who were supporters of the Government. Such things as these, through which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich was held up to public odium, were insignificant and contemptible events compared with the serious actions now being taken by the Government. Are we, as the House of Commons, to allow the Government to take a course, the effect of which, if persisted in, will make our discussions, when we are voting Army and Navy Estimates, a mere farce? It is part of the constitutional functions of Parliament to control the Expenditure of the country. When we get into Committee of Supply, we have the opportunity, in the first instance, of voting that a certain number of men and no more shall be employed for ser- vice in the Army for the current year. We then have the opportunity, on the Money Vote, of discussing again whether the number of men we have is not more than sufficient. Subsequently to the Committee, we have the Report to the House, upon which further debate may arise—we have then the Mutiny Bill fixing the number of men, when we might refuse, on any of its stages, the number of men proposed by the Government. Yet all these safeguards are destroyed by the course adopted by the right hon. Gentleman—not a single safeguard I have alluded to is maintained by the right hon. Gentleman, except the single one that I suppose at some future time he will come down and ask us to pay the bill now incurred. It is all very well to say we can vote against its payment. This is only an illusory pretence. The money will have been spent, and at that time we shall be told that it is utterly useless to reject Votes for sums of money which have already been incurred. I say we shall have no control whatever if the present precedent is permitted and established; the effect of it will be, that if the House were to Vote that there should be a less number of men in the Army, then the Government would at once turn round and bring a number of men into Europe from India—they would order men occupying European garrisons home, and supply their places with troops from India, without at all consulting Parliament, and so render the decisions of Parliament nugatory. Are hon. Gentlemen content to sacrifice all the Privileges of Parliament which our forefathers fought for—and, I may almost say, died for? Are we so degenerate a race of men—men who have public rights and Parliamentary Privileges—are we so degenerate, that, under the direction of the Government—who ought to be the main protectors of the Privileges of Parliament, but who choose to be—must I say—traitors to the duties devolving upon them—are we, because they are prepared to tamper with them, to sacrifice our rights? Well, I do not know how far on the other side of the House we shall receive any sympathy in this matter, and their action in the past does not give me great encouragement; but I would ask them to raise their minds beyond the mere differences between the two sides of this House with regard to the policy of the Government in reference to the Eastern Question. If they are right, even in the main lines of their policy, it does not prove that they are right in taking this course—in employing troops from India without the consent of Parliament. I do not know what steps may be taken hereafter; but I hope we shall have an opportunity of recording our Votes against the course of proceeding adopted by Her Majesty's Government; and I hope, when the time comes, we shall not find ourselves without support from hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House in our endeavour to maintain the ancient Privileges and constitutional rights of the House of Commons.

desired to add a few words to the debate, and to put in an humble but emphatic protest against the way in which the House had been treated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the despatch of Indian troops. He thought no one in the House would have spoken more strongly than the right hon. Gentleman, if the Representative of any other Government had adopted the plan he had adopted with regard to the financial requirements of this country. The House had before it the third reading of the Bill for Ways and Means by raising the Income Tax and adding to the duties on dogs and tobacco. The right hon. Gentleman knew, when he was proposing that Bill, that he had to meet a larger expenditure than that which he mentioned to the House. When he was asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, on the eve of the Adjournment for the Easter Recess, whether he had any further information to give to the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he (Mr. Pease) recollected rightly, said he had nothing further to communicate to the House. Yet, the moment the Adjournment took place, it was publicly known that 7,000 troops were to be sent to Malta from India. If the Government could order 7,000 Indian troops to Malta, they might order 17,000, or any other number they thought fit. Now, how could they know, when they were asked to read the Bill a third time, what the expenditure of the country would be? The Bill was no true representation of what the increased expenditure of the country would be. He would once more protest against Parliament being treated in the manner in which it had been treated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in withholding from Parliament the information which he possessed, and then moving a long Adjournment, in order to prevent the policy of the Government from being discussed.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had professed great surprise that hon. Members should stop the progress of the Bill; but the right hon. Gentleman did an injustice either to his honesty or to his understanding. There were several important points, which would have to be discussed hereafter; but the special question before them that night was a very distinct and clear one, and one of no small importance. Three different issues might be raised with regard to the action of the Government in using the Indian troops as they had employed them in this case. The first would be the constitutional question arising out of the mode in which the Government had undertaken this great innovation; the second would be the question raised by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, whether legally or constitutionally those troops might be used? and the third was the policy of employing Indian troops at all in European service. The question raised that night was of a highly constitutional character. It concerned the relations and duties of the Government to the House of Commons. It might turn out to be technically true, that the Government had correctly advised the Crown with regard to the action which had been taken in this case; but the point immediately before them was, whether it was proper that the Government, in bringing forward the Budget at a time when they clearly foresaw that they would have to ask for larger Supplies, should so far actually, if not intentionally, deceive the House with regard to the amount of Supplies that would be asked during the year? But they were entitled to go a little further than that. It was not a mere question of the introduction of the Budget; but they happened to know that while the Government were incurring the tremendous responsibility of introducing so great an innovation as the employment of Indian troops, they concealed that fact from the House, and, but for a mere accident, they should not at that moment be able to raise the question upon the Bill. He thought the country would speak out against the conduct of the Government; and he was surprised both at the apathetic and the enthusiastic spirit of hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House. He was sorry that there had not been all along a stronger protest from the front Opposition bench against the proceedings of the Government. They appeared ready to subscribe their hands to every-thing which the Government asked them to do. When a Government had a large majority, which was prepared to vote almost anything, how were its wings to be clipped? How was it to be prevented from infringing upon the constitutional rights of the subject and of that House? It was only by a vigorous Opposition, only by an expression from the front Opposition bench of those high constitutional principles which ought to govern Parliament; and even though for a time a majority might succeed in carrying measures which transgressed those principles, yet they knew that the time would come when the tables would be turned, and when it would be possible once more to restore to the country whatever the Constitution had temporarily lost. As a humble Follower of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington), he regretted to say he was only expressing the opinion of a large section of the Liberal Party outside the House, when he stated that they wished, throughout the whole of the discussions which had arisen with respect to the Eastern Question, that the Opposition had been led with a little more vigour and distinctness, and then he would have been followed with a greater enthusiasm. But the answer just put forward by the Treasury Bench was one that did not bear examination. They had been told by the Government that the Crown had a right to come to important decisions upon great questions of foreign policy without regard to that House; and, if so, they could commit the country to an enormous expenditure, and then come down to the House and ask for what was practically a Bill of Indemnity. He would ask hon. Gentlemen on both sides to consider whether the case of emergency which had been put forward as one of the defences of the Government by the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. A. Mills) had been proved? There was no declaration of war, and no immediate prospect that the troops would be required. One was driven to the conclusion that the true motive of the secrecy on the part of the Government, as regarded the outside world, was not because there was an emergency, but because they did not wish that the House should exercise its constitutional right to intervene and discuss the question whether it was right or politic or constitutional to employ the Indian troops in the manner proposed. Therefore, he looked at the plea of emergency as a mere pretence, and he did not believe there were many hon. Members on the Government side of the House who would get up and defend the Government on that ground. His hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had pointed out how impossible it would be to exercise an effective control over the Expenditure if Governments, having large majorities, were to act upon the precedent which had been set them in this instance. The truth was that, unless in the case of unforeseen emergencies, it was regarded as the duty of a Ministry to state distinctly what were the whole charges which they had in contemplation for the coming year. That was the regular practice. That had not been done in this case. Comparing the dates given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the dates of the passage of the Mutiny Act, it was evident that if the Government had wished to behave in a constitutional manner, they might have taken some action to delay the Mutiny Bill for the purpose of bringing before the House and the country that increase of Force which, without the Mutiny Bill, was believed on that side of the House to be neither legal nor constitutional. Into that point he would not enter; but he could not but feel that at that moment they were justified in offering to Her Majesty's Government every possible obstruction, not only to their foreign policy, but to that part of the domestic policy which was involved in the subject immediately before the House. It would appear that they had reached a stage in this country of government by conspiracy. The Prime Minister and his Confederates—he would withdraw the word "Confederates," and substitute Associates—the Prime Minister and his Associates in the Cabinet appeared to be assuming more and more to educate the people of England up to a point at which the Government of this country would be able to do things which, certainly, for many years, had not been considered either right or constitutional. If the course which the Government had pursued were to be carried to further extremes, and infringements were to be made on legal and constitutional rights, he could not but feel that the day would come when it would be necessary to make a very strong and cogent protest against such a course of proceeding. It was a singular fact that this country, which for so long a period had been governed upon constitutional principles by its responsible Ministers, should find itself, at last, in hands that trifled with constitutional freedom. The rights and liberties, not only of the House, but of Her Majesty's subjects, it appeared, had, in no small degree, been violated by Her Majesty's Government. He, for one, would enter a protest that night against the course taken by Her Majesty's Government, because he could not but think it was a conspiracy to get this country committed to a course to which a very large number of Her Majesty's subjects were opposed. For that reason, if no one else did, he would divide the House against the Bill.

said, the House really was not informed what were to be the Ways and Means for the year—what would be the resources the State would require to meet its Expenditure? Nor was the House as yet informed what amount of military Force in Europe ought to be placed at the command of Her Majesty's Ministers; in other words, what ought to have been the Estimates? There seemed no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to create a Debt—he could not say how much; but he left the House in this position, that it was called on to vote the sum now asked under the impression that it ought to vote a great deal more. It was not within the competence of any hon. Member of the House to propose an increase in the taxation of the country—that was the privilege of the Representatives of the Crown only. Then, he would ask, on what were they to divide? All the great issues were postponed; and to refuse these taxes would be to diminish the Revenue, which they already knew to be insufficient to meet the Expenditure the House had already sanctioned. To divide in that sense would be absurd. It was his belief that the Government had acted not only unconstitutionally, but illegally, in importing these Indian troops into Malta, and taking them beyond the legitimate sphere of their proper operations, without the knowledge or consent of Parliament. That was a great issue—an issue which could not be decided that night. He thought it a very great issue indeed, having far wider bearings than any which had been touched upon in this debate. He (Mr. Newdegate) could not discuss this question now, as it would be out of Order to attempt it; but it was important for the country to decide, through its Representatives, whether Her Majesty's Ministers had not acted unconstitutionally and illegally in importing these Indian troops into Malta without any previous declaration of Parliament, either by Bill or Resolution. It was true that they could not force these troops into the United Kingdom, because they were precluded from doing so by the Bill of Rights. It was essential to the control of Parliament that the House should know what proportion of the Standing Army, for the maintenance of which it provided, was to be retained in the United Kingdom. If the Executive had the power to replace the troops in the Colonies by these Indian troops, which Parliament did not maintain, they might indefinitely increase the Standing Army, and the House of Commons would lose its legitimate control over what should be the number and employment of the Standing Army. These were not small issues; but, inasmuch as it was not within the Order of the House to debate them now, he should defer what he had to say upon them until he had a legitimate opportunity. Her Majesty's Ministers had lost, at least, one Colleague by these proposals; for they explained Lord Derby's retirement in the most honourable sense. It was unbecoming in the Servants of the Crown to postpone for a single day the explanations that they stated they were prepared to give on this great question.

thought that assertions such as those that had been made by the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. A. Mills) ought not to go forth uncontradicted, and he was prepared to prove, when the subject of the removal of the Indian troops was again before the House, that the whole teachings of experience, the policy of all the wisest statesmen who had governed India, and, above all, the lesson taught by the great Indian Mutiny, pointed to the conclusion that any attempt to carry out the policy of creating a martial spirit in India, and especially in the Native Indian Army, would be fraught with the greatest danger to the safety of our Indian Empire. In his opinion, it was very unfortunate that the policy of the Government in regard to the affairs of India had been imported into the consideration of the present Bill. As for the financial aspect of the question, without imputing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer any intentional desire to deceive Parliament, he felt that one result of the unfortunate concealment of the intentions of the Government had been to prevent the House of Commons from giving a full and fair consideration to the financial proposition of the Government. Now, the Budget was unsatisfactory in two respects. Its leading feature was, that in a time of peace, for the first time for a long period, they were acting on the vicious principle of not meeting the Expenditure for the year out of the Revenue of the year, but a remanet was left over till next year; and its other important characteristic was found in the fact, that the attempt to meet the deficit was partial and disproportionate. The framers of the Budget sailed very near the wind, and it was imperative that the Government should show no more expenditure than was absolutely necessary; another £500,000 of expenditure would seriously derange their plans, and to meet the new expense of moving the Indian troops, probably £1,000,000 would be wanted, and additional taxation would have to be imposed. But what provision would be made? It would be most undesirable to put another penny on the income tax, and it would be impossible to find any mode of increasing the indirect taxation which would not be very unpopular in the country. If the country at large thought it right to incur a great expenditure in making warlike preparations, was it not fair, he would ask, that that expenditure—at least till war broke out —should be met by means of additional taxation levied at the time? If we looked to the moral effect that might be produced on the negotiations, surely to show that the country was willing to submit to additional taxation was a much more powerful weapon to take into a Congress, than the importation of 6,000 or 7,000 men from India to Malta? Now, what he maintained was, that, owing to the unfortunate reticence of the Government with regard to the Bill under their discussion, the House had never yet been placed in a position to consider fairly their financial arrangements with regard to the ensuing year.

said, that, without doubt, one of the first duties of the Government was to submit to the House full information upon all questions in which expenditure of the public money was involved. To what extent had that duty been fulfilled in the present instance? The principle of sending the troops from India to Malta had been decided upon by the Cabinet on March 27, and the Financial Statement for the year was made on April 4. But, in his Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his calculations made no reference to the project which the Government had in contemplation, and, in fact, suppressed information which the country, through its Representatives, had a right to have. But the Government went beyond that; because, on the 16th April, the day on which Parliament adjourned for the Easter Recess, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated there had been no change in the state of affairs, and Government had no information to give the country. That certainly did not lead the House of Commons to expect any such extra expenditure as this Indian Expedition must involve. Before that, the House had the Estimates and the Mutiny Bill, in which the number of men to be placed on the Establishment and the expenses were indicated; yet, four days before the 16th April, Government gave instructions to the Indian Government to make the necessary contracts for transporting the troops, and of this the morning papers of April 17 gave information, showing that some Members of the Government had been more candid to the Press than the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been to the House of Commons. That he could not but regard as a slight upon the House, whose greatest privilege it was to control the Expenditure upon public matters. On the same morning, it was publicly known by telegram from India that Government were making the contract there for the conveyance of troops. Knowing something of mercantile affairs, he thought the Government had not used sound judgment in making these contracts. Instead of advertising for a certain amount of tonnage, they went privately to shipowners for separate tenders. Of course, all thought that an extraordinary amount of shipping would be required, and each asked a great deal more than he would have asked had each shipowner known that comparatively such a small amount of transport was wanted. He (Mr. Biggar) believed that much more had been paid for the ships than if the business had been conducted in a business-like manner. Their mismanagement had been the result of trying to do things in too clever a way. The expense had been increased; and, as Ministers and as men of business, the Government should lose the confidence of the country. As the Bill itself was based upon a thoroughly unsound principle of taxation, he should vote against it.

asked, if any information could be given the Commit- tee as to the erection of a new Mint? The present building was not at all in accordance with the spirit of the times; and although successive Chancellors of the Exchequer had promised to give the question of acquiring another building their serious attention, nothing had yet been done in the matter.

said, on more than one occasion Bills had been brought in for the purpose of erecting a new Mint on a fresh site; but, considering the present financial state of the country, he thought this was hardly the time to propose to spend a large sum of money in the purchase or erection of another building. Nothing was being done now in reference to the matter; and although everyone must admit that the existing Mint was not at all such as could be desired, yet the present was not the time when he could say anything should be attempted.

did not find fault with the present Chancellor of the Exchequer any more than either of his Predecessors; but he desired to impress upon the Government the propriety of possessing a Mint worthy of the country, and a building in a more convenient situation than the present one occupied. He trusted the question would not be lost sight of.

insisted that if a new Mint were built, the proper place for it was the centre of the City.

objected to the sum of £12 paid for religious services, and asked what particular services were applicable to the operations of the Mint. If the Vote was something which had been handed down to posterity, it was now time that it should disappear from the Estimates.

said, he could not give the information desired, as, at the present time, he was not sufficiently up to the details of his Office; but, before Report upon Supply, he would become acquainted with the reasons for inserting the amount in the Vote, and he hoped then to be able to satisfy the hon. Member as to the reasons why the sum was asked for.

hoped, when the hon. Baronet gave this information as to the money paid to the chaplain, he would also be able to inform the Committee why £3 a-year was paid to a sexton.

objected to the reply being postponed. He found no fault with the hon. Baronet for not being able at present to enter into details; but he protested against the system which was the usual course adopted now—of giving no information at all. Unless an answer were given he would divide the Committee.

said, he had excused himself for not answering the Question on the ground that he had recently taken the Office of Secretary to the Treasury, and had not had time to make himself acquainted with details. But he thought he could now explain the reasons for inserting in the Estimates the sums payable to the chaplain and the sexton. These were allowances which had been made for a considerable period, and they originated from the fact that the Mint formed part of the Tower itself in olden days. At present the Mint officers had seats in the Tower chapel, and the Mint authorities made the grants which appeared in the Estimates to continue the privilege to their officers of having those seats.

thoroughly excused the hon. Baronet for not at first being able to answer the Question; but, still, he thought someone should be present to give information on Questions which had suggested themselves after a careful study of the Estimates.

said, the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury was quite right with regard to what he had stated as to the Mint officers having seats in the Tower chapel; and, upon the whole, he thought the sum set down in the Estimates a fair charge to make for such accommodation.

observed, that he had a great regard for what was called the ornamental parts of Estimates; but he considered ornamentation had gone a little too far. Although some centuries ago the Mint employés might necessarily have been members of the Church of England, it could not be said that this was the case now, and so justified the payment to the chaplain. At any rate, the allowance to the sexton could not be defended on that ground, for he (Mr. O'Donnell) did not suppose that any of the officials particularly preferred being buried within the precincts of the Tower; and even if they did, he did not see why the services of a sexton should be subsidized specially on their behalf. The best course to adopt would be to omit these Votes at present, and then, if any reason for restoring them was shown, they could be replaced on Report. Therefore, he moved the reduction of the Vote by £15—the sums payable to the chaplain and the sexton.

did not see that it was necessary for every employé at the Mint to be a member of the Church of England to justify the payment of the chaplain; because that Church had within its communion men as broad as Mr. Bradlaugh, and others as advanced in Roman Catholicism as Cardinal Manning. That being so, there was no necessity to suppose that all the employés were members of the Church of England, especially as various gentlemen filled the pulpit of the Tower chapel; and, consequently, the congregation had some variety in religious views.

, while hoping the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) would not divide the Committee, trusted that the Secretary to the Treasury would turn his attention to the payment of these sums to the chaplain and sexton.

complained, that notwithstanding all the changes which had been made in this office, the effect of the alterations had been to increase the Votes each year; These increases were becoming very serious, and required explanation. The Clerk to the Commissioners had been advanced £500 a-year; the Librarian, whose salary, in 1877, was £400 a-year, had had another £100 a-year given him; and the salaries of clerks, which formerly stood at £1,937, had now reached £3,600. Unless he had satisfactory explanations of these increases, he must move to reduce the Vote.

complained that the office keeper had no less than four appointments. This multiplication of offices seemed to be taking hold of the Government to an alarming extent; and it was patent, that either the work in each instance was very easily performed, or that all four positions might be merged into one. Unless he were satisfied with the answer on this matter, he should move the rejection of the whole Vote.

said, the Patent Office had been in a transition state for some time past, and a great deal of additional duties had been imposed upon it, necessitating extra work. The Registration of Designs and the Registration of Trade Marks had of late been handed to that office, which had, necessarily, occasioned an increase in the Establishment. He would remind the Committee that there was a set-off against this increased expenditure, and that this was one of the offices by which the State made a profit. The Estimates showed that this year the Registration of Designs was calculated to produce £4,000, and the Registration of Trade Marks £5,000, while the receipts from the other branches of the Patent Office amounted to no less a sum than £ 172,000; so that this office, estimated to cost the nation £27,175, was really a source of Revenue to the extent of £181,000. As to the office keeper having more than one office to look after, it was very often convenient to employ one man to do the work in several offices, and it would be far more costly to have a separate man, with a distinct salary, to look after each office; therefore, the State benefited by the present arrangement.

said, he found that this office keeper had no less than £416 for looking after four offices; this he regarded as an extravagant waste of public money. He was sure people in large businesses, who employed office keepers, would be surprised to hear that this individual had £416 a-year for the work he did; and he desired to know from the hon. Baronet, whether this person was the son of a Nobleman who took a considerable sum out of the country in this way?

said, the Secretary to the Treasury had stated that the Patent Office produced £181,000 to the State; but had it struck the hon. Baronet whence that sum came? It came from the poor fellows who devoted their time to patenting things for the benefit of society, and who were punished by this office in the shape of fines, penalties, and stamps, to the extent of £181,000 a-year. Surely, the office ought to be more moderate in its demands on that class of people. The truth of the matter was, that a gentleman with £10,000 a-year never invented very much, and the country ought not to make so much out of the brains of the poor, and often struggling, inventor.

said, the question of the Patent Laws, if discussed in all its bearings and operations, would be found to be a very large one. When it was said that an inventor ought not to be charged fees on securing a patent, they must remember that a patent was a monopoly which the patentee had the sole right to exercise, and it was for the interests of the public that persons to whom these privileges were granted should pay a contribution to the State on account of them. The Committee who had considered the whole question, and on which he served, had heard evidence on both sides—the hardships of charging fees, and the injury which would be done if they were not charged, by giving encouragement to frivolous or useless applications. As to the office keeper having many offices to look after, ho might mention that they were very scattered; that, although in. charge of one person, he must necessarily employ subordinates to do the work required of him, and, of course, he paid these persons out of his total salary of £416. Therefore, he did not receive nearly as much money for his services as the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) seemed to infer.

observed, that from the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury, it was clear that the efforts of genius were weighted to the extent of nearly £200,000 a-year in the shape of patents. It was to the interest of the country for those gentlemen, whose inventive power was used for the benefit of the nation, to see that the expenditure which they incurred should be diminished as much as possible. The arguments of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), to the effect that one person should have charge of these offices because they were not contiguous, did not at all apply—in fact, he considered it a reason why such office should be separately looked after. Although he supposed there was no wish to divide the Committee on this subject, yet he could not but consider that there was a great want of economy in leaving these four offices under the care of one man; and he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would consider the matter, with the view of preventing such a discussion arising again.

said, the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had stated that the office keeper paid his subordinates. If that were so, why was there a charge of £17 included in the Vote for office-washing? The chances were, that as such a charge was made in one case, that the office keeper had all his other payments made tip to him. It was hard that men, who exhausted their time and energies in order to contribute their quota to the inventions of the day, should be so heavily weighted as to pay towards the support of a mere door or office keeper, who had £416 a-year. If sufficient reasons were not given to justify the item, he would divide the Committee on it.

said, no invention was perfect without the application of the technical knowledge of those who had practically worked the machine, and who, by their experience of defects in the mechanical construction of the machine, had suggested alterations equivalent almost to the full value of the invention itself, and yet all these inventors were taxed to meet the charges of the Patent Office. Considering that the explanations as to the whole Vote were not satisfactory, he moved that the salary of the Clerk to the Commissioners be reduced by £500 per annum. The Assistant Registrar, to whom they paid £600 a-year, was competent to discharge all the duties required, and as the duties cast upon the Chief Clerk were only ministerial, he thought the salary of the Clerk to the Commissioners might well be reduced by the sum he now proposed.

quite appreciated the value of inventions; but, as he had pointed out before, the additional work which had been thrown upon the Patent Office in the last few years necessitated the employment of additional clerks. He would remind the Committee that they had nothing to do with the hardship to individuals consequent on the charges for patents; because they were at that moment considering the Estimates, and not the law relating to Patents. So long as the 15&16 Vict. lasted, the charges for Patents as now made must be continued, and no discussion of that kind, although it might be very proper and very fair on a question for the amendment of the Patent Laws, could prevent those charges being made. As to the Clerk to the Commissioners, he previously had £1,000 a-year, which, on the additional work to which he had referred being put on the office, was raised to the present amount.

admitted, that that was not the exact time to raise a general discussion on the principles of the Patent Laws; but he did not think it could be denied that advantages were obtained from discussing the operations of those laws when the Estimates were under consideration. One effect which such a discussion might have would be to induce the Government to take in hand the rectification of the existing law; and no better instance of the desirableness of such a change could be found than in the fact, as disclosed by that discussion, of Members of both sides of the House desiring an alteration. The hon. Baronet had defended the payment of such large salaries to officials in the Patent Office on the ground that the State benefited by that office. The proper thing would be to estimate the value of these officials to the country, and not allow any advantage to them because of the amount of profit brought in by the working of the Patent Office. The working of that office, he was afraid, was in very many respects unjust to individuals and injurious to general interests. It might be quite true that men who derived an increased value for their property from public protection ought to contribute something to the support of the State which gave them that protection, and which enhanced the value of their property. That was a principle which he desired to see widely extended and carried much beyond the limits of the operations of the Patent Office. What he wished to see was, that anyone who made a profit in consequence of the protection of the State should pay to the Public Revenue a sum in proportion to, and corresponding to, the value which he derived from that State protection. The question was, whether the best time for levying these rates on inventions was after the property had begun to be valuable, or before it had come into existence at all? Hon. Gentlemen defended the levying of heavy stamp duties on applicants for patents; but would it not be much better to reduce this scale of duties, and then for the officers of the State to keep a sharp look out on the profits derived from the patents, and make a charge thereon?

reminded the hon. Member that the question before the Committee was the Amendment to decrease the salary of the Clerk to the Commissioners, and not the principle under which the charges for patents were levied.

said, he thought he had a right to reply to arguments used, seeing that the real question before the Committee was whether the Patent Office was too expensive? He confessed that he thought it was, and that some of the items charged for it should be reduced as far as possible.

said, that this gentleman was only a kind of general overlooker, without any special knowledge or qualifications. He did not, therefore, think that he should be paid such a large sum by way of salary.

said, there was an item of £500 for the attendance of police at the Patent Office. He should like to know something of the rate of remuneration paid to the police, the reason he had for asking the Question being the extremely scanty remuneration allowed to the police in attendance at the House of Commons.

said, that orders had been issued from the Home Office to the effect that, for the future, all police constables employed at the different Public Offices should receive the same remuneration as those who were in attendance at the House of Commons. The hon. Member must not forget that employment in the Public Offices was looked upon by constables as one of the prizes of the force.

drew attention to the item for the salary of an office keeper of the Patent Office. The holder of that post, it seemed, also held several similar offices, receiving, in the aggregate, about £450 a-year. In his opinion, £200 a-year would be a very fair salary for a door keeper. He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by £185, paid to the doorkeeper of the Patent Office.

could not see on what grounds this gentleman was paid for washing out the office, while some charwomen were actually employed to do the work. He did not think the Government should oppose the reduction.

said, that an office keeper must have some salary, and perhaps £185 was not too much. By giving the holder of the office several salaries for attending to several contiguous offices, an economy was effected. If this sum were omitted from the Vote, the keeper of the Patent Office would have no salary as such. With regard to the washing, for which £17 was allowed, it was paid for keeping clean the towels supplied to the officers of the establishment. A similar sum was paid in most offices for a like service, and were it not paid, an addition to the salary of the office keeper would have to be made in lieu thereof.

observed, that there was a great deal of dissatisfaction with respect to the Patent Office. A great deal of money was paid into that office, and an absurdly small sum was laid out. There was a bad library, and a very insufficient catalogue, at the Patent Office. No doubt, the officials were very polite; but much less advantages were enjoyed by inventors in this country than were conceded to them at the Patent Office in the United States.

reminded the hon. and gallant Member that the only question before the Committee was with respect to the item of £185 for the salary of the office keeper, and that he was not at liberty, at that point, to go into other matters.

said, he would reserve his remarks for another occasion.

thought the explanations given had not been satisfactory. He felt bound to record his protest against the Vote by dividing the Committee on the question of the accumulation of offices on one individual. £400 a-year was far too much money to pay for keeping offices clean; while, at the same time, charwomen were paid for washing them out.

remarked, that the keeper of the Patent Office must be a man of responsibility. He had to lock up a place, which contained many very valuable articles after the different officers had left; and was not a mere office cleaner, as had been suggested. He thought, therefore, that in a great Department like the Patent Office, the sum of £185 was not too large a salary for an office keeper.

said, that the salary was not too much, if the holder of it performed his duties. But, as he held several similar offices, the duties must evidently be left to subordinates. He should suggest that three persons should be selected to fill the other offices held by the keeper of the Patent Office.

said, that as nearly all the Public Offices opened and closed at similar hours, it was clear that the holder of those various offices must do his work by deputy in three of them, as he could only be in one place himself. He strongly protested against delegated responsibility, and would divide the Committee upon the matter.

found an item down of £150 a-year for the Lord Chancellor's Messenger. He was unaware of the special functions of the Lord Chancellor's Messenger, or whether they could be performed by some of the other very numerous messengers in the Public Service. There were 20 first-class messengers at £94 to £109 a-year; 9 second-class at £55 to £91 a-year; and, again, in the Designs' Registry, there were others. He, therefore, begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £150.

explained that the Vote was for the subsistence allowed the Messenger when travelling, and for other necessary expenses. The item was placed in this Vote under the 40 & 41 Vict. c. 41, which authorized the employment of this officer.

drew attention to the item of £3,820, for the cost of advertising the Stationery Office in The London Gazette. A foot-note in the Estimates stated that this item did not represent an actual cost transaction, but the amount that would have been paid to The London Gazette for 16 advertisements at the usual rate. He could not understand this; for, if really paid for advertising, it would be a very large amount, while, if not paid, such an item ought not to be put in the Estimates. He would merely call the hon. Baronet's attention to the item, as, probably, among multitudes of others, it had escaped his attention.

said, that the receipts of the Patent Office justified the increase that had been made in the salaries of the officials within the last year or two. With respect to the advertisements, money was never paid for advertisements of this kind; but the amount which they represented was inserted under its proper head in the Estimates, the advertisements which emanated from the Stationery Office being debited to that Department.

thought the time had now arrived when the question of the Patent Office generally should be raised. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) had pointed out that the Patent Office was conducted in a very improper manner, and that very large fees were charged to patentees, and little or no return was made to them. The Government did not go to the expense of supplying a proper museum for patents; nor did it give a complete list of patents. Patentees were in some respects a very worthy class, for they went to a great deal of trouble and expense, and frequently ran the risk of considerable loss. There ought to be a better mode of ascertaining what patents had been already granted. In one instance he knew of, the patentee of an improvement in iron shipbuilding had his invention used by the British Government; but, when he asked for payment, it was refused, and that although the invention was perfectly new and had never been used before. In his opinion, the system of patents should undergo thorough revision and improvement in the interests of patentees. He would give another illustration of the working of the present system by stating what had happened to a person he was acquainted with. A small manufacturer of machinery invented some improvement; but a person saw it while advancing to completion, and got a large sum from some persons in Scotland for the patent, while the real inventor obtained nothing.

wished for some information from the Government as to whether they intended to bring in a new Patent Law Amendment Bill that Session? The charge for patenting inventions was really a tax on the inventor. The Government ought to bring in a Bill at an early period to prove that they were earnest in the matter, for on previous occasions they had never attempted to press it to a second reading. In the United States, the system of cataloguing was very superior to that adopted here. An inventor was put to immense trouble in the London Patent Office, in going through long specifications and obscure drawings, and had great difficulty in finding out what had been previously patented. On taking up an American catalogue, an inventor had simply to turn it over and find a few pictures—something between freehand drawing and engineering sketches—which explained in a general way what patents were about, and thus saved an infinitude of trouble.

said, he thought some explanation was necessary as to the cost of the Patent Office, in reference principally to the charges included in the Estimates for the cost of lithographing designs and printing specifications, which were included in applications for patents. He could have understood this increase, if the applications for patents had also increased in number, and the fees paid by applicants had also, of necessity, been larger; but he found that the contrary was the case. There certainly was an increase in the fees for patents to the extent of £1,000 on the year; but the charges for printing and lithography in connection with the Patent Office had risen from £10,600 to £15,700. On the face of the Estimate, it certainly seemed strange that the increased revenue should be so largely out of proportion with the expenditure, and he hoped that a sufficient explanation would be forthcoming.

said, he had personally inspected the Patent Office in Washington, to which his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Major Nolan) had referred. The building had since then, unfortunately, been destroyed by fire; but the lithographed drawings of the inventions patented were saved, and they had been so well executed that, although the deposited models were burnt with the building, there could be no difficulty in constructing fresh models with the assistance of the drawings. This, he thought, showed the importance of preserving accurate lithographs of the models which were deposited in the Patent Office in London.

said, he was bound to corroborate the statements which had been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway as to the necessity for some alteration in the Patent Laws. During the last three or four years, Bills with that object had been introduced and passed by the House of Lords; but the House of Commons had allowed them to drop without even taking the trouble to examine the measures. As an instance of the necessity of amending the law, he might mention that if an Englishman patented an invention, however great the expenditure might be—and it was almost prohibitory to a poor man—he was bound within a certain time to manufacture a certain number of the articles which he had patented, and to offer them for sale, or the patent lapsed; but this was not the case with a foreigner, who might patent an invention, and then, without impairing his patent right, refuse either to make and sell the patented articles, or to grant licences to any other persons to make them. The Remington rifle afforded a case in point. If the patentee would grant licences, English manufacturers could make the weapons at about two-thirds of the price charged by the American patentees; but he had refused to do so, and still retained his patent rights.

agreed in thinking that the Patent Laws required amendment, and suggested that some steps should be taken to guard against any number of persons patenting the same idea, which was constantly done under the operation of the existing law.

admitted that the whole subject of the Patent Laws was one well worthy the consideration of the House. It had, as a matter of fact, already occupied the attention of both branches of the Legislature on more than one occasion; but he was afraid that, in view of the progress which had been made with Government Business in the course of the present Session, it would not be possible for the Government to introduce a Bill on the subject of the Patent Law in the course of the present Session. In answer to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), he had to say that the increase in the item for the Stationery Office was due to reforms in the management of the Department which had been introduced at the instance of his hon. Friend the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Winn), and would result in a considerable saving as far as the Stationery Vote in the aggregate was concerned.

said, he was not quite satisfied as to the cataloguing of patents, and again asked who was responsible for the way in which the work was or was not done? He did not think the Government ought to be satisfied with the way in which the work was now done; the Members of the House generally were certainly not satisfied, and as a Bill on the question was not to be introduced this Session by the Government, he thought some further explanation ought to be given forthwith. He had no doubt that a clever mechanic could make a good model of an invention from the existing drawings, in case the original model was destroyed; but for purposes of reference, he thought care should be taken to preserve a sufficient number of drawings and specifications in reference to any inventions that might be patented. In this respect, he thought the English law relating to patents was very much behind the law which existed in America. He should like to know whether there was any intention, on the part of the Government, to adopt an improved system of cataloguing patents?

said, he was not in a position to say more than that it was in contemplation to improve the system by means of which the existing Patent Law was administered, and, at the earliest possible moment, to amend the law itself.

said, that notwithstanding the exalted position of the Paymaster General, he seemed to receive no salary, a fact which he should like to have explained. He supposed that the right hon. Gentleman who held the office did not figure for a salary in connection with this particular office, because he was paid for some other office which he held under the Crown. This plurality of offices was to his mind very unsatisfactory, and he should be pleased to see it abolished; but he supposed it could not be done in the course of the present Session. There was another fact in re- gard to the Vote to which he wished to call attention—that was the comparative smallness of the salaries paid in Ireland and England. He found that in the Dublin branch of the Office there was employed a charwoman who only received 7s. per week. He should have thought that a Liberal Government would have been able to afford a little higher wage than this to the poor old creature; because, looking to the wages paid to similar people engaged in the English branch of the Service, it appeared that the charwomen were paid 12s. a-week at the Mint in London.

said, he was prepared to grant that a charwoman could live more cheaply in Dublin than in London; but even that fact did not justify so great a disparity as existed between 7s. a-week and 12s., for doing precisely the same kind of work. Looking through the whole list of officers and salaries, he found that the salaries paid were in inverse ratio to the duties performed; and he could not help thinking, therefore, that the Government ought to consider the amounts paid to the humbler officials who received salaries barely sufficient for their maintenance.

said, he had again to call the attention of the Committee and the public to the plurality of offices and salaries in the Public Service. He found, that under the present Vote, one of the clerks received, in addition to his salary of £400 a-year, £50 per annum for certain duties he was supposed to perform in connection with the verification of Income Tax Returns. If the same persons were engaged in trading or manufacturing pursuits, and by means of rules, arrangements, and combinations among themselves, were able to draw three, four, or five distinct sets of wages, there would be an outcry raised against them, and he could therefore see no reason why they should be allowed to do it in the service of the country.

said, that whatever might be urged against a plurality of offices and salaries in some branches of the Public Service, the objection did not apply in the present instance, inasmuch as the additional £50 a-year were paid for extra services performed in the office from which the gentleman received the larger salary of £400. The salary was simply divided, instead of being paid in a lump sum. With regard to the fact of the Paymaster General appearing to receive no salary, he must say that the office was formerly filled by a gentleman who held other offices; and the present holder of the position, having been abroad as one of the Commissioners connected with the purchase of the Suez Canal Shares, whilst resigning the lucrative appointments he held prior to going out, resumed the duties of this particular branch of those appointments on his return, without any amount being set down for his salary as Paymaster General. With regard to the wages paid to the charwomen in Dublin and London, he could only say that the amount was regulated by the laws of supply and demand, which were in turn regulated by the cost of living in the two cities.

said, the sum of 7s. per week was, to his knowledge, much less than was paid to any decent charwoman in any private office in Dublin, and he hoped, at least the ordinary scale of payment might be applied in this case.

said, he noticed a charge of £30 per annum for a "non-resident housemaid," and asked for an explanation. He knew absenteeism was the curse of Ireland, but was not prepared for absentee housemaids.

said, the explanation simply was that the housemaid in question did not live on the premises where her duties were performed.

called attention to the fact that an item appeared in the Vote for the salary of a Deputy Treasury Remembrancer and Deputy Paymaster in Ireland. He asked for information as to the date of the appointment and the duties which were done in exchange for a salary of £1,300 a-year, originally fixed at £1,200?

said, the office was created in 1871, and the fact that the salary now paid was different from that originally fixed was that the office had been re-organized since it was created.

said, he had been struck by the phraseology used in drawing the Estimates. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had drawn attention to the "non-resident housemaid;" he might also have informed the Committee that there was a sum set down for the payment of "redundant clerks." A Society had been established in Ireland for the preservation of the Irish language; and he thought it would not be amiss to start a similar Society on this side of the Channel for the preservation of the English language.

said, he had often wondered what the office of Treasury Remembrancer was. The Committee had been told that the office was created in 1871; but he, on the other hand, had heard a rumour that it was not a new creation at all, but was an old office which had been suddenly resuscitated for the benefit of a gentleman who had been sent to Ireland from England.

said, he found the office in existence at the time when he went to the Treasury, and he had been informed that it was created in the year 1871—beyond that he could say nothing.

said, he should ask for further information on this and other kindred questions on the Report.

suggested that one of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the front Opposition bench, who were in Office in 1871, should give some information as to the creation of the office. The salary paid seemed to him to be out of proportion to the duties attaching to it, and he should, therefore, move to reduce the amount by £200.

observed, that although he was not a Member of the late Government, yet he knew, and, indeed, it was perfectly well known in Ireland, that this Treasury Remembrancer (Mr. Herbert Murray) was sent over by the late Government, in order to introduce economy in the Public Offices of that country, whether they were "redundant" or not. That gentleman had been the main source and mainspring of all the economy that had been effected in Ireland of late years. If the doctrines of Mr. Herbert Murray were more completely carried out, a great many of the redundant offices in Ireland would be suppressed.

said, the last speaker had correctly stated that the duty of this officer was to assist economy in every possible way he could.

said, these professions of economy were all very well, but the result of this gentleman's labours was to present the Committee with an increase of £989 on the Estimate of last year.

did not know whether this gentleman was a deserving officer or not, but he was rather inclined to doubt it. Last year, or the year before, he was in the Four Courts in Dublin, when he saw a troop of soldiers in red uniforms marching by with a civilian at their head. He endeavoured to follow them, but they eluded him, for they appeared to have gone down into the bowels of the earth. The next day, about the same hour, he was pursuing his avocation in the Four Courts, and he noticed a body of soldiers in white uniforms, led by the same civilian. He discovered that the civilian was Mr. Herbert Murray, who was discharging his duties as economiser in Dublin. It appeared that certain contracts for coals had been entered into, and that there was likely to be a large loss in consequence thereof. A question had arisen as to whether the coals were Scotch coals or Welsh coals, and Mr. Herbert Murray placed himself in command, first of Scotch soldiers, and secondly of Welsh soldiers, in order to explore the cellars of the Four Courts, and to ascertain whether the contract of coals had been properly carried out or not. That, in his (Mr. Meldon's) judgment, was not a proper way of conducting such a business. He thought there was not a proper inspection. It was alleged that much benefit had been derived from Mr. Murray's labours; but he maintained that the Treasury had no right to create a situation of this kind for any purpose whatever; and he wanted to know whether there was any legal justification for this gentleman having a very substantial salary? He thought the Committee ought to be on its guard against the creation of such offices. If, when the matter came up again on the Report, it should turn out that the appointment had not been legally made, he should certainly move to reduce the Vote.

asked for explanations respecting the sums paid to officers of the War Office and the Admiralty, for assisting in the preparation of the Army List and the Navy List?

replied, that the sums were paid because special knowledge was required in the preparation of these Lists.

said, every Member of the Committee must admit, that as far as writing materials in the House were concerned, there was no cause whatever of complaint. He thought, however, there was a subject of legitimate complaint with regard to the unwillingness or inability of the Printing Department to forward Parliamentary Papers beyond a radius of four miles from the House of Commons. When hon. Members were called upon to pay so large a bill, they ought, at least, to have the satisfaction of knowing that they obtained the worth of their money, and that they got the work thoroughly well done. It was very inconvenient to Members to have to pay a heavy postage on their Parliamentary Papers if they chanced to live beyond four miles from the House of Commons. He hoped the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) would see his way to effecting some improvement in this direction. He thought that no hon. Member living in London ought to have any difficulty in getting his Parliamentary Papers free and at a reasonable time.

said, it was not the duty of the Stationery Office to deliver the Votes. That rested with the Vote Office of this House, and was regulated by the Speaker and the officers of the House. As attention had now been called to the matter, it would, no doubt, come under the notice of those who were responsible for the delivery of the Votes.

pointed out that a new item had been introduced of £3,000, in the shape of a special grant for the preparation and publication of Hansard's Debates. He desired to know what arrangements had been made with reference to the reports published by Mr. Hansard?

said, the arrangement made for the payment of the £3,000 was a temporary one for this Session only. That sum was to be paid for a Report of discussions in Committee, and of other Business of the House. Last Session, attention was called by one or more hon. Members to the incompleteness of the Reports of the proceedings in the House for purposes of reference. The present Leader of the House, accordingly, thought it right to make an experiment, in order to see whether a more complete record of the proceedings of the House for purposes of reference was valued by hon. Members. For that reason, the present item for a definite sum had been introduced into the Estimate.

said, he must revert to the question of the Army and Navy Lists. In the case of the London Gazette, money was obtained by the sale and advertisements, and the sums were here stated. He fancied that the Army and Navy Lists must likewise bring in a considerable revenue. There were advertisements in both those publications, and the sale must be very large; but he observed no entry under these heads.

imagined that the receipts from these publications were entered under some general heading. He would, however, make inquiries, and endeavour to explain to his hon. Friend on another oc- casion what was the real state of the case.

said, it appeared that The London Gazette, The Edinburgh Gazette, and The Dublin Gazette realized large profits. The charge for advertisements in those papers was extremely high, and pressed very heavily on the public. Many advertisements were required by Acts of Parliament to be inserted in The Gazettes, and it appeared to be a great hardship that the public should be obliged to advertise in those papers, if the cost was larger than it would be in any other papers, supposing that the advertisers were at liberty to make a selection.

desired to say a few words on the item relating to the publication of Hansard's Debates. It would be remembered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer put this down as one of the Supplemental Votes, and asked for £100 in order to raise a discussion, so that the subject had already been before the Committee in that shape. But the right hon. Gentleman shunted the general discussion to some more convenient season, and the present time, it appeared to him, was a convenient season to speak about it. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in his place to explain why the item had been introduced. He did not know whether this was a proper sum of money to expend for such a purpose. He did not speak much in the House himself, but other hon. Members did. The positions which hon. Members occupied in the columns of the newspapers differed very considerably. Every Minister, of course, got a long account of his speech; but when A or B spoke, the reporter wrote—"After a few words from, so and so." When somebody else addressed the House, the report would go on to say—"After a little conversation," and so forth. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite right in taking measures to secure the publication of something like a fair abstract of the speeches delivered in the House. They did not want very long reports of speeches, but reports condensed in an intelligible manner. What was required was a fair abstract of the speeches which were delivered in the House, and, as far as he could see, Hansard had latterly given a fair abstract of the proceedings. They considered them- selves to be a very important Assembly, and they naturally thought that there ought to be a reliable account of their proceedings. Looking at Hansard's Debates, he was of opinion that that publication did now give a fair abstract of the proceedings of the House of Commons. He congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer on having had the courage to put this item in the Estimate, and he hoped the House would agree to it. He believed that brighter days were coming with regard to the reports of Parliamentary debates.

was not aware whether any Minister had offered an explanation of the new arrangement with Mr. Hansard, and had stated how long it was to last. If an explanation had been offered, he could only express his regret that he had not been present to hear it, because he was most anxious to know exactly what was proposed to be done. He hoped, however, that whatever was done would be of a temporary nature; for he thought the Government ought to appoint a small Committee to inquire into what was practicable, as well as desirable, in this matter. They would then find that some hon. Members were acquainted with reporting, and that much more than they anticipated might be done for a moderate sum of money. There would be ample time to consider the subject between now and next Session. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk), as to the excellent plan of reporting speeches in abstract, he (Mr. Sullivan) thought it would be a great deal better if they were spoken in abstract.

said, he had already stated that this sum had been put down for the present year in order to test the work which was being done. It was proposed that, with a view to future reference, a more complete account of the discussions of the House should be printed.

observed, that this question of Hansard's Debates, and the advantage of having an improved record of the proceedings of the House, ought not to exclude what was the main ground of complaint with regard to the reporting of speeches. He knew that on two or three occasions, both this year and last year, and he believed in previous years also, the arrangements for report- ing speeches in the House were made the subject of complaint both in the House and also, he believed, by the Speaker. The Speaker's advice was asked upon the question. The readiness of hon. Members to subsidize Hansard's Debates, ought, by no means, to allow them to forget that the arrangements for reporting the debates in the House were extremely defective. Those arrangements were especially defective as regarded the Irish Members and the representation of Irish newspapers. An abuse—for it was nothing less than a very serious abuse—had grown up, by which a monopoly of the reporting of the debates of the House was given to the London newspapers. This was a very serious matter. Practically, it resulted in the habitual dissemination of most erroneous and misleading reports on the numerous Irish questions of importance.

intimated that the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) was not addressing his remarks to the merits of the question under consideration. The Vote had reference to the debates in Hansard, and not to the reports published in particular newspapers.

proceeded to say, that for the purpose of raising this discussion, he objected to this subsidizing of Hansard's Debates, inasmuch as that proposal was calculated to divert the attention of the Committee from a much more important question—namely, the general reporting of the debates of the House.

, again interposing, pointed out that the hon. Member for Dungarvan would have an opportunity of calling attention to that subject on another occasion. The question now before the Committee was, whether the grant for Hansard's Debates should be paid for out of this Vote? It was not competent for the hon. Member to enter into the general subject of reporting the debates in journals which were not subsidized.

said, that in point of fact, Hansard's Debates were compiled from a Press representation which did not include any Irish journals. This circumstance re-acted against the value of Hansard's Debates, as records of the Parliamentary action of Irish Members in the present Parliament.

pointed out, that that subject was very remote from the question before the Committee, which had reference to a special grant for Hansard's Debates. On this Vote, the hon. Member for Dungarvan could not raise a question as to whether the Irish Press was represented or not in the Reporters' Gallery.

thought that, according to the Chairman's ruling, he should be able to show that the hon. Member for Dungarvan was thoroughly in Order. As he understood the matter, Mr. Hansard did not have a reporter in the Gallery under his own control and in his own pay; but he took his summary from one or other of the London morning papers. Well, those papers did not interest themselves about Irish questions, and the practical result was that Irish questions were more or less overlooked. On the other hand, if the Dublin papers, which naturally took a special interest in Irish subjects, were represented in the Gallery, the result would be that Hansard would have another selection, instead of being obliged to rely on the London morning papers. On that ground, he thought the hon. Member for Dungarvan was in Order in his line of argument. He might, perhaps, be mistaken in supposing that Mr. Hansard had not a special reporting staff of his own; but he understood that Mr. Hansard had not, and he had always understood so.

believed the object of the Vote under discussion was, that Mr. Hansard should have in the House a reporter, who would take particular cognizance of the debates. and who would more completely represent what took place than the ordinary staff of a newspaper could possibly do. In order to get this more complete record, a special reporter had been placed in the Gallery, and this item had been submitted to the consideration of the Committee.

wished to urge, as an additional reason, that in the case of Hansard's Debates, whenever a question of their general accuracy arose, a mistake attributed to an English Member could be corrected by a representation being made to the London Press, whereas there was no check whatever on Hansard's accuracy as long as the Irish Press was excluded from the House. He thought that the Irish Press ought to be represented, in order to afford a check which would secure that the public duty entrusted to Hansard would be properly performed.

here pointed out again to the hon. Member for Dungarvan, that the question before the Committee was the particular Vote respecting Hansard's Debates. It was not competent for the hon. Member to travel away from the subject, by raising a question as to the propriety or otherwise of the Irish Press being represented in the Gallery of the House.

understood the right hon. Gentleman the Speaker was responsible for the arrangements in the Gallery, and he might make some provision in the direction required.

thought the discussion of this subject might be avoided, provided the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury would take into his consideration the desirability of referring the whole question to the investigation of a Committee. He desired to keep strictly to the question before the House, and he said distinctly that the reports of Mr. Hansard were not accurate, and they were not worth the sum it was proposed to pay for them. The Secretary to the Treasury had just told them that it was proposed to give this extra sum of £3,000 for a reporter of Mr. Hansard's in the House. Now, he could say, from his own knowledge, that it was beyond the physical powers of either a reporter, or two or three reporters, to accurately report all the proceedings of the House. A large staff of reporters was required to do that. Therefore, if the hon. Baronet was correct in saying that the Vote was for only a reporter, it was a piece of extravagance, because it was impossible for a reporter to do the work. As a matter of fact, the way the work was done was this—the reports of newspapers were reprinted a week or 10 days subsequently to the delivery of the speeches, and the speeches, short or long as they might be, were sent by Mr. Hansard to the Gentlemen who had delivered them for correction. If an hon. Member thought fit to elaborate his speech of three lines to three columns he could do so, and send that back to Mr. Hansard, and it would appear in the reports as if it was the speech which had been delivered in the House. If the hon. Member did not think proper to do this, his speech would appear in Hansard's reports in the mutilated form in which it might have been published in some paper. Every hon. Member knew that, in making this statement, he was speaking the truth; and, therefore, without at all discussing the general question, he said the reports of Mr. Hansard were comparatively worthless, owing to the way the work was performed. In the first place, the reports were not sent in proper time to Members for correction, and, in the second place, they were not taken by reporters who were specially engaged by Mr. Hansard for the purpose. The reports in Hansard were simply reports taken from the newspapers, and Mr. Hansard must depend upon the accuracy of the newspapers for what he published.

said, he had no alternative but to move the rejection of the item proposed to be voted to Mr. Hansard, and he did so on the ground that if the Press in general was excluded from this House a semi-official report of the debates would be highly injurious, because there would be no control over its accuracy; and when one portion of the Press was excluded, as was now the case, to that extent the reports must also be untrustworthy as a record of what they required. He had desired to point out that the exclusion of the Irish Press was a reason for saying that there was a want of public control over Hansard's Debates; but as the Chairman had ruled that he could not bring this matter forward, he would refrain from doing so, though he confessed he could not see the ground for the ruling of the hon. Gentleman. No record of the proceedings of this House could satisfy the public which might not be fairly compared with the reports of the public Press, and at present a most important portion of that Press was excluded from the House. He begged to move the omission of the item for £3,000.

said, when he first saw this large item of £3,000, he was rather startled by it; but he had ascertained the facts to be these—Mr. Hansard had been put to considerable expense in order to try this experiment, and in order to carry out the wishes of the House. In order that the proceedings in Committee and after midnight should be reported at greater length, Mr. Hansard engaged the reporters on the newspapers, and paid them extra for the services they performed for him. The consequence was that, under this system, they would have, in the course of this year, much fuller and more satisfactory reports of their debates than they had hitherto had. It was not as if they were going to vote this sum for no additional work. Mr. Hansard was endeavouring to carry out the wishes of the House, and, in doing this, he had to incur considerable expense; and, therefore, under these circumstances, he did not think £3,000 was an unfair sum to give him.

said, he was loth to interfere again in the discussion of this question, but he desired to answer some remarks which had been made. [While the hon. Member was speaking there was an interruption.]

The hon. and learned Member for Louth has called the attention of the Committee to a circumstance which appears to me to be one very much to be regretted. When the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) was first addressing the Committee, I heard some such disturbance as that to which reference has been made, and I at once endeavoured to put a stop to it. On the second occasion, the sound had not distinctly reached me; and I feel certain any hon. Member, who has so far forgotten the respect due to the Committee as to indulge in such interruptions, will not repeat the conduct after the public notice which has now been taken of the matter.

said, after the statement just made by the Chairman, it would be only a graceful act for the hon. Member who was in error to rise in his place and apologize for the insult he had offered to the dignity of the Committee. An hon. Member near him (Mr. R. Power)—in fact, two hon. Members—were in a position to state who the hon. Member was, and if the hon. Member himself did not come forward and apologize for what he had done, he hoped his name would be made known. Some time ago, when an hon. Member misconducted himself in the Lobby, the matter was brought before the House, and the hon. Member had to apologize; and in this case he did not think the hon. Member complained of ought to be allowed to remain silent under the condemnation which he had received from the Chair. If he was worthy of his position as a Gentleman in that House, he would at once get up and apologize; if not, he ought to be named.

I will point out to the Committee that, when the ruling of the Chair has been invited on a particular subject and it has been given, it is not customary to pursue the discussion when that ruling is not disputed.

said, what he desired to do was to call attention to a new feature in this case. Two hon. Gentlemen near him were in a position to name the offender, and the question was whether he was to be dragged to justice, or would voluntarily come forward and pay the only retribution in his power to the offended dignity of the Committee by making an apology?

said, he was in a position to point out the hon. Member who had interrupted, and if he did not rise in his place and apologize, he should adopt the suggestion which had been made and name him, because this was not the first time things of this kind had occurred in the same quarter.

said, it appeared to him very undesirable that this matter should be pursued further, especially after the ruling which had been given by the Chair. He would, however, submit to the Committee, as a point of Order, if it had been intended to proceed against any hon. Member who it was alleged had been guilty of indulging in un-Parliamentary sounds, attention should have been directed to the conduct the moment it took place. In this case, several hon. Members had addressed the Committee since the offence was first committed, and now attention had been drawn to the matter, he thought it was not desirable they should pursue the subject further.

said, although he was in a position to name the hon. Member who had offended, yet he was only one among many, and therefore it might be hard to particularize him; besides which, he hoped that the lesson which the hon. Member and others had received that evening, would prevent a repetition of their conduct.

said, he was rather surprised the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson) should have suggested that this subject should be allowed to drop; because he was the very right hon. Member who, when there was cock-crowing from behind the Chair, drew the Speaker's attention to it.

said, the hon. and gallant Member for Galway was perfectly right. He (Mr. Dodson) did rise, and call the attention of the Speaker to the un-Parliamentary sounds which were uttered on the occasion referred to; but he rose the instant they were uttered, and, having drawn forth the Speaker's ruling on the subject, he rested satisfied, and he did not endeavour afterwards to call attention to any particular Member who had been guilty of the conduct.

said, he did not pay any attention to the interruptions, nor did he intend to draw the Chairman's notice to them. Personally, he attached very little importance to what had taken place. He regarded it as an evidence of the Darwinian theory of the development of species. He was told the hon. Member could imitate the sounds of other animals in a much more natural manner. Why the few observations he was about to address to the Committee should have aroused the animosity of the hon. Member, he was as a loss to conceive. What he wanted to say was, that he was loth to vote on this question without some further explanation. Was Mr. Hansard only to have one reporter in the Gallery, or were a number of the representatives of the Press to be subsidized by Mr. Hansard, simply because they had seats in the Gallery? The Committee was entitled to explanation on this point.

stated, that this sum of £3,000 had been placed in the Estimates in order to attempt to fulfil the implied wish of the House as expressed last year, which was that they should have fuller reports of their proceedings for the purpose of reference. Mr. Hansard was by no means limited to one reporter. He engaged to do the work for the sum put in the Estimates, and he could employ one or more reporters as he desired; and he thought anyone who had seen the reports which had lately been published would testify, as he could, to the fact that they were far more ample than they were prior to this arrangement being entered into, Hon. Members had an opportunity, if they cared to avail themselves of it, of correcting their remarks, and they could make any additions which they thought necessary, so that the report should be perfectly intelligible. All that was aimed at was a record of the proceedings of the House more ample in the future than it had been in the past, especially as regarded proceedings in Committee.

Perhaps some hon. Gentlemen may not be aware of what passed earlier in the year. My hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury has correctly described what has been done as an experimental arrangement with Mr. Hansard, with a view to obtain a more perfect record of the proceedings of the House in the volumes which are delivered to us; but it may be a question whether that will altogether meet the wishes of the House with regard to improvements in our reports. Earlier in the year, I stated that it was my intention to move for the appointment of a Select Commit- tee to inquire into the whole question. I have not hitherto done so, partly because a good many of the Members who, it might be thought desirable, should serve on that Committee, are already engaged on the Committee which has been sitting on the Business of the House. In a few days, however, I will give Notice for a Committee on this question; and when that is appointed, there can be an investigation of the experimental arrangement which has been made with Mr. Hansard, and also a general inquiry into any other alterations which may be deemed expedient in the system of reporting our debates. I take it for granted that we shall now proceed to vote Mr. Hansard this sum for the present Session, because the new arrangements he has made have involved some expense which he ought to be paid, although it does not bind the House to any permanent arrangement.

said, he was perfectly satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, and he should not press the matter further.

hoped that part of the duty of the Committee would be to ascertain whether it would not be possible to have the debates reported by the following day. He had been making inquiries on the subject, and found that in Paris, the United States of America, and Victoria, the debates were published the next day; and he believed a very small addition to the sum they were now asked for would secure their being able to have the reports by 4 o'clock the next day. A verbatim report of the previous day's proceedings would be of the greatest use, especially when important debates were proceeding, and it was desirable to know what had been stated previously. He hoped the Committee about to be appointed would take that matter into their consideration, because he was satisfied it could be carried out for a very small additional expense.

considered the Government had taken a very wise course in proposing this experimental proceeding; and he thought, by this subsidy, they would find the reports of their debates very much improved, and that they would give greater satisfaction to the Members than they had hitherto done. No doubt, the Committee which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to nominate would investigate the whole matter, and in the meantime he was glad the Government had placed this item in the Estimates.

said, there was one point which he should like to have cleared up. The number of subscribers to these debates had hitherto not been very large; and, as under this new arrangement the size of the volumes would be increased, he wished to know whether the price would also be increased? If the annual subscription remained the same as it was at present, he thought the experiment might prove a successful one; though, if the price was to be increased, he did not think such would be the case.

said, it was distinctly understood that the price of the set for the Session should not be increased, although the reports would be considerably longer than under the present arrangement.

said, he had already stated that he was in favour of the Vote, and all he had now risen for was to draw attention to a remark of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which he thought ought not to pass without notice. The right hon. Gentleman was going to appoint a Committee to inquire into the whole of this matter, and, though there were 650 Members of the House, he seemed to think there were only some 25 or 30 who were fit to serve on such a Committee. He protested against this idea, because there were plenty of Members, besides those who were on the Committee on the Business of the House, who were qualified to sit on this new Committee.

trusted the Committee would give instructions to Mr. Hansard to cut the speeches short. He should, for instance, be very sorry if Mr. Hansard was to be compelled to report the remarks which had been made during the last half-hour. To do so, would be to make the reports so voluminous that they would not be able to make anything out of them. He should be willing to pay Mr. Hansard for cutting down the speeches, and giving those simply which were worth preserving, and nothing more.

presumed, from the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the general question of reporting would come before the Com- mittee, and, as he approved of Hansard's reports as far as they went, he would, with the permission of the Committee, withdraw his proposal to omit the sum of £3,000.

desired to have some explanation from the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury in reference to a sum of £300, which was given to the Controller, as stated in the Estimate, "in lieu of residence surrendered." It would be in the recollection of most hon. Members that last year there was some discussion on the question of the appointment of the Controller of this Department; and what he should like to know was, whether this gentleman had ever really occupied this residence, or was the sum of £300 given to him in lieu of something which he never possessed? He observed that the salary of the Controller was £1,000 a-year.

explained that the office of Controller carried with it a house; but, as it was found necessary for office purposes to make use of that part of the building which had been appropriated to a residence, the sum of £300 was added to the salary of this gentleman as house rent in lieu of the house which otherwise he would have occupied as the officer in charge of the establishment.

expressed himself dissatisfied with the explanation of the hon. Baronet, which, in fact, did not differ from the foot-note to the Estimate. The official house formerly assigned to the Controller was at present occupied as offices, and Mr. Pigott, a young gentleman, was put into this position over the heads of the other persons in the Department in order that he might get an allowance of £300 a-year for a residence which he had never occupied, and which, probably, would have been thoroughly unsuitable for him had he done so. It seemed to him that a house for the Controller could be got for a very much less sum than £300 a-year in some other part of London; and, looking at all the circumstances, he thought it was a continuation of the job of last year. Therefore, he begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £300.

said, he would direct attention particularly to the very remarkable item of £800, which was set down as the salary of the editor of The London Gazette. Any person who was acquainted with the Press must be aware that £800 a-year was a very fair remuneration for high-class journalistic work, and the editor of The London Gazette did not do any journalistic work of any high description whatever. Any hon. Member who glanced at that paper would at once see that it was not distinguished in any respect for its composition, the refinement of its style, or its generally high-class tone. It was a pure combination of matter with scissors and paste, and clerks and compositors were the only persons required to bring it out. The post of editor—especially an editor with £800 a-year—was a pure superfluity. It might, perhaps, be called more rightly something worse than a superfluity. To give a gentleman, who did no work for the money, £800 a-year, was very much like establishing a good old national job. The editor of The LondonGazette was not a real editor. The salary of £800 a-year was entirely out of proportion to the services he performed. He had no doubt whatever that the gentleman, who was put down as clerk at £400 a-year, really did all the so-called editorial work; and there was, therefore, no reason for maintaining this editorial salary in the Estimates. If he were in Order, he would propose the omission of that item.

said, the hon. Member could not propose to omit the item, but he could move to reduce the entire Vote.

remarked, that while the hon. Member for Dungarvan was considering that point, he rose in the interest of Public Business to call attention to other matters. They had had occasion to discuss at great length that evening the expenses connected with the Patent Office. He found in that Vote for the Patent Office, including registry of designs and trademarks, a sum of £17,429. He wished to say that, after all that had been said upon the important privileges of the Patent Office that night, he did not, of course, regard this £17,000, in addition to the other sum of £56,000, as at all a very extravagant amount; but the objection he had to this item was that it was not particularized. He was asked to assent to a Vote of £18,000 for the Patent Office, and it was under the head of Stationery and Printing. Perhaps the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury could give the Committee some idea of how their relations with the Patent Office could justify so large an expenditure. Then, the Committee would find £2,505 charged for stationery for the Convict Department, and £1,508 for The Police Gazette. These seemed to be large items, and he desired some explanation regarding them?

did not think the charge for stationery for the Convict Department a large sum, considering the number and size of the establishments, and the amount of correspondence which took place. As to the £17,500 for stationery for the Patent Office, that was included in the Vote for the Stationery Offices, and taken under that Vote.

was desirous that the same sum should not be voted twice for the same purpose. Of course, if there was but one Vote to be taken, that was all right; but, at the same time, he considered the Estimates misleading.

said, the whole subject of the way in which these accounts were presented to Parliament was under the consideration of a Committee of the Treasury; but, at the same time, in answer to the hon. Member, he might say it had been considered just as well to give the House the fullest possible information, showing what the cost of each particular Department was.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the Committee had as yet voted the sum of £3,450, for allowances to Irish and Scotch Law Officers? He did not understand that it had.

did not consider that the editor of The London Gazette had at all too large a salary. In the first place, he was responsible for the collection of the money for advertisements in The Gazette. Besides which, as every advertisement in the paper was to a certain extent a legal document, each required attention as to accuracy, and the editor was responsible for their being accurate. Therefore, what with being responsible for the collection of the income and the correctness of the advertisements, he thought the salary of £800 a-year was not too much to pay.

said, there was a small item of £100 charged for clerical assistance in editing The Dublin Gazette; but, as far as the Estimates were concerned, The Edinburgh Gazette must do its own editing, for there was no charge for that work. The Edinburgh Gazette and the The Dublin Gazette required as much care and responsibility in their editing as The London Gazette; and yet, while nothing was voted for the Scotch Gazette, and £100 a-year for the Irish, there were charges of £2,000 for editing the London Gazette. Doubtless the matter was capable of explanation, but he was curious to hear the cause of the difference in the three cases.

said, the charge for The Edinburgh Gazette was included in the Scotch, and not in the English Vote. While the income of The Edinburgh Gazette was £3,449, and of The Dublin Gazette £1,120, that of The London Gazette was £58,000.

impressed upon the ton. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, the advisability of having the accounts for this kind of work put together, so that a comparison might be easily instituted.

said, the fact that a large sum was realized by the insertion of advertisements in The London Gazette was no reason why an officer who was engaged upon that journal should be over-paid. The editor of The London Gazette got £800 a-year, and the question was, what he did for that money? He believed the clerks did the work, and certainly they were amply paid to look after the printing of a paper and the correct insertion of advertisements. They had been told that the scale of charges for advertisements in The London Gazette was altogether too high. Therefore, if they were going to be liberal with the money The Gazette produced, instead of paying £800 a-year to an officer who did nothing, they should, to an extent corresponding with that sum, reduce the charges for advertisements. Then they would be getting rid of the balance of profit in a manner much more agreeable to the general public. The editor of The London Gazette could not be said to do editorial work. There were clerical duties to be performed, and clerks carried them out, and it was quite out of the question to give £800 a-year to a gentleman who did a very inferior kind of sub-editorial duty. He considered that £250 a-year would be sufficient for such services; but, as it was, he would move to reduce the Vote by £400, leaving this nominal editor with a salary of £400.

said, the question of salary for the editor of The London Gazette was not a new one. Ten or 15 years since there was a discussion raised on the point, and Lord Palmer- ston, then the Prime Minister, said there was no Profession in the country for the benefit of which patronage was so little exercised as the Press. His Lordship pointed out that there was an advantage in having such an office as editor of The London Gazette, where not much work had to be done, to which a Pressman might be appointed. Such an exercise of patronage was but a graceful compliment to the Press of this country; and he (Sir Patrick O'Brien) thought Members of the House of Commons the last persons who ought to oppose the payment of £800 a-year to the editor of The London Gazette.

was sure the Press of this country did not need an office of this kind to be held out to it by the Government as a morsel of patronage. The Press of this country would not, for the sake of one situation or hundreds, barter its proud boast of being, perhaps, the only Press in Christendom, which was not subject in any way to the blandishments of those who were in Office.

agreed with the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Patrick O'Brien) as to the reasons given by Lord Palmerston for appointing the former editor of The Observer newspaper to be editor of The London Gazette. It had been the practice formerly to give the situation to a lawyer; and, although he was inclined to think the expenses of bringing out The Gazette were too high, he would remind the Committee that there was hardly an advertisement in The Gazette which was not inserted there by the authority of some Act of Parliament, which rendered it very desirable that a legal gentleman should have the supervision of the establishment, so as to see that every legal condition was properly performed. He did not say that, when it was remembered that £400 a-year was paid to the chief clerk and £800 to the editor, there was not some room for economy; but he considered the present was not the time to carry out such an alteration. To call the gentleman who had £800 a-year an editor was a misnomer; but he had very responsible duties to perform in connection with the publication of the paper, and he was answerable for everything going on properly.

said, it was quite true that considerable responsibilities attached to the staff of The London Gazette; but, at the same time, he could assure the Committee that the question of economy in the carrying out of the duties of the office had not been lost sight of, and it would be adopted as opportunity offered.

said, it was undoubtedly true that the editor of The London Gazette was not actually an editor in the sense of writing articles for his paper; but, as had been so well pointed out by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis), he was responsible for the strict accuracy of what appeared in The Gazette, and that was a responsibility which did not attach to an editor of any of the leading newspapers in London. He did not think his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) ought to divide the House on this item of the editor's salary, especially, as if he looked over the other Votes, he would find many instances in regard to which he could display his economical desires.

, while not desiring a division on the item, said, the only way to draw attention to it was to move to reduce the Vote, and no doubt the hon. Member for Dungarvan had secured his ends by the course he had pursued. He was glad to hear the Secretary to the Treasury say it was intended to economize in this Department when occasion arose; and, under these circumstances, he hoped the hon. Member for Dungarvan would not divide the Committee.

intimated that he did not wish to divide the House.

, referring to the item for Printing, said, the printers of Dublin had recently made an effort to increase their rate of wages; and, while successful to some extent, it had not altogether succeeded. Among the employers who had most rigidly opposed the increase in the wages was the Government Printing Department. They had refused to increase the rate, and the men refused to work. The Government Department then endeavoured to import men from England and Scotland; but, true to the principles of the Printer's Union, the men would not go to Dublin. It was now alleged that some system of "jobbing" had been adopted, by which the Government printing was done outside Dublin—he believed outside Ireland—by which means the masters gave no extra money to their old hands, and satisfied the scruples of English and Scotch printers not to work in Dublin. He hoped on the Report the hon. Baronet would be able to give information on the matter. Still, he thought all would admit that the Government Printing Department in Dublin ought not to push economy to the extent of stinginess, especially when that economy affected, not persons receiving comfortable incomes, but poor, working operatives. He also wished to call attention to page 132 of the Estimates, whereon was an item of £289 in respect of the Queen's University. The Irish Members objected to the whole principle upon which grants were made to the Queen's University; and, as there would not be much chance of fairly discussing the matter that night, he hoped the Government would not object to the Motion which he would now make for reporting Progress.

said, that the item of £289 was put down on account of the stationery to be supplied to the Queen's University in the ensuing year. The precise sum that appeared in the Statement in the Estimates was chosen, because it was the grant made in the Vote for 1876–7. He did not think it was convenient to discuss the question as to the Queen's University on that Vote. A better opportunity of discussing it would be found when the Vote for that Institution came on.

said, that Irish Catholic Members had pledged themselves not to allow a penny to be voted for the Queen's University on any pretence whatever. They would take every legitimate means of recording their protest against the system of forcing money on Ireland to support an Institution which she detested.

observed, that they were not then discussing the Vote for the Queen's University, but only the expenses of the Stationery Department. The amount for the stationery of the Queen's University was only placed in the explanatory Table to this Estimate because it was the sum spent in the year 1876–7.

observed, that if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would assure the Committee that the Vote they were now asked to pass did not include anything for stationery to the Queen's University, the Irish Members would not pursue the question further. As he understood the matter, if the Vote were passed, the stationery would be supplied to the Queen's University.

suggested that the question of supporting the Queen's University might be tested by fixing upon some individual item and dividing the House upon it. That could be done on the present occasion, and it was immaterial whether the Vote was retrospective or prospective. There was another aspect to the question. It was then 10 minutes after the respectable hour for reporting Progress in Supply, and he hoped the hon. Member would persevere in his Motion.

pointed out to the Committee that where an Estimate was made for stationery expenses, it was impossible to say absolutely what particular amount would be required. The amount estimated for that year was the amount supposed to be spent on stationery last year, and when they came to the Vote for the Queen's Colleges, then would be the time to strike out the allowance for stationery. If the Vote were refused, there would be so much extra to be paid in the next year. The amount supposed to be necessary for the supply of stationery to the Queen's University was now included in the Estimate, and if not expended for the purposes of the Queen's Colleges, the money would remain to the credit of the Exchequer.

hoped that the Committee would reduce the Vote for Stationery by the sum which it was estimated would be necessary to supply the Queen's Colleges.

observed, that the only chance of passing the Vote was by consenting to divide at once upon a proposal for its reduction by the sum of £289. The Queen's University must be supplied with a considerable amount of stationery for examina- tion papers and with printing; therefore, practically, this included a Vote for the Queen's University. The Irish Members had a right to object to it, and, although he would not vote with them, it would facilitate Business if, instead of a protracted discussion, a division were at once taken.

said, that as he understood the proposition that had been made, it was that they should then reduce the stationery voted by the sum of £289, the amount estimated to be necessary for the supply of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland. Then they could discuss the principle of supporting the Queen's University on the Motion for voting its Supplies, and they could, at the same time, take the Vote for Stationery to be supplied to it. That was a very simple plan, and, if in accordance with the Rules of the House, he should hope the Government would assent to it.

protested against its being said that Irish Members were unanimously opposed to the grant for the Queen's Colleges in Ireland. He believed that there would be a considerable contingent of Irish Members sitting on that side of the House who would vote for the grant.

observed, that the opponents of the grant amongst the Irish Members were about three to one compared with those who supported it. Twice before the Government had tried to coax them to vote a supply for the Queen's University, but they had refused to do so, and their refusal had had a very excellent effect upon Ireland. A great many people liked their dividing on the subject, and, as they found their constituencies were supporting them, they would have a good many divisions on the question.

said, the Government could not consent to withdraw the sum proposed in the Vote for Stationery to be supplied to the Queen's University. If hon. Members objected to the Vote, they would have an opportunity of making their protest. It was impossible to say exactly what proportion of the money voted would be spent on the Queen's University. But, as in former Estimates, the amount spent had been £289—that might fairly be considered as about the amount required in the next year. If the Government did not press the Vote, it would look like flinching. But it was open to those who opposed the expenditure of public moneys for the Queen's University to move to reduce the Stationery Vote by the sum estimated.

appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to postpone the Vote for the Queen's Colleges until such time as the principle of the grant could be fairly and reasonably discussed. The right hon. Gentleman had promised Irish Members a fair opportunity for discussing the matter, and he now called upon him to fulfil that promise.

said, that the question now before the Committee was, whether a particular sum of money should be voted for the Stationery Department. It was for the Committee subsequently to decide whether the Queen's Colleges should or should not continue. If the Vote for the University were to be struck out, no stationery could be supplied to it, and the money voted would remain in the Stationery Office as a surplus due to the Exchequer. It did not by any means follow that because the Committee voted that particular sum of £289, that the money would go to the Queen's Colleges.

said, the proposal was to reduce the Vote by £289, the Estimate for Stationery for the Queen's University, otherwise it would be supposed that they had consented to an expenditure of public money for that Institution.

said, he never had any very high idea of the ability of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. ["Oh!"] If hon. Members objected to the phrase he had used, he would at once withdraw it and apologize to the Committee; but he must be permitted to say that he thought the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman a very unreasonable one. What he (Mr. Biggar) wished to do was to move to report Progress, in order to discuss the question which had been raised; and he saw no means of doing it in any other way, for it seemed to him to be little short of absurd to hope for a satisfactory discussion of the question on a Motion to reduce the Vote at that hour of the morning. Let Progress be reported, and Supply put down as the first Order of the Day on the next Government night, and then there could be no difficulty in the matter. The Votes occupied five pages of the Paper, and required a considerable amount of discussion. He did not think, therefore, that—

pointed out that any discussion of the Estimates generally on the particular Motion before the Committee would be out of Order.

did not think it could be pretended that a reduction of this Vote by a sum of £300 could interfere with the efficiency of the Stationery Department, and they only wished for such reduction in order not in any way to be committed to even a nominal acquiescence in the Vote for the Queen's Colleges. If the Queen's University Vote was passed subsequently, the Government would still have sufficient money—after having assented to the reduction now proposed—to supply the Colleges with all the stationery they might require.

said, that as far as he knew, a large majority of the House were in favour of the continuance of the Queen's Colleges, and he thought it would, therefore, be disastrous to make a concession of the kind involved in the proposed reduction of the Vote. If the Government gave up the Vote, or assented to its reduction, it would go forth to the whole United Kingdom that they were assenting to the views of those who wished to see the whole of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland and the Queen's University abolished.