asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the arrangements for removing the disabilities of the mechanic writers in Her Majesty's dockyards are yet completed; and, if so, whether they will speedily come into operation?

in reply, said, that the question had been considered at the Admiralty, and their recommendations upon it were at present before the Treasury, and he had every reason to hope that the change would be carried out shortly.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When it is proposed to adjourn for Whitsuntide, and for how long? He would also like to know, What the course of Government Business would be?

Sir, I am afraid that I shall not be able to propose any very lengthened adjournment at Whitsuntide. The state of Business is such as will hardly admit of that. What I propose is, that we should have a Morning Sitting on Friday June 7, and should then rise till the following Thursday. With regard to the course of Business, the principal Business which the Government have to go on with on Government nights will be the Committee of Supply. On Monday, as hon. Gentlemen are aware, we propose to take the Supplementary Estimate for the movement of Indian troops. If there is time on that evening, we shall, of course, go on with the other classes of Supply; and on the Thursday following we should also propose to take Supply. I mentioned the other day that we hoped to fix a Morning Sitting before Whitsuntide for the Scotch Roads and Bridges Bill. I cannot promise next Tuesday for that purpose, because of the engagement we entered into with those hon. Gentlemen who gave up their precedence to enable the debate which concluded last night to proceed; but on the Tuesday following—the 4th of June—we propose that there should be a Morning Sitting for the Scotch Roads and Bridges Bill.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he would explain the reasons of the delay in laying upon the Table of the House the further Papers connected with the execution of Nokwai on board H. M. S. "Beagle" on the 25th of September last, which he promised the House to produce as soon as he had received them?

in reply, said, that further Papers on the subject had been received last week. They were now under the consideration of the Admiralty, and he hoped to be able in a few days to lay them on the Table.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true that John Henna fan has been committed to prison by the police magistrate at Wandsworth for three months with hard labour; and, whether he is prepared to remit that sentence?

in reply, said, he had no intention of remitting the sentence passed upon the person referred to. He (Mr. Cross) knew nothing about him, except what the magistrate—a person of considerable experience—had told him. He was informed by him that that man had been long an incorrigible rogue and vagabond, who had been repeatedly committed; that eventually he was sent before Quarter Sessions, and received a year's imprisonment; that he was afterwards offered his expenses to enable him to go back to Ireland, but that he refused to go, and continued to lead the life of a rogue and vagabond until he was committed again to gaol.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will explain to the House the grounds on which he refuses to release the Reverend Mr. Dodwell, who has been reported to him on high medical authority as being of perfectly sound mind, since the murderer Broomfield has been discharged because he had become sane?

in reply, said, that Broadmoor Asylum, so far as insane male persons were concerned, was for those only who had been acquitted on the ground of insanity. That was the present rule. When the Rev. Mr. Dodwell was found to be insane by a verdict of his countrymen, he was sent in the ordinary course to Broad-moor. Some time ago, letters were received at the Home Office from Dr. Wynn and Dr. Forbes Winslow, as to the state of the prisoner. Those letters were sent on the 15th of April to the authorities of Broadmoor, with an intimation that when they were able to report that it would be consistent with the safety both of the public and of the prisoner himself that he should be either absolutely or conditionally discharged, his case would then be considered by the Secretary of State, and not till then. No Report had yet been received.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the existing Law deprives a man of his Parliamentary or Municipal franchise when he is performing his duty in the Militia or in Reserve Forces, should his wife or family receive, during such period of service, parochial relief?

Sir, the existing law deprives a man of the Parliamentary and municipal franchise should his wife or family receive parochial relief. That disqualification is not removed by service in the Militia or Reserve Forces.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been directed to a paragraph in the "Liverpool Express" of the 23rd instant, headed "A Customs Blunder," in which it is stated that the bark "Enchanter," chartered with a cargo of salt and dynamite to Halifax, in Canada, was detained in Liverpool by a Government order; if so, whether it is correct that the vessel has been detained by a Government order, and whether a manufacturer of explosives in this country is to be prevented shipping as hitherto his products to his agents for sale in the British Colonies?

in reply, said, that if the hon. Gentleman would allow him to do so, he would give him an answer to the Question. His attention had been first called to the subject of the paragraph referred to by seeing the Notice. On inquiry, he found it was a fact that that vessel was detained, as stated in the Question; but the whole subject was under the consideration of the Law Officers of the Crown, and, until he was in possession of their opinions, he could not answer the last part of the Question.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the powers conferred upon Her Majesty by the 57th section of the 21st and 22nd Vic. c. 106, have ever been exercised; and, if so, whether he will give the date of any Order in Council made in pursuance thereof, and cause the same to be printed for the information of the House?

Sir, no Order in Council has been made under the 57th section of the Act, because none has been required. The terms and conditions of service of the Native Forces remain precisely what they were when that Act was passed. All that has been done is this. The Governor General in Council in 1869 slightly altered the language of the form of attestation, so as to bring it into harmony with the public notification of the terms of enlistment and the condition of service relating to the Indian Native troops issued by the Governor General of India in 1856.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, before any portion of the revenues of India was devoted to defray the expenses of the transport of Indian troops to Malta, the expenditure was sanctioned by the Council of the Secretary of State for India; and, if so, whether he will inform the House on what day this sanction was given?

Sir, no portion of the Revenues of India has at any time been devoted to defray the expenses of the transport of Indian troops to Malta, and therefore no such expenditure could be sanctioned by the Council of State for India.

I beg to give Notice that on Monday, I will ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question to the following effect:—

"Whether it is not provided, in the 41st section of the Government of India Act, that no grant or appropriation of any of the revenues of India can he allowed without the sanction of a majority of the Council of the Secretary of State, and whether such grant or appropriation must not have been made when the money of India was advanced to defray these expenses?"

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question, of which I have given him private Notice—namely, Whether he has any objection to state to the House now the form of the Vote for the Army Service to be taken on Monday next? Perhaps I may, to save trouble, explain that my object is to ascertain whether the number of men will be stated in that Vote, so that they may appear as having been voted by the House. In further explanation, I may mention, that, according to the Estimate which we have before us, £350,000 is to be voted to meet the additional expenditure for defraying the cost of the transport of Indian troops, and only below, in the explanatory state- ment, mention is made of 7,000 men. My object is to inquire, Whether these 7,000 men will appear in the Resolution as voted by the House?

The right hon. Gentleman only gave me Notice of his Question just now across the Table. I have not the form of the Vote here. I apprehend, however, that the Vote will contain the number of men with respect to which the money is taken.

asked the hon. Member for Dundee, If he intends to go on with his Motion respecting the Supplementary Estimate for moving Indian troops?

in reply, said, that in view of the fact that his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) proposed on the Estimate to raise a question on which he (Mr. Jenkins) thought he was entitled to precedence, he should withdraw his Motion in favour of that of his hon. Friend. This would not, however, prevent the House from discussing the policy and expediency of employing Indian troops in the course of the debate.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, for the convenience of the discussion on Monday, he was prepared to furnish a statement of the terms and conditions of the contract entered into for the transport of the Indian troops?

Sir, I am not in a position to furnish this information to the House, inasmuch as the information I have received has only come to hand by telegraph.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the information he has received by telegraph? ["No, no!"]

said, that the adjourned debate on the County Courts Bill would not be resumed without due Notice. With respect to the Valuation Bill, he hoped that an early opportunity might be found for its second reading.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is his intention to make some alteration in the rules in regard to imprisoned debtors?

in reply, said, that some of the prison rules with respect to debtors had been misinterpreted, and that measures had been taken to make them clearer. They had been generally relaxed, both as regarded the treatment of the debtors themselves, and the admittance of their wives and families to visit them.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is correct, as stated in a letter published in the "Times" newspaper of the 18th March, 1878, that although £7,000,000 have been expended on experiments and on the present system of rifled ordinance, the inventor of that system has not received any remuneration?

in reply, said, that Mr. Padwick, the writer of the letter published in The Times on the 18th of March, had frequently set forth his claims to be considered the inventor of the present system of rifled ordnance; but, during the last quarter of a century, no Secretary of State had admitted those claims, and, consequently, he had received no reward.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, If his attention has been called to the deportation of Thomas Johnson, who was, on the 10th instant, removed from Ulverston Workhouse to Waterford, in Ireland; whether the statement be true that the said Johnson resided for 42 years in England, and for eight years was employed at Bedlington, and was in search of work at Ulverston when he sought temporary relief; and, if it was legal to remove him to Ireland; and, if so, can he hold out any hope that the Law may be amended?

Sir, my attention was only called to the subject yesterday by the Question appearing on the Notice Paper. Immediately, I telegraphed to Ulverston, and I have received from the Clerk to the Guardians this morning a statement respecting the case. He says it is true that Thomas Johnson was removed from Ulverston to Waterford, as stated in the hon. Gentleman's Question; that he became chargeable to the Ulverston Union on the 25th of April last, and stated that he was born at Waterford, and did not make any settlement in England during his residence here, although the terms and conditions under which he could have made a settlement were carefully explained to him. I am not informed what length of time he has lived in England, or of his having been employed in Bedlington for eight years; but, if he had been so employed, he would have gained a settlement under the terms of the Act of 1870. Although that was explained to him, he denied that he had made a settlement in England.

asked a Question, of which he had given private Notice, Whether it was the intention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to lay on the Table of the House the Report recently published with regard to the maintaining and management of the Collector of Rates Office, Dublin?

The Report is ready, but the evidence is not in print. It will be desirable to defer the presentation of the Report until the evidence can be produced at the same time. I hope it will be produced shortly.

in rising to call attention to the incidence of the Probate, Legacy, and Succession Duties; and to move—

''That the present system of taxing the succession to property is unjust, and, in the opinion of this House, ought to he re-adjusted,"

said: I must express my surprise that this subject has not been discussed in this House since 1853. In that year my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) spoke of the probate duty as one which called for reform, although he was then obliged to postpone its consideration. The noble Lord the present Prime Minister, also, at the same time, spoke of his hope that a measure would be brought forward which might reconcile contending interests, and terminate the system complained of. Under these circumstances, my object is to call attention to some of the anomalies attending the existing system, of which I apprehend many hon. Members are not aware. In speaking of the re-adjustment of these taxes, I do not intend to propose an increase of the taxation of the country; my contention will be that the present taxation should be fairly and equally distributed over all kinds of property, and all classes of the community. But if the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires to increase the Revenue of the country—and I fear, from the policy the Government is pursuing, increased taxation will be necessary—I think I can point out to him that by charging the richer classes the same rates of duty as the poorer have to pay on the smaller estates, and by extending the taxes to all kinds of property alike, he will have an increased fund at his disposal of over £5,000,000 sterling. I do not intend to enter on the history of the various taxes further than necessary to explain, so far as explicable, their anomalies. The probate duty was first introduced many years ago in the form of a uniform stamp of 5s. on all estates. After some years, the stamp was increased by charging higher rates on groups of estates of different amounts up to £300, and estates beyond £300 were charged nothing more. The scale was extended from time to time until, in 1815, it reached £1,000,000 sterling, at which it remained until 1859, when it was extended to cover estates of any amount. The first anomaly of the probate duty to which I shall call attention is that this tax is not charged on real estate. An estate of, say, £30,000 in cash, stocks, or even mortgages' of real estate, has to pay probate duty; but if, before his death, the deceased had invested the amount in land, the land would not have paid any duty. If even he had directed by his will that the £30,000 was to be invested in an estate of which his successor was to have only a life rent, then the £30,000 in cash would have escaped duty. On the other hand, if the deceased had owned £30,000 in land, and directed the estate to be sold and divided among the legatees, the amount would be chargeable with duty. Then, again, real estate is chargeable with duty when forming part of partnership funds engaged in trade. The share which, a deceased partner of a manufactory owns of mills, or bleaching grounds, has to pay the same as personal estate. Money in land, or going into land, pays no duty; but money coming out of land, or in real estate for purposes of trade, has to pay the same as personal property. It is thus evidently nothing inherent in the land itself, no special character it has—because the landed estate of a deceased person sold under his will has to pay duty as well as partnership funds in land—but an arbitrary exemption of the owners of real estate. I do not see any ground why real estate should not be dealt with in the same way as personal estate. There is nothing in the nature of land why it, or its owner, should be exempted from taxation. On the contrary, there seem special reasons that land, which enjoys the exceptional advantage of increasing in value without effort of the owner, and the security of which is guaranteed by the whole national resources, should, instead of being exempted, bear even a higher rate than personal estate. About half-a-century ago, Mr. Gwynne, the then Comptroller of the Duties, expressed his surprise that the probate duty had not been extended to real, as well as personal estate. Mr. M'Culloch, the economist, writing on taxation in 1863, said to exempt land from such duties was plainly an abuse, and he attributed it to the superior influence in the Legislature of the landed gentry. All the arrangements with regard to this tax clearly show that the exemption is intended to fall exclusively on the landed proprietors, and the only explanation seems to be that those who had the principal influence and control in imposing this duty declined to impose it on themselves, or to share that burden of taxation which they were placing upon others. The second anomaly is that the duty is charged at a higher rate on smaller estates than on those of larger amount. A testate estate of £200 is charged £5; and, if intestate, the duty is £8; or 2½ per cent in the one case, and 4 per cent in the other. An estate of £1,000 pays probate duty of 3 per cent or 4½ per cent, according to whether the deceased was testate or intestate; £2,000 pays only 2½ per cent; £3,000, only 2 per cent. If an estate is so large as £30,000, the tax is only 1½ per cent. The effect may be illustrated thus—An estate of £30,000 pays probate duty to the amount of £450; but if, instead of being left in one estate, the same amount had been left in 30 estates of £1,000 each, the probate duty charged, instead of being £450, would have amounted to £900. Thus, the one largo estate of £30,000 pays only one-half the rate of the tax levied on 30 estates of £1,000 each. This is altogether against common justice and sound principles of levying taxation. It places the higher rate on the poor, and the lower rate on the rich, instead of levying an equal rate on all, or inclining in the opposite direction, and relieving to some extent from the burden of taxation those least able to bear it. Mr M'Culloch has remarked upon this, that it is impossible to say a word in excuse of a practice of this sort, which is as scandalous as it is unjust. Another anomaly in charging probate duty is, that it is levied on groups of estates between certain amounts, and not by a certain percentage. The first group consists of estates between £100 and £200, and on every estate between these sums the duty is £2 if testate, and £3 if intestate. The stamp advances irregularly by successive steps. For instance, the next group consists of estates between £200 and £300, on which the duty is £5 if testate, and £8 if intestate. Then, on testate estates between £2,000 and £3,000, the duty is £50, or about 2½ per cent on the minimum amount in the group. Now, it is evident that if the £2,000 estate is charged the proper amount of duty, and if a £2,900 estate pays nothing more, the portion over £2,000—namely, £900—goes untaxed. Going up to the larger amounts, an estate of £34,500 pays no more than one of £30,000—the lowest amount in the group—and so on. On estates of that amount the sum of £4,500 pays no probate duty. We have this striking anomaly—that while you tax estates of so low an amount as £100 and £200, 10 times that amount may pass untaxed on estates of large value. The clear plan that should be adopted in the imposition of this duty is, that, like the legacy duty, it should be levied by a percentage on all estates. Another anomaly is that intestate estates are charged a higher rate than testate estates. I can find no ground why it should be so. If an individual fails to devise his property according to his own desire, and the State steps in and distributes it according to what is supposed to be natural right, there is no reason why the estate should be taxed more highly than when there is a will. This, again, presses very heavily on the smaller estates, for it is the poorer classes, for the most part, who die intestate. The Return, which was made on my Motion last year, shows that about one-third in value of the estate under £300 are intestate; whereas, in estates over £1,000, only one-twelfth are intestate. I will now briefly refer to the legacy duty, in which the anomalies are not so great. That duty is imposed by a percentage on all incomes, and is intended to be levied on the legatees by whom it is payable. In this case, poor and rich pay the same percentage, the difference in the rates depending upon the degree of relationship, and ranging from 1 to 10 per cent. This duty was imposed by Mr. Pitt, in 1780, to provide funds to carry on the war then waging. His proposal to increase the rates in 1796 included real as well as personal property, and both Bills passed the House of Commons; but the Lords rejected the Bill imposing the duty on real property, and passed the other. Nothing corresponding to the legacy duty was imposed on real estate until 1853, when the succession tax was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, then Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman then intimated his intention of placing the probate duty on a more equitable footing; but the pressure of other matters probably prevented him from dealing with the question. The succession duty is, however, really a very different tax from the legacy duty. By Section 21 of the Succession Duty Act, it is provided that the interest of every successor to real estate shall be considered as only an annuity of the amount of the annual value of the property, and the duty eligible thereon, payable in eight half-yearly instalments. For instance, a son aged 40 years, who succeeds to an estate of £30,000, has to pay succession duty on a sum of about £14,800 only, and on this latter sum the duty amounts to £148. Compare that with the case of a son of the same age inheriting the same sum in stocks or cash. He would, in the first place, have to pay probate duty of £450 if his father died testate, and £675 if he died intestate; then a legacy duty of 1 per cent, amounting to £300. These sums together make £750 if the parent died testate, and £975 if he died intestate; while the inheritor of the same value in land in unfettered fee simple pays only £148. I cannot conceive what excuse can be offered for this anomaly. Let me again compare this charge of £150 on the landed estate of £30,000 with what the poorer classes have to pay. If the land had to pay at the same rate as an insurance policy of, say, £200, which comprises the whole estate of the deceased, instead of paying less than £150, the £30,000 estate would have to pay £1,050 in the case of testacy, and£l,500 in case of intestacy. That is, a small estate of £200 pays, in the one case, 10 times, and in the other, 15 times proportionally higher rates than an estate of £30,000 in land. The general results are these—The probate duty, in the year 1877, amounted to about £2,500,000 and the legacy duty to over £2,750,000—the two sums together, levied exclusively on personal estate, produced £5,100,000. During the same period, succession duty, the only tax paid by real estate, yielded only £849,000. Now, in 1876–7, the total annual value of real estate, by the Income Tax Returns, amounted to £153,475,000; and, if we consider such property worth from 25 to 30 years' purchase, and that the life of a generation is of about the same duration, we come to this—that the total value of the annual succession to real estate must be about £150,000,000 sterling, and, if so, real estate should pay annually duty on that amount. Now, during the same year, the total value of the succession to personal estate was £131,000,000, a considerably smaller amount; but this smaller amount paid probate and legacy duty of over £5,100,000, while real estate paid less than £850,000. It thus appears that real estate—that is, property in land and houses—is exempted to the extent of over £4,000,000 sterling annually, as compared with personal property. Besides the real estates belonging to private individuals, there are the estates in land belonging to corporate authorities, trustees, &c., which are not subject to taxation for either probate or succession duty. The public are beginning to recognize that the funds belonging to corporations are not proper subjects of exemption from fair taxation; and when we consider the use to which a considerable portion of those funds are devoted—as, for instance, in the City of London—there seems very little ground for their exemption. As regards readjustment of these taxes, Mr. M'Culloch in the Enclyclopœdia Britannica, says—

"We cannot but think that the mode of charging the duty, as well as the duty itself, should he identical on all sorts of property. This taxation does not yield more than one-fourth or fifth that it would if assessed in the same way as the tax is assessed on personal estate. If the taxation is to be maintained, it ought to be imposed at a uniform rate over all properties."

It is open to consideration whether the smallest class of estates ought not to be exempted. Incomes under £150 are altogether exempted from income tax, and an allowance is made on incomes up to £400; but probate duty is charged on small estates down to £100. I think a succession not exceeding £300 represents as humble a class in the community as £150 of annual income. Estates of under £300 probably go to poor families, and it would be a great relief to them if estates of £300 were altogether exempted from probate duty, not only on account of the duty itself, but in saving the large amount of expense in the administration of small estates. An exemption of estates under £300 would also admit of a great economy in the collection of the tax. The Return of last year shows that more than one-third of the total number of estates on which probate duty was charged was under £300, and that the tax on such estates amounted to less than £48,000. If these small estates were charged 1½ per cent, the same as large estates, the amount derived from them would not exceed £35,000, so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in exempting estates under £300, would be making a very small sacrifice indeed. Then the charges on small estates by the various troublesome forms required are very heavy. In the case of a small succession, consisting wholly of a policy of £100, the recipient, who was a son, had to pay charges at Somerset House to the amount of nearly £5. Considering the forms necessary, and the legal assistance required, I fear the charges on small estates, including duty, amount, in many cases, to well on to 10 per cent before the money gets into the hands of the successor. This is a serious matter, and occasions a great deal of heart-burning and bitterness throughout the humbler classes of the community. I have refrained from comment upon those extraordinary anomalies, as comment appeared to be unnecessary. But, in considering this subject, there recurs forcibly to my mind an objection urged against an extension of the franchise—that a great danger would arise in extending the representation to the poorer classes, because they would probably impose taxes unjustly, unfairly, and dishonestly on the rich. It is not open to me to discuss this objection at present; and I will only say that such an objection comes with very bad grace from Gentlemen who all these many years never raised their voice against a system of taxation so indefensibly unjust and one-sided as this of the probate and succession duties—which dishonestly taxes the estate of the poor man at a higher rate than that of the rich, and reduces the small provision for the orphan by the probate duty, while it allows the large landed estate of the wealthy landholder to go free. I thank the House for the attention they have given me, and beg to move the Resolution of which I have given Notice.

said, he only rose to express the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary to the Treasury, before the discussion closed, would, at all events, tell the House that they were favourably disposed towards the view of his hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay). He (Mr. Baxter) had never heard our system of succession duties adequately defended in that House or out of it, and he felt tolerably satisfied that the system admitted of no adequate defence. Just let them take the incidence of the probate duty. Why should probate duty be levied at a higher scale upon a small sum than upon a large one? Why should territorial estates—why should landed property—go scot free, while personal estates of the same amount were taxed? Why should premises employed in trade be taxed, while land and buildings not so employed were exempted? He must say that all those were things that passed his comprehension. Surely, there was a primâ facie case made out in favour of all kinds of property being taxed in the same way. He believed that if they were to tax real property in the same proportion as personal property, it would yield to the Public Exchequer three times the sum that it now did. That was a consideration which ought to weigh with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as guardian of the public purse. He would, without entering into the details of the question, simply appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pluck up his courage, and put an end to the present anomalous state of things. By doing so, he would do an act of justice, would greatly benefit the finances of the country, and would take a course commending itself to the good sense of the nation.

said, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Barclay), that there were several anomalies in the present mode of levying the succession duty, as contradistinguished from the probate duty, which it was desirable should be removed, and he did not see why all estates should not be treated on the footing of an equal percentage. But the principal object of the hon. Gentleman's Motion was the imposition of the probate duty upon landed property, and, with respect to that, he (Mr. Gregory) wished to point out that the hon. Gentleman had left out of his calculation the land tax, which was about £1,000,000 a-year. There was also the land tax which had been redeemed, which, he believed, was about another £1,000,000 a-year. Moreover, a stamp duty of, he thought, about 10s. in every £100 was imposed on every conveyance of land, but a vast amount of personal property was constantly changing hands without paying any tax. Nearly all local rates fell upon the land, and personal property was practically exempt from that taxation. The case of personal property was very different from that of real property, for personal property might be dealt with in various ways by which the State was prevented from realizing taxation on it again. In these circumstances, it would be unfair to charge land upon the same footing in respect of succession as personalty was dealt with, seeing that it contributed more largely than other descriptions of property to the general taxation of the country.

said, he heartily approved of the views expressed by the hon. Member for Forfar (Mr. J. W. Barclay). The hon. Member had opened up a large question, and only into one part of it did he (Mr. M'Laren) wish to enter. But he must first call attention to the remarks of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), and though he agreed with much that that hon. Member had said, yet he could not but feel that he had fallen into a mistake when, in comparing the burthens imposed upon moveable property with those imposed upon land, he asserted that moveable property—as, for example, railway shares—paid a lower rate of stamp duty on conveyance than was paid on the conveyance of land. The stamp duty upon £1,000, be it in land, or railway, or bank shares, was the same; but take £1,000,000 in railway shares or in bank shares, and then select estates worth £1,000,000 in any part of England—it would be found that men holding the shares paid four times, and perhaps ten times, as much as the holders of the land, because shares were frequently bought and sold as opportunities occurred, and paid the same stamp duty as land on each transfer; and it followed that in the result they really paid far more than land, which seldom changed hands. This was exactly the opposite of the conclusion drawn by the hon. Member for East Sussex. The hon. Member had referred to the land tax as a heavy burthen on land, and as having originally produced £2,000,000, although now only £1,000,000, owing to redemption. It was well known that the land tax when first imposed—nearly two centuries ago—was in lieu of certain feudal and other burthens which land had then to bear. All these old burthens were removed upon the condition that land should for ever pay 4s. in the pound upon the real annual value. There was no mention of nominal value. Real value was set down as plainly as the Act could make it. But how did the landowners escape from their engagements and the obligations imposed upon them? They valued the land the year after the Act was passed, and they had never valued it since, so that land now paid upon a valuation made nearly 200 years ago—although they ought to pay 4s. on the present real value, according to the bargain made with them when the feudal burdens were abolished. If this bargain were honestly carried out, few other taxes would be required. The analogy which the hon. Member for East Sussex endeavoured to show between bills of exchange stamps, and stamp duties on land, did not exist; for a bill of exchange was really only a convenient way of deferring the payment of a debt owed from one man to another. The one thing desirable in relation to the probate duty was equalization. Take an illustration. A man having saved £1,000, leaves it by will to his son or daughter—all, perhaps, he has in the world. The probate duty has to be paid, and the deputy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes to the party inheriting the money, and out of every 33 sovereigns upon the table insists upon picking up one. On the other hand, a wealthy man dies, leaving £30,000 to his heir, and what happens? The deputy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of £1 in every £33, claims only £1 in every £66. Could that be fair, and was there any justice, or even common sense, in such an arrangement? Suppose the man with the £1,000 complained, and asked how that could be defended, what answer could be given? Only this—the man who paid £1 in £66 was a rich man; rich men made the law, and in framing the law adjusted it so as to suit themselves. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not asking him to raise the one rate or to reduce the other, but to strike a fair medium, and make each class pay the same percentage; so that the same amount would in this way be raised, and there would be no complaints of the Revenue being injuriously affected. With respect to the succession duty imposed on land in 1853, it was expected to produce above £2,000,000, but had never reached one-half of that amount; and, surely, that showed that the object with which the tax was imposed had not been realized, and that the rate ought now to be increased. Under the circumstances, he thought it a fair demand to ask for an equalization of the probate and legacy duties. If the Government were not prepared to reduce the higher duty to the lower, then let both be placed upon the same footing. Let each pay £1 in £45, or such other figure as, in a couple of hours, an accountant could adjust easily as producing a Revenue equal in amount to the present system. He cordially supported the Motion.

thought the House was greatly indebted to the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) for the clear and able manner in which he had brought forward that important subject. As to the probate duty, he did not think that anybody would wish to get rid of it, neither was it desirable to limit its operation merely to higher sums. It answered an essential purpose, forming, as it did, a title to the property to be administered; and there was nothing unjust in a poor man having to pay for his probate according to the value of the property which he obtained. He concurred in the demand made by the hon. Member for the equalization of the probate duty through a fixed percentage. The numerous interesting points that presented themselves in connection with the discussion of this question showed that taxation was in a chaotic state, and that it required to be overhauled. He desired to impress upon the Government that they should never allow a tax to exist on false principles. A tax which was a charge upon property only at death was a very imperfect tax, and far inferior to a charge on the annual value of property. He trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give his favourable attention to the subject whenever the finance of the succession and probate duty came before him.

said, that the inducement thrown out by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay), that such a re-adjustment of these duties as he recommended would give an increase of £4,000,000 to the Revenue, would naturally recommend itself to one in the position which he had the honour to hold. But the proposal before the House went very far. The hon. Gentleman stated that the probate and succession duties ought to be readjusted, that the exemption of real property from probate duty ought not to be maintained, and that the succession duty was not a fair one. But it had been argued before the House, by persons of very great authority, that there was a substantial difference between real and personal property, and therefore that there ought to be a difference in the duties charged upon them. That was argued by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich when he introduced the present measure, and the right hon. Gentleman had never since expressed any different opinion in reference to this question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London had tried to re-adjust those duties, but the attempt had not met with a success which should encourage others to follow his example, for he withdrew his proposal. In considering the question, they must bear in mind the local burdens which were a direct charge on real property, and which handicapped it as against personal property. These local burdens and charges formed one of the principal reasons why real property was not taxed the same as personal property, which did not bear the same burdens, and the right hon. Member for Greenwich had said that the charges upon real property made an imposition of this kind impossible. Another point raised in the Resolution was the difference of the amount raised upon small and large properties. There was no doubt that the amount levied upon smaller properties was a heavy one, and that it was one which required consideration; but it was a subject surrounded with difficulties, and he ventured to think it could not be dealt with hurriedly by a Resolution of the kind before the House. He, therefore, hoped that the House would not agree to the proposal.

who had a Notice on the Paper—

"To call attention to the Order in Council removing the Mayor of Limerick from the Governorship of the Lunatic Asylum, Limerick;"

and to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient in Orders in Council appointing Governors of Lunatic Asylums to observe the old practice of appointing the Mayors of cities;"

said, that he did not consider the subject one on which it would be necessary to put the House to the trouble of a division, even if the Rules would have permitted him. It was, however, one in which a great deal of interest was taken in the city he had the honour to represent. It was an illustration of a form of government too common in Ireland, and which was most mischievous. It related to the removal of the mayor and certain members from the places they had long occupied on the Governing Body of the Limerick Lunatic Asylum. In 1821 an Act was passed under which that asylum was constituted; and the then Lord Lieutenant by Order in Council, appointed certain persons to be governors of it; but there were to be four ex-officio governors—namely, the Mayor of Limerick, the Recorder of the City, the Bishop of the Established Church, and the Archdeacon, and so things continued till 1876; and then the Irish Church having been disestablished there came forth another Order in Council displacing all ex-officio governors, and, consequently, the Mayor of Limerick—and the Mayor of Cork was in the same position—was not allowed to take his seat at the Board of Governors. Even if it were necessary to displace the Bishop and Archdeacon from the governorship of the Limerick Asylum, because the Church was disestablished, he could not understand why it was necessary to displace the mayor. He considered that in this matter there had been a design to cast an unnecessary and undeserved slur upon municipal authorities and institutions in Ireland. Now, what he would ask of the present Lord Lieutenant, or those who represented him in that House—and he wished to say that he believed the present Lord Lieutenant had a sincere desire to conciliate the people of Ireland—whether something could not be done to remove the impression which prevailed? The Corporations, as the representatives of the people, contributed to the funds necessary for the maintenance of district lunatic asylums; and he saw no reason why the mayors, as the heads of such Corporations, should not be members of the Governing Boards. The principle upon which the government of Ireland had been conducted seemed to be to thwart the proper hopes and aspirations of the Irish people to have a part in the management of their own affairs, and it was this that he wished to see altered. This was a trifling thing, but it should be remembered that the lives of nations, like those of individuals, were made up of little things. From the year 1822, down to that of 1876, there was, in the person of the mayor, a representation of the ratepayers upon the Board of Governors; but under the Order in Council there was none, and he would urge that some independent person should be introduced. Why should they not wait for the passing of the County Government Bill before a matter of this kind took place, it might be urged? but he was unwilling to let matters remain until that measure had passed. If the principle were admitted, why not in the interval remove the evil of which they complained? To the County Boards there would be elected members, and he thought that the Corporations should be allowed to elect members to these Asylum Boards. As the matter stood, the people of Limerick complained that a slight had been thrown upon the office and dignity of the mayor, and upon the municipal authorities; and he hoped that something would be done to replace the mayor in the position which he formerly held on this Board—a position for which he was eminently quail fied—and thus remove the stigma which had been cast upon municipal authorities.

said, that he must first express, what he felt to be the general feeling which existed in the House, when he stated that he was glad to see the hon. and learned Gentleman once more amongst them; and he was also glad to think that upon the first occasion on which it had fallen to his (Mr. Lowther's) lot to reply officially to any question raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman that the difference between them was not one that would be very marked, or that would be difficult of arrangement. The hon. and learned Gentleman had called attention to an Order in Council under which mayors in Ireland were no longer constituted ex-officio governors of the lunatic asylums; but he (Mr. Lowther) would remind the House that in the Grand Jury Bill that question had been dealt with, and, as far as that measure was concerned, he might say, in order to show the spirit in which the Government had approached the subject, that two-thirds of the governors of lunatic asylums were to be elected by Grand Juries, County Boards, and the Corporations which contributed to the maintenance of the district asylums. That provision would sweep away the system under which the Government appointed those governors, and introduce anew one; and, therefore, the Order in Council to which reference had been made would share the same fate. The Government recognized the importance of consulting the opinions of municipalities, and by vesting, as they proposed to do, the election of a considerable number of the Governors in the municipal corporations, they had shown, he thought, that they had respect for municipal institutions. There was a good deal to be said in support of the view taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman; but he had hoped that the matter would be left until they had dealt with the Grand Jury Bill. As far as the Mayor of Limerick was concerned, he (Mr. Lowther) had not the pleasure of knowing anything personally of him, but from what he had heard he had no doubt that he was eminently qualified for the position he held; and if, upon inquiry, he found there was any particular grievance personal to himself in regard to the way in which that had been carried out, he would take an opportunity of consulting with the Lord Lieutenant and endeavour to rectify it. He (Mr. Lowther) regretted that the hon. and learned Gentleman had been away from the House, because his assistance would have been very valuable in expediting the progress of the Grand Jury Bill; but that now he had returned, it was hoped that they would have the advantage of his help. So far as the Government were concerned, they would endeavour to remove any cause of complaint which might be supposed to exist. They certainly had no intention to vex the national spirit; but, on the other hand, every desire to act in a conciliatory spirit, with a view to the removal of any real grievance.

congratulated the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the manner in which he had met his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Butt), and trusted it would form a precedent which he would follow in the conduct of the business of the important Office he held. He had to complain of the Order in Council, that it seemed to have been framed in a most bungling manner by some under official, who, having been credited with a discretion he never possessed, had naturally fallen into error in performing the duty.

trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would consider the precisely analogous case of the Mayor of Cork, and that in a like case a like rule would be adopted. Until the recent change in the Privy Council rates the Mayor of Cork was invariably an ex-officio Governor, and as the Corporation of Cork had since the erection of the Asylum been regularly paying a considerable portion of the cost, they always had, and very properly, a representative on the Board. There ought to be no great difficulty in framing new rules for the object now required, and, if necessary, amending the existing Act, so as to confer power on the Lord Lieutenant to appoint some members of the Corporation as Governors, not for life, but during their term of office as town councillors.

said, he had to call attention to the Motion which stood in his name—namelv—

"That it is a high Breach of the Privileges of this House to obstruct the freedom and independence of Members of Parliament in putting questions to Ministers, upon their responsibility as representatives of the people, and in the discharge of their public duty, such questions being framed in decorous language, and having for their object to elicit information on matters of public interest."

This was a matter, as it seemed to him, of the first importance, affecting, as it did, the Privileges of the Members of that House and so of their constituents, and the rights of the nation. He would briefly state the circumstances out of which his complaint arose. Some time in August, 1875, he put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Assheton Cross) with reference to one Mina Jury, one of the most important witnesses examined at the trial of the Tichborne Claimant. This Mina passed then as a very respectable witness, and was treated by the Judges with marked distinction. Her testimony had a powerful influence in deciding the case. After the conviction of that unfortunate man, it was discovered that Mina had been convicted of felony, under the name of Mercivina Caulfield, at Dublin, in 1847, and sentenced to be transported for seven years. She had come to this country under an entirely different name, and, after the trial at Bar, she was again tried for several felonies, and a second time sentenced to penal servitude for seven years. It was therefore thought advisable that the attention of the Crown should be drawn to the fact that one of the most important witnesses on whom the prosecution relied had been a convicted felon. He therefore asked the Home Secretary whether the Mina Jury produced at the trial was the same person who had been convicted in 1847? and the right hon. Gentleman, with much emphasis and earnestness, assured him that she was not—an answer which drew down upon him (Dr. Kenealy) at the time much laughter and many sneers, which he bore with as much, patience and philosophy as he could, as, indeed, he was obliged to bear many things. Some time afterwards, it appeared on the trial of the detectives, that special inquiries had been previously made into this matter; and that the antecedents of Mina Jury had been ascertained at Scotland Yard. In the month of September last, it was proved by Superintendent Williamson, at the Old Bailey, that it had been discovered that Mina Jury and Mercivina Caulfield were one and the same person. Under these circumstances, he should have thought that the Home Secretary would have been only too anxious to explain to the House that he had been unconsciously led to make a statement in his place in Parliament which turned out to be incorrect, and that he would have seized the first opportunity to do so when Parliament was called together. This he was bound to do, not only for his own sake, but for the sake of the Cabinet, and for that of the House of Commons itself, as it was no slight matter to mislead or misinform hon. Members upon such a question as that of the administration of justice. He (Dr. Kenealy) waited for this act during January and February and March; and, finding that the Home Secretary remained silent, in April he gave public Notice of the following Question to the Home Secretary:—

"Whether he will state to the House on whose authority he denied in his place in Parliament, on the 3rd of August, 1875, that Mina Jury, a witness against the defendant in the Tichborne case, and who is now in penal servitude for several robberies, was the same person as Mercivina Caulfield, who was sentenced to seven years' transportation for robbery in Dublin, in 1847; whether he does not know that it was proved at the trial of the detectives at the Old Bailey in September last, by Superintendent Williamson of Scotland Yard, that Mercivina Caulfield and Mina Jury were one and the same person, and that she had been convicted in Dublin as alleged; whether the person who gave him the false information by which Parliament was misled is still in the service of the Government, or receiving a pension; and, if he will state why he did not inform Parliament of the facts as soon as he became aware of them?"

Had there been any objection to the form of this Question, he would have thought that the proper time to raise that objection was when he gave Notice of it to the House, so that he might have an opportunity of amending any fault that might be shown. But that was not done. Early next morning, he received the following letter:—

"House of Commons, April 4th.

"Dear Sir,—By the Speaker's order, I have not put your Question on the Paper, as it purports rather to impugn the accuracy of certain information conveyed to the House than to seek information from the Government. The matter is, therefore, not properly the subject of a Ques- tion; but no doubt you might bring the matter forward on a Motion.—Yours faithfully,

"ARCHIBALD MILMAN.

"To Dr. Kenealy, M. P."

To this he immediately replied—

"Stoke House, Tavistock Square,

"April 5th, 1878.

"Sir,—I have had the honour to receive an intimation from Mr. Milman, one of the assistant clerks of the House of Commons, that you have ordered my Question to Mr. Cross not to be put on the Paper. With all submission, I think that the Question ought to be there, and I shall this day put the Question to Mr. Cross, in order that the matter may be fully discussed, either as a Breach of Privilege or an Adjournment of the House, which I shall move, if requisite.—I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient Servant,

"E. V. KENEALY."

He wrote also to the Home Secretary thus—

"April 5th, 1878.

''Sir,—The Speaker having refused to put upon the Paper the Question of which I gave you public Notice last evening in the House of Commons, relative to the false information given to the House as to Mina Jury, I have informed the Speaker that I shall put the Question to you to-day, so that the Speaker's refusal may be discussed.—I am, Sir, your obedient Servant,

"E. V. KENEALY."

He could assure the House that in framing his Question as he did, he had no desire to violate any Rule. He thought at the time, and he thought still, that he had not done so, and that the Question was right and proper. After writing to the Speaker, he had carefully considered the Question of which he had given Notice; but, as it had been objected to by high authority, and as he had no desire for discussions, dissensions, or fights, he framed his Question anew, as follows:—

"On whose authority he (the Home Secretary) stated in his place in Parliament, on the 3rd of August, 1875, that Mina Jury, a witness against the defendant in the Tichborne case, and who is now in penal servitude for several robberies, was not the same person as Mercivina Caulfield, who was sentenced to seven years' transportation for robbery in Dublin in 1847; and whether the person who gave him the information is still in the service of the Government or receiving a pension; whether it was proved at the trial of the detectives at the Old Bailey in September last, by Superintendent Williamson, of Scotland Yard, that Mercivina Caulfield and Mina Jury were one and the same person, and that she had been so convicted in Dublin as alleged?"

This, he submitted, as a Question was wholly faultless, and he would be glad if anyone could point out to him a blot in either of the two. He challenged information and instruction upon the point, and he hoped he should receive both. He put the Question accordingly, but the right hon. Gentleman did not answer it. The Speaker, however, rose and declared that he had already intimated that the former Question was wrong, and that, in some particulars—not stated—this Question also was informal. He (Dr. Kenealy), nevertheless, considered that the Question was formal, and ought to have been answered. It contained no imputation on any Member of the Government—even if it had, it should have been replied to. He had yet to learn where it was laid down, except in Mr. Speaker's letter, that the conduct of a public officer might not be impugned even in a Question. Now, it seemed to him that this was a matter of considerable importance to every hon. Member; for, if the Speaker could prevent a Member putting a Question to a Minister, he might also prevent his entering a Motion, or a Resolution, or even an Amendment to a Bill on the Notice Paper. He did not believe that any such authority existed in the Speaker, and he should be glad if it could be shown that the Speaker's action was in accordance with the custom, law, or constitution of Parliament. The Speaker held a high and dignified Office, but he had no judicial authority whatever in that House. He was simply the mouthpiece of the Members, and he had no right or authority whatever, as far as he (Dr. Kenealy) knew, to take an independent or a judicial part in their proceedings. The Speaker possessed no right to interfere with any Question that was put by a Member to a Minister, unless it trespassed against order, decency, or decorum; and the only jurisdiction to which a Member so transgressing was amenable was to the House itself; but any Question couched in proper language ought to go into the Order Book. He had looked carefully into May's Parliamentary Practice, and he could find nothing there to justify the exclusion of Questions by the Speaker. The Speaker himself, he found, might be guilty of a Breach of Privilege, and he had been set right when he was going wrong, as in a remarkable instance, by Sir Robert Peel, on the 9th of March, 1840. [See May, 7th ed. pp. 328–9.] In 1621, the Commons, in their protestations, defined their Privileges. They affirmed—

"That every Member hath freedom from all impeachment, imprisonment, or molestation, other than by censure of the House itself, for or concerning any Bill, speaking, reasoning, or declaring of any matter or matters touching the Parliament, or Parliament business."—[Ibid. P. 114.]

Now, he (Dr. Kenealy) contended that by the Speaker excluding his Question, a Breach of Privilege coming under the head of "molestation" had been committed. It was a direct interference with his rights and freedom as a Representative of the people; and he could not submit to it without further instruction. He found it laid down in Hatsell's Precedents, vol. ii. p. 239—

"On the 9th of March, 1620, there is a long debate in which the conduct of the Speaker is very much blamed. 'That he came out of the Chair without consent of the House, &c.' That Mr. Speaker is but a servant to the House, and not a master, nor a master's mate: and that he ought to respect the meanest Member as well as those about the Chair."

This was the law then, and it was the law of Parliament now. Further, he found in the same work, at page 242—

"Speaker Lenthall, when Charles the First came into the House of Commons, and, having taken the Speaker's Chair, asked him whether any of the five Members, that he came to apprehend, were in the House; whether he saw any of them, and where they were? made this answer—'May it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak in this place, but as the House is pleased to direct me; whose servant I am here.'"

And again, as follows:—

"Serjeant Glanvylle, when he was presented as Speaker to the King for his approbation, on the 15th of April, 1640, says, 'The House of Commons have met together and chosen a Speaker, one of themselves, to he the mouth, indeed the servant of all the rest; to steer watchfully and prudently in all their weighty consultations and debates; to collect, faithfully and readily, the vote and genuine sense of a numerous assembly; to propound the same seasonably, and in apt questions of their final resolutions; and to represent them and their conclusions, their deliberations and petitions upon all urgent occasions with truth, with life, with lustre, and with full advantage to your most excellent Majesty."

These extracts fully prove that the Speaker had certain defined and limited authority; but he was not a magistrate in that House; he was simply a Minister and Officer to carry out the will of the Members; and thus showed he had no rights that appertained to the exclusion of matters introduced by Members, so long as they did not trespass against good taste or decorum. He (Dr. Kenealy) had sought, but could not find, any direct precedent which might serve as a guide in the present discussion. None, as far as he could learn, existed in the Journals of the House of Commons; but he found, in Vol. 31 of the Parliamentary History, an account of a debate which took place in the Lords, in the year 1794; and this seemed to be in point here, for there was hardly any difference so far as regarded Parliamentary proceedings between the Speakers of the House of Lords and House of Commons. It appeared, from the Report, that in the April of that year, Lord Stanhope desired to put a Resolution on the Books of the House, but he was not allowed to do so by the Speaker, Lord Loughborough, then Chancellor. Lord Stanhope, as the House knew, was a well-known person in the last century. He was a man of considerable attainments, but as he was an advanced Reformer, and did not swim with the general current, he was regarded as an individual of considerable eccentricity—by some as a madman. He desired on that occasion to place his views on record in the House of Lords, and he accordingly collected together a number of extracts from various writers, which supported some of his political views and utterances. The Speaker prohibited an entry of this Resolution; and this Order of his was challenged by Lord Lauderdale on the 8th of April. This Nobleman was a person of great political and Parliamentary knowledge; he was the friend of Mr. Fox, and was much associated with that statesman; and he had a profound knowledge of our political usages and history. He brought this matter before the House, and he (Dr. Kenealy) hoped to be forgiven, if he quoted one or two passages from his speech on that occasion, as being especially relevant here. Lord Lauderdale (page 198) said—

"He should quote the Journals of both Houses indiscriminately, to prove that when the Speaker of either had taken improper liberties the circumstance had not passed unnoticed."

He referred the House to the cases of 1629 and 1677; in one, the King sent his commands to the Speaker of the Commons to adjourn the House; and although Sir John Elliott was on his legs, the Speaker said "that he had a command from the King to adjourn, and to put no Question." The next Parliament was in 1640, and on its first meeting, the conduct of the Speaker on the last day of the preceding Parliament was examined, and the House declared that the Speaker having refused to put the Question, as called upon to do at the time, was guilty of a Breach of Privilege. In the case of 1677, the Speaker had been complained of for putting Questions with partiality, and leaning to one side more than another. His Lordship read the speech of Sir Thomas Clarges, who observed—

"That the Speaker had usurped more of the attention of the House than any other Member, by giving his opinion; but if that opinion were to be considered as the sense of Parliament, and his patter was to supply them with sentiments, there was an end to the Rights and Privileges of the House, for the Speaker could misrepresent to the public the proceedings of its Members, and thus would the idea of representation be destroyed."

The noble Earl reminded their Lordships that they ought to be more particularly jealous of any invasions of their Privileges by the Speaker than the House of Commons, for this essential reason—

"The Speaker of the House of Commons was the creature of the House, elected by themselves, and sitting in their Chair during their own will and pleasure only; whereas the Speaker of the House of Lords was appointed by the Crown, and ought naturally to be considered as a constant object of jealousy by the House with respect to its Forms and Orders. Mr. Speaker Onslow had expressed his Opinion of the great importance of Parliamentary Forms in terms too strong and decisive to leave a doubt upon the point he was maintaining."

In relation with these precedents from the past, he called attention to one or two observations of Lord Lauderdale in the same speech. Alluding to what had happened on the previous occasion, Lord Lauderdale said—

"He understood that on that evening a Motion of his noble Friend (Earl Stanhope) had been read to the House by his Lordship, and handed to the Lord Chancellor, who had taken upon himself to leave out a material part. Now he could not conceive upon what authority any Speaker of that House could assume the liberty of altering a Motion, unless upon a question of Amendment regularly submitted to their Lordships. The Speaker was the servant of the House, its instrument, and its organ, while officially addressing them from the Woolsack. What the nature of the Motion was, certainly was foreign to the subject of debate. It it were the most absurd that human fancy could suggest it should have been submitted to the House in the precise language of the Mover. If the Motion was unfit for the House to hear, it could have been disposed of by the Previous Question; but the House had not a right, much less had any individual Peer a right, to alter the construction or vary the words of the Motion. If any noble Lord in the heat of the debate should be led into warmth of language or offensive vehemence, the Peer so giving way to his feelings was liable to be called to Order, and to be censured if the occasion appeared to call for censure; but nothing could warrant a sacrifice of the Forms of the House as a punishment. The credit of the House, or of any assembly, depended on a strict adherence to its Forms; and, therefore, he must protest against the proceeding to which he had alluded."

These observations, coming from so eminent an authority, were entitled to weight and would, he hoped, not be without effect. And he hoped he might, without offence, read what Lord Stanhope himself said in that debate—namely, that,

"Had a Speaker in the House of Commons acted in the manner complained of, he would have had his wig pulled over his ears, and his gown stripped off his shoulders."

In conclusion, he desired to repeat that while he had thought it his duty to bring the subject before the House, he had no feeling in the matter, and he should be quite content with any decision the House might come to upon their own Rights and Privileges as a Representative Assembly of the nation at large.

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question of the hon. Member, it is right that I should offer a few words of explanation to the House as to the course which I have thought it my duty to take in this matter. The hon. Gentleman has said that the Speaker of this House is merely the mouthpiece and servant of the House. That observation of the hon. Member is correct. I am merely the mouthpiece and servant of the House, and a very honourable service it is. But I am, at the same time, the Guardian of its Rules and Orders, and there are Rules and Orders laid down by this House applying specially to Questions put before the com- mencement of Public Business from day to day which I am bound to see enforced, and among those Rules and Orders there is one which declares that no Question is to be offered containing matter of argument or opinion; and the Question proposed by the hon. Member for Stoke appeared to me to be a violation of that Rule, and it was upon that ground that I objected to its being put. It appears to me that the hon. Member is in some confusion as to the distinction between a Question and a Motion. If a Motion is offered by a Member of this House to the House, I should not feel that I was entitled for one moment to oppose the offering of such a Motion to the House, or to alter a single word, provided it was properly and respectfully worded. But as to Questions put before the commencement of Public Business, if these Questions involve matter of argument or opinion, or are otherwise in opposition to the Rules and Orders of the House, I consider it my duty to object to them so proposed; and I trust that, in taking the course I have done, I have fulfilled my duty to this House. I have no desire to oppose, in any way, Questions fairly proposed and offered to the consideration of this House; but when a Question is proposed, which appears to me to be in opposition to the Rules and Orders of this House, I consider it my duty to resist that Question, and I shall continue to act in that course, believing it to be the desire of the House.

Sir, I think the occasion is one upon which, though there is no Motion to be put to the House, a few words ought to be said in order to express, as I believe I shall express, the general opinion and sense of the House, that the House reposes entire confidence in your administration of the Rules of the House, and that in this matter, as in other matters generally, we feel we have in you a proper Guardian and a proper Minister to express the sentiments of the House. As regards the question which is immediately before the House, it may be regarded from two points of view. In the first place, there is the question whether you, Sir, have acted in accordance with the feelings and wishes of the House in putting the interpretation you have done upon the Rules which exist with regard to the putting of Questions; and, secondly, there is a word which may with advantage be said upon the practice of putting Questions itself. There is no doubt in the world that the Questions which are submitted to the House are properly revised by the Chair, and that the Speaker fulfils a function it is intended by the House he should fulfil when he revises the Questions, and considers whether they are such as ought to be put in the House consistently with the Rules which the House has laid down, either in writing, or tacitly, or as decided by usage, with regard to such Questions. By one Standing Order—154—it is laid down, that in putting a Question, no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any fact stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the Question; and it is obvious the Rule is a necessary one, because otherwise matters might be put into Questions that would render answers necessary, and thus lead to debates. We know there are methods by which these general discussions can be brought on—as by moving the adjournment of the House—and great irregularities might in that way creep in. We therefore understand that the practice of putting Questions ought to be, and must be, limited to prevent that irregularity; and we see no way in which that practice can be properly restrained except by trusting to the judgment and discretion of the Speaker. He is able to judge, and he does so with thorough impartiality, whether a Question is of such a character as may be properly put, or whether it is one that exceeds the limits laid down, or intended to be laid down, by the House. I think in the course you have pursued with reference to the Question of the hon. Member for Stoke, you have acted entirely in accordance with the principles upon which the House would desire such a Question to be dealt with; and, although there can be no doubt whatever that the hon. Member has a perfect right to bring forward such a matter as a Motion, or to put it as a Question on the Motion that you, Sir, do leave the Chair to go into Committee of Supply, yet it would be irregular that such Questions as these should be put at the commencement of Business. The hon. Gentleman is entirely within his right, I imagine, in challenging your judgment and taking the opinion of the House upon the subject, if he pleases; but I feel perfectly certain the House will support the ruling of the Chair upon the matter. I hope the few words that have been said may prevent any misconception upon the subject; and, above all, may make it perfectly clear that, in the event of your decision upon such a point being challenged, you would have the most complete and hearty support of the House.

said, the hon. Member for Stoke semed to labour under a complete misapprehension as to the distinction between a Question and a Motion, and as to the powers and privileges of Members in relation to Questions and in relation to Motions. The right of putting a Question before the commencement of Public Business was an extremely limited one, and Questions were put rather on sufferance, than as a right of the same character as that of moving a Motion. Indeed, it was probable the oldest Member of the House could remember when Questions were first printed on the Orders, with a view to their being put before the commencement of Business. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to a Rule which restricted the character of a Question, and he (Mr. Whitbread) would point out that the next Rule imposed corresponding restriction in answering a Question, from which, if it stood by itself, it would follow that there was no right to put a Question which must necessarily lead to debate. He accepted the statement of the hon. Member that he had no intention of imputing any wrong conduct to the Home Secretary; but still, if many Questions of such a character were to be put to Ministers, it would be difficult to find men who would consent to sit on the Ministerial Bench. It was a long Question, and it assumed as facts matters which must have led to debate. More than that, it made a charge against an officer who was not here to defend himself, and the Home Secretary could not have answered the Question without vindicating that officer. Apart from anything else, the Question was of an unusual character, and one which it seemed beyond the right of a Member to put. The hon. Member for Stoke appeared to be under the impression that any Question might be put which did not in its language infringe on order or decorum; but that was quite a misapprehension. He would point out to the hon. Member the known practice of the House, according to which it was a matter of frequent occurrence that Questions proposed to be put by hon. Members were altered, at the discretion of the Chair, before they appeared on the Notice Paper, and in some cases even rejected. Further than that, there were the unwritten rules arising from use and wont, which were even stronger. Certainly, no one could complain of the officers of the House, who always manifested the greatest anxiety to give hon. Members every information as to the Rules and practice of the House. The hon. Member for Stoke was quite right in saying that the authority of the Speaker did not rest on statute. He was the Minister and Servant of the House, and derived his power from moral influence and from the support accorded to him by the House. He trusted and believed that the result of the discussion would be that that power would continue to be exercised as temperately and firmly as before, and that the support of the House would be as cheerfully and loyally given.

entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread). He thought the practice of putting Questions had been carried somewhat to excess. It often occupied from three-quarters of an hour to an hour, and, no doubt, impeded Public Business. Sometimes the Questions put were irrelevant, and were only intended to bring hon. Gentlemen's names under notice, by the Questions being inserted in the newspapers, and Ministers were obliged to get up their answers with great care. It was quite necessary that the Speaker should exercise his discretionary power to prevent Questions being put in a form in which they ought not to be asked.

said, he would admit, from personal experience, that Questions had been put in a form in which they ought not to have been put; but he thought it was rather unfortunate that the Question of the hon. Member for Stoke, after it had been altered, had not received a reply from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He would suggest the possibility of affording the hon. Member an opportunity of obtaining an answer from the Government.

considered the practice of putting Questions useful and economical of the time of the House. Subjects were often brought forward on Supply, the discussion of which occupied considerable time, which might have been avoided by a Question being put before the commencement of Public Business. He did not believe that Questions were put for the sake of obtaining notice of the Questioners' names by the Press, for that object would be much more easily gained by bringing forward Motions. Twenty or thirty Questions were often answered in an hour, any one of which might give rise to more than an hour's debate if brought on going into Committee of Supply. The Questions to be put were quite sufficiently watched over by those whose duty it was to take care that no improper Questions were put.

said, he did not rise to take any part in the discussion, but to explain to the hon. Member for Stoke why he had not answered his Question when it was put the second time. The Question did not appear on the Paper in the form in which he could submit it to the gentleman who gave him the information; and if, after the Speaker had ruled that the Question was out of Order, and that it could not be printed in the Order Book, he had replied to it, he should have been guilty of great want of respect to the Speaker, and also to the House itself. He was still in the same position; but, as some imputation might seem to rest on the gentleman concerned in this matter, it was only due to him to state that he believed the information he gave was the only information he possibly could give. He had referred to his own papers—of the date of June, 1875—[Dr. KENEALY: No; August, 1875.] Then he was mistaken in the date; and he could only say, if the hon. Member would put down the Question on going into Supply, giving him a day's Notice to enable him to communicate with the gentleman, he would obtain for him the information required, which, he was quite sure, would turn out to be correct.

said, he had put on the Paper a Motion to reduce the Vote by £10,000, and he was in some doubt as to whether he ought not to ask the Committee to reject the Vote altogether. Under all the circumstances, however, he thought he might be content with moving that the Vote be reduced by the amount which he had mentioned. It must not be supposed, however, that because he merely moved for the reduction of the Vote, that he in any degree approved the principle of paying Secret Service money. On the contrary, he disapproved altogether of the system, for he greatly doubted whether the Government were justified in such expenditure; and he thought that if Secret Service money were voted, an explanation should be given after it had been expended of the way in which it had been used. As was well known to hon. Members, large sums were voted from year to year for Secret Service, and it was next to impossible to get from the Government of the day any information as to the way in which such money was used. The money was, he supposed, used for the purposes of the Crown both at home and abroad; and, without wishing to pry unduly into the operations of the Government, he thought the Committee had a right to know more than it did of the way in which the money was expended. He did not wish to inquire as to how much money had been expended by the Government in corrupting or attempting to corrupt the servants of the Czar of Russia; nor did he particularly wish to know anything as to the results which had flowed from such expenditure. He would confine himself to the question as it affected home affairs. In Ireland they had had painful experience of the application of Secret Service money in times past, and he had no reason to believe that such money was not now being so expended. In 1867 this fund was applied to the purpose of paying informers in Ireland, whose business it was to look after a secret conspiracy of a very extensive character which existed, or was supposed to exist, in the country. The spies were not only employed for the purpose of detecting persons engaged in the conspiracy, but of inducing them to join it in order that they might afterwards be committed to prison. When a man named Kelly was accused, before a Dublin jury, of the murder of a constable named Talbot, it was proved that Talbot, who was in receipt at the time of Secret Service money, had deliberately entered into the Fenian ranks, had taken the oath of fidelity to the organization, and had himself sworn in a large number of other persons whom he had been able to corrupt, while he was himself in receipt of Government pay. Talbot did not confine himself to this. He went further, and entered upon an extensive system of corruption which it was not easy to characterize. In order to gain the confidence of the poor people by whom he was surrounded, this man Talbot, although he was a Protestant, pretended to be a Roman Catholic, and took the sacrament of the Church at its altars, side by side with the persons to whom he had administered the oath as members of the Fenian conspiracy. If he knew that none of this Secret Service money was being spent in Ireland at the present time, he might, perhaps, have been content to let the Vote pass unchallenged; but it was because he felt certain that the same system was being pursued, that he thought it his duty to protest against the Vote. The consequence of the action taken by Constable Talbot was that he was fired at in the streets of Dublin, and a man named Kelly was arrested on a charge of having fired the shot. Talbot was taken to a hospital, and, after a few days of suffering, died, some said in consequence of the shot, others as the result of unskilful surgical treatment. Kelly was acquitted on the charge of having shot Talbot, but was sentenced to penal servitude for life for shooting at a policeman who arrested, or attempted to arrest, him. In consequence of the use of this money, hundreds of young Irish- men were sworn into the conspiracy, and Talbot was shot as an act of revenge by some member of the Fenian organization. The man Kelly was still in penal servitude on Spike Island, and was an object of great sympathy in Ireland. What he had stated was, he thought, sufficient to show that a horrible chain of misfortune had encircled Ireland in consequence of the expenditure of Secret Service money for the purpose of first corrupting, and then punishing, people for the offences into which they were drawn by emissaries of the Government. For these reasons he begged to move that the Vote be reduced by £10,000.

seconded the Motion. The House, he said, had a right to further information and guarantees as to the way in which this money was expended. He thought, also, that the House was entitled to some supervision of the expenditure of the money, and in the selection of the agents by whom it was expended. Only a few weeks ago, he received a letter from a gentleman in Ireland who was being persecuted by the police in Ireland, because he happened to be known to certain other Irish gentlemen resident in Paris, who, some years ago, were mixed up in revolutionary movements in Ireland. This gentleman wrote, that although there were no grounds for suspicion, as far as he was concerned, he was continually dogged about by the police, and subjected to all sorts of annoyance and petty persecution. This sort of harassing espionage was the way in which the Secret Service money was spent, and he, therefore, thought that Parliament was entitled to know more about the matter than it did at present. That was the kind of conduct pursued against a rich gentleman, merely because he was suspected of sharing the opinions of some out of his many Irish acquaintances. He (Mr. O'Donnell) thought something ought to be done in the way of providing supervision over the expenditure of Secret Service money. He quite understood that the disposal of such money could not be accounted for publicly, and, of course, he knew all Governments needed an amount for secret purposes. But he thought, at the same time, if there were some means of examining into the expenditure, many objections to the Vote would be removed. The total sum required for Secret Service was £40,000, of which £10,000 was annually charged on the Consolidated Fund. Forty-thousand pounds a-year could be employed over a very wide area, and a large number of agents could be kept by such a sum. Not having been in the House when the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury was explaining a portion of the Vote, he did not know whether he gave any details of the general heads under which the money was spent. At any rate, he (Mr. O'Donnell) considered, that without infringing secrecy, the Government could afford a little more information as to the general direction of the espionage which they had been bound to employ. Considering this espionage was spread over a comparatively limited portion of the Empire, £40,000 was a large sum to be spent on the Service. If the amount were devoted to the purposes of Indian espionage also, he could understand the demand for £40,000; but the money spent for such duties in India was paid out of the Indian Revenues. Consequently, it came to this—that they had £40,000 a-year spent by a Constitutional, respected, enthusiastically beloved, and admired Government in spying the conduct of British citizens and subjects. The maintenance of such a class of spies was certainly not creditable to a Constitutional and universally beloved Government. The detectives, who might be spoken of as the regular Espionage Department of the administration, were paid out of the Police Fund, and no part of the £40,000 a-year went towards their cost. He, therefore, thought the Committee was entitled to know from the Government what they did with the money, how much they were spending in additional rewards for the discovery of crime, and how much they paid for domestic and foreign espionage. He did not know whether the practice was now recognized in diplomacy of paying for the theft of despatches sent by one Government to an- other. Such things used to be done; but he was sure the sense of Parliament and of the nation of the present day would decidedly discountenance such an application of public money. He asked for some general description of the agencies which were set on foot by means of this £40,000 a-year Secret Service money. Every Irish Member knew that in Ireland Secret Service money had been used to suborn perjury and reward the basest infamy. The rope had been tied round the necks of innocent persons by means of such money. Again and again it had been the great element of a widespread organization of fraud, false swearing, and utter uncrupulousness, directed against the most noble-minded, though of the poorest, in Ireland. The horrible case of Inspector Talbot had been mentioned that night, and if the Committee were to ransack the annals of the most despotic Government in the world, they could discover nothing more dreadful than the conduct of that man, who was supported during his career of unscrupulous hypocrisy out of the Secret Service Fund which was annually voted by an Assembly of Gentlemen. But that money had not been confined to suborning such wretched instruments of despotism as the miserable Talbot. It had been spent in Ireland in the corruption of the public Press, and it had been employed in that country in maintaining journals hired by the Government to stab the reputation of Irish politicians. The hands of the Representative of Her Majesty—the hands of the Viceroy of Ireland—had been stained by the distribution of money out of this unclean fund. Every Irish Member knew the case of Burch v. Clarendon, where the editor of a wretched Dublin print brought an action against Lord Clarendon for a reward due to him, because, in his paper, month after month, and year after year, he slandered, for Vice-Regal—aye, and for Imperial—pay, the purest reputations and noblest characters in the Irish Party. How could Irish Members be expected to let that Vote pass unchallenged when they knew the money had been employed in recent times, and, as far as he (Mr. O'Donnell) could see, was being employed now, in suborning perjury, planning schemes against innocent men, and recruiting the victims of informers amongst the innocent and decent peasantry? Notice being taken that 40 Members were not present, and the Committee having been counted and 36 Members only being present, Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair and counted the House; and 40 Members being present—

proceeding, said, the Government owed it to the House and to the Irish people, who had suffered much from the employment of Secret Service money, to give some general indication of the manner in which it was spent. He wished to know if pensions to former informers were paid out of the fund? If that were the case, it would diminish the menacing character of the amount, because the British Government had employed so many informers in Ireland, that if they still received pay from the retired list, a considerable sum could be accounted for. In fact, he should not be surprised to hear that half the total of the Vote was spent on pensions. The application of the fund had been so evil in many cases that the Government ought to explain how it was spent, and guarantee that it was not employed to-day as it was 10 or 20 years ago in suborning perjury, such as the evidence of the wretched Talbot, and rewarding such venal editors as Mr. Burch, the editor of The Dublin World, an organ supported and maintained by the Viceroy of the time for the purpose of slandering the character of Irish politicians.

said, the speeches of the hon. Members for Meath (Mr. Parnell), and Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) seemed to imply that Secret Service money was spent in no other part of the Empire except Ireland. But Scotland, years ago, suffered greatly from the existence of such a Service, and the name of one person—Castlereagh—was still thought of with detestation by working and middle-class people in that country. The work of such a system culminated at one time in the execution of an old man of 72 years of age, who was harmless and innocent. But the disturbances which led to such a result did not end there. Open rebellion was brought about, a battle took place between the Forces of the Crown and the people at Barrymore, and two men, whose characters, history now told them, were beyond the slightest stain, who were of the highest order of Scotch peasantry—these men were hanged in virtue of a plot known to be instigated by Castlereagh and his minions. Secret Service money had also been used for the very worst purposes in England. During the Chartist agitation from 1838 to 1840, it was clearly shown that such money was employed for the purpose of fomenting insubordination and rebellion among the people. Then unfortunate victims who had been lured into rebellion by Government money were sent to distant lands for considerable periods. He could speak for, at least, 10,000 Scotch peasantry, and say that they detested Secret Service money. He was glad the subject had been brought forward, and it would be very creditable to the Government if they would get rid of the system altogether. If the hon. Member for Meath divided the House on the question, he would support him.

said, formerly pensions were largely supplemented out of the Secret Service money. That was to say, a person receiving a pension from some public Department, frequently had it added to from the Secret Service money. Evidence of this fact was given before the Diplomatic Service Committee years ago, and the year before last attention was drawn to the subject. Some statement was then made by the Government, but he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) did not know if the practice had been stopped, or whether it still continued. Of course, the House of Commons had no right to ask in what way the Secret Service money was spent; but certainly it had a right to say that pensions should not be supplemented out of such a Vote.

said, he thought it was time for the Government to consider whether this Vote ought to be proposed at all. There was something not altogether creditable in the expenditure of public money on Secret Services, and he should think that a Minister of the Queen would feel scarcely comfortable in mixing himself up with transactions of the kind. If the money was expended for the purpose of bringing criminals to justice, he saw no reason why it should not so appear on the face of the Votes; if it was not so expended, but was allowed to filter away through all sorts of occult channels, he thought the sooner an end was put to the voting of money for such purposes the better.

said, he thought the main objection to Secret Service money was that it gave a positive temptation to a certain class of Government officials to encourage crime, in order that they might gain rewards for afterwards detecting it. In the summer of 1865 he was spending a holiday at a watering place in the West of Ireland, where he saw bands of men go out into the fields for the purpose of drilling, as an avowed part of the Fenian organization. The police stood by, saw all this, and knew perfectly well what it meant; but by their tolerance—connivance, in fact—they lured these men, most of whom were very young, into a course which brought them within the meshes of the law. A scandalous example of this was afforded by the case of Constable Talbot, whose conduct could only tend to alienate the people from their respect for the law. He had himself been subjected to this sort of espionage. On one occasion he arrived at the railway station at Limerick, carrying with him a long box containing mallets and balls for playing croquet. He was met by three policemen, who insisted on seizing his box, on the ground that it contained arms and ammunition. On opening it, however, they found that the only balls it contained were of wood, and the only weapons of propulsion were mallets. He remembered, on another occasion, hearing that a stipendiary magistrate asked a gentleman, occupying a prominent social position, to prevent his daughter from wearing a dress of invisible green colour, on account of the fact that the sight of it might possibly incite the lower classes to the commission of illegal acts. The gentleman appealed to his daughter who, on the ground that the colour of the dress was admirably suited to her complexion, declined to change her attire—even though the wearing of the dress might endanger the safety of the Empire. There was another case, too, of an informer in Hong Kong, who received secret money to spend in a house of ill-fame, in order to convict the person who kept it. He thought there could be no doubt that some power of active supervision ought to be given to Parliament over the disposal of this money, and until it was done, hon. Members of that House would be perfectly justified in continuing their opposition to the Vote.

said, he could scarcely credit the Hong Kong case to which his hon. Friend had referred, as there was only an unofficial statement of the facts which had come to hand, and it disclosed proceedings so base as to pass belief. The Secret Service money was, in many cases, it was alleged, used for purposes of great baseness, and he hoped steps would be taken by the Government to put a stop to such practices as were said to exist, or to explain that they had no existence.

deprecated the repetition of these discussions year after year, because they could not lead to anything satisfactory to those hon. Members who objected root and branch to the granting of any money at all for Secret Service. It was the very essence of a secret Vote that the details of its expenditure should not be disclosed to the public. He could admit that the accusations made against the Vote, from the point of view of the Irish Members, were borne out by facts. The Vote asked for was, in amount, £24,000, but it would not necessarily be expended. In the year 1876–7, £24,000 were voted, but only £14,900 were expended. In the year 1800 the amount voted by Parliament for Secret Service was £112,000; but it had gone on steadily decreasing since that time, and he hoped that decrease would continue. The fund was administered by the heads of the different Departments, on the faith that it was used for the public service, in reference to matters which could not absolutely be made public. Each Minister was responsible for the amount voted for his Department, and it was administered on the actual responsibility of such Minister. In reply to what had been said by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), he might safely answer that, whatever might have been the practice in ancient times, the amount voted for Secret Ser- vice money was now devoted to payment for special services, and was not used for the purpose of increasing salaries paid to the officials holding office in the different Departments in the service of the State.

thought the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury had himself furnished a reason for decreasing the Vote, by stating that much less than the sum voted was annually expended. As at present managed, each one of the Departments had entrusted to it for expenditure a certain portion of the Secret Service money, and he saw no reason why each of the Departments should not give an account, yearly, of the way in which the money was disposed of. If this were done, a great deal of the suspicion now felt would be got rid of. As far as the use of Secret Service money in the past was concerned, it must be perfectly well known that in Ireland it was extensively used by the infamous Lord Castlereagh, in order to induce persons to join in the Rebellion, which cost many people their lives. On every ground, therefore, he thought there was a sufficient cause for objecting to the present Vote and moving its rejection.

said, he had listened very attentively to the debate. He was unable to agree to the proposition that Secret Service money might, with advantage to the public service, be entirely abolished. At present, he was not able to conceive that there were not many things for which a Government was obliged to use secret money, and yet which it would be very undesirable to publish to the House of Commons 12 months after the event. Still, if the hon. Member pressed his Motion to a division, he should certainly vote for it, as a protest against the manner in which this fund had been applied. The hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had said that the allegations of his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Donnell) against certain officials in Dublin were incorrect. Now, as to the statement that an Irish official had employed the Secret Service Fund in hiring a newspaper to assail Irish patriots, if the hon. Baronet would only consult the files of the Irish newspapers—

said, he did not dispute the statement at all, nor the one that the Secret Service Fund had been employed during the Fenian rising. What he did say was, that the latter statement was exaggerated.

said, he was very glad to hear that. Of course, these discussions would be futile and idle as the passing wind if some impression were not made on Ministers by these discussions, and if they were not disposed to recognize that in certain cases very grave mistakes—to say the least—had been made. It would be the duty of every head of a Department entrusted with money of this kind to see that mistakes of this kind were not repeated. The use that was made of this money was notorious in the ease of Lord Castlereagh, and Burch, the proprietor of The World. It was also true that Talbot was employed to go into Clonmel, and there first swear in the peasantry as Fenians, and then go into the dock, and swear away their lives. It was not necessary to bring the guilt of having sent out this man home to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Attorney General; but it was sufficient for his purpose to show what had been done in the past. He had been told that they were on the eve of great social troubles, and before the excitement burst upon them, he wished to warn the Government to keep a sharp eye on their officials in the country, and to see that none of them were stirring up tumults. He asserted, and thought he had proved, that this money had been disgracefully applied in the past; and if the Government would not take proper measures for dealing with its disposal, it would be their duty to exhaust every Form of the Committee and the House in protest against the Vote.

said, there were several items in this Vote which seemed to him to have lost their appropriateness. There was, for instance, £97 for Her Majesty's Limner, an institution not quite in keeping with the usages of modern times. Again, there was £184 for Her Majesty's Historiographer. If there was to be a recognition of merit in this way, he did not see why the distinguished scholar who enjoyed the salary should not be on the Civil List, in receipt of the same recognition as was frequently paid, on a somewhat moderate scale it was true, to men of merit in England. The next item was Her Majesty's Clockmaker, £17. Surely, attending to the clocks at Holyrood and other places was a matter which might just as well be paid by the job. Her Majesty's Clockmaker at present certainly received a salary either very much above or very much below his commercial value. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote, in the first place, by the salary of Her Majesty's Limner for Scotland.

Does the hon. Member propose to omit the item, or to reduce the Vote?

To omit the item, Sir.

said, the post of Her Majesty's Limner was one always held by some great painter. It was once held by David Wilkie, and the salary then was £300 per annum. It was now held by Sir Noel Paton at £97, and he ventured to think a sum of that sort was by no means too much to pay as a recognition of public services of the character and description of these gentlemen. He trusted the Committee would not say by its vote that it begrudged a sum of this kind.

said, he would not oppose this Vote if the money really went to encourage art; but he did doubt very much whether to give certain persons sums of money in this way did any good. If they were earning, as he supposed Sir Noel Paton was earning, a very large income, the money might surely be spent in a much better manner—for instance, in prizes to students who were trying to make their way.

said, he would not trouble the Committee to divide, after the explanation that had been given, but would simply content himself with saying "No" to the question. All these distinctions, he thought, should be honorary. The money could be of no importance to Sir Noel Paton, and it would, therefore, be quite sufficient to have these as honorary posts. The emoluments in any case could in no way correspond to the literary or artistic eminence of the persons concerned.

said, he observed that they had again the Vote of £144 for the Historiographer. The gentleman who held that office was well known and highly respected in Scotland as an historian, and also as one who had done good service to his country in other respects; but he would like to know from the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury if this was to be continued? because last year when this sum of money was voted it was to complete the volume. Now, it did occur to him that from the work this gentleman had to perform it must be a very bulky volume. He feared it was a taking away of the public money rather than a promotion of the object that was in view. He should like to know when this volume was likely to be completed?

rather thought the hon. Gentleman was somewhat under a misapprehension as to the present item. He would ask leave to say that these offices of Historiographer of Scotland and Limner were honorary offices that were given to men of high position in literature and art. The payments were not in respect of services. It would be seen that these were a few old relics left of Scottish Royalty. They had nothing left in Scotland that represented the old Royalties of the Kingdom except these offices, which at one time were hereditary. The salaries were once paid out of the personal revenues of the Sovereign; but by Act of Parliament these revenues were transferred to the State. At the time that transfer was made to the Exchequer, certain of these honorary offices, which, as he said before, represented the sole relics of Royalty in Scotland, were maintained. There was another office under the Lord Clerk Register, where a grant was made, but of much smaller amount than the sums given to England and Ireland, for the purpose of making available to the public at reasonable expense the treasures that were collected in the Register House in Edinburgh. The item they were dealing with was an honorary allowance given to a man who had earned his spurs in the field of literature. It was not brought forward simply to stimulate the cultivation of letters. He did not think literary gentlemen stood in need of that; but he should regret if a practice which had existed from time immemorial should be taken away, because it was looked upon as a great prize by men of letters in Scotland.

would be very sorry to do away with relics of the ancient Royalty of Scotland, but there was an office which he should be glad to see done away with, and that was the Lyon-King-at-Arms. On one occasion there was something like blackmail in connection with that office. The occasion was this—Biographies of hon. Members who first entered that House appeared in a paper called The Illustrated House of Commons, with arms opposite each name. Those hon. Members received from some person, who pretended to speak in the name of this office of Lyon-King-at-Arms, an inquiry asking by what right they assumed these arms, and requesting the payment of £40 for that assumption. Most of the hon. Members thus questioned found themselves in an awkward position; but, never having been guilty of the assumption of arms himself, and arms having been placed opposite his name, he was able to inquire into the matter boldly, without any fear of the payment of the sum required. He confessed he did not get a satisfactory answer. The man who said he had written to him did not appear to have written with any authority. His authority was repudiated by Lyon-King-at-Arms. The man assured him that he had authority; but he did not think the matter was seemly, and he trusted it would be inquired into.

before the Lord Advocate answered the question, would like to know what was the present state of the office, and whether there was such a person as Lyon-King-at-Arms? Some people supposed that Lord Kinnoul was Lyon, and that the office was hereditary in his family. He should like to know something about that. It was said that the only people in the office were clerks to copy documents. It seemed to him that the office of Herald of Scotland ought to be kept up, and kept up with dignity. It was a great pity if this office had been frittered away. There were many people who took an interest in this subject, who would wish to know from the right hon. and learned Lord who the Lyon was, and what were the duties performed in the office?

said, it was quite true that at one time the Earls of Kinnoul were Lords Lyon-King-at-Arms of Scotland; but, some years ago, Parliament took the arrangements of the office into its own hands, and by Statute 30 Vict. c. 13, the office was remodelled, and, instead of the office retaining the fees as the property of the Lyon-King-at-Arms, the fees were paid into the Treasury. The office was now held by a well-known gentleman, a cadet of one of the oldest families in Aberdeenshire, and one of the most learned heralds in Scotland. It was the duty of the officials to receive the fees which were scheduled by the Act of Parliament, and precisely fixed. He was very sorry that any unjust claim, if such were made, was presented by these officials. He trusted the law was not unduly pressed against any hon. Member of that House. But it clearly was the duty of the office to collect the fees, and he was happy to say the office was in a most thriving condition.

hoped the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) would not press his objection to the small amount paid to the Historiographer of Scotland. He trusted that the objection to the amount paid to the Limner would also be withdrawn. When they considered how, in foreign countries, Art was rewarded by degrees, and still more by orders, he did not think they could object to these small amounts. He would like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was strictly accurate as to the receipts of income from this office? There ought to be a record on the Votes of all receipts of income. In all other cases receipt of income was recorded. He was not aware that there was any other Vote where corresponding income was not recorded. No doubt, the Secretary to the Treasury would look after that.

would not pledge himself that this represented the whole of the receipts of the office; but hon. Members would see that there were receipts for £700 placed under the Vote. While he had risen, he would answer the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell). With regard to his opposition to the item of the Clock-maker, that was money paid for duty done. The man had charge of the clocks not only in the Palace at Holyrood, but in the Courts of Justice, and, therefore, this did not represent an honorary office, but represented work done.

would point out that the fact that fees were received by the Lyon-King-at-Arms rendered the circumstances which occurred a few months ago all the more inexcusable. On the occasion to which he referred, the demand did not come from the office, but came from a person purporting to come from the office. Yet, no steps had been taken to bring him to account.

could only say, that if the hon. Member had reported the circumstance to the office, steps would have been taken.

said, that his objection was, that these Votes were neither quite honorary, nor really valuable. As for the rest, he confessed if he had looked on this item simply in the light of remains of old Scottish Royalty, he would have treated it with more veneration. He had great veneration for the charming sentimentalism that still subsisted, and he hoped the Government would not be alarmed at this revival of Scottish Home Rule through the Votes of the Civil Service.

observed, that one question he had asked had not been answered. He wanted to know when they were likely to have this volume? He knew there were men who were as anxious to have reprints of old books, as they were to have old china. He knew men who were looking anxiously for this book, and he would be glad if the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would tell them when they were likely to have it. He would not press the matter to a Vote. What he wanted to know was, when they were likely to have this volume, which had been so long in preparation?

explained, that the Vote was put in accordance with the Rules of the House, but did not relate to this book. There was a rule that when a public officer derived salary from one source, if he was, at the same time, deriving Government pay from another source, it should be mentioned; and this entry merely recorded that he received payment for preparing the volume. He might say that he believed the literary work had been accomplished; but, as the hon. Member was aware, the duty of superintending the publication of the work fell on the Lord Clerk Register of Scotland, an office vacant by death.

asked for explanation of the item relating to the Secretary to the Bible Board?

would suggest that in future the Estimates should avoid separate details of these relics of the Crown. Two hours were wasted last year in discussing these Estimates. On seeing the words "Limner" and "Historiographer" there was a good deal of curiosity among those to whom the names were new. If they were simply indicated as charges on the hereditary revenue, that would be quite sufficient.

in answer to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), said, that the Secretary to the Bible Board's duties depended on the number of editions of the Bible in the course of publication. Out of the salary, the Secretary to the Bible Board paid a reader, who was by profession a printer, and who did the technical work. He believed the Secretary had also to provide office room for books and papers out of that amount. As agent of the Bible Board, this man was appointed from time to time by the Lord Advocate, and the clerks he had to employ were paid also from his salary. He believed the Secretary was formerly paid by fees; but the fees were now paid into the Treasury, and came to the same amount, or, rather exceeded, the salary; and, therefore, practically, it was not a great cost to the country.

after that explanation of the hon. Baronet, would feel called upon to move that the Vote of £600 to the Secretary of the Bible Board be not paid. The explanation was extremely satisfactory as far as it went. This gentleman paid as rent for the office £50 a-year; he paid to the reader not more than £100 a-year, and he did all the actual work; the result being that the Secretary of the Bible Board got £400 a-year for doing nothing. It was a sinecure, as far as he could see; and he did think that, unless the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate could give a more extended explanation, he should be called upon to ask for a division. Really, as at present advised, he should feel called upon to ask for a division. One of the duties of the Committee of that House on the Estimates was to see that no money was unreasonably spent. It seemed to him, as far as the information he had went, that this £600 was entirely thrown away. It was a sinecure for some gentleman. A sum of money was given, and no service was given in return. He should think it his duty to vote against the grant, and would move to omit £600, the salary of the Secretary to the Bible Board.

would suggest to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) not to push his objection to this item. After all, this item was connected with the religious institutions of the country, and might as well be passed by.

thought there was some misapprehension in the mind of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), and he feared the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury did not quite understand what the question really was. The Board, as he understood, was constituted as follows:—When a printer desired to print an edition of the Bible, that edition had to be submitted to the Clerk of the Board, and had to be read carefully. It was not a sinecure office. It was an office appointed for the use of the country, and so long as that was the case, this office should be maintained. Therefore, he hoped the hon. Member for Cavan would not push his Motion to a division.

said, this was a matter discussed on the Motion of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) last year. At one time it was the subject of a great deal of controversy in Scotland. There was a monopoly of printing the Bible in Scotland, which involved great expense. For that was substituted a system of licensing in order to protect the purity of the text. He believed the whole of the religious sects in Scotland were quite agreed on the utility of this Board, and would not like to part with its services.

said, he was only partially enlightened so far, and for this reason—there was an expenditure on all fours with these hereditary and Royal appointments. First, there was the Secretary to the Bible Board; then there were the Limner and Historiographer, the Warder of the Regalia, and so on. These were all included under the hereditary allowances. Of course, the first time the Bible was in Scotland, as far as he knew, was in the reign of James the First. He certainly certified for the possession of the Bible, and perhaps that rule was still in operation. The fact remained, that this Secretary to the Bible Board got £600 a-year for correcting proofs of the different editions of the Bible. The Secretary might correct the proofs of one edition every three months; and it really seemed to him an extraordinary payment. He thought he ought to divide the Committee.

said, his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) was not here last year, when this Vote was explained. The £600 was paid for work done. The question was, whether the State ought to undertake that work. He did not think the State should undertake that work; but if the hon. Member for Cavan really knew what the work of correcting proofs was, he would not begrudge £600.

said, as it appeared by the explanation of the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) that the sum in question was not an over-payment, he was willing to withdraw his Motion for the omission of this grant.

said, he must ask the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Trea- sury for a further explanation. He wished to know what were the duties of the Law Agent of the Scotch Bible Board? He would move the omission from the Estimates of the sum of £240, which appeared as the salary of this officer.

explained, that it was the duty of the Law Agent to watch that there was no infringement of the licence of the Board, and to prosecute for any such infringement. He was compelled to appeal to hon. Members as to whether, in proceeding with the consideration of the Estimates, the Committee were to do so in the usual manner, or in that lately followed—a course which appeared to him to be consistent neither with the dignity of the House nor the transaction of Business.

said, he had no intention of placing obstacles in the way of the Business of the House. It was only reasonable that he should ask for information sufficient to enable him to understand the purposes to which this sum of money was to be applied. He had deferred to the views of several hon. Members in withdrawing his previous Motion, and, after the explanation afforded by the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), he would now beg leave to withdraw his opposition to this Vote of £240.

said, he could understand the impatience of the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury when questions were asked by Irish Members with respect to the Scotch Estimates. The questions of his hon. Friend related to subjects perfectly familiar to Scotch Members, but with which Irish Members were unacquainted. The hon. Member for Cavan came from the North of Ireland, and, by the responsibility cast upon him as a Member of that House, was asked to vote money for Scotch and English, as well as Irish purposes. It seemed to him that the hon. Baronet was suffering, not so much from any fault of his own, as from the faults of those who, in the year 1800, effected the arrangement which compelled the hon. Member for Cavan to come over to this country in order to assist in passing this Vote for Scotch purposes. His ignorance of these matters must, therefore, not be regarded as a fault, but as a misfortune. The explanation of these Votes which had been afforded by the Secretary to the Treasury was of great value; but, at the same time, he (Mr. Parnell) was bound to say that his explanations had not always been satisfactory; and the hon. Baronet would bear him out, that at an earlier period he had said that it was impossible for the discussion of the Estimates to be satisfactorily conducted in a Committee of the Whole House, and that one of two things would result therefrom—either that the Committee would lose its temper over the amount of time necessary to be expended, or that the Estimates could not be discussed at all. He had invited the hon. Baronet to refer the whole of the Estimates to a Select Committee upstairs; and he now repeated his invitation, under the conviction that a very large saving could be effected if this course were adopted.

would point out to the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), that his observations went beyond the Question before the Committee, to which he should endeavour to confine them.

would continue to do so. ["Order!"]

said, he must remind the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), that after having been requested from the Chair to abstain from a particular line of argument, it was scarcely respectful to the Committee to say that he proposed to continue it.

had, perhaps, expressed himself incorrectly; but, of course, had not intended to refer to anything but the particular Vote under discussion, in doing which he had only expressed his conviction that if these particular Estimates were referred to a Select Committee, many ways could be pointed out by which a very material saving might be effected.

said, he could not allow the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury to pass unnoticed. A great deal of the difficulty in which the hon. Baronet was placed arose from the fact that he had not been assisted during the evening by the Heads of the Departments for which this money was asked. It was most desirable that those Gentlemen should be present, whose duty it was to be thoroughly posted with regard to these items. He had observed the Secretary to the Treasury sitting for a long time during the evening without a single Member of the Government beside him to afford explanations upon questions that had presented themselves earlier in the discussion; when, however, the Lord Advocate came in, every explanation had been given, and the Committee were enabled to proceed with Business. He had referred to these facts, so far as they related to the hon. Baronet, rather by way of commendation than otherwise; but, at the same time, he was bound to say that every Member of the Committee had a perfect right to make and maintain an objection to any item in the Estimates.

said, if the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had devoted some attention to these Estimates when they were gone into last year, he would have been in possession of a full explanation. He had only alluded to the course pursued by the hon. Member, because it seemed to him that the discussion was perpetually coming back to the same point, and that if any progress at all was to be made with the Estimates it could hardly be effected by that mode of procedure.

said, many were of opinion that Queen's Plates, by encouraging short races with light weights encouraged the breeding of a weedy and worthless description of racehorse; and it was a common saying of an inferior description of racehorse, that "he was only fit to run for a Queen's Plate." He therefore moved the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £99, the amount of the Queen's Plates, Edinburgh.

pointed out, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim (Major O' Beirne), that the Vote had been thoroughly discussed on a previous occasion. In 1870, a division had taken place, and the Government were induced to strike the item out of the Estimates. Since then, however, in the year 1872–3, it had been restored, on the Petition of some of the Scotch Members, and he believed that as the matter now stood, it really represented the wishes of the majority of the people of Scotland.

said, he had always looked upon the sport of horseracing as one of the most innocent of recreations, and hoped that the hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne) would not insist upon his Motion.

hoped the Vote would not be objected to. On a former occasion the Scotch Members had strongly opposed this item for the Queen's Plates, and their wishes had been gratified; but experience had since shown that their object in so doing was the withdrawal of the Queen's Plates from other portions of the Kingdom as well as Scotland. As soon as the Scotch Members found that the sum of money which had formerly gone to Scotland had been struck out by their virtuous action, they requested that it might be restored. He thought that as the Scotch Members wanted the money they should be gratified, and trusted that his hon. and gallant Friend would not go to a division on this Vote.

thought it was doubtful whether the Scotch people did wish for this money. In his opinion, the grant was a very unsuitable gift to such a nation as the Scotch, who, judging by their manner of observing the Sabbath, led one to infer that they objected to every kind of amusement. The money was thrown away in making such a grant, and, as apparently a number of Scotch Members agreed with him, he should press the question to a division.

said, he had been led by his convictions as to the feeling of the people of Scotland as well as by his own opinions on the subject of horse-racing to vote against the application of this money for the Queen's Plates; but he had been deterred that evening from taking any notice of the amount in question, simply because hon. Members were proceeding with their criticisms to such an extent as to exhaust the patience of the Government and waste the time of the House. He could not allow the representation made by the hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne) to be a correct exposition of the feelings of the people of Scotland; but, even if it were, to waste the time of the House was not a satisfactory way of redressing a grievance. He would, therefore, appeal to the hon. and gallant Member not to proceed with his Motion.

said, he had not raised any objection to this portion of the Vote, for the same reason as that given by the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay). He was, however, of opinion that the reduction of the Vote by this amount for the Queen's Plates would not be contrary to the wishes of the people of Scotland.

observed, that although the Scotch Members, as a body, were not favourable to a continuance of the Queen's Plates, he thought that while they were granted to the sister Kingdom, it was but right they should continue to be extended to Scotland. He should certainly vote against the Motion.

said, the Queen's Plates had done a great deal towards improving the breed of horses in Ireland. They had done much good in past years, and he was sure that the wishes of the people of Ireland were in favour of their continuance. He knew no portion of the Kingdom where Plates of this description were more necessary than in Scotland, and, on that account, he should certainly vote against the proposition of the hon. and gallant Member.

said, the object of the Scotch Members in voting against the continuance of Queen's Plates in Scotland was to get them withdrawn from Ireland, their case being that, as they were willing to see justice done, they would consent to their discontinuance in Scotland if the Irish Plates were also withdrawn. Personally, he (Mr. Meldon) did not care about horseracing; but it was exceedingly popular among the people of Kildare, the constituency which he represented. He could not understand the Motion, as coming from an Irish Member. On a former occasion, the Irish Members had almost in a body voted for the continuance of the Queen's Plates, and he thought it unfair to expect them to eat their own words. If the Scotch Plates were withdrawn, of course, the Irish Plates would, in common fairness, have to be withdrawn also—a result which he was sure the Irish people did not desire. He hoped that the Motion before the Committee would not be pressed to a division.

wished also to reply to some of his Colleagues, and to mark his dissent from the opinions expressed by them at an earlier stage of the discussion. He thought that the people of Scotland took a very considerable interest in horseracing. He (Mr. Barclay) did not approve of it, but was obliged to recognize the fact that horseracing was on the increase in Scotland, and that a strong feeling in its favour was entertained by a large majority of the people.

admitted that the sum of £99 was so exceedingly small as to render the discussion of the amount itself needless. But there was a principle underlying this question. If the sum were really given for the Queen's Plates, it should be provided from the Privy Purse, and the Representatives of the people ought not to be asked to vote this money out of the Consolidated Fund. For that reason alone, he would record his vote in favour of the Motion.

said, that as he liked to see a good race, he was quite willing to bear his share of the expense. He considered that Irish Members had no right to object to the Queen's Plates in Scotland, and that it would be wrong for him to go into the Lobby to vote against his Scotch Friends.

said, in the course of the discussion the Committee had heard a great deal about the breed of horses, which was said to be improved by the competition for the Queen's Plates. He denied that the Queen's Plates had improved the breed of horses in Scotland, and believed that anyone who was acquainted with the kind of horses that ran for these Plates must know them to be a lot of old screws that had been drummed off every racecourse in the United Kingdom, and as such, they were quite unfit for breeding purposes.

complained that the grant of £3,000 for Piers and Quays had been for many years almost, if not entirely, absorbed by the Harbour of Anstruther, and he thought this unfair to other localities sorely in need of accommodation for fishing boats. He also wished to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to declare in a more distinct manner than he did lately on the discussion raised by the noble Lord the Member for Elgin and Nairn (Viscount Macduff), what the intentions of Government were in reference to the recent Report of the Herring Fisheries' Commissioners which referred to harbours? There were numerous places on the North-eastern Coast of Scotland and friths, where pier accommodation was much needed; but these localities were very poor. He wished to know whether, in those cases where the localities undertook substantial obligations, Government would assist in form of loans on moderate terms?

directed attention to the salary of the Secretary to the Fishery Board. It was stated to be £524; but an explanatory note showed that he also received £300 per annum from the Vote for the National Gallery, as Secretary to the Board of Manufactures, &c. This was another instance of a plurality of offices vested in one man—a practice which indicated a good deal of extravagance. Unless a very satisfactory explanation was given, it was his intention to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £300, in order that the latter amount might be given to some other person, and not all to one man.

objected to the whole Vote for the Fishery Board, because he did not think it did any real good. He understood the hon. Member for the Inverness Burghs (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) to complain, in effect, that this sum of £3,000, annually granted for Piers and Quays, led the proprietors of the small harbours round the coast to make out an urgent case, in order to induce the Government to help them, instead of depending more upon their own efforts, and he thought he was quite right. Most of these small harbours belonged to the owners of land adjacent, and any money expended upon the harbours by the Government simply went to increase the revenues of the landowners. If the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) could hold out any prospect of allowing the proprietors to have Provisional Orders with greater facility than at present, he would, by saving a great deal of trouble and expense, offer the best encouragement to local effort. The point to which he particularly objected in the Vote was the branding. That was a question which had been repeatedly discussed in that House. A good many years ago a Commission reported upon the subject, and pronounced against branding; or, at least, they expressed the opinion that if the herring-curers wanted the system of branding, they should themselves pay for it. He was for many years of opinion that the small curers could not get on without the Government branding system; but after a careful consideration of the question, he was now fully of opinion that branding, in the long run, was not of advantage to the small curers, any more than to the large. Formerly the Government brand was of value, because it indicated a certain description of herrings, and abroad was accepted implicitly as such; but of late years the quality of the fish branded had been so uncertain that Continental buyers were obliged to stipulate that, besides the barrels having the Government brand upon them, the herrings should be warranted by the trader to be of fair average quality. This involved great uncertainty in the trade. Another disadvantage was that the branding system gave great facilities for speculation, and caused considerable fluctuations in the price, causing much injury to the whole trade. For instance, herrings were often sold for weeks before they were branded, or even caught. Last year, for example, speculators went into the market and unduly raised the price, so that, at the end of the fishing season last year, it was as high as 40s. a-barrel. Contracts with the fishermen for this year's take had been made at Christmas, based on this extreme price, which had since fallen to 25s. If the branding system were abolished, the trade would no doubt soon get into a sounder and more healthy condition; the larger curers would establish a reputation in the market, and would buy the herrings of the small curers on fair terms, and the competition among the curers would improve the quality of the cure. On these grounds, he should move the rejection of the Vote.

thought the hon. Member who had last spoken was under a misapprehension, as branding was quite optional, and not compulsory, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose. Many curers did not brand their barrels, but relied upon their own reputation. According to the last Return, he found that, in the year 1876, the number of barrels of herrings exported to the Continent was 400,423, and of these only 222,979 were branded—very little more than half. Branding was of great value to small curers, because it enabled them to make money out of the fishing trade by establishing a little trade of their own, without being obliged to place themselves in the hands of the large traders. This was, no doubt, a vexed question in Scotland; but he believed that the wish of the fishermen, as a body, was not that the system should be abolished, but that the cost of branding should be reduced from 4d. a-barrel to 2d. That was the impression he gathered last year, when he visited all the ports in his own neighbourhood, during the sitting of the Royal Commission. If that reduction were allowed, the amount realized from branding would still be sufficient to defray Departmental expenses; and he, therefore, recommended that the Government might, with advantage to the trade, fairly make the reduction desired by the Scotch fishermen.

inquired whether the branding system was self-supporting? The expenses of the Fishery Board amounted altogether to £12,948; whereas the branding fees were £6,810. It ought to be made clear whether the branding was self-supporting, or whether there was a profit or a loss upon it.

said, the branding was remunerative. The hon. Member opposite (Sir George Campbell) had mixed up a certain number of other charges which were included in this Vote—charges for Piers and Quays—which amounted altogether to something like £5,000. After deducting for that amount, the estimated cost of branding itself for the last year was about £5,200, while the actual receipts reached the sum of £6,000 or more. There was, therefore, a surplus; but it was not large enough to enable the Government to reduce the fee in the way suggested by the hon. and gallant Member (Sir Alexander Gordon). It was quite true, as had been stated, that branding was really a protection to the small curers, being accepted in foreign markets as a standard. He believed it was equally true that the brand was not adopted to a very large extent by the large traders. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for the Inverness Burghs (Mr. Fraser Mackintosh), although, for some period, the grant of £3,000 had been devoted principally to the Harbour at Anstruther, that had not been the case during the last two years. The grant had been made to supplement the local subscriptions from fishermen, and other inhabitants, which amounted to £1,000. He saw less objection to that form of granting aid than was open to other methods. With reference to the salary of the Secretary, this gentleman had a very responsible office to fill, and £524 did not more than fairly represent the value of his labours in that office. The £300 which the same gentleman received was for the duties performed by him as Secretary to the Board of Manufactures. This was, probably, a case in which one gentleman could do the work of two offices at a cheaper rate than if the two offices were filled by two distinct men. Where skill was required, it had been found better to obtain that skill and pay for it in this way, than to pay a much higher salary for the same amount of skill in two persons instead of one.

deprecated the reduction of salaries on the cheeseparing principle. He defended the branding system, which, he observed, had been established by the State in order to give an ascertained value, or standard, to herrings, of a good quality, exported from the Scotch coasts. There were some large curers who had established for themselves a commercial reputation, which was quite sufficient for the purposes of their trade, without the sanction of a Government brand; but this brand was needed to protect the small traders who had not established a reputation from the monopoly which would otherwise be exercised by the large ones who had.

considered the question of branding should be looked upon by the Government as a national, and not merely as a provincial, matter. The subject had been discussed many times previously by the House, and he hoped if hon. Members were desirous of supporting the Government in continuing the advantages which branding secured, they would, at the same time, urge the unfairness of that boon being confined to one part of the Kingdom. He thought the Irish had a fair claim to be considered, and to be as liberally dealt with in this matter as the Scotch.

said, the question had not only been frequently discussed in the House, but it had been reported on several times by Committees of the House. There were inquiries made in 1848, in 1856, in 1866, and again in 1870, the two first and the last of these Commissions being specially appointed to consider the matter of branding. It hardly fell within the powers of the Commissioners of 1866, whose inquiries should rather have been devoted to trawling; but they did make a Report, which was unfavourable to the continuance of branding. However, the special investigation in 1870 resulted in its continuance being recommended. All the Government really knew was that the small traders voluntarily paid branding fees to the extent of £6,800 per annum, and, consequently, they had no reason to suppose that the charge was considered objectionable.

said, the large curers did not use the brand, and he could assure the Committee that, despite the statement that the fees were voluntarily paid, there were great complaints about the whole of the £6,000 having to come out of the pockets of the poorer people. Seeing that there was an increase of £235 now proposed, he suggested the reduction of the Vote by that sum.

said, Scotch herrings made a much higher price than those caught off the Irish coast, and that was owing to the former having the benefit of the Government certificate or brand, which was much appreciated in those parts of Europe where the fish were sold. In fact, the Scotch herring exporters had now almost a monopoly of the sales, and, having obtained such a position, certain large traders were perfectly willing that this protection should be withdrawn from them. But there were other and smaller traders who did not at all wish to see such a course pursued, and he, therefore, was not prepared to vote in favour of the discontinuance of branding. Unfortunately, by the Rules of the House, he could not propose that the system should be extended to Ireland. It was felt to be a great grievance that the Scotch herring fishery should be protected by a brand, which boon had always been refused to the Irish. The result was that Irish herrings, though just as good, did not fetch such large prices in the Continental markets as the Scotch fish. Another thing, which was well known, was that the Irish herrings had, to a considerable extent, deserted the Irish coast, and there were strong reasons for believing that the herrings, resenting the manner in which they were treated, went to the coast of Scotland, where they were considered with greater distinction. He hoped the gentleman, who used to sit on the Ministerial side of the House, and who had recently been appointed to the office of Inspector of Fisheries in Ireland, would use his powers to obtain Government protection for the Irish fisheries. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) should support the Vote for branding in Scotland, and he hoped the Government would ere long institute a similar proceeding in Ireland.

had understood the Secretary to the Treasury to say he entirely disapproved of grants being made for constructing piers and harbours in the United Kingdom. The Act under which these grants were made was one of the most valuable Acts affecting Ireland, and he was utterly amazed to hear such a statement from the Secretary to the Treasury. Had not such an Act been in force, they would not now have had the safe piers and harbours which existed on the Scotch and Irish Coast for the benefit of the small fishermen, who had no other protection for their boats. He trusted the Secretary to the Treasury would not advise his Colleagues to repeal so valuable an Act of Parliament, and he desired to ask him, whether he had been correctly understood to say that he entirely disapproved of grants being made by the Government in aid of piers and harbours?

said, the hon. Member had forgotten that he was alluding to a grant of £3,000 for Scotch Harbours, when he made the remarks referred to. On a previous occasion an. opinion was very generally expressed in the House, and by a considerable number of Scotch Members, that these sums of money ought not to be made as grants; because such a course of proceeding encouraged the people interested in the construction of harbours to trust too much to Government aid rather than to their own exertions. The proper principle was for the Government to assist local efforts rather than grant large sums of money for the purpose of making harbours. He believed it would be much better to give assistance, than to encourage the people to lean upon the Government for the creation of harbours.

said, if the Scotch Members who had spoken really represented the feeling of the Scotch people in reference to this matter, he would have voted against the grant of this sum of money to Scotland. But he could not for a moment think that they had expressed the wishes of the Scotch people. His reasons for saying so were that, having recently been engaged in an inquiry relating to some herrings sent from Scotland to Holland, at which many Dutch merchants who dealt in herrings were examined, all of them agreed that in Holland the brand was considered as placing a value on the herrings, and that fish sold under such a brand could, as a rule, be relied on. In fact, had the herrings which gave rise to that particular inquiry been branded, litigation would have been entirely avoided, and the merchant would have taken the cargo on the strength of the brand. The fact of such a value being set on the system of branding by the merchants in Holland—and he did not know that it was not equally popular elsewhere—seemed to him to be a reason for retaining it. He was glad to find that the Irish herrings—like everything else Irish— were intelligent and sensitive, and that they felt the insult cast upon them by the Government in neglecting to extend the brand to the Irish fishery. But, as they had left the Irish shore, perhaps it would be premature to consider a proposal to brand them until they returned.

hoped the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) would withdraw the proposal for the disallowance of the Vote. In preferring such a request, it need not be understood that he differed from the hon. Gentleman; but he (Mr. Ramsay) thought time had been wasted by discussing a subject which was opposed, and with the same result, year after year. He hoped the Vote would be allowed to pass, and the Committee enabled to make some progress with the Estimates.

did not like the word "protection," and he was very sorry it had been used in that discussion, because it seemed to him that no protection was afforded. The Irish Members were entirely mistaken if they supposed the Scotch people owed anything to the Treasury on account of the brand. Under an arrangement, which was entirely self-supporting, fish-curers in Scotland were allowed to have their exports branded; but they need not do so unless they chose. What was there in the nature of protection in such a system? He hoped the Committee would not be called on to divide against a plan which cost the nation nothing, and which, at the same time, was popular in Scotland. As to the making of harbours, he quite agreed with the Secretary to the Treasury, that grants should not be given to people who did not help themselves, but that assistance should be given to those who tried to do what they could by their own efforts. But sometimes the Government efforts had not been very successful. Anstruther was a case in point. There, an attempt was made to carry out some ambitious scheme in the shape of a harbour of refuge, the result being to spoil the harbour previously existing without providing any useful substitute. Anstruther was an important fishing station, where they wanted not a harbour for ships but for boats. After the Government had spent a very large sum of money in driblets, they had made a harbour into which it was extremely difficult to get in bad weather, and, when inside, a boat would be almost sure either to dash against the pier, or to be swept out by the receding current. Something had been done since, the result of which was that boats could neither get in nor get out in bad weather; but having gone so far—while he agreed with the Secretary to the Treasury in the principle he had laid down—he thought, as a matter of justice, they could not withdraw the grant in such a case until the harbour was made what it ought to be.

said, there could be no doubt that the brand was instituted for the purpose of giving a prominence to Scotch herrings which they would not have obtained but for this Government certificate. Some years ago, the fees paid for branding were not sufficient to meet the expenses, and a sum used to be voted yearly to supplement the fees; but, since then, the Scotch herrings had obtained such prominence in the world, as enabled the curers to cure them in sufficient numbers to pay the £6,800, which was the amount charged for branding. But that sum did not meet all the expenses. True, it paid for the Inspectors and individuals employed in affixing the brand. But, beyond that, they had the Fishery Board of Scotland, the most complete and direct instrument for preserving the Scotch Fisheries, costing £2,340. Therefore, to suppose that the Committee would believe that the whole system of branding was self-supporting, would be to draw rather too much on the credulity of hon. Members. He did not at all object to the branding of Scotch herrings, by the moderate expenses of which, and by the Government grant, the greatest benefits had been conferred upon a poor class of the community. If the Government were wise, they would extend the same system to other parts of the Kingdom, by which means herrings caught by the poor people of those localities would become as saleable and marketable in foreign countries as those which now came from Scotland.

said, he thought the position of the Government on this occasion very inconsistent, and he and others had been continually asking the Government to brand Irish whisky, so as to prevent Scotchmen selling bad Scotch spirit as Irish whisky. But the Government would not allow that to be done even at the expense of the distillers. ["Question!"] This was the Question, because the Government which branded Scotch herrings for the purpose of protecting them, allowed Scotch merchants and manufacturers to send bad spirit into Ireland, and to call it Irish whisky.

reminded the hon. Member, that the Question before the Committee was the Vote for the Scotch Fishery Board.

said, he could never consent to act upon the principle on which a reduction of the Vote had just been proposed to the Committee. This money did a great deal of good to a poor population in Scotland. There was exactly the same kind of population in Ireland, who deserved en- couragement in a similar manner. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) in his desire to obtain some advantages for the poor Irish fishermen; but he would be no party to reducing a Vote which was productive of nothing but good to Scotch people, merely because there was not exactly the same thing in Ireland. Let the Irish Members endeavour, certainly, to get Irish herrings branded, and to obtain the establishment of a Fishery Board in their own country. In that endeavour he believed they would be aided by the Scotch Members, and he had no doubt that if they put their shoulders to the wheel, and were united, they would realize what they desired; but he would think it wrong to reduce the Vote simply because of the reasons which had been stated by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell).

hoped that his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) would not deem it his duty to persevere with his Motion for a reduction of the Vote. There was one particular point in connection with this matter which he desired to clear up. The Scotch system of branding was no longer a charge on the State. The sum by which his hon. Friend would reduce the amount now proposed to be voted, was contributed to the State through the fees paid to the branders. He quite agreed that it would be advantageous if the branding of herrings were extended to Ireland, and he had no doubt that the Scotch Members would support their Irish Brethren in this matter, as in everything that was fair their Irish Brethren had supported them; but he thought that the best interests of both countries would be consulted by not objecting to the Vote at present. He quite agreed, however, as he had indicated, with the reasons which had actuated the hon. Member for Meath in the course he had taken.

said, he did not see why the same justice should not be done to the Irish fisheries as had been done in the case of the Scotch. Let a fair trial be made by sending two or three inspecting officers to the different stations in Ireland while the fishing was going on. The officers could supply the curers at those stations with rules and regulations in regard to the curing of fish, and they could mark out for them the exact size of barrels to use. The expense of doing this would be but small, and the people of Ireland would be enabled to prosecute a branch of industry which he believed would be of great value and advantage to them. It would only be right, in his opinion, to place the Irish fisheries on the same footing as those in Scotland; and he had no doubt that if that were done there would be found to be a surplus in connection with branding in Ireland as there was at present in Scotland. With regard to the question of harbours, he quite disapproved of large grants being given by the Treasury for the erection of fishing harbours at Wick, Anstruther, or other places. But the Government had undertaken certain engagements; they had expended something like £19,000 upon one particular harbour. At the same time it would be manifestly unfair for them to refuse to fulfil their obligations with the authorities in Anstruther. As to Wick Harbour, he did not know how many thousands of pounds had been expended upon it; but it was now, if not a complete wreck, at least a wreck to a very considerable extent. These, however, were not harbours of refuge in the proper sense of that term, as the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs seemed to suppose, but simply harbours for the purpose of protecting fishing boats when they came in from sea, and their support should be the result of the native industry of the people. He objected very much to any mere reduction of the Vote. If there were to be any diminution under this head of the Estimates, let it take the form of doing away with this particular grant altogether; but he believed that, even if it were done away with, the trade in Scotland would prove in future as successful and as prosperous as it was at the present time.

desired to advert for a moment to the observations which had been made by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry). His hon. Friend had said that they must not take away this Vote from Scotland because they desired a similar grant for Ireland. He could not have ventured to suggest that it should be taken away from Scotland, had not the Scotch Members themselves distinctly told the Committee that they did not want it. ["No, no!"] On this occasion, and on several previous occasions, the Scotch Members had informed the Committee that branding was a disadvantge to their country. ["No, no!"] No! Why, the hon. Member who first drew attention to this matter to-night distinctly stated that the brand was an injury to Scotch fish; that those fish had now acquired a sufficient reputation, that the present branding system was not required, and that, therefore, it was not necessary it should be any longer kept up. He had taken the hon. Member at his word, and he had said—"Give to us this money which you do not require for yourselves, and let us spend it for the purpose of improving our fisheries." That, surely, was a sensible proposition. He asked that money, not needed in Scotland, should be given to Ireland, in order that Irish herrings might acquire the reputation in the markets of Europe which Scotch herrings now possessed, and that by the same means. This, he repeated, was an intelligible proposal, and did not at all partake of the nature which the hon. Member for Galway had attributed to it. He did not grudge the money to Scotland, but the Scotch Members said that Scotland did not want it. Ireland did, and he should press his Motion to a division.

said, previous divisions had shown whether the Scotch Members desired this money or not. It was perfect error for his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) to say that those hon. Gentlemen wished that this grant or other grants of a similar character should be withdrawn. Over and over again the hon. Members referred to had voted in favour of their maintenance. No doubt, there might have been one or two exceptions. There was, for example, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) who first brought up the question on the ground that the existing state of matters was an interference with free trade. That right hon. Gentleman introduced the subject several years ago; there was a division upon it then, there had been divisions since; and the Scotch Members then, as now, would be found to have voted in favour of the grant. Not only so, but to talk of the Scotch Members giving Ireland this Vote was absurd. What power had the Scotch Members to give this or any other money to Ireland? To say that those hon. Members had any such power was simply to trifle with the question. The Scotch Representatives had no more authority over the £3,000 than his hon. Friend the Member for Meath himself. The Vote must be proposed by the Government, and hon. Members might, if they liked, protest against it; but he thought they would be adopting a very foolish policy if they did so. The policy which the Irish Members had always followed was to support these grants to Scotland, while endeavouring to get similar grants for Ireland. They had never introduced the principle of cutting down the advantages which were given to a weaker portion of the Kingdom—Scotland—in order to obtain that which they desired for themselves. Those advantages might possibly be cut down speedily enough, if the course which certain hon. Members recommended were acted upon. England governed Scotland, as well as Ireland, and he thought it would be most unwise to inferfere with the few advantages which the unity of Scotch Members had enabled them to attain and to retain.

said, it did not appear to be generally recognized that the only way in which the opinion of the Committee could be tested on this question was by moving a reduction of the Vote. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had said that the matter had been voted on again and again. In that case, the opinion of the Committee must have been taken on a similar question to that which was now before it—namely, on a proposed reduction of the Vote. No hon. Member could of himself propose a substantive Vote of money; the proposition must come from the Government. It was not from any hostility to a particular grant being given to Scotland, but because of a desire to protest against the inequality of the present system, that it was now sought to test the opinion of the Committee. If the grant were useful for Scotland, a similar grant would be useful for Ireland. If it were not useful for Scotland, what harm would be done to that country by abolishing it? He was astonished that the discussion should have reached its present stage without a single Member of the Government having said a word on the subject. He should like to hear from the Secretary to the Treasury an answer to two questions—If this were a useful expenditure of public money in regard to Scotland, how could the exclusion of Ireland from a similar advantage be justified? If it were a useless expenditure with respect to Scotland, how could its continuance be justified?

said, the hon. Member who had just spoken could not have heard the whole of the discussion. There had been an expression of opinion from the Treasury Bench on the question of branding. The Committee had now been debating one and the same Vote for an hour and 20 minutes, and he thought that during that period there had been a waste of time such as he had never before witnessed in the House. He would point out to those who so very frequently addressed the Committee, that one of the effects of their system of criticizing the Estimates was to prevent hon. Members from making objections on points that should really be raised in discussing the Votes. For himself, he had been restrained from expressions of opinion on different items solely by the time which had been occupied by preceding discussions.

thought the Committee had listened to four or five speeches that evening from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and who protested against a waste of time. He (Mr. Gray) himself had only occupied a few minutes; and, that being so, the Committee could judge as to who had wasted time. The hon. Gentleman had said that a statement on the subject under consideration had been made from the Treasury Bench. It was not on the general question of branding that he desired an expression, of opinion from the Government. The point was one of principle—why should that which was conceded to Scotland not also be given to Ireland? and it was upon that point he should like to hear something from the Treasury Bench.

remarked that this question of branding was one of the greatest importance to Ireland. The trading portions of the community in that country were deeply interested in it, and he hoped that due consideration would be given to it by Her Majesty's Government.

said, the only reason why he had not risen sooner to notice the remarks of hon. Gentlemen from Ireland was, that it ap- peared to him they had been discussing a Vote which did not apply to Ireland at all. The Vote had simply to do with the branding of Scotch herrings, and the question was whether a sum of money should be placed in the Estimates in connection with that object. Reference had been made to previous divisions on the subject. Previous divisions had certainly been taken; but those divisions had not been as to whether this grant should be extended to Ireland, but as to whether the Scotch Members wished that it should be continued for their own country. That was the issue on which discussions had arisen. When they came to the case of Ireland on its own merits, he should be prepared to express an opinion on the part of the Government; but on what was a purely Scotch question and a purely Scotch Vote, he had already given his opinions to the Committee at some length. He confessed that he failed to see how the question of a Vote which could not, by any reduction, be applied to Ireland, could properly be brought into the present discussion. Let the matter be raised in a practical form, and at a proper time, and he should then be prepared to state his views upon it.

said, he could not agree with the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, that the question, as connected with Ireland, had not been raised on this occasion in a practical form. He thought it had been raised by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) in a very practical form. They had heard a good deal in that House about levelling up and levelling down. He was in favour, as a rule, of levelling up; but when attempts in that direction failed, he was inclined to adopt the principle of level ling down. That being so, he thanked his hon. Friend who represented Meath for having raised the question in the manner he had done. The fact that herrings were branded for Scotland and not for Ireland had an injurious effect upon the Irish article in distant markets. The Government brand was frequently regarded as the only test, and it was the want of it which excluded the sale of Irish herrings altogether in some of these markets. In addition to that, it was an obvious injustice that a system which existed in Scotland, and which the people of Ireland desired, should not be extended to the latter country. The Scotch Members said, however, that the branding system was more injurious than beneficial to the trade in. Scotland, and that their herrings had acquired such a reputation that they did not wish the brand continued. But why not give the brand to Ireland, where it was desiderated, in order that Irish herrings might have a chance of competing fairly in distant markets? For years the Irish Members had been fighting, in order, if possible, to obtain some relief and consideration with respect to the fishery laws in their own country; but they had, so far, been wholly unsuccessful. It was obvious, however, that there ought not to be protection given to one part of the Kingdom and not to another. The subject had now been brought before the Committee in the most practical way, and he could not agree with the hon. Baronet who preceded him—that the question of Irish branding had nothing whatever to do with the Vote under discussion. With reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay), that hon. Gentleman was always ready, whenever the matter of refusing a Vote for Ireland was concerned, to waste as much time as possible; but he protested against the assertion that time was lost or wasted in any way when hon. Members raised a question like the present, involving a great principle. He had been in attendance during the greater part of the evening. He had derived a good deal of benefit from the discussion which had taken place, and he did not think that one moment of the time of the Committee had been uselessly employed.

said, that in 1874 a Motion was carried by a majority of 2 in favour of affording support to the Irish fisheries, and the result was that the Reproductive Loan Fund, which was used for various useful purposes, was handed over to the Commissioners for the purpose of encouraging the fisheries of Ireland. What had been the result? It had been a loan, not for the purpose of the fisheries, but to enable broken-down tenants to pay their rents. It was asked why did they not move a Vote of money to be given for the branding of herrings in Ireland? The reason was they had got no herrings to brand. They all knew very well that the herrings had abandoned the Irish coast, and the idea of taking from Scotland the fees it received, because they had herrings and Ireland had not, was a most extraordinary one. He, for one, would be no party to the doctrine that Scotland should be deprived of what she got. He would rather be in favour of increasing it; and, when he found Ireland had got herrings to brand, he would join in asking the Government to give them a grant.

protested against the assumption of the Scotch Members, that they were the only persons entitled to speak on that subject. It would be within the knowledge of everybody who had attended this evening, that by far the larger portion of the time of the Committee had been taken up by the Scotch Members, who had made speeches of a most stupid character, in a language which nobody could understand.

I did not understand the hon. Member for Meath to attribute any motives; but the expression he has used with regard to the pronunciation of the Scotch Members appears to be somewhat irregular.

had merely said he could not understand their language, and before the next Scotch discussion came on, he would endeavour to learn it.

said, not a single word had been uttered which any hon. Member of the House could not understand.

promised, by that time next year to remove any further cause of offence, by living such a time in Scotland that he would be able to learn the language. But they were now discussing the Vote for the branding of Scotch herrings, and the Government had been asked to give the Committee some reason why such a Vote should be continued; but the Government had neither told them the Vote was right or wrong. The Secretary to the Treasury had said he could give no reasons at all for the Vote; and, under those circumstances, the Committee was entitled to reject it. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had been present during the whole of the discussion, but he was, apparently, asleep, and he had not told them why if Scotland was to have this money, a similar Vote should not be made to Ireland. He protested against this system of partial legislation.

pointed out the injustice and impolicy of arraying Scotland against Ireland in this matter. Because Ireland did not receive a similar Vote, that was no reason why they should take the money away from Scotland. He had been sent into the House from Ireland to pursue towards the people of this country a policy of conciliation, and the kinder and wiser course was to encourage every just and beneficent measure for the fishermen of Scotland, rather than to pursue the ill-natured policy of endeavouring to deprive Scotland of the Vote simply because Ireland had not got a similar one.

said, the Scotch fishermen had no right to Irish and English money, when the Scotch Members refused to grant English, Irish, and Scotch money to the Irish fishermen. He, as an Irish Member, could not sit still and see such a thing done. What he had been looking for during the last hour was for some of the Scotch Members to get up and say—"Do not touch our privilege, and when you ask for a similar Vote for Ireland we will support you." With the exception of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Yeaman), no such expression of intention had fallen from the Scotch Members; and he, therefore, thought his hon. Friend was correct in the course he was pursuing in objecting to this Vote. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had preserved a suspicious silence, and their course was perfectly plain. As they could not now bring forward a direct proposal for a grant of this kind for Ireland, the only way they had to express their dissatisfaction at the way they were being treated was by moving the Amendment. Allusion had been made to the Reproductive Loan Fund, and as regarded that, he wished to say that it was not English and Scotch money, but it was wholly Irish money.

said, he should not take the hon. Member who had just sat down as his model, nor did he want a character from him amongst his constituents. He was in the habit, whenever he got up to address the House, not of advising, but of insulting, hon. Members by his personally offensive observations. Now, with regard to the Reproductive Loan Fund, the hon. Member showed his ignorance by saying it was Irish money. It was the money of the charitable and philanthropic people of England, got up at a time when Ireland was suffering great distress, and what remained of the sum not required was vested in trustees for public purposes in Ireland. Not a single farthing of the money originally belonged to the Irish people. So much for the hon. Member's knowledge of the history of that matter. Now, as to the question before the Committee, he repeated there was no injustice in this grant being made to Scotland, and it was only delaying and trifling with the time of hon. Members to object to it, because Ireland had no substantial grievance regarding it. The objection which had been raised was simply for the purpose of preventing the Business of the House being carried on, and he, as an Irish Member, had no hesitation in expressing that opinion.

The discussion seems to be turning away from the particular subject before the Committee.

said, the omission of this Vote had been moved on the express ground that the money was not wished for by the Scotch Members.

begged to say that he had not moved his Amendment merely on the ground that the Vote was not wished for by the Scotch Members, but he had given other grounds; though, as far as they had expressed themselves, the Scotch Members had distinctly said the Vote was not useful to them.

said, it was in the recollection of the House that the distinct and only ground upon which it was proposed not to grant this money was because it was not appreciated in Scotland, and the Scotch Members did not wish it to be continued. The hon. Member distinctly stated that if the Scotch Members had desired the Vote to be continued, he would not have moved its rejection. Now, it was perfectly clear the Scotch Members did want the Vote, and, therefore, the hon. Member ought not to press his opposition.

considered the hon. Member for the county of Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) had made a very strong and undeserved attack upon the Irish Mem- bers who opposed this Vote. There was no desire on his part, or that of any other Irish Member, to waste the time of the Committee. They had raised a perfectly legitimate issue, and they had asked the Government to pronounce upon it, and the Secretary to the Treasury had told them he would be prepared to give an answer, if the point was raised on the Irish Votes. Now, the hon. Baronet must be aware that the Rules of the House would not allow them to raise it on the Irish Votes. The right hon. Baronet the late Chief Secretary for Ireland was present, yet he had given no expression of opinion on the subject; and, if there had been any waste of time, it was due to the fact that, having raised a perfectly legitimate issue in a fair manner, they had received no answer. He therefore protested against the insinuations which had been made by the hon. Member.

merely wished to add one word, which was that this question had been persistently and earnestly raised every year since 1874, when they succeeded, by a majority of two, in establishing the principle that some help ought to be given to the Irish fisheries. This disposed of any charges which might be made against their motives.

said, that they had told the supporters of the Bill that if it should come on at any fair and reasonable hour they would be willing to discuss it, but if not they would not go into it. It was 4 o'clock this morning when they had got to bed, and the Chairman would not therefore be surprised that he begged to move that he (the Chairman) do report Progress and ask leave to sit again. They had a Scotch Bill on Tenant Right being brought on by Scotch Members which had had to give place to the Sunday Closing Bill, although it was of greater importance than the latter, on which Irish Members were so much divided.

supported the Motion, thinking it most unreasonable that they should have to go on with that discussion after being so late the night before. The hon. Member for Roscommon put it down night after night, and they had to come down and go into the Amendments. He hoped the Committee would not allow the Bill to be forced down the throats of an unwilling minority—a very strong one. He trusted the hon. Member in charge of the Bill would agree that they should all go home at a reasonable hour, and take it some day next week before 12.30.

said, that the hon. Member was very fond of telling him to take the Bill on "some" day, without telling him on what day, and knowing full well that he could not command a day. It had been very well understood that the Government had, by the very fact of placing the Bill where they had, announced their intention of giving facilities that evening for proceeding with it. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given him an assurance that evening that at 11 o'clock Supply should be reported, and that they should be able to get into consideration of that Bill in Committee. [Major O'GORMAN: It is half-past 12 now.] The discussion on the Votes, had, of course, prevented the Government from doing so; and he did not mean to accuse them of a breach of faith. The result, however, was, that the Government had given him no facilities that evening. But was the hour at which they had arrived an unreasonable hour for taking up a Bill in the hands of a private Member? The course altogether pursued with regard to that Bill from the first moment showed the object which its opponents had—they had always been saying that they were anxious to give it a fair discussion—but the whole course of their conduct showed that they wanted to defeat it that Session, as previously, by dilatory Motions. And he had again to appeal to the Committee to stand by him in resisting them; and to show that the Bill of a private Member was not to be thus placed at a disadvantage. It would be perfectly impossible for him to consent to the proposal made to him.

could not allow what had been said to pass without comment. He understood the hon. Member to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had pledged himself to stop Supply at 11 o'clock.

said, he had intended to state that he did not in any way blame the Government.

was very glad indeed that he had misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, because the Committee would be aware that what had happened had not been the fault of the Government.

hoped that the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) would not persist with the Motion to report Progress. They had a great deal to do; and, although they might not have a division on the Amendment, they might clear away some objections and difficulties, and perhaps come to a decision on a future evening.

thought they might very well have a discussion on that clause—it was not too late.

hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Sullivan) would not allow any discussion whatever. They should accept no terms whatever from those people. The Half-past 12 o'clock Rule was then being violated. They might be told that they were in Committee, and therefore it could not be considered an opposed Bill. Well, they would oppose it.

said, that the Amendment was a very important one, and might be fairly debated; it was only reasonable that they should have a discussion upon it. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Roscommon, having had a discussion upon it, would feel it his duty to go further; but, if he persevered, he (Mr. Murphy) should feel it his duty to go into the Lobby against him.

had told the supporters of the Bill, that if it came on at a reasonable hour they would discuss the Amendment, and he intended to keep his word, and did not intend discussing it at that unreasonable hour. If half the trouble taken with that Bill had been taken with the Land Bill, they might have had it passed before that. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Roscommon, it was a very remarkable thing that the Bill of the hon. Members for Down and Downpatrick had passed without opposition, although it had been fourth on the Paper, and that before them had been eighth. The present Bill was then second on the Paper. He did not see why it should be forced on any more than any other Bill.

said, that the reason why the Bill occupied a higher position on the Paper was that the Government had undertaken to afford facilities for its progress. It certainly was perfectly true that, owing to circumstances to which he need not refer, they had reached the Bill at a later hour than had been expected; but the hon. Member for Roscommon had very fairly stated that the Government had not been responsible. The hon. Member for Limerick county (Mr. O'Sullivan) had an Amendment on the Paper which he was anxious to discuss; and the hon. Member for Sligo county (Mr. King-Harman) had one which the hon. Member for Roscommon had admitted to be important. It might be very reasonable that they should discuss the Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick, because the hour really was not a very late one, and then report Progress, so as to enable the important question raised by the hon. Member for Sligo to be debated.

said, that if the hon. Member for Roscommon was satisfied with the suggestion made, he would then give in and withdraw his Amendment.

said, that it would be simply an absurdity. Anyone who knew the character of the Amend- ment knew that such a proposal was mere trifling.

could not see that it was trifling. If the hon. Member did not accept the proposal, he must go to a division.

considered that if the Government had broken faith with the hon. Member for Roscommon, still men had not a right to stop out of their beds till 6 in the morning to watch that Bill; and, therefore, the hon. Member for Limerick county should press the matter to a division.

said, that some hon. Members appeared to forget that the Half-past 12 o'clock Rule applied to Bills in their early stages—not when, in Committee.

repeated his offer to the hon. Member (the O'Conor Don), that he should agree to report Progress after the next Amendment had been discussed, which was his own. He moved, at page 2, line 34, after "on," to add "the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty," and leave out the date named in the Bill. As the clause stood, the Bill would come into operation very shortly after the close of the present Session of Parliament—namely, on the 1st of October. That would be too sudden for so important a change as that which the measure contemplated. There were many parts of Ireland where the people would know nothing about the alteration in the law, and they would be taken by surprise if the Bill came into operation so soon. There were other reasons for postponing its operation. At present, the people resorted on the Sunday to places of recreation within two or three miles of the towns. These places of recreation would be shut up by this Bill, and the proprietors compelled to make fresh arrangements. He held it to be wrong to close these all at once, and, therefore, it was only fair and reasonable to give them an opportunity of getting rid of their little stock-in-trade, and setting up in some other business. He resisted this piece of class legislation in the interest, not of the wealthier traders, but of the poorer ones, including those who were non-electors. Why, he asked, were hon. Members pressing this Bill forward, night after night, in this way? It was, he believed, because a re-action was setting in against the Bill in the country, and they knew that if they did not push the measure forward in the present Parliament, they would have no chance of success with it in the next. No mention was made by hon. Members from Ireland of this Bill at the last General Election, excepting by two Members for the city of Dublin, both of whom had lost their seats. Only a small portion of the Home Rule Members had voted for this Bill in the course of the year. The greatest support it had received came from the Sabbatarian North of Ireland, where the promoters of the Bill were obliged to get Scotchmen to advocate the measure, because they failed to obtain Irishmen for the purpose. Outside Parliament the Bill had the support of the wealthy classes; but was it supported by the men who made use of public-houses in Ireland on the Sunday? He hoped the Committee would accept the reasonable Amendment he proposed.

suggested that the 1st of January, 1879, should be the date fixed for commencing the operation of the Bill. It would not do to force this measure unduly upon the people, as he feared in that case it might lead to some turmoil. A great majority of the humbler classes had been opposed to the principle of the Bill. It appeared a hardship to those classes that legislation of this kind should be promoted by those who enjoyed all the advantages of well-filled cellars, or of clubs. It was well known that this measure had been promoted by an organized committee, employing salaried persons to travel from place to place; and they had been compelled to engage the services of Scotchmen to advocate a measure for Ireland. Experience did not commend the Forbes-Mackenzie Act to the notice of Parliament, except on Sabbatarian grounds; for, not with standing the passing of that Act, the consumption of intoxicating liquors in Scotland had very greatly increased during the last 25 years. If this Bill were passed for Ireland, in all probability it would lead to more drinking in private than prevailed at the present time. He could not support his hon. Friend's Amendment, because it seemed to be trifling with the Committee to propose postponing the operation of the Bill to so distant a day. He, therefore, should be prepared, at the proper time, to move that the date be the 1st of January, 1879.

while agreeing that the alteration suggested by the hon. Member who had just sat down was a reasonable one, pointed out a grave objection to it. The whole matter had been considered at great length in the Select Committee last year, and they had, with the entire concurrence of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), agreed to fix the date as it now appeared in the Bill, for this reason, that it corresponded with the date of the annual licensing sessions. If the date were altered to the 1st of January—two months after the holding of those Sessions—it was obvious that great inconvenience would arise with respect to licences taken out by publicans. As the question had been fully gone into by the Select Committee, he thought it would be much better, and far safer, to adhere to the date they had fixed.

remarked, that when the Licensing Bill of 1872 was passed, 12 months' notice was given to the trade of the contemplated change in the law. However, to show that he was willing to meet his hon. Friend in this matter, he would alter his Amendment, if they agreed to fix the 1st of March, 1879, as the date when the Bill should come into force.

observed, that the interest which one side appeared to have in the operation of this Bill was so obvious, that the only way to meet their opposition as it deserved to be met was by tiring it out.

thought the offer of the hon. Member (Mr. O'Sullivan) might very well be considered; because there would be no difficulty in the publican getting a licence next October to last until the 10th of March, 1879, instead of the 10th of October following.

referring to the remark of the hon. Member for Wexford county (Mr. O'Clery), that parties who brought forward Amendments, and who were opposing the Bill, did so because they had an interest in the liquor traffic, said, the same observations had been made on more than one occasion, and, amongst others, by an hon. Gentleman opposite. He repudiated all these assertions.

reminded the hon. Member of the Question before the Committee.

was sorry to be out of Order, but his feelings had carried him so far as to transgress the Rules of the House. The Amendment before the Committee ought to be adopted. The Bill was a confiscatory and revolutionary measure; and he deprecated its sudden, enforcement—for there were many small traders, selling whisky and beer in the country districts, who would require some time to enable them to dispose of their businesses, which this Bill would so seriously disturb. They might be compelled to emigrate to America. Two months' notice was insufficient. For his part, he hoped it would be a long time before the labourer brought home his bottle of whisky on a Saturday night, for consumption on the following day, because he could not get it on Sunday. The Amendment, far from being of a trifling character, was a fair concession.

had no particular preference for the date named in the Bill, excepting the fact that the annual licensing sessions met in October, and the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was of opinion that the 1st of October was the time at which the operation of the Bill ought to commence. It would be a disadvantage, and not quite fair, to place upon a publican the necessity of taking out a seven days' licence for a whole year, when, according to this Bill, the licence would operate only for a few months. Unless he heard some strong reasons for the proposed alteration, he would not be justified in consenting to change a date, which had been chosen by a Select Committee under the guidance of a Cabinet Minister.

referred to a remark which an hon. Member had made to him, that it would be just as well to pass the Bill and let the people feel it at once. That observation did not altogether commend itself to him, because he would rather that the people should accept the measure, if they really needed it. He urged that the date should be the 10th of March next.

said, he wanted to ask the Committee this question. If a Resolution were proposed, declaring that after a certain day, Messrs. Bass and Allsopp should sell no more of their goods, was there one single Member of that House that would vote for such a measure, and agree to confiscate the property of those gentlemen? And, after all, was this not a confiscatory Bill? Were the poor people who, under the ægis of the law of England, had furnished themselves with a certain quantity of liquor for sale—were they to have their property confiscated, without any trial whatever, and simply because a parcel of Home Rule Coercionists—persons who came there from Ireland as Representatives, but who were never elected in 1874 for the purpose of passing such a Bill as this—and who, if such a measure had been proposed by them in 1874, would have been whipped out by their constituencies? In 1874 there was no such question brought forward as one for the closing of public-houses on Sunday in Ireland; but since that period, these miserable people had come to the House asking for a Bill. ["Order!"]

The hon. and gallant Gentleman, will see that the expression, "those miserable people," is scarcely a proper one to use. I trust he will withdraw it.

said, he would withdraw it. Another adjective had now gone from them, and he did not know where they should get adjectives when they wanted them. He said so the other night, and was misrepresented in every paper in London. He said they should soon find themselves left without any suitable terms for expressing their thoughts on such matters. They prayed every year for freedom of speech, but would soon be without any freedom of speech at all. ["Oh, oh!"] He affirmed it. He repeated it. He said they were approaching a time when they should not be permitted a single adjective at all—substantives perhaps! The House was, in fact, becoming a school for teaching the use of substantives, since they must not express their thoughts with the help of adjectives. He said that these publicans were entitled to toleration. They had furnished themselves with liquors to be dispensed to the people of Ireland, according to Act of Parliament, and he asked this honourable Committee whether it was fair or just that they should be deprived of the benefit of their capital? He reiterated that if this Bill had been one to confiscate the property of Messrs. Bass and Allsopp, there was not a Member of that House that would vote for it, except the Home Rule Coercionists.

said, he thought it would be expedient for the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) to accept the Amendment. ["No, no!"] Well, hon. Members should remember that the Bill was a considerable experiment, in the absence of any certainty as to the feelings that would be excited when it came into operation. The hon. Member for Roscommon said he was comparatively indifferent, but that the 1st of October was preferred on the ground that these annual licences were then granted. Was that a substantial ground? Let them take the case of a man renewing his licence in October, with the knowledge that this Bill would come into operation on the following March. It would be optional for him to take out a seven days' licence, knowing that it would be operative for six days only after the Bill came into operation, or he could take out a six days' licence, and so, as it were, bring the Bill into operation at once. He had that option, and there was, therefore, no hardship; and, as there was no hardship, he wished the hon. Member for Roscommon would accept the Amendment.

hoped the hon. Member for Roscommon would not yield to the suggestion made to him. As to the "poor people" on whose behalf an appeal had been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford (Major O'Gorman), he would observe that this Bill had been before the House these three years, and had only been defeated by the most monstrous opposition. If they did not bring it into operation in October, they would make complete confusion throughout the country. It was true, however, that the traders need not be wronged by taking out a seven days' licence.

observed, that he was unable to see any argument in the remarks made against the Amendment. It was perfectly easy to arrange for the taking out of a six days' licence, to expire on the 10th of March. It had been put forward by one or two Members that the opposition to the Bill came from those engaged some way or other in the trade. He did not consider such remarks any argument in favour of the Bill; but as he was engaged in that trade, he wished to say he was neither ashamed or afraid of his business, no more than he was of his opinion or his politics, and he would add that it would be well for England, and for Ireland, too, if all her sons were engaged in some trade or profession, for then they would not have any idle cads living on the industry of honest men. Why could they not have such a six days' licence? When the Bill was passed in 1872, 12 months' time was given to the English trade, and they were now only asking the Committee to give six. He did not think it would be manly in him to see a branch of industry which had been licensed by the House trampled under foot without making some effort to defend it. There was not the least proof that drunkenness prevailed extensively in Ireland on Sundays, and this was not a temperance movement, but a purely Sabbatarian movement. He must press his Amendment, that the Bill should not come into operation before the 10th of March, 1879.

wished the Committee to understand that no practical harm could result from the Amendment. No one could refuse to pay the Excise the amount of the licence, and if the Bill came into operation on the 10th of March, as the hon. Member for Limerick suggested, there would be no contention between the Excise authorities and the publicans. He might take out a licence on the 10th of March, and then could not come up again before the 10th of March following; but if he took out a six days' licence, he would not be able to take advantage of the and bonâ fide traveller clause at all. No harm could be done, and he would suggest to the hon. Member for Roscommon that he should accept the hon. Member's Amendment.

thought that if the hon. Member for Roscommon had given his attention to it, he would accept the Amendment, as it really offered a permission to the trader to bring the Bill into operation in his own case as speedily as possible. If he took out a six day licence, he would be in the position of one placed under the Sunday-closing principle from the first moment of his licence beginning to run. If he did not do that, he would have to take out a full seven day licence, and the Act would come into operation when only half the licence had expired, and he would then be practically under a six day licence. It appeared to him that the hon. Member's Amendment gave the trader alternatives which covered the whole ground of the question. He did not wish to exaggerate appearances, but unfavourable signs had been manifested in Ireland with respect to the Bill, which he should be sorry to see realized; but he would warn the House against adopting this measure too suddenly, lest they should drive those whom it affected to form other organizations.

said, he should not be unwilling, personally, to accept the Amendment, but he did not know how far the opponents of the Bill would be disposed to appreciate this concession; and, moreover, he did not know whether the Attorney General would be willing to approve it from his own point of view.

wished to say he could see no objection to the Amendment. It had, he thought, been satisfactorily explained that no practical inconvenience could arise from it.

remarked, that his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Murphy), who now supported the Amendment, voted in the Committee for making the Bill come into operation in October.

Yes; but it was the October at the end of the year, not at the beginning. I so voted, because I thought the Bill should not come into operation before the trader had had a fair opportunity of exercising his busi- ness during the time for which, he had paid his money.

appealed to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Waterford (Major O'Gorman), to allow the clause to pass, after which Progress might be reported.

observed, that there were only two short clauses more, and that the Committee ought not to be brought down again for further discussions.

thought the promoters of the Bill were pressing his Friends very hard. The Committee should be anxious to avoid unnecessary inconvenience to the poor trader, which had already been referred to. He said, let this clause pass, and then let Progress be reported.

said, there was no one who was more anxious to proceed with this Bill than he was; but it was most unreasonable that they should be expected to go on with it at that hour of the morning. This clause would raise a most important discussion, and he could not speak upon it in less than an hour and 20 minutes; and there were many others who were desirous of speaking upon the question. Hon. Members who had so much philanthropy and generosity, and who wished to see this measure adopted in Ireland, were anxious to see its beneficent effects extended to England, and finally to Japan and other places; and, therefore, they would like to speak upon this clause. His constituents took great interest in this measure. When he was returned for the city of "Waterford, there were 13 candidates seeking for that honour. As the day of the contest drew near, they dropped off one by one, and only five went to the poll. Some hon. Member had said that this was not a test question at the last Election; but he declared most emphatically that, with him and his hon. and gallant Junior, it was made a test question. The representatives of the Sunday Closing Association waited upon them on that occasion, and they also waited upon three other candidates—one of whom was the present Member for the county of Waterford, another the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, and the other had not yet found his way into that distinguished Assembly. Six of the candidates pledged themselves to support Sunday closing, and two said they would give no pledge, but would exercise their own opinion on the question, and these two candidates were returned. The Home Rule Member for the county of Waterford was a candidate on that occasion; but he was defeated. What did the Sunday closers do? They issued the following circular to the people of Waterford—

"We have to inform you that, if elected, the following candidates have agreed to support Sunday Closing:—James Delahunty, R. B. Osborne, and Edward Gibson. The Committee much regret that Mr. Power's and Major O'Gorman's replies are not favourable."

He need not remind the Committee what was the just and happy result of that Election. It would not be fair to go into the main question at that late hour. He thought that even the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) could not comprehend so great and important an issue at that time of the morning. [Mr. SULLIVAN: It is quite early.] It was all very well to say "quite early," but he (Mr. R. Power) was positive the hon. and learned Member did not usually keep such late hours. If they were to be kept up till this time of the morning, night after night, they might as well give up going to bed altogether. This was a most unconstitutional proceeding—at all events, it was not good for the constitution—and, therefore, he must insist upon his right, and move that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

did not want to interfere in this matter, but he could not help remarking that they had arrived at a point at which it was impossible to apply this Bill to England. The Preamble said it should apply to Ireland only, and there could be nothing in Clause 8 that they could object to. He therefore hoped that the Committee would not bring the proceedings of this House into discredit, simply by pursuing this course of dividing upon a matter to which they would eventually agree. The Committee also should have some regard for the comfort of hon. Members, and not go on in that way.

agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. It had been suggested that the clauses should be gone through and the new clauses left for the next occasion. He was told, however, that that proposition would not be accepted; but it was certainly the right way out of the difficulty.