gave Notice that on Thursday next he would move the following Resolutions:—

"(1.) That, whenever any Member shall have been named by the Speaker, or by the Chairman of a Committee of the whole House, as disregarding the authority of the Chair, or abusing the Rules of the House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the House, or otherwise, then, if the offence has been committed in the House, the Speaker shall forthwith put the question, on a Motion being made, no amendment, adjournment, or debate being allowed, 'That such Member be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of that day's sitting;' and, if the offence has been committed in a Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall, on a Motion being made, put the same question in a similar way, and if the Motion is carried shall forthwith suspend the proceedings of the Committee and report the circumstance to the House; and the Speaker shall thereupon put the same question, without amendment, adjournment, or debate, as if the offence had been committed in the House itself. If any Member be suspended three times in one Session, under this Order, his suspension on the third occasion shall continue for one week, and until a Motion has been made, upon which it shall be decided, at one sitting, by the House, whether the suspension shall then cease, or for what longer period it shall continue; and, on the occasion of such Motion, the Member may, if he desires it, be heard in his place.

"(2.) That this be a Standing Order of the House."

Sir, I have to ask the attention of the House for a few moments while I bring before it a question of Privilege. I have to mention that, undeterred by the proceedings of this House on Friday, certain public journals of this country, not having the fear of punishment by Resolution before their eyes, have committed several Breaches of Privilege, some of which it will be my duty to bring before you. I have, however, first to deal with a much graver question, and one of a much rarer character with regard to the Privileges of the House. On the first day of the Session it has been customary, I suppose for 200 years, to pass a Resolution declaring it to be a high infringement of the liberties and Privileges of the Commons for any Lord or other Peer, not being a Peer of Ireland, to concern himself in the election of Members of Parliament, or for any Lord Lieutenant to avail himself of any authority derived from his commission to influence electors. At all times the House of Commons has been exceedingly jealous of the interference of Peers in this matter, and with very good reason, too. Peers of the Realm have their own Chamber, whore they can sit and enjoy Privileges not granted to us. We are only descended from a second Adam; but upon them, by a miraculous interposition of Divine Providence, hereditary wisdom has descended. Now I find that the annual general meeting of the Borough of Chelsea Conservative Association was held this day week at 25, Gloucester-road, South Kensington, and the right hon. Earl Cadogan occupied the chair. The noble Earl is not only a Peer of the Realm, who might content himself with the privileges he enjoys, but, if I mistake not, he is an Official Member of the Government, and I trust the Leader of this House will show to-night that he is as anxious to defend this Assembly from the interference of Members of his own Party as from that of any Commoner who may happen to sit on this side of the House. Now I will read to the House some of the remarks, of Lord Cadogan; and I think I shall be able to show not only that his Lordship interfered, but interfered in the strongest manner, with the electoral proceedings of the borough in which he and his family have potential influence—["Oh!"]—well, then, in the borough in which he and his family have very slight influence. His Lordship is reported in the public newspapers to have said that—

"One of the largest and most Radical boroughs in this country had just elected a second Conservative candidate."

I do not know, Sir, whether I have any right to defend my noble Friend Lord Cadogan against the attacks of the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan); but if I may be permitted to do so, I may point out that the term during which Peers may not interfere at elections is always held to commence with the issuing of the writ; and I certainly do not complain of the noble Lord taking any part in political matters in my borough up till that time, and I have no doubt that he knows his duty too well as a Peer of this Realm to take any part after that time. With regard to the language of Major Jocelyn, on which my hon. and learned Friend has moved that it is a Breach of the Privilege, I perhaps may be allowed to say that I have nothing to do with this Motion. At the same time, it is perfectly clear that the language used was a Breach of Privilege in accordance with the ruling of the Chancellor of the Exchequer two days ago. I look upon the speech in question as being rather a vulgar speech, and as one which may be passed over without any notice on the part of the House, or, in- deed, from myself. The vote which I gave on the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) to the Address was a vote in favour of the reform of the Irish Land Laws—a reform urgently needed—and I shall be prepared to defend my vote at the proper time and place. I consider that this matter is entirely undeserving of the attention of the House; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to me to be responsible for the present proceedings, because the right hon. Gentleman, by the course he took on Friday night over the Privilege debate of the hon Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) undoubtedly paved the way for Motions of this kind being made whenever vulgar or objectionable language may be used in any part of the country with regard to Members of the House. If the question goes to a division, I shall vote in the same way in which I voted on Friday night. The language that has been quoted may be technically a Breach of Privilege, but I shall vote that it was not—so strongly am I of the opinion that no such question should be taken up by the House.

Sir, I do not know that I entirely follow the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) when he says that certain language is shown to be a Breach of Privilege by my ruling on Friday night. I am not aware of having made any ruling on the subject. It is true there was a Motion before the House in accordance with Rules long laid down, and which, I believe, have been almost universally admitted in debate, certainly by the highest authorities. No question has been seriously raised, so far as I am aware, as to its being a Breach of Privilege for any person outside the House to comment on proceedings inside this House. We all know that such comments are made every day. We also know that for a number of years the House has not exercised its undoubted Privilege by complaining of frequent breaches of it. It is also true that, on Friday last, I thought it right to call upon the House to affirm that the particular conduct to which attention had been called by two of its Members amounted to a Breach of Privilege, and also was an interference with the discharge of their duties by hon. Members. I wish to remind the House that on that occasion two hon. Members appealed to the House to say whether certain conduct pursued by a Member who was in his place, and who avowed that he had pursued that conduct, and who justified his pursuing it, was or was not a Breach of Privilege; and it seemed to me impossible to allow a question like that to pass without the House giving some judgment on what had taken place. The appeal of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) was one of a very peculiar character—it was an appeal made by a Member of this House with reference to Business which was proceeding in the House—and I think that is as widely distinct from the question that is raised now as any two cases can possibly be. With regard to this particular case, in the first place, we have nobody complaining. The hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea has not complained of interference with his actions, and we have no evidence before us precisely as to what took place. As to the case of Lord Cadogan, it has been already pointed out that it is not held to be an interference of a Peer with an election I if he takes part in political questions before a writ has been issued. I have not been exactly informed, but I believe that the meeting in question was not held with special reference to the candidature of any particular person for the borough of Chelsea, but was the ordinary annual meeting of a Conservative Association in Chelsea for the purpose of transacting its regular business and electing officers. Lord Rosebery [Cheers and laughter]—I really beg pardon of the House, but, talking of the interference of Peers with elections, Lord Rosebery's name slipped out entirely by accident. Lord Cadogan, I mean, was not taking any part in the coming election for the borough of Chelsea, and I think, under the circumstances, the House will see that we have no evidence before us to proceed in this case, and as for calling a Peer to the Bar of this House, it would be an extraordinary proceeding, and rather in excess of the powers of this House.

Sir, I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has nobody but himself to thank for what has occurred. It was perfectly obvious that when the Government chose the other night to revive the question of Privilege, it would not end where it did. I am entirely against this Motion as I was against that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and before I sit down I shall move exactly the same Motion which moved on that occasion—namely, the Previous Question, and for exactly the same reasons. I should like the House to consider the grounds on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer endeavours to distinguish this case from the other. He says the distinction rests, first of all, in the fact of certain Members having complained of offence and injury to themselves. I say that is no Parliamentary distinction. A Breach of Privilege is an offence against no individual, but against the House. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer's excuse for not taking the same course as on Friday is equally untenable. The hon. Members who made the complaint withdrew it—and said that it was no longer a question between them and the hon. Member for Derby, that all offence against themselves was purged, and they left the question solely as one between the hon. Member and the House. The prosecutor on Friday night was not the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir Charles Russell) nor the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow), but he was the Leader of the House—who came forward when they had abandoned all complaint, and brought forward the question of Privilege on his own responsibility and in his own name. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer says this case is to be distinguished because the hon. Member for Derby justified what he had stated. But the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was made after the justification had been withdrawn—after the most honourableamendehad been made. And I say that for the Government to have proceeded after that, was vindictive and shabby. Well, I say there is no distinction between the two cases except that you, the majority, desire to proceed against a Member of the minority. ["Oh, oh!"] Ah, it is the fact; if not, are you prepared to vindicate the Breach of Privilege now? The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells you it is a Breach of Privilege, and I should like to ask the Attorney General the Question he put to me on Friday night. Is this a Breach of Privilege or is it not? If it is a Breach of Privilege then why are you not going to proceed against it? Does not this come within the terms of your Mo- tion the other night, except that the language now in question is not put on a placard, but is printed in such a way that it may be read by millions instead of hundreds? "It is a proceeding denouncing the part taken by an hon. Member of the House; it is, therefore, calculated to interfere with the due discharge of the duty of a Member of this House, and is a Breach of Privilege." The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us the other night that when a circumstance of this kind is brought before the House, the House cannot escape from the duty of taking notice of it, and of recording its judgment. Now, I want to know what is the difference between a placard and a thing printed on a piece of paper and not stuck on a wall? There is no difference whatever; they are both denunciations of the vote of a Member of this House in connection with the current proceedings of this House. Cannot any man of common sense see that what has happened to-night is the necessary consequence of the proceedings of the Government the other night? Do not hon. Members know that there is not a day in which there are not Breaches of Privilege that may be brought forward every night, and that nobody ever took a course that was more calculated to be obstructive to Public Business than that adopted by the right hon. Gentleman on Friday night? I venture to say it was a Party Motion, and that it was voted on as such, and it was perfectly obvious that it would lead to recriminations of this description. The proceedings of Friday night wore unwise and impolitic, and I ventured to invite the House not to entertain it. I have not changed my opinion. I think these Motions of Breach of Privilege apply to matters which you cannot restrain, and which, in my opinion, you ought not to wish to restrain, without serious injury to the character of the Parliament of this country. Therefore, for exactly the same reason that I moved the Previous Question on Friday night, I beg to move it on the present occasion.

heartily concurred in the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), regarding as frivolous the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), and as being widely distinct from that for which he had voted on Friday night. The House would permit him to point out what he conceived to be the difference between the two cases to which he referred. In the previous instance, the House had been appealed to by two hon. Members against a third hon. Member, who had equal opportunity of urging whatever he thought fit with respect to the particular Bill upon which the difference of opinion existed between himself and those two hon. Members. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) thought fit to issue placards reflecting upon the conduct of those hon. Members, and to have them posted almost within the precincts of that House; and he (Mr. Newdegate) would remind the House that at Washington, around the Legislative Assembly of the United States, there was a precinct within which the Rules were far stricter than were the Rules of the English House of Commons, for they forbade the slightest comment upon the conduct of Members of Congress. He would remind the House also of another fact, that the Senate and Assembly of France had only lately returned to Paris, from which they had removed the seat of their deliberations, because their proceedings were interrupted and their persons menaced by the populace outside. There was yet another difference; inasmuch as the hon. Member for Derby, much to his (Mr. Newdegate's) regret, not only posted those libels almost within the precincts of this House, but afterwards justified the substance of those libels in the House itself. ["No!"] Could it be alleged that the conduct of Lord Cadogan or Major Jocelyn was analogous to that? What, then, was the hon. and learned Member for Louth doing on the present occasion, but assailing those who were merely guilty of a minor and secondary offence, which, if a libel at all, should be dealt with through the publisher of the newspaper? It seemed to him that throughout the debate the other night hon. Members lost sight of the distinction that existed between libel and slander. The worst that could be charged against Lord Cadogan and Major Jocelyn was, that they had been guilty of slander, and yet the hon. and learned Member for Louth, in order to carry into effect the decision of the House on Friday, now mixed up the two offences, and appeared to be incapable of perceiving the distinction between slander and libel. He (Mr. Newdegate) opposed the "Previous Question" on Friday. And why? Because he knew it was impossible that the House should ignore the antecedent circumstances in the case of the hon. Member for Derby, seeing that those antecedent circumstances were recorded in the Votes and Proceedings of the House. If it had not been for those circumstances, he might have yielded to his feelings towards the hon. Member for Derby, whom he greatly respected for his benevolent character; but he felt that the hon. Member had so stamped his proceedings as libel before the House that, waiving all ideas of inflicting penalties on an hon. Member who had expressed his regret for what he had done, it was impossible that the House could ignore the circumstances that had occurred.

remarked, that when the interference of Peers at elections was referred to, hon. Members on the other side shouted the name of "Rosebery!" and the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself had said that whenever anybody spoke of such interference the name of Lord Rosebery naturally rose up. The noble Lord could defend himself well enough in the House of Lords; but when he was attacked here, there was no one to defend him, though so many to attack. He wished to point out that Lord Rosebery did not attend meetings in the county of Midlothian with reference to the coming election there. The City of Edinburgh was no part of the county of Midlothian. The City formed a county of itself, and Lord Rosebery carefully abstained from attending meetings in the county of Midlothian. But the meeting referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Louth was held within the borough of Chelsea, and with a view of influencing the coming election there. The present Motion was the first fruits of the folly of the Resolution proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Friday. The right hon. Gentleman had been driven on by influences behind him. Common report said that a round-robin had been sent from the Carlton Club. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was in the position of a huntsman whose hounds ran riot and wanted blood; his followers were anxious to punish somebody, and they determined that the hon. Member for Derby should be the sufferer. They were not able to get all they wanted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to give them the full measure of vindictive punishment by a Motion of Censure; but consented to a vote, which implied censure without saying it. That was the position which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had put the House in by the Resolution of Friday night. He could not support the present Motion, because he agreed that such Motions were absurd. The House, he thought, was sufficiently dignified to pass over all these things in perfect silence. They should not be taken notice of at all, and therefore he concurred in the Amendment for the Previous Question.

wished to know how they would stand if they were to say it was not allowable to speak of the conduct of an hon. Member as degrading and inhuman, and yet it was allowable to refer to an hon. Member who was discharging, as he believed, his duty to his country as being connected with a despicable lot of Irish rebels? It was all very well for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get up and try to minimize the effect of what had been done; but it was a fact that if this matter was passed over to-night, it would be perfectly free for any Member to get up and repeat that another hon. Member, in voting with 40 or 50 other Members, was allying himself to a despicable lot of Irish rebels; whereas, if the conduct of a single Member was called inhuman and degrading, he rendered himself liable to the effects of a Breach of Privilege. He did not think it was necessary to do more than point out the ridiculous position in which the House had been brought by the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He should vote for the Previous Question.

denied that there was an analogy between the present case and that of the hon. Member for Derby. The hon. Member went down to another Member's constituency to denounce him, whilst Major Jocelyn was only exercising his constitutional right as an elector of Chelsea in criticizing the conduct of his Representative. There was also a great difference between what fell from a man's mouth, and a statement written and printed in a deliberate manner. It should also be re- membered that Major Jocelyn was not responsible for what appeared in the newspapers. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) spoke about the vote of Friday being a Party vote, but he should like to know who made it so? The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not responsible for that. He (Mr. Charles Lewis) thought that this matter should not be passed over by voting the Previous Question, but that the House ought to negative the Motion itself. "With regard to Lord Cadogan, the interpretation of the Rule for half a century had been that Peers might speak at political meetings which were not directly connected with elections. It would, as he had said, be hardly fair to allow this subject to be disposed of by the Previous Question. The Resolution itself ought to be negatived.

could not but think that hon. Members opposite were somewhat unfortunate in the attempt they had made to create a distinction between the two cases which had been brought before the House. Each hon. Gentleman who had spoken had given a new distinction generally quite different from, and sometimes quite inconsistent with, that which had preceded it. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) said the distinction lay in the fact that Major Jocelyn was a constituent of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke); but he forgot to state that the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) was a constitutent of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Westminster (Sir Charles Russell). Then it was said that the criticism of the hon. Member for Derby was that of a Member by a Member; but in the present case the criticism by Lord Cadogan was that of a Member of one part of the Legislature by a Member of another part of it. He (Mr. Chamberlain) confessed that he could see no distinction whatever in the present case and in that complained of on Friday last. He did not see why this House should protect Gentlemen on one side from offensive statements, and decline to protect Members sitting opposite. It was said that the hon. Member had justified what he had printed, but he (Mr. Chamberlain) was not aware that he did anything of the sort. The truth was that the hon. Member for Derby made a full and ample apology; but how did hon. Members opposite know that Lord Cadogan and Major Jocelyn would not justify what they had said if they were called to the Bar of the House? Then, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) told them that the placard written by the hon. Member for Derby was posted within the precints of the House; but he also published the placard within the borough of Guildford, and hon. Members on both sides knew that the Resolution passed on Friday last was passed as much owing to what had been done in Guildford as what had been done in Westminster. After this, he (Mr. Chamberlain) thought that the House should have a distinct and sufficient explanation of the law upon the subject. He believed the House would agree with him in saying that the Attorney General who had laid down the law so satisfactorily on the previous occasion, should once more be called upon to give hon. Members the benefit of his knowledge, so that they might be in a position to judge—seeing that questions of Privilege were becoming frequent—in what cases hon. Members would be justified in asking the House to interfere.

remarked, that the same considerations which prevented him from voting for the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Friday last would induce him to vote for the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt). He earnestly hoped that the House would waste no more time on the discussion of the matter. There was a very important Bill relating to the distress in Ireland among the Orders of the Day, and he hoped they would be allowed to proceed with that Bill.

retorted, that if the Motion of Friday night was of sufficient importance to occupy seven or eight hours in discussion, the stigmatizing of 60 Members of that House as a despicable lot of rebels could scarcely be considered so frivolous a matter. Other people might be as sensitive when their public character was concerned as were the Friends of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. A. Mills). He should like some Friend of the hon. Member for Londonderry to explain by what connection Major Jocelyn's position as a constituent of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) justified him in branding 60 Members of that House as rebels. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) regretted that any hon. Member should think that this was a matter simply between the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea and his gallant but vituperative constituent. That, it seemed to him, was not the question at all. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had rendered some service to Liberal politicians by the very successful way in which he had vindicated the political action of Lord Rosebery. But he (Mr. O'Connor Power) wished to point out that Lord Rosebery had not the fear of the House of Commons before his mind. The noble Lord was not aware that the rusty weapon of Privilege was to be furbished up to do service for the Tory Party in the coming General Election. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) believed that most people would be inclined to think that neither the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Louth nor the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford could be regarded as satisfactory. He was sorry that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Louth had not contented himself with a Motion to the effect that Lord Cadogan and Major Jocelyn should be summoned to the Bar of the House, and be called upon to give an explanation of their extraordinary conduct. It was possible that this noble Lord and this gentleman might repudiate the expressions attributed to them in the newspaper report; but if not, the House would at least have an explanation, and if that explanation were followed by an ample and explicit apology, his countrymen who sat in that House would never think of pursuing the matter further. He was at a loss to see how the dignity of Parliament was vindicated by their following in the wake of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

said, he thought the House had been sufficiently long amused with this matter, and he hoped that the suggestion just made by the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. A. Mills) would be acted upon. He should himself vote for the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), though he was of opinion that the Motion now introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) would have the result of placing on the Records of the House a good, instead of a bad precedent, and he hoped that the effect of an almost unanimous vote would be to destroy the precedent made on Friday evening last. It seemed to him perfectly vain to attempt to draw such a distinction between the Motion before the House and that of Friday night as would justify the House in voting for the latter, and yet to refuse to vote for the present Motion by a large and almost unanimous vote. The present Motion showed how mischievous was that which had been passed on Friday evening. What did the House do then? It laid down this principle—that anything said or done calculated to coerce and intimidate Members in discharge of their duty deserved to be taken notice of by the House. There was no doubt that, according to that Resolution, Major Jocelyn had been guilty of a Breach of Privilege calculated to coerce and intimidate the hon. Member for Chelsea in the execution of his duty. Certainly, he had not done so by writing a placard, but there was no doubt Major Jocelyn intended to speak for publication, as there were reporters present when he spoke. No doubt the speaker thought that what he had said would have the effect of damaging at the General Election the prospects of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea. He charged the hon. Baronet with allying himself with a set of Irish rebels. [Mr. O'CONNOR POWER: A despicable set of Irish rebels.] A despicable set of Irish rebels. Of course, nothing could be more in the nature of a Breach of Privilege than words of that character applied to Members of this House, and he could not help remarking on the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made no reference whatever to Major Jocelyn's words in his remarks. Indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer passed over the objectionable words. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) hoped that after they had taken the present vote, that they would proceed with the important Business on the Paper.

thought it would be a mistake to be in too great a hurry to vote on this question. For himself, he did not feel in the slightest degree in a hurry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was in no hurry last Friday night, when he involved the House in a controversy which lasted from 5 o'clock until half-past 12. He admitted that there was a difference between the two cases; but the difference was this—that Major Jocelyn's conduct was more vicious than the conduct of the hon. Member for Derby, and that while in the one case the attack had been made on hon. Members whose support was useful to the Government, in the other a section of the Opposition had been attacked to whom the protection of the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not extend. The fact was, the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Friday last allowed himself to get into a thoroughly untenable position, so that his action on the present occasion exposed him to the charge of not holding the scales of justice equally as Leader of the House, and that his vindication of the Privileges of Parliament was made in the interest of his own Party.

said, he should take a Division, in order to afford the Government and their supporters an opportunity of effacing themselves, and also to put on record the fact that, in the face of 60 of its Representatives being publicly branded as a despicable band of Irish rebels, the Leader of the House took no steps to vindicate the character of the House, while only a few days previously, because one of his own supporters was described as having been guilty of inhuman conduct, he came forward as the champion of the Privileges of the House. The lesson would be studied in Ireland. He would exhort his countrymen to study this spectacle of the partiality of the present Government, which allowed them to be traduced in the vilest and foulest language, with a view to the General Election. The Government were endeavouring to hound on every man to denounce and defame the Irish Members on that side of the House, in order to deter hon. Gentlemen from extending to them that consideration and support which the justice of their cause might occasionally attract to their side. It was a foul attempt to check the growing sympathy of the public, at which the Government trembled every day. If the Ministerial votes decided that it was not a Breach of Privilege to describe 60 Members of the House as a "despicable lot of Irish rebels," it would have an effect upon the future conduct of those Members in that House. He should go to a Division, even if he had only two Members with him.

said, he could not understand how any vote the House could come to would have the effect of stigmatizing 60 of its Members as despicable and as rebels. For his part, knowing something about Major Jocelyn, he should rather regard anything which he might say about him in the way of censure as great praise. Nobody who knew Major Jocelyn's political temper paid the slightest respect to what he said or did. He believed his present opposition to be one of the most effective means of returning his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea almost without opposition at the approaching General Election. He should decline to give Major Jocelyn the dignity of a vote either on the one side or the other.

said, that this part of the Bill was really retrospective in its operation, and the Amendment dealt with a question that was not open, because the 9th section, to which it applied, dealt only with past loans made to landlords and sanitary authorities, and not to future ones, as the hon. Member imagined. No advance could be made under it after the 29th of the present month, before which time it was not likely to pass. The proposed clause dealt with a subject in reference to which a vast number of considerations should be taken into account; and if they were entered upon they would lead, and to no purpose, to endless delay. He, therefore, hoped it would not be pressed to a division, as it was one which should not find its way into the present Bill.

supported the clause. There were a number of improvements which might be made by tenants, and which would cost less than £100. He did not think the Government could consider a more important subject than the drainage of land, although the object of his hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar) could hardly be attained under the present temporary Bill. He would remind his hon. Friend that the improvements made, or to be made, under the Bill as it now stood were tenants' improvements as much as they were landlords improvements. The only interest the landlord had in them was that they improved his property and increased his security for the payment of his rent. He hoped the Government would give the subject their best consideration, with a view to its insertion, if not in this Bill, in some general measure, and asked his hon. Friend not to divide the House.

concurred in the view of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw), but thought that it would be necessary for the Government to deal with the question in a thorough manner as soon as the present crisis had passed away.

said, the principle involved in the proposal of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) was one of deep importance. It called upon the Government so to arrange their system of loans that they should be made to the tenants for the purpose of enabling them to work on their own lands. A system of relief now required was one which would not cause the neglect of agriculture. The tenant ought to be set to work on his own land. In England it appeared, under 59Geo.III. c. 12, relief could be given by Guardians to able-bodied persons by way of loan. Such an arrangement would prove most beneficial to the country.

said, he would not put the House to the trouble of a division.

said, the tenants often did not understand draining, and would require to be instructed by competent men. It might happen, too, that improvement works which were highly important were of such magnitude as to require the co-operation of several landlords. As a landlord, he must thank the Government for the help they had given, which had been a good deal taken up in his county. As an instance of what drainage would do for land, he could mention some land the drainage of which would cost £300, and which land, then worth 5s.an acre, would be worth £2 an acre after two croppings. He had always been opposed to extreme measures when they were brought forward; but no one would be more pleased than he should be to see measures brought forward in the House to stimulate agriculture and make tenants more comfortable.

said, he thought a strong case had been made out against the landlords in Ireland, who had allowed millions of acres to lie waste to the present time, and that a strong case had also been made out for allowing the occupiers to be the parties to expend money on the land. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) only wished that the occupiers should have the same opportunity of expending money on the land they held as the landowners, and that their holdings should be security for that expenditure. The hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. H. A. Herbert) had stated that a good many of the tenant farmers of Ireland were ignorant of drainage. That was true to some extent; but the reason was that they had never had an opportunity of investing money in the soil which they tilled without the fear that some day or other the improvements made by themselves might be taken by the landlord. That was one of the reasons, at any rate, for the neglect of agricultural drainage; but he be-lived that in a large part of Ireland the tenants were quite capable of draining their lands, if they only had the opportunity given them by means of a Government loan. The Board of Works always sent a person down to see the improvements, and if they were not up to the mark they would not pay for them; and in the same way the occupiers must do their improvements to the satisfaction of a person sent down by the Board of Works. Therefore, he thought the clause was one which the Government ought to consider if possible; and if they did not insert something like it in the present Bill, he hoped they would produce something in the future which would allow the occupiers to receive money on the security of their land, and thus to drain the lands which the hon. Member for Kerry said were not worth more than 5s.an acre now, and which had been left in that state from the 17th century to the present time by the landlords of Ireland. He hoped the tenants would have an opportunity of expending money on such land so as to make it worth £2 an acre.

said, all the improvements were, as a general rule, made by the tenants, and the fact had been made the basis of all recent legislation. The Government seemed now to establish a new principle, that the improvements should be made by the landlords; and they made it impossible for the tenants to enter into competition as the landlords wore to have the exclusive use of the public money. He had from the first been against loans to landlords, and he believed they would be productive of great mischief, and that the efforts of all who were interested in the welfare of the occupiers of Ireland ought to be directed to securing for them the advantage of being enabled to improve their holdings themselves.

said, that in opposing the clause of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) it must not be understood that he was advising landlords to press on actions of ejectments, except where the circumstances absolutely required it. From whatever point of view the clause was regarded, the House would, he thought, be satisfied that it was not one which could be reasonably ever passed, and he hoped that further consideration would convince the hon. Member that he should not proceed to a division. The clause proposed, without qualification or examination or any distinction whatever, to suspend for one year in every part of Ireland all actions of ejectments. Let the House consider how extravagantly and unreasonably wide that suggestion was. If the clause wore passed a man could not proceed to assert his title by ejectment in any Court in Ireland, no matter what the circumstances were. The hon. Member would hardly say that that was within the region of rational legislation. He also proposed to suspend the right of ejectment for non-payment of rent, and that without qualification. He proposed to take no account of whether it was a thriving and prosperous district, of the character of the tenant, and of the amount which he owed. A tenant might have the money in his pocket and arbitrarily refuse to pay his rent, and yet, under this clause, lie would be equally protected with the tenant who was entitled to their sympathy. The fact was that this was not a matter susceptible of being dealt with by legislation'; it must be left to the right feeling and intelligence of those who had to exercise these rights, and he apprehended that the right feeling of every person connected with land in Ireland at the pre- sent time of trial must be to give and take a little on all sides, and not to press legal rights to an extreme point. If it were said that right feeling could not be relied on to restrain landlords, then he replied that their good sense and prudence would suggest to them not to press the right to actions of ejectment to an extreme extent, because it was most undesirable in the interest of the landlord that he should have farms thrown upon his hands by tenants being driven out from circumstances of poverty, distress, and destitution; therefore, the self-interest of the landlord would cause him to be very cautious about exercising this right of ejectment. Above all, it would be such an interference with all the rights of property and all the institutions that must regulate the rights of property that he did not think it ever could be entertained by the House of Commons.

said, he was quite sure that his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) would have no objection to amend his clause, so as to confine its operations to the scheduled districts and to cases of non-payment of arrears of rent. But he concluded, from the latter part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks, that he was opposed in principle to the clause. He admitted that it was a very wide subject, but thought it would be no harm for the Government to turn their attention to the subject; for although he was willing to admit that the great majority of landlords were acting fairly towards the tenants, and not pressing them for rents wherever it could possibly be avoided, yet there were cases where an opposite course was taken and much hardship thereby inflicted. He had prepared an Amendment bearing on the subject, but which had, unfortunately, been left out of the Paper, which he thought that the Government might accept. It was to the effect that nonpayment of rent in the distressed districts should not operate as a bar to the recovery of compensation by a tenant who was ejected. If the Government would introduce an Amendment to that effect it would remedy many cases of injustice.

admitted that the clause of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) was open to many of the objections which had been stated to it by the right hon. and learned Gentle- man the Attorney General for Ireland, and thought that, under the circumstances, it would be vain to ask the House to assent to any such clause; but the Amendment suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for the county of Cork (Mr. Shaw) was of a totally different character, and it was one that appeared to him to be well deserving of consideration at the hands of the Government. All it meant was that in the poor distressed districts of the South of Ireland the tenants should have extended to them a privilege already enjoyed by the more prosperous tenants of the North of Ireland under the Ulster Tenant Right. It interfered with no contracts, and deprived the landlord of nothing which he ought to have.

said, the matter was dealt with in the earlier portion of the Bill, and there was no doubt that power was given to renew the instructions for out-door relief in Unions where it was necessary. The Amendment, therefore, was not needed.

said, he was perfectly satisfied with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment, and he had no objection to his Amendment being omitted.

said, he was compelled to oppose the Amendment, believing that 10 years was an ample time to allow for the repayment of the money. If it was extended beyond that, the Unions would be placed in an embarrassing position in regard to re-payments, and he thought 10 years was a most liberal allowance. Besides, they had no right, and it was inadvisable, to burden posterity in the matter.

thought it was in the interest of the Treasury to accept the Amendment, as the state of the country was such that, in several of the electoral divisions of Ireland, they would never be able to repay the money in so short a time as 10 years. The result would be, if the Amendment was not adopted, that appeals would be made to the Government at a future time to remit the whole of the loans. He thought, in fact, that in some of the Unions in the West of Ireland the Government was not very likely to get its money back at all. He wished, further, to point out that, even if 20 years were given, that would be 10 years less than was given in the case of Lancashire.

supported the Amendment, on the ground that if only 10 years was allowed for the re-payment of loans it would prevent many Boards of Guardians from availing themselves of the advantages offered by the Bill.

said, whatever else the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw) had shown, it could not be denied that he had shown considerable ingenuity in the foundation upon which he rested his proposal. The hon. Gentleman complained that the money was taken, not out of Imperial funds, but out of Irish funds. He desired to have a separate finance administration, with an Irish Exchequer to deal with Irish taxation. Those were matters which could not be entered into; they must treat the Exchequer as a whole. It was proposed that we should lend the money not at 3½per cent, but at 2½ per cent. The 3½ per cent would not bring a profit; but it would save the Exchequer from a loss, and the Government thought it was doing very good service to lend the money to Boards of Guardians at that rate. They could not get it at so low a rate elsewhere, and without the Bill they could not borrow it at all. He could not break up the usual system of lending money, and the only alternative was to stand to the figures in the Bill.

urged that the proposal of his hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw) did not involve the separation of the Exchequer of the two countries. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was afraid of loss to the Exchequer; but why not lend out the money at the same rate of interest paid to depositors in the savings banks? The only answer to the proposal was that it would separate the two Exchequers; and, therefore, the Irish paupers must be charged 3½ per cent. The argument remained the same, and the right hon. Gentleman had not answered it.

said, that the section of the clause referring to money to be borrowed to cover loss gave the Grand Jury power to grant compensation to landowners without previous application to the presentment sessions. That was giving very large powers to the Grand Juries, and he should move the omission of the words "without previous application to presentment sessions," in order to insert the words, "having been previously approved by presentment sessions."

remarked, that the words objected to were put in to save time. The whole machinery would hang fire without them. The object of the Bill was to afford immediate relief by means of public works, and the presentment sessions had to consider the matter in the first instance. The money might then be advanced without further reference.

I am quite sure that I am right, and that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong; but I will withdraw the Amendment.

This matter has been very fully considered by the House, and as it is of a very urgent character I now appeal to hon. Members to allow it to be read a third time.

in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was, at least by name, very well known to the House. It would not be necessary for him minutely to describe the provisions of this voluminous measure, as he had explained them with considerable elaboration on a former occasion, and it had also been explained in various pamphlets and prints which had been published to the world. It would suffice to say that it attempted what had never, he believed, been attempted before—the codification of a substantial part of the law. It proposed to state in a number of terse, lucid, and comprehensive sentences, the law of England and Ireland upon the subject of ordinary crime, and also the law relating to the procedure by indictment against those who committed such crimes. This codification was exceedingly desirable, and would, if accomplished in this instance, set an example for codification of the law generally. But, besides this, the Bill proposed to alter the existing law in several important respects; and he thought that when the proposed alterations were carefully considered they would all appear to be great amendments of the law. He would not attempt that evening to deal with all the alterations; he would merely glance at the most important and salient. In the first part of the Bill, which related to the commission of offences, the main alterations were—1, The abolition of the distinction between felony and misdemeanours, which would get rid of a number of very absurd and monstrous consequences; 2, The introduction of certain amendments into the law with regard to the doctrine of compulsion and coercion; 3, The improvement of the law of homicide, which involved the extinction of the universally condemned doctrine of constructive malice; and 4, The simplification of the law relating to theft and fraud. These were the principal alterations of the first part of the Bill. In the part of the Bill which related to procedure, several alterations were to be found—1, Provisions getting rid of the absurdities arising under the existing law from the doctrine of venue; 2, Provisions for changing the place of trial when necessary; 3, Provisions for the trial of criminals by special juries in cases of exceptional difficulty; 4, Provisions for the simplification of indictments; 5, Provisions for the keeping of a simple record of the proceedings, and the sweeping away of technicalities which rendered proceedings by way of writ of error next door to impossible; 6, Enactments as to juries and the challenging of jurors; 7, Provision enabling the jury to have a view when required; 8, Provisions giving a more satisfactory appeal in criminal cases upon points of law; 9, Enactments enabling prisoners in proper cases to obtain new trials; and 10, Provisions altering the law to a considerable extent as to the costs of prosecutions. Hon. Members would recollect that the Criminal Code was brought to the attention of the House for the first time in 1878. A Bill was then introduced which had been prepared by Sir James Stephen—now Mr. Justice Stephen—and which was founded on that admirable work calledA Digest of the Criminal Law,which, after expending upon it many years of deep thought and patient toil, that gentleman presented to the public. Owing to the pressure of Public Business, the Bill of 1878, though favourably received, could not be proceeded with. After the close of the Session of 1878, the Government submitted the measure to the examination of a Commission composed of lawyers of the greatest eminence—namely, Lord Blackburn, Mr. Justice Lush, Mr. Justice Barry, and Sir James Stephen. The object the Government had in view when this Commission was appointed was to subject the all-important measure with which they were dealing to a most thorough and searching examination and criticism. As it was proposed to give in the Code a succinct statement of the law, it was obvious that it was most desirable that the accuracy of such statement should be ascertained and vouched by men of the highest authority; and as it was proposed by the Code to alter in several respects the existing law, it was obvious that it was most desirable that the alterations should be considered by those who were, from their training, experience, and ability, fitted to form a judgment upon them. The Commissioners entered upon their labours, and continued them, without intermission, for many months. During this period every provision of the Code, indeed, he might say almost every word, was made the subject of the most minute and careful consideration. Very extensive alterations were made in the structure of the Bill, although the foundations upon which it rested remained undisturbed; much matter was expunged, and much fresh matter was introduced. The more he had examined the Criminal Code Bill, the more he had sifted and scrutinized its provisions, the more forcibly had his mind been impressed with the enormous amount of labour the Commissioners bestowed upon it. It was impossible for anyone, even the most experienced lawyer, unless he had devoted himself to the subject, and had made it, for a time at all events, his especial study, thoroughly to appreciate the pains taken by the Commissioners with the work they undertook to perform. At length the task of the Commissioners was completed. They finally settled the draft Bill, and reported to Her Majesty the result of their deliberations. The Bill thus settled by the Commissioners was introduced in that House last Session some time after Parliament had assembled. Unfortunately, owing to causes to which it was not necessary for him to refer, very little opportunity for a discussion of the measure presented itself. However, although the provisions of the measure were not made the subject of debate, such as he could have wished for it, nevertheless the Bill excited great attention and interest both in and out of Parliament. Very many hon. and learned Members, and many hon. Gentlemen who were not in the law, but who took an interest in the administration of justice in this country, studied the measure with the greatest possible care, and proposed a variety of Amendments; some of these were formulated and placed on the Notice Paper; and, furthermore, men outside Parliament—men of great eminence and experience—also subjected the Code to searching criticism, and suggested several alterations which they considered would be improvements. Among those who devoted themselves to a careful investigation of the subject was, as the House would well remember, the Lord Chief Justice of England, who, in June last, addressed to him, as the Member of the Government who had charge of the Bill, a long letter containing criticisms upon the earlier parts of the Bill of a most valuable character; and in this letter, which the House would remember he had caused, as soon as he received it, to be made a Parliamentary Paper, his Lordship had been good enough to promise further letters, in which he would deal with other portions of the subject. This promise had, he was happy to say, been to a certain extent fulfilled; for only the other day he received from his Lordship a long letter of criticisms upon some portions of the Bill, and he had every reason to believe that he should be favoured with other letters on the remaining parts of the measure in the course of a few weeks. He (the Attorney General) was not surprised that, notwithstanding all the care and pains which had been bestowed upon it, the great work of the Commissioners, or rather, he should say, the great work of Sir James Stephen, revised and corrected and amplified by the Commissioners, was subjected to the criticisms to which he had referred, and that suggestions for its amendment should have been made. The fact was that upon a subject of such nicety, such intricacy, such difficulty, it was impossible for any set of men, however able, however learned and experienced, to frame a Bill, which would be a perfect Bill, entirely free from objection, and incapable of improvement. But he was justified in saying that most of the criticisms to which he had alluded were, however, directed much more to the form than to the substance of the Bill. But little objection was made to the statement of the existing law which the Bill contained, nor was much objection made to the alterations in the law recommended by the Commissioners. It was thought, however, that a good deal of improvement might be effected in the drafting of the Bill. It was said that the arrangement of the clauses might be considerably improved, that many clauses might be very much condensed and simplified, and that some of the definitions of crimes might be rendered a good deal clearer. These suggestions were brought to the attention of the Government and considered carefully, and the Government came to the resolution that while they would not allow any alteration in the substance of the Bill, they were quite willing, nay, anxious, to avail themselves of all the suggestions for such alterations in the form, if the carrying of them out would really improve the measure in that respect. It consequently fell to his lot to consider the Code as it issued from the hands of the Commissioners more carefully, if that was possible, than before, together with the proposals made for its alteration. In the task which thus devolved upon him he had the assistance of Gentlemen upon whose judgment he could confidently rely, and in future discussions he would have an opportunity of mentioning the names of some of those by whom he had been assisted. He might, however, mention at once that the acumen, zeal, and patience displayed by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), who was one of those Gentlemen, had filled him with admiration, and on behalf of the Government he begged to thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his services. The result of the investigation that was thus made of the Bill, and of the various proposals for its amendment, was that certain alterations in the drafting were effected—alterations in form and not in substance, resulting in the Bill being presented in a somewhat neater garb than before. He had submitted to the Commissioners from time to time the drafts which were prepared, and he had obtained from them their approval of the great bulk of the alterations that had been made. The Commissioners authorized him to state explicitly that the Bill was still in substance their measure, and that they thought that it might be introduced into the House as such. There were certain matters about which they had suggested alterations, which would be more easily dealt with in the Select Committee to which he proposed to refer it, and who would, no doubt, adopt them. When hon. Members should come to consider the measure they would find that the Schedule of enactments to be repealed, which formed the concluding part of the Bill of 1879, had been excluded from the present measure, the reason being that the Government thought it would be more desirable to introduce that Schedule into a separate Bill, which would be brought in during the present Session. The view of the Government was that in this way more time could be given to the preparation of this Schedule, and the more time that could be given to it the better. During the course of every discussion upon the Bill, either in Committee or before the House, fresh enactments which might be repealed would be disclosed. The Government, therefore, thought it would be better and simpler on the whole to have the repeal enactments in a separate Schedule. It only remained to add that if the Bill were read a second time he proposed to refer it to a Select Committee, upon which he should place the names of the most eminent lawyers in the House, and of statesmen of great eminence. The object of the Government in taking this course was to have the measure subjected afresh to severe criticism, and thus to make it, if possible, a perfect Bill. Personally, he was exceedingly anxious that the Bill should pass into law during this Session; but he was not insensible of the difficulties which must attend the passing of so large a measure, containing nearly 500 sections. Therefore, if it was admissible for him to do so, he should ask that the Select Committee which he proposed should be appointed should be armed with power to divide the measure into a number of Bills, if they should think proper so to divide it. He trusted that by adopting this course, if by mischance he should not be able to get the whole Bill passed this Session, a substantial portion of the measure might become law. He begged, in conclusion, to move the Second Reading of the Bill.

thought the Government had taken every possible step they could take to bring the measure into a shape that would commend it to the House; and the course now proposed to be pursued would also, in his opinion, be approved by hon. Members. It would, not, however, be without interest to look at its history, and see how it had grown to its present dimensions. When the work of Mr. Justice Stephen was brought before the House in 1878 he believed they all felt that he was entitled not only to great credit, but to the gratitude of the House, for having made the attempt to codify the Criminal Law. But appeals were made to hon. Members both in and out of the House to accept the measure then framed as it stood, and they were told that it would be regarded as obstruction if the measure were not accepted in its entirety as then drawn, if it were not accepted. He thought, however, it had been proved—and his hon. and learned Friend would probably agree with him—that it would have been almost a calamity if the Bill had been accepted in the crude shape in which it was produced. Again, in 1879, notwithstanding the labours of the Commissioners, his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General found it necessary not to proceed with haste in legislating on the subject, though he had almost scolded him (Sir Henry James) for hinting at such a possibility. His hon. and learned Friend had apparently found that the Common Law of England could not be consolidated, certainly not codified, without great consideration. But matters had since progressed. As soon as the Commis- sioners had performed their duty, undoubtedly in the most able manner, the Chief Justice of England brought his great acumen and knowledge to bear upon the subject, and pointed out defects which ought to be remedied. The hon. and learned Attorney General had accepted to a great extent those suggestions, and he hoped the promise made of further suggestions would be fulfilled when the Bill was referred to the Select Committee. He heard one suggestion by his hon. and learned Friend with great satisfaction. Last year he suggested that the Bill of 500 clauses should be divided into sections, and that they should be content to pass them piecemeal one Session after another. His hon. and learned Friend seemed to think that it would not be more difficult to dispose of such a measure than the Merchant Shipping Bill of 1854. It should, however, be remembered that that Bill dealt with only one subject, while this Bill dealt with many of great political and social importance. But, upon reflection, his hon. and learned Friend, he was happy to find, now thought it was safest to pursue the course he had suggested—that the Committee should have power to divide the measure into several Bills or sections, and that the House should pass as many as they could during the present Session, with the view of consolidating them when all had passed. His hon. and learned Friend stated that he had dealt with the arrangement of the Bill rather than the substance; but, notwithstanding the great learning of those who formed the Royal Commission, the House would find it necessary to revise some portions of their work. It was the duty of the House to do so, and its duty alone. When they came to consider the definition of high treason, what was sedition, what was an unlawful assembly, and the whole question of punishments, they would have to consider whether the legislation would be beneficial which merely perpetuated that which had formerly existed. Another subject was open to discussion—whether there should be class juries. He mentioned these topics only by way of example, as justifying the course adopted by his hon. and learned Friend of dealing with the Bill in different sections. The Commissioners had not apparently felt it their duty to exercise their feel- ings of humanity or judgment as politicians, but had, in most cases, merely consolidated the law as it existed. He had only one practical suggestion to make—that his hon. and learned Friend should inform the House what alterations had been made in the law; what was new in the Bill, and what was old, so that they might bring their judgments to bear upon the expediency, either of maintaining the one, or giving effect to the other. Speaking for himself, and for many of his hon. and learned Friends on that side of the House, he desired to say that, looking at the course which the Government had taken in order to form a wise measure of codification, they would be ready to give their best assistance, with the view of saving as much public time as possible, and the hope of carrying that Session a Bill which he hoped would prove beneficial to the public. If his hon. and learned Friend would accept their aid, they should be disposed to reduce their criticism, not to minute matters, but to what was substantial.

apprehended that the hon. and learned Attorney General was placing a work on the shoulders of the Select Committee which some of them were not prepared to undertake, because they had not sufficiently studied the matter. It would be necessary to proceed cautiously. There might be some difference of opinion on many of the points urged by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James); but they were well worthy of consideration. For instance, with regard to Unlawful Assembly, he did not find under the old precedents any such punishable offence, unless there were riotous proceedings, and then punishment might follow. Under this Bill, however, a harmless gathering—he might say, a cricket match—might, under certain circumstances, be turned into an unlawful assembly, and the persons attending it be punished. There must be much debate on that and many other points—such, for instance, as their old friend flogging, to which a considerable increase was given, the Law of Libel, and insanity, in murder cases. These would require the very closest attention from the Select Committee, the law being in some instances formulated for the first time. In his opinion, the suggestion of the hon. and learned Mem- ber for Taunton, that the Bill should be taken in compartments or sections, was a wise one. The Judges who were engaged on the work had arrived at a conclusion which would be a substantial stepping-stone for the House; but, nevertheless, the revision of such a work would occupy a considerable time. He hoped ample time would be afforded for the discussion of this very great and valuable measure.

thought the subject should be discussed in a practical spirit, and not from the point of view taken by those who desired Utopian perfection. If all the questions of principle involved in the re-enactment of the law relating to high treason, unlawful assemblies, the composition of juries, libel, insanity, and other matters which had been mentioned were to be debated in the Committee and again when the Bill came before the House, they might discard as impracticable the project of passing a Criminal Code. A great point would be gained if the Code did nothing more than declare the law as it stood. He appealed to hon. and learned Gentlemen to put aside their individual bias in this matter, and by that means they would do a service to their country, though it might be at the cost of some violence to their own feelings. He ventured to think that no Bill which had been brought before the House in recent years was of so much importance as this one. He did not, however, see how it was possible to deal satisfactorily in one measure with so many different subjects, if the views of the hon. and learned Members who had addressed the House were accepted, and the whole of the Criminal Law were to be passed in review and made the subject of amendment. He advised the Government to be content for the present with a declaratory scheme, including only such Amendments as would be likely to meet with general acceptance.

said, that, having had a good deal to do with Criminal Codes in another part of the world, he wished to say a few words with respect to one view of the subject. He was not very clear as to the nature of the Bill. They all knew that consolidating the law was a very different thing from framing a Code. A Code was not a mere consolidation; but the formation of a body of law drawing its materials, not solely from the existing law in this country, but from the law of other parts of the world, so as to form as far as they could a perfect Code of Law. He differed very much from the observations of the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Paget). He held that it should be something more than a consolidation—that it should be a real Code. It was to be regretted that it was only to be a Code for one part of the Kingdom only, and not for the whole of the United Kingdom. There would be a great advantage in having the new Code extending to the whole Kingdom. He need not remind the House that there was a part of the United Kingdom called Scotland, whose Criminal Law was of great merit, and possessed some considerable advantages over the law of England. He held that there would be great advantage to England if in this codification of its law several principles of Scotch law were introduced. He felt much regret, when a great work of this kind was undertaken, that we were not going to have what the great countries of Europe, France and Germany had—a Code of Law which should be a general Code for the whole of the United Kingdom. He ventured to think there were one or two subjects in respect of which great advantage might be derived from the law of Scotland. The hon. and learned Attorney General had alluded to the Amendment proposed in regard to juries; but he did not know that the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed any radical change. He did not understand that it was intended to get rid of the necessity for unanimity on the part of juries which the English law required. The Scotch law did not require unanimity, and in that respect the Scotch law had worked exceedingly well. The hon. and learned Gentleman had not alluded either to the examination of the accused, in respect to which Scotland had also an advantage over England. When originally brought in, the Bill proposed examination of the accused. If the hon. and learned Gentleman compared the law of Scotland with that of England in this respect, he would find that the former country had a great advantage over the latter. He was afraid it could hardly be accomplished that Session; but ho could not help expressing, as a Scotch Member, regret that they were not to have a Code which should be a Code for the whole of the United Kingdom.

did not think it possible for greater pains to be taken to pass a Code than were taken in this matter. One of the most accomplished lawyers had prepared it, and it had afterwards been referred to three most learned and experienced Judges, assisted by its author. The speech of the hon. Member for East Somerset (Mr. Paget) was, however, very discouraging, because the hon. Gentleman said that if presented as a whole it would be quite impossible it should be passed by the House of Commons. But a mere consolidation would be a convenience only for practitioners, and they did not require it much, for they had got the law at their fingers' ends, or knew where to find it. A mere consolidation, therefore, was not of much moment. But if new provisions and alterations in the Criminal Law were introduced that House would fail in its duty if it allowed such changes to passsub silentio.Any measure, therefore, going beyond that, to deal with such momentous matters as were involved in the present Bill, ought to be put forward only under circumstances which would admit of if being thoroughly discussed. He never could bring himself to believe that a Criminal Code could be of much use. It was a great mistake to suppose that, as soon as you had the Code, you could open the book and ascertain the law with certainty. The instant it was passed a series of points would be remitted to the Court for Crown Cases Reserved, and for 25 years we should have as many volumes of decisions. At least, if we had not, our experience would be contrary to our own experience and to that of the whole world. Speaking broadly, our condition as to crime was not unsatisfactory, considering the increase of the population. Crimes against which the efficiency of the police afforded protection were diminishing; and the increase was in frauds, embezzlements, and libels, against which the efficiency of the police did not afford protection. If it was desirable to introduce better definitions of murder, or to abolish the distinction between felonies and misdemeanours, these things could be done by single clauses; but he was very doubtful whether, in passing a larger measure, they would turn out a very satisfactory piece of work. He thought the Code might be divided into sections, and considered and discussed in that way. He would assist in perfecting the Bill as far as possible; but he was not sanguine as to any very great results being obtained.

said, that throughout the country there was a general feeling that a Criminal Code was urgently required, and that the passing of such a Bill would confer a great boon upon the whole of the community. He hoped that there would be a good representation of laymen on the Committee. Whatever was done, he feared it would be impossible to pass a complete measure in any one Session, even if the Committee satdie in diem.He hoped, at any rate, that this would not be taken up as a Party question.

asked whether it was to be a large or a small Committee?

said, it must necessarily be a large one, including many of the most eminent lawyers of the House. He should be quite prepared to furnish the Members of the Committee—or even of the House—with a statement of that which was new in the Bill.

said, that he did not propose to take any exception to that particular Vote, or, indeed, to criticize the items at that period of the Committee; but he thought there was a question which it had been customary to put, either to the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury or to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in connection with the Committee, and which had, indeed, sometimes been answered before they had been published. The matter did not appear in any part of the Estimates, nor had any information been given on the subject. Last year a certain amount of additional Estimates was voted; and the addition proposed this year amounted to a considerable sum—namely, £500,000. Now, the question which it would be interesting to the House to have some information upon and which he could not help thinking the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury ought to explain was this—what was the estimated saving in the Civil Service expenditure to be set off against this large Vote? He remembered last year that the amount was stated distinctly; and it was a matter of considerable importance to know, as the right hon. Gentleman had already admitted that there would be a heavy deficit, how much would be added to the expenditure estimated for in the Budget of last year. That information was necessary, in order that they might know what the general effect of these particular Votes would be on the deficit.

said, that he was unable to give the exact figures that the right hon. Gentleman required; but he could state that the saving would amount to a very considerable sum, and would affect materially the ordinary Supplementary Estimates of the year. He would point out to the Committee that the Supplementary Estimates of this year were excessive in one or two items. Amongst others, there was an item for relief works amounting to about £5,000. Those amounts had raised the Supplementary Estimates this year, but about £209,000 had been, or was expected to be, received on the other side of the account; and thus, although many of the items were excessive, the total amount, as compared with the amount of extra receipts, was reduced below that of last year.

said, that the objection he entertained to the Supplementary Estimates was that they destroyed all comparison between the Estimate of the current year 1879–80 and the sum expended in the past year 1878–9, for which accounts had been rendered. He had gone very carefully over the proposed Supplementary Estimates, and he must say that a very large portion of the money now required was for expenditure which could have been foreseen, and ought to have been estimated for in the original Estimates. He would put it to the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, whether it was right to bring forward these new items at the end of the year? He thought the House had great reason to complain of the heads of Departments for the miscalculations they made, and the House ought to refuse to give them any additional sums beyond those estimated for at the beginning of last year. Until such time as the new Estimates for 1880–1 were brought in, very little inconvenience would result from refusing these supplemental demands. He had occasion to complain of the same matter last year—in fact, he had complained ever since he had been in the House; and he had opposed, not only the Supplementary Estimates, but the excessive Estimates brought forward at the end of the year long after the year had closed. In his opinion, the hon. Baronet ought to control Departments, and prevent them making new demands arising from defective calculations.

remarked, that the truth of what he had previously said was more especially illustrated by this Vote. No doubt, it was a small sum, and he, for one, was anxious to do everything for the convenience of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales; but surely this amount might have been included in the original Estimates, as it was a sum which was obviously necessary for the convenience of the Prince.

said, that it was impossible to foresee this expenditure.

said, that under the letter "D" they found it stated that the additional sum of £20,000 was required for furniture of the New Courts of Justice. He should like to know whether the Committee was to understand that the whole expense of the furniture and fittings for the New Courts of Justice was still to be estimated for—by how much it had exceeded the cost originally provided for?

said, that the old furniture had been used to as large an extent as was possible; but it had been found necessary to incur a large amount of additional expense for new furniture.

thought it would be satisfactory to the Committee if the hon. Gentleman would give some information as to the present state of completion of the new buildings. A considerable portion was fitted up and inhabited, and, in his opinion, the buildings, so far as they went, were well adapted to the purposes for which they were intended, and afforded great facilities for the transaction of business; but he should like to see them made of still greater use than they were. A separation had taken place, for instance, between the offices of the two Departments of the Paymaster General and the Registrar of the Court of Chancery. At present, a suitor was obliged to run from one office to another; when he had a cheque paid to him in Chancery Lane he probably had to go down to Carey Street or Lincoln's Inn Fields to obtain payment for it, or in case any alteration was required of the order under which he received it. It would be desirable for the convenience of the public that those offices should be immediately brought together. The Paymaster General at present occupied premises in Stone Buildings; so soon as those offices could be brought together the purchase money would be recouped the country from Lincoln's Inn. It was very desirable that that event should take place as soon as soon as possible. He believed that the offices for the Paymaster General were now ready for occupation. He thought it would be very desirable if the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee some information as to when the Courts would be completed and could be occupied. At present, a great inconvenience was sustained, and solicitors were at a loss to know where to find the various offices. When the whole of the Courts and offices could be brought together it would be a great convenience to the public.

said, that the eastern portion of the building was already in the possession of various Departments. Rapid progress was being made with the remainder of the works, and at the end of 1881 he trusted the whole building would be ready for the occupation of the different Courts. With regard to the separation of the different Departments, he might inform the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) that the question of bringing the offices together was under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor.

observed, that the question raised by the hon. Member for East Sussex was a very important one. It was very essential that the buildings should be made ready for occupation as soon as possible. He rose for the purpose of asking a question with regard to the cost of the buildings. In 1865–6 a very careful Estimate was made for the building of the New Courts of Justice, and it was arranged that they should be erected partly from money derived from the capitalized value of certain funds applicable for the purpose, and partly from other sources. He did not think that from 1865–80 anyone had asked how far that Estimate would be verified, or whether the very large sum which had to be expended in concentrating the Courts of Justice had been recouped out of the sum mentioned in the Estimate of 1866? The question was really very important, for it involved millions; and he thought it would be more satisfactory if the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury would look into the matter, and would lay a Paper on the subject before the House.

agreed with the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) that the information to which he had referred would be of great interest to the Committee, and that he would endeavour to supply it on Report, or at some subsequent stage of the Estimates. He did not like to pledge himself upon the point raised, and would rather reserve his reply until it could be given more correctly. The subject had been brought before the House of Commons for the first time during the last Session, when he remembered that the Supplementary Estimates were not sufficiently accurate to afford the required information.

said, that the original Estimate under this Vote amounted to £120,000. And now an additional sum was required amounting to £36,404, an increase of considerably more than 25 per cent upon the amount originally estimated for. He wished to call the attention of the Government to the fact that hon. Members expected that, when the Civil Service Estimates were taken, due care should be exercised that the items were of such a character as might be relied upon, and that whenever there was a large increase hon. Members were entitled to be satisfied that such increase in the expenditure had been of such an unexpected character as to justify the Department in not including them in the original Estimates. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gerard Noel) would say whether the progress of the work under sub-head B had been considerably in excess of the reasonable expectations of the Department, and how it was that when the original Estimate was made no amount was put down for fittings or furniture? Was it a fact that a part of the building had been completed earlier than had been expected, and that furniture had been required in consequence which was not originally estimated for?

said, that there had been a long frost, accompanied by strikes, in the year 1878, which latter, he was happy to say, were concluded; and the works had, therefore, proceeded much more rapidly during the present year than they had during the last. They had used all the old furniture which they possibly could; but it was found that some fresh furniture should be supplied.

with regard to the item of £12,000 for new furniture, pointed out that it was entirely a new one, and had made its appearance for the first time in the Estimates for this building; but, as it had never existed before, the Committee would perceive that it could not be in the nature of a Supplementary Estimate. Supplementary Estimates of this nature applied rather to money demanded for the purpose of extending or continuing works originally estimated for. How- ever, considering that sub-head B in the present Estimates did include this charge for new furniture, he regretted that more foresight had not been exercised by including the item in the original Estimates. He begged to ask the hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works at what date he discovered that the building would be occupied in the course of the year, and when it was that the present Estimate was admitted for the purpose of supplying additional furniture? The point which was raised by the appearance for the first time of this item in the Supplementary Estimates was one that he had repeatedly complained of, and it was a fact that the Public Accounts Committee passed these Supplementary Estimates from year to year, and never brought to the notice of the House the objectionable practice of including items in additional Estimates after the House had long passed the original Estimates. Objection was made last year by several hon. Members to the practice of the Government of coming down to the House with two or three Supplementary Estimates. This practice was always objectionable, and for several years he had pointed out the necessity of controlling Departments, and that no Department should get one farthing more than was absolutely required. He knew by his own experience that if a controlling power were exercised over Departments, they could easily regulate the amounts of money demanded in the original Estimates. He, therefore, repeated his question to the right hon. Gentleman, as to when he discovered it was necessary to supply the additional furniture?

said, that the Estimates were prepared in January last year; but it was not until June that the Department became aware that the furniture would be required.

pointed out that they had received no sufficient Estimate of the cost of the new furniture; he thought they had a right to complain of this omission, and to insist that the Committee should always receive a full statement of expenditure. Hon. Members found themselves, under the present system, committed to an expenditure by small Votes being taken, and they afterwards learned that these formed only a portion of the whole Expenditure. The Committee ought, in his opinion, to con- sider this subject well, and to ascertain whether Votes taken were for a part or the whole of any particular scheme. To him it appeared very like part of a system; and, with, regard to this particular item, the House would hereafter be called upon to pay a very large sum for extra furniture. At that time, if any hon. Member asked what it was for, he would probably receive as a reply—"Oh, you voted that in the Supplementary Estimates of last year." He considered that no new expense should be allowed to be included in the Supplementary Estimates. The case before the Committee was a very strong one as bearing upon this point, and the amount asked for appeared to him to be but the first item of a very large expenditure.

replied to the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) that it was believed the building would not have been finished until several months after it was completed; there was, therefore, no reason at the time of preparing the last Estimates to suppose that the furniture would be required. He reminded the Committee that the building was of an enormous size, containing as it did 250 rooms, besides galleries and corridors. It was, therefore, impossible to estimate what would be required until the building was completed. He had not the least idea at that moment what would be the total expense in respect of furniture.

said, that all the old furniture available had been made use of. The building was, no doubt, a very large one, and contained a great number of offices, as well as rooms, very well adapted to their respective purposes. The offices had been occupied as rapidly as they could be, and, no doubt, the Government had found in the case of a building taken possession of in that way, it was extremely difficult to ascertain what would be required in the various offices. No doubt there would be a further outlay in respect of the furniture which it would be found necessary to supply. A great number of offices had already been occupied.

did not for one moment complain of the expense, being, of course, agreed that the furniture ought to be supplied, and in a proper manner; all he complained of was that the Papers relating to the expenditure which was being incurred had not been laid upon the Table of the House, for he thought that the Committee ought to have some idea of the amount that would be required before they were called upon to vote.

could not see the impossibility which the hon. Gentleman the head of the Department had said existed, of forming an idea of the total expenditure under this head. He thought that when the Estimates were reached they should have a statement of the expenditure already incurred, and that which was about to be incurred.

asked for an explanation of the item of £1,500 under letter B?

said, that the amount represented the excess which had been carried out in connection with the National Education Question for school purposes.

said, he would have to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £2,040, said to have been incurred in providing temporary barracks in certain parts of Ireland for the Constabulary during the late operations in the North of Ireland. The duty of the Constabulary, it appeared, had consisted, for the most part, in assisting the bailiffs in the service of ejectments and various processes of law. These duties had certainly never been contemplated at the first formation of this force, and he thought Irish Members had a right to object to their employment in these capacities. It would be useless for him, and he did not intend to go into the question as to whether the amount was correct; but he pointed Out to the Committee that the necessity for the employment of the Constabulary in those districts of Ireland where the temporary barracks had been provided had arisen from want of attention on the part of the Government, and from the unsatisfactory state of the law. He, therefore, begged leave to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £2,040.

could not consent to the striking out of the amount proposed by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. O'Shaughnessy). It had been found absolutely necessary to supplement the original Estimate for police in Ireland by this amount, for providing barracks in places where no accommodation existed. He would not go into the large question raised by the hon. Member as to the original cause of this necessity; but that necessity had arisen, and the barracks had been provided in the districts to which it had been found necessary to move the force. The Government, in consequence, were obliged to come to the House to sanction an amount for the cost of these barracks.

said, the explanation of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury was not satisfactory. It had not been sufficiently understood or explained that a portion of the Constabulary had been employed for the protection of private parties in some parts of the country, whose owners imagined themselves not to be free from danger, and, in consequence, applied for the police. Under these circumstances, he thought it would be well to make the gentlemen who had applied for the assistance of the police pay for the police accommodation which had in consequence to be provided. It was doubtful, in his opinion, whether it was wise to move the Constabulary about from one part of the country to another for the purposes of serving ejectments and notices to quit; at all events, the landlords who required their services ought to pay for them. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) was quite right in calling the attention of the House to this subject; but he hoped that the Motion would not be pressed to a division.

was perfectly willing to accept the advice of his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw), not to press his Amendment.

referred to the item of £870 for poplin on account of the State apartments. On looking at the previous Estimate, he could not find that any such item had appeared before. This was another instance where a new demand had arisen, and had been put into the Supplementary Estimates. The course pursued with respect to the two items which had been treated in this manner was one which, in his opinion, ought never to be resorted to so far as the Supplementary Estimates were concerned, and the amount ought to have been kept back until the next Estimates were prepared. He desired to know from the Secretary to the Treasury how it was that this new demand had been made?

regretted that he had been mainly responsible for the introduction of this charge. On more than one occasion, the absolute necessity of re-furnishing the particular State apartments referred to had presented itself; and it had been suggested that, in order to give employment to a certain class of workmen, they might avail themselves of the necessity which had really arisen in order to afford some assistance to a particular trade which had been in a state of considerable depression and distress. He had therefore sanctioned, after the Estimates of last year had been passed, an amount to be included in the present Supplementary Estimates for the purpose of furnishing the apartments with a particular material, which it was said would give a stimulus to the trade. The Estimates for this particular work had always been very much in excess of the amount which the Government had sanctioned in the present instance, and he was happy to say that the result of the expenditure had been considered in Ireland to be quite satisfactory.

inquired what it was that the Government had purchased under letter A? As far as he could make out, it seemed that they had purchased an interest in a house. That, again, was not a supplementary item; it was a new demand altogether. He thought it would be important to the Committee to know, with regard to this, whether it was but the commencement of a series of further expenditure? They had, it appeared, only bought an interest in the house, and were only part-owners, for the Estimate did not say that the purchase had been made. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would inform the Committee as to what had been actually purchased. There was another question—namely, the charge for keeping up and maintaining buildings, under which head there appeared to be a deficiency of £2,000. His hon. Friends near him were quite ignorant of the nature of the demand for inspection officers, and perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury would inform the Committee upon this point.

said, the interest in the house alluded to had been bought with a view to its being used in connection with the Science and Art Collection. There were certain buildings which it would be necessary to acquire, as the leases fell in, for the purpose of improving the Science and Art Museum. With regard to the estimated deficiency to which the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell) had called his attention, the charge was entirely distinct from the special services which had appeared in former Estimates, and was distinctly for general services rendered.

pointed out the original Estimate was for the sum of £32.

said, that owing to the increase in the Expenditure over the sum in the original Estimates they had a new charge of £1,400 for this one building. He quite admitted all the Secretary to the Treasury had said with regard, to the necessity of buying in buildings which might become available: but this system of making up the Civil Service Estimates with Supplemental Charges was one which the Committee of Public Accounts had always neglected to inquire into, and they never reported the defective manner in which those Estimates were prepared. He thought there would be an advantage in placing some military men at the Treasury to check the Civil charges in the manner followed of checking the military charges at the Treasury by means of civilians. Another reform was that of putting new blood upon the Committee of Public Accounts, who would, no doubt, point out some system which would be better than that at present existing for controlling expenditure. When hon. Members came to compare the Estimates of 1880–1 with those of 1879–80 they found the figures to be entirely different; and, as a matter of course, the comparison which ought easily to be made between one Estimate and another was rendered impossible.

remarked, that under sub-head C was an altogether unprecedented item. It seemed clear to him, from the particulars given, that the estimated deficiency was for purposes not stated in the sub-head. He thought it was a very rough-and-ready kind of way to put down a few hundreds or thousands for general deficiency. He should be glad if the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury would inform the Committee of what the deficiency consisted, and what the amount put down "portal inspection" was for.

said, that the portal inspection offices were those created under the Sanitary Act for the purpose of examining the cattle in Ireland. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the sum required for the purpose of the house at 3, Shelburne Place, he might observe that the Government had purchased merely an interest in that particular property, and that it could not justly be put down as a purchase of the property altogether. There were, he imagined, divers interests in that particular house, and it had become necessary to purchase a particular interest for the benefit of the country. Moreover, the smallness of the sum paid would indicate that it clearly did not represent the purchase of the house itself. If the hon. Member for Swansea was anxious to have further information on the subject he would promise to give it him upon Report.

remarked, that no doubt it was quite right to purchase an interest in the house at Shelburne Place; but they were asked to grant a Vote on account of it without knowing anything of the particulars. They did not know the duration of the interest, or whether it would involve an expenditure of several more thousands.

thought that the most satisfactory way would be that he should add to the Estimates of the present year a full statement of the facts with regard to that particular house. He was unable to state more than he had done at the present time; but full information should be given.

said, that he would like some further information as to the way in which a deficiency had arisen, and how much had been spent on the portal inspection offices?

observed, that the deficiency was due to a larger amount having been spent on general service and maintenance than was expected. The deficit was not owing to anything having been expended in new works.

remarked, that the sum of £8,000 was taken for these works in the Civil Service Estimates for 1880 and 1881, and the sum of £5,000 was now asked for to supplement the demands in the original Estimates of 1879–80. He believed that this was the third occasion on which the House had been asked to Vote additional sums for these works. During the last 40 years £200,000 had probably been spent on the Shannon Navigation, and to no purpose, for, so far from doing good, positive harm had resulted. Last year an hon. Member mentioned, as a result of the Expenditure on these works, that the grass land in the neighbourhood of the river had become dried up, owing to the water having been drawn off. He wished to ask the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury what actual good had been done, and how much further expenditure would be required for this costly river? It was very difficult to compare one year's expenditure with another, when sums were asked for by Supplementary Estimates.

said, that the reason why sums were asked for by Supplementary Estimates was in one respect due to the fact that the Secretary to the Treasury was required to produce the Estimates at an early day in the Session. The hon. and gallant Gentleman himself was particularly anxious that the Estimates should be laid before the House at the earliest possible period of the Session, and if that were done it would always be necessary to prepare Supplementary Estimates. He might state, with regard to this particular Vote, that the sum of £5,000 had been authorized to be expended on this navigation, because it would form one of the relief works in Ireland, and would afford employment to people in a part of the country where great distress existed.

remarked, that he could bear testimony to the fact that the hon. Baronet had brought forward the Estimates at an early day, and he did not think there was any difference of opinion on that point.

asked whether the Embassy House at St. Petersburgh belonged to the British Government or was held on a lease for years? Last year the right hon. Gentleman had stated that it had become necessary to renew the lease. It seemed to him that the present was a very large sum to ask in addition to the £14,000 taken last year.

said, that the hon. Member might recollect that when Lord Augustus Loftus took possession of the Embassy House at St. Petersburgh considerable changes were necessary. A part of the present sum was for furniture, and the remainder for other matters.

said, that on several occasions he had drawn attention to the fact that the Treasury had always required an additional Estimate on account of extra legal assistance. It would be found, on reference to the original Estimates, that £1,700 was voted for extra counsel to the Treasury. It did appear that a considerable amount of money was spent by the Treasury in giving employment to legal gentlemen beyond the amount authorized by Parliament. He thought that they had a reason to complain that the hon. Baronet invariably under-estimated this particular Department. Knowing the great anxiety of the hon. Baronet to keep down this particular expenditure when he made up his Estimates, still he thought that the amount of professional assistance which would be required should be originally estimated for.

said, that the hon. Member for Burnley was perfectly right in objecting to this Vote. He had complained, year after year, that the Treasury had come for additional Votes for extra legal assistance. He believed that the fees paid by the Treasury for preparing Bills were extravagant. A large salary was paid to an hon. and learned Gentleman whose duty it was to prepare these Bills. No doubt, at times there was an extreme pressure on the Parliamentary counsel, and some extra assistance might be required. But it must be known to Her Majesty's Government, when preparing the Bills they proposed to bring forward, what amount of assistance would be required by the Parliamentary counsel. He thought that £1,700 voted last year, in addition to the salary paid, was a very large sum for preparing the Bills brought in by Her Majesty's Government. But now they were asked for an additional sum, and he felt inclined to move for a Return of the sums granted in respect of particular Bills prepared by counsel, the total amount of which was put down at £900. He thought it would be satisfactory to the Committee that they should know the reasons—which were, no doubt, good ones—why the hon. Baronet did not ask for this particular Vote in the Estimates last year.

said, that he was quite aware that the Secretary to the Treasury was very naturally blamed for under-estimating this particular Vote year after year. The reason that influenced the Treasury in so doing was a wish to keep down as far as possible the expenses. But when an Office brought in a particular measure it found it necessary to employ some draftsman possessing a special knowledge of the matter in question. That occurred more particularly with respect to legal measures; and he would draw the attention of the Committee to the Criminal Code Bill, which required very special preparation at the hands of the learned counsel since elevated to the Bench. The Bankruptcy Law Amendment Bill was also intrusted to persons skilled in that particular Department. There were other subjects on which they had also required special assistance—namely, Municipal Corporations and Rivera and the Railway Commission Bills. Those and other measures had rendered it necessary to pay in fees to counsel £900 in addition to the £1,700 estimated for last year. Moreover, at a certain period of the year, the Parliamentary counsel was very much overworked, and it was absolutely necessary to obtain outside assistance.

thought the explanation of the hon. Baronet was extremely unsatisfactory. The Criminal Code Bill, to which the hon. Baronet had referred, was a measure which had been before them in the previous year, and certainly did not cause this expenditure.

was aware that the Criminal Code Bill had now been prepared for some time; but he only alluded to it as an instance of a measure necessarily taken out of the Department.

remembered that the statements made last year represented that an enormous amount of professional labour had been expended on the Criminal Code Bill. Hon. Members admitted this; but they knew perfectly well that the labour having been completed and paid for, so far from justifying the present expenditure, justified him in asking the Secretary to the Treasury whether there were any other Bills in the hands of the Government which had not been laid on the Table of the House, and which required so large an amount of professional labour. The country paid for a staff of learned gentlemen to prepare Bills; but he was quite at a loss to see in the Bills which had been laid on the Table of the House any reason for the additional professional labour which seemed to have been employed by the Treasury. Reference had been made to the Municipal Corporations Bill and to the Railway Commission Bill which had been laid on the Table of the House; but those Bills were not of any magnitude, and in regard to the latter there was nothing in it that might not have been written in a few hours. The point he wished to impress upon the Treasury-was that the Committee had a right to say that, having a permanent staff of highly-paid legal officials connected with the Treasury for the purpose of preparing Bills, the Committee had received no sound reason which would justify them in voting so large a sum for the work which ought to have been done in the Department.

thought that, with regard to the Municipal Corporations Bill, the Secretary to the Treasury had been a little chary in the information which he had given, and most wisely so, in regard to the evidence which had been taken before the Royal Commission, and which had not, up to that time, been presented to the House. But he (Mr. Monk) supposed that the truth of the matter was that the fees for legal services in question were in respect of certain Bills which, at the present moment, were reposing in the pigeon-holes of the Treasury. With regard to one of the Bills—the Railway Commission Bill—it had never been laid upon the Table of the House; indeed, it had never been introduced by the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade. The noble Lord had informed the House on several occasions that he had the Bill ready to be brought in; but the Bill introduced last year, however, was only a continuance Bill. He maintained that if this £600, for which they were asked in the Supplementary Estimates, and the large sum for the Railway Commission Bill, were on account of Bills which had not been laid upon the Table of the House, they should have been brought before hon. Members in the Estimates for the present year, and not in the Supplementary Estimates.

desired to bear his testimony to the fact that a very great amount of time and labour had been spent, and enormous difficulties undergone, with regard to the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill. Neither the hon. Member who had just sat down, nor anyone who had seen the labour and time expended, could wonder at the necessity for the employment of extra assistance.

desired also to give his testimony with regard to the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill, which was, in his opinion, the worst that had ever been drafted. He asked the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) whether he would supplement the statement that he had made, and let the Committee know what had been the cost of the several Bills, on account of which money for extra legal assistance had been paid, and whether he would also tell them what Bills had been prepared by the establishment of the Office, and for which no expense had accrued. Hon. Members would then see clearly the amount of work that had been performed by the costly staff kept up permanently. In many cases the Bills presented to the House of Commons were nothing better than waste paper, and were not satisfactory until they had been amended and passed by Members.

thought he should be more imprudent than he had already been, were he to promise the hon. Member any such Return as he proposed to move for. Of course, he could make at that moment no such statement to the House. There must be a certain amount of work done, and it had been found in some cases that the officers especially adapted to it had been overworked—so much so as to render it necessary to obtain outside assistance in the preparation of Bills.

was unable to consider that the explanation given by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury was satisfactory.

drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that in Class 2, Vote 5, there was an additional sum charged for telegrams, and that in the last line there was another additional sum which, with the amount he had already referred to, made an increase of £4,500 upon the amount of last year. There would have been, when they had voted this money, £17,200 upon telegrams alone. These two sums being of the same character, he would like to know why a sum for Foreign Office telegrams was charged in two different Votes?

said, that the reason for this distinction was that one of the items of expenditure was incurred in respect of telegrams sent by the Foreign Office, and that the next item under Clause 5 was for telegrams in connection with the different Commissions abroad. The latter charge was, therefore, accounted for under the Diplomatic Vote.

desired to point out why, in his opinion, this Vote should not appear on the Estimates. He thought that the whole of the Charities of the country were subject to a considerable amount of unnecessary management, and that while, perhaps, they had done a certain amount of good, they had also been the cause of a certain amount of mischief. There was a strong opinion that the expenses of the Commission should not be borne by the Consolidated Fund, but by the Charities themselves. The House had on two occasions passed a Resolution last year on the subject. With regard to the Resolution introduced by himself, he had accepted an Amendment to refer the matter to a Select Committee, to which, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer objected, on the ground that the Government were determined to do something before another year elapsed. Upon that, the Charities' Accounts and Expenses Bill was introduced and passed a Second Reading. When the Bill went into Committee, however, it was opposed by the hon. Member for Worcester, who had given Notice of opposition; after that a powerful deputation had attended upon the right hon. Gentleman, composed of deans, archdeacons, and mayors, who represented that disastrous results would ensue if the Bill were passed. Up to that time no opposition had appeared on the Notice Paper, with the exception of that of the hon. Member for Worcester; but afterwards, Notice of opposition was given by a number of Gentlemen more or less connected with the City of London—that was to say, by the hon. Member for the City, the hon. Member for Lambeth, the learned Recorder, and by the hon. Members for Essex, the Tower Hamlets, and Leeds. The Government, in consequence, withdrew the measure; but he (Mr. W. H. James) understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time to say that the question would be re-introduced early at the commencement of the present Session. He had asked a Question upon this subject a few days previously, and received a reply to the effect that the Government intended to do nothing in the matter. Thus the Government were placing the House in an anomalous position by ignoring the Resolution passed by the House on the understanding that the Government should re-introduce the Bill, and by yielding to the pressure brought to bear upon them by a body of, no doubt, influential and powerful individuals in opposition both to the expressed opinions of the House of Commons and to the general merits of the question. It would not at that moment be desirable to enter again into these merits. He had given Notice of his intention to move a general reduction of the Votes; and unless the Secretary to the Treasury, or some other Gentleman on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, could give a clear explanation of what had taken place, he would consider it his duty to vote against this charge. He begged to move the rejection of this Vote.

hoped that the Committee would be furnished with some explanation of this Vote. He did not see that any reason had been shown for the increase of this charge, nor for the increase which appeared upon almost every item in the Estimate. The original Estimate for two Commissions was £1,800, and now an additional sum of £600 was required.

said, that the explanation was as easy as he hoped it would be satisfactory to the Committee. Only three-fourths of the amount on account of the Endowed Schools had been taken in last year's Estimates. Early in last Session a Bill was passed to provide for the Endowed Schools—the Act relating to which had expired in the middle of last year—continuing for three years longer, and it then became necessary to take an additional quarter's expenses which had been left out of the former Estimate. If his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) would look into the matter, he would see that this was the proportion which had been taken for the various salaries, and entirely accounted for the amount now asked for, which represented one-fourth of the expense of the Commission for the whole year. That was the reason for the apparent increase, and he ventured to think his hon. Friend would see that the reduction which it was proposed to move would apply to this particular branch, and not to the general Commission. He trusted that his hon. Friend would not press the matter to a division. At the same time, he could not but say that no one regretted more than he that another Secretary to the Treasury should have made an endeavour, and again have failed to carry out what he individually believed ought to be done. He had on more than one occasion expressed his opinion that this Commission should be self-supporting, and he had last year stated that he would endeavour to propose something as a solution of the question. The Bill introduced, however, had passed through only a certain portion of its career in that House, when it was met by an opposition which made it impossible to proceed, and the measure was in consequence withdrawn. This was a question which he begged to assure the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James) he had very much at heart; but he feared it was most unlikely that any effort on the part of the Government would be sufficient to overcome the opposition which had been brought to bear on the measure last year. The object of the Bill, however, was one which he would have liked to see carried out quite as much as his hon. Friend opposite.

hoped that after the explanation of the Secretary to the Treasury the Motion would not be pressed. He felt he could not vote with the hon. Member under the present circumstances of the case, however much he and his hon. Friends might be desirous of supporting the general view which had been expressed. It would be desirable, therefore, in his opinion, that the Vote should be passed. At the same time, while giving his assistance to the Government in passing this Vote, he desired to ask how far the Treasury intended to proceed with the Estimates then before the Committee. It was then 20 minutes past 1 o'clock; and although he had no desire that Progress should be reported too soon, they had arrived at a time when it was proper that the point should be considered. If his hon. Friend would allow the Vote then under consideration to pass, perhaps the Government would state what was their intention in that respect.

desired to point out that the Secretary to the Treasury had not answered his question. The Government had last year refused a Committee of Inquiry because they intended to deal with the subject themselves; but his own idea was that one reason why they were not anxious to proceed in this matter was that the funds of these Charities were often found to be of use on the eve of a General Election.

hoped that the Committee would proceed. He would like to get through those Votes which did not contain any contentious matter. There were a great many Votes in the Supplementary Estimates to be got through; and although a certain amount of progress had been made a few Votes only had been passed. He hoped the Committee would proceed until they came to a Vote that would raise discussion, when he would at once consent to report Progress.

thought that if the Government insisted upon proceeding any further they would spoil the admirable temper which had been shown by the Committee up to that time. So far as discussion was concerned, a very interesting discussion could and ought to be raised upon the Vote for Stationery and Printing. It was certainly time to report Progress, and he trusted the Government would agree to the Motion out of regard to the good disposition which had been shown by the Committee during the evening.

said, that after what had fallen from the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) with respect to the Stationery and Printing Vote, he would agree that Progress should be reported as soon as that Vote was reached.

desired to know what had been the increase of business which had raised the charge under this head? He would have supposed it was very well known what the amount of business was likely to be when the original Estimate was framed.

said, that the increase under this head had been caused by the examination of Military and Civil Service candidates whose numbers had increased; and he pointed out to the Committee that whereas the fees for the year had been estimated at £7,480 the actual payments had amounted to £12,500. The Committee would see from these figures what an increased amount of work had fallen upon the Examiners, and necessitated the increase of the charge under consideration.

thought the Committee should be informed as to whether there was any intention to augment the grant for medical officers in the Northern part of the Kingdom. This subject had been discussed last year, and there was an indication given then that something might be done for increasing the allowance in respect of medical officers in Scotland. Up to that time, however, nothing had been done. He would like, before they came to discuss the question in the Estimates for the coming year, to have some information as to this sum. In Scotland they had nothing corresponding to it, and he would like to know if anything was to be granted to Scotland before the Poor Law Act was passed? If the Poor Law Act was not required, and if the people of Scotland were to get any grant at all, they ought, in his opinion, to get it soon. It had also been suggested that there should be an allowance made for the education of pauper children, and they had a large sum voted annually for providing teachers in the Poor Law schools. He did not approve of these schools at all; but he would not then enter into that question. He thought, however, that when such large sums as that now asked for were voted for schools in England no reason existed why Her Majesty's Government should not give the two countries, England and Scotland, an amount corresponding to their respective populations, because they could secure an equitable distribution of the grant in Scotland and carry out any rules the Treasury might lay down. He suggested that no legislation with regard to the Poor Law should be proceeded with during the present Session.

observed, that all the efforts of the Scotch Members to induce the Government to make this grant for medical officers had hitherto been unsuccessful, for they did not band themselves together as the Irish Members did. He hoped that either the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary or the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury would give the Committee some information as to the intentions of the Government. A bad Poor Law was proposed to be introduced into Scotland, and then the Scotch Members were told that they could not have the money they required for medical officers unless they had legislation which they did not want.

could quite understand that many people preferred to have money from the Treasury without any conditions. It was stated last year, on behalf of the Government, that unless the Bill proposed by the Government was passed the money would not be granted. The measure introduced did not meet with the favourable consideration of Scotch Members, and in the result it was withdrawn. When the Bill was passed the Treasury would be prepared to place Scotland financially in the same position as regarded the grant as the Sister Country.

said, that they had no desire to avoid the conditions with regard to the grant which were required. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had explained to them that if they desired the grant they must conform to the conditions under which the money was paid in England. But they did conform to those conditions already. Would the right hon. Gentleman explain what the conditions were to which they had not conformed? It was true they did not conform to the conditions affecting other matters. He thought they were quite right in asking for the additional grant for Scotland without being compelled to accept the Bill. The Bill was not required for the purpose of giving them the grant. There was no article upon the Statute Book which authorized this particular grant as regarded medical officers in England. The Government refused to give them the grant unless they accepted conditions affecting the administration of the Poor Law in Scotland which they objected to. He was afraid his hon. and gallant Friend was quite right it saying that unless they banded themselves together in the way their Irish Friends did their claims would meet with no consideration. He was sorry, because the system of banding themselves together had been brought into disrespute—so much so, that he did not think it would be wise to follow the successful example set them at the present time. Scotchmen usually did act together quite as harmoniously as Irishmen, and he did not think they needed any further organization. He hoped that the hon. Baronet would bring their rights to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and would explain that the legislation proposed was not required, and that they were willing to accept the grant on the same conditions on which it was agreed to.