Commons Sitting of 6 August 1874

Preamble
The House met at Three of the clock.

THE CAPE COLONY—THE BOUNDARY AT DELAGOA BAY.—QUESTION.
MR. ALEXANDER M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When the question of the disputed Boundary at Delagoa Bay, which the English and Portuguese Government have agreed to refer to the President of the French Republic, will proceed to arbitration; whether he is aware that the Portuguese Government have published a series of Despatches in which their claims are set forth in considerable detail; and, whether, therefore, Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table the complete Correspondence?
MR. BOURKE: Sir, the Protocol by which it was agreed to refer to the President of the French Republic the question of the disputed Boundary at Delagoa Bay was signed on the 25th of September, 1872, and it stipulated that the cases were to be presented within 12
1404
months from that time, and the counter cases within the next succeeding 12 months. The British case was presented on the 15th of September last, and the counter case will have to be presented by the 15th of next month. The Arbiter is then to give his award "as early as convenient." Her Majesty's Government are not aware that the Portuguese Government have recently published any Despatches on the subject; and until the award of the Arbiter has been given, Her Majesty's Government do not think it would be proper to lay on the Table any Papers on the subject.

THE CHARITY COMMISSIONERS—ST. JOHN'S HOSPITAL, BATH.—QUESTION.
MR. DILLWYNasked Mr. Attorney General, If he will state to the House to whom he referred when, in answer to a Question by the honourable and gallant Member for Bath (Captain Hayter) he stated that his predecessors were responsible for the Clause in the Scheme for the regulation of St. John's Hospital, Bath, which would confine the governing body of that charity to persons signing a declaration of membership of the Church of England? The scheme was very objectionable, and hon. many Members were anxious to know whether anyone on that (the Opposition) side of the House was answerable for it.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, in reply, said, he was sorry his hon. Friend had thought it consistent with his duty to repeat to-day in a formal manner the Question which he put on Friday last in an informal manner, and which he (the Attorney General) had then declined to answer; lest, however, his motive in declining to answer should be misunderstood, he now proposed to reply to the Question. But, before doing so, he would, with the permission of the House, make a brief statement relative to the position of the Attorney General in regard to matters of this kind, because he did not think it desirable that popular opinion should be brought to bear on a Law Officer of the Crown, with the view of influencing him, when he had under his consideration matters on which he had to give a quasi judicial decision. In all matters relating to charities, the Attorney General was in a quasi judicial position, and this was particularly the case in ex officio proceedings like those

1405
at present under consideration. In such cases the Attorney General was put in motion by the Charity Commissioners, and it became his duty to ascertain, as far as he could, what was the Law applicable to the circumstances placed before him. There was no doubt that in many cases a discretion was to be exercised by the Attorney General, but that discretion was not to be exercised according to party bias or political views, but in a judicial spirit. The Question of his hon. Friend implied that the Attorney General, who was responsible for the scheme, had been influenced by his political opinions, and what the hon. Gentleman had just stated bore out that view, for he had fairly enough stated that his reason for putting it was the anxiety felt by many hon. Members sitting on his side of the House lest a Liberal Attorney General was responsible for the scheme. The proceedings to which the hon. Gentleman referred were commenced while Lord Selborne was Attorney General, and they had been under the consideration of every Attorney General since, the Papers being very voluminous. When he answered the Question of the hon. and gallant Member for Bath the other clay, he did not know who the Attorney General was when the particular question with reference to the trustees was first brought under consideration; but he had since found that it was his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Sir John Karslake). He was in error, however, in stating, the other day, that the matter had been under discussion in Judges' Chambers. It had not got so far as that. The hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon, after giving the best consideration he could to the authorities bearing upon the question, directed the scheme to be prepared in the form in which it now was; but he at the same time gave directions that it should be sent down to Bath and published there, in order that the municipal trustees and every person interested in the matter might have a full opportunity of considering and discussing it. It had been discussed at a public meeting, at which objections were raised to the trustee clauses; but up to this moment it had not been taken to the Judges' Chambers, and would not be until October or November next, at which time it would be his duty, if he
1406
continued to be Attorney General, to give full consideration to all the circumstances of the case, and particularly to the objections which had been raised; and he should not hesitate either to differ from, or to adhere to, the views of his hon. and learned Predecessor according to the view which he should then take of them, a course which he was sure his hon. and learned Friend would adopt were he then in office.

CRIMINAL LAW—SENTENCE ON A CABMAN.—QUESTION.
COLONEL LEARMONTHasked the Secretary of State for the Homo Department, If his attention has been called to the case of the cabman, who was recently sentenced at the Middlesex Sessions to six months' imprisonment with hard labour for running over a boy while crossing St. Martin's Lane, and, whether, taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, he is of opinion that the sentence is too severe?
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, in reply, said, no information of any sort had been submitted to the Home Secretary on this case, and until it was he was not in a position to say anything on the subject.

ARMY—KILMAINHAM HOSPITAL.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN GRAYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If the Local Government Board, Ireland, received any report from the medical or other officers of the Kilmainham Hospital, Dublin, respecting the recent outbreak of typhoid fever in that institution; and, if not, will he, as President of the Board, cause an inquiry to be instituted, and a report to be made, as to the number of cases of typhoid fever that occurred in the hospital this year, the class of residences in which they occurred, the opinion of the medical officer, Dr. Carte, and of the medical gentlemen who were consulted as to the immediate cause of the outbreak, and place such report upon the Table of this House for the information of the sanitary authorities of the kingdom; and if, having regard to the fact that hygiene is not made a necessary part of the education of medical officers licensed for the Civil Service, the Local Government Board intends to adopt any means of en-

  1407
  suring that all medical officers hereafter to be appointed medical officers of dispensaries, and as such, sanitary officers of their dispensary districts, shall produce satisfactory evidence of their knowledge of hygiene as a requisite qualification for such appointment?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHSir, I have communicated by telegraph with Dublin, and find that the Local Government Board have no official relations with Kilmainham Hospital or with Dr. Carte, the medical officer, the hospital being under the War Department in Ireland. I understand, however, that the water supply of that establishment was not very good, and that there has been an outbreak of typhoid fever there. I am further given to understand that in consequence of this outbreak, provision was made to obtain a supply from the Vartry River. I believe that the works necessary are at present proceeding. There is no special hygienic qualification required for medical dispensary officers in Ireland, but all such officers are either "physicians and surgeons" or "surgeons and apothecaries," and must have been educated and examined in subjects which relate to what is called "hygiene," and as the legislation of the present Session has imposed important sanitary duties on these officers, this branch of medical knowledge will doubtless receive from them more careful attention than they may have hitherto bestowed upon it.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT—WOOLWICH AND PLUMSTEAD NUISANCES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BOORDasked the President of the Local Government Board, If any Correspondence has taken place between that Department and the War Office in reference to the nuisances arising from certain factories in the neighbourhood of Woolwich and Plumstead; and, if so, if he would have any objection to lay Copies of such Correspondence upon the Table of the House; and, if the attention of the Local Government Board is being directed to the subject?
  MR. SCLATER BOOTH, in reply, said, there had been some Correspondence between the War Office and the Local Government Board upon the subject of these nuisances, but as the Correspondence was not yet completed it was
  1408
  not usual to have Copies of it laid upon the Table. The matter was still receiving the attention of the Local Government Board. He had received a letter only two or three days ago to the effect that the factories which had been the subject of the most grievous complaints were now taking steps to remedy the evil, and he trusted in a short time some progress in that direction would be made.

LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. SYNANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he can give any assurance that the Irish Government will revise the Rules and Regulations for the Government of Lunatic Asylums in Ireland, under the Act 8 and 9 Vic. c. 107, s. 9, with a view "to alter or revoke" the rule in relation to tenders that has given offence to some Governors of Lunatic Asylums in that country?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, that the Rules and Regulations of the Irish Lunatic Asylums had recently been most carefully revised by a Committee of the Irish Privy Council, specially appointed for the purpose. An objection had been made by the Governors of the Limerick Lunatic Asylum to one of the Rules relating to tenders, and on inquiry it was found that the view of the Governors of other Lunatic Asylums in Ireland was not the same as that of the Governors of the Limerick Lunatic Asylum. He was informed that some of the Governors of the latter had resigned and others were likely to follow their example; and, therefore, he would consider whether it was in any way possible to alter the Rule in accordance with their wishes. It was evident, however, that there must be one uniform Rule for the whole of Ireland.

CONFERENCE AT BRUSSELS—RULES OF MILITARY WARFARE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, looking to the great anxiety that exists in the country on the subject of the Brussels Conference, it will be possible to issue during the Recess any Papers bearing upon the proceedings of that Conference?
  MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, that great interest was felt by the people of this country in the proceedings of the Brussels Congress, but he did not think that any anxiety was felt. He held in his hand the second part of the Correspondence, relating to the Rules that were proposed to govern military warfare, which he intended to lay on the Table. Should any other Correspondence take place during the Recess which the Secretary of State might think it desirable to publish it would be made public through the columns of The London Gazette.

IRELAND—THE KILREA RIOTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the trials of the Kilrea riots at the Londonderry Assizes, and to the observations of the learned judge (Barry), who said—
  "In one part of your remarks I agree with you, Mr. May—that this collateral issue has been fully developed, yet I am hound to say that Mr. Rea has opened up for my consideration one of the most startling events in my professional career—namely, that a number of men, armed with bludgeons, were allowed, by magistrates and police, to go here and there through the town, and commit two audacious acts of violence, while they were well known to the police;"
  and who in charging the Jury observed—
  "It is the wildest nonsense to think for a moment that an attack was not premeditated, or that the party armed with sticks and bludgeons would not have attempted to stop the processionists had the police not been there. So much for that; and now we come to 'another branch of the case which I wish to dispose of at once. I may say that this, the most unpleasant part of the case, consists in the fact that only four persons of the bludgeon party are for trial, although we have the fact proved that a body of bludgeon men, armed with weapons, prepared with sticks, not accidentally—that this organised party, well described as organised ruffians, committed under the eyes of two magistrates present, and in the presence of a large party of police, two distinct acts of riot, and we have it in evidence that a list of the names of the parties was taken down by an active and intelligent policeman at the time. That policeman is enabled to name not five, or six, or seven, or eight, but a whole string of names—I do not know how many—of these ruffians who were rioting in the town that day, and it is a lamentable thing that more of these men have not been sent for trial."
  Were 74 Catholics, the party attacked, made amenable to law, and only 11 of
  1410
  the Orange party; and who were the magistrates referred to; and would the Executive institute an inquiry into their conduct?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, that as the hon. Gentleman's Question had been laid on the Table only that morning, he had been unable to obtain the necessary information to answer it fully. The observations which were attributed to Mr. Justice Barry on the occasion which was referred to were quoted from a newspaper, and must be received with considerable doubt, and he had no official Report. He was afraid that both parties in these unfortunate riots were equally to blame. They had been dealt with with perfect impartiality, and a great many of the offenders had been committed for trial, Mr. May, the Law Adviser of the Castle, having been sent especially to conduct the case. The Attorney General for Ireland, he might add, would shortly have an opportunity of communicating with Mr. May on the subject.

ARMY—PLUMSTEAD COMMON.

  QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Secretary of State for War, If he would explain to the House why, if the use of Plumstead Common for Artillery exercise is defended on grounds of prescriptive use, the War Office has, since the date of the determination of the suits against the lords of the manor, taken a lease of the manorial rights from the Lords?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, it appeared from the Question put to him by the hon. Baronet that there was some dispute with regard to the title, but he disclaimed having rested the rights of the War Office on the grounds stated by the hon. Baronet. In the Answer he had already given, he said the War Office had used the Common since 1745, and continued still to do so. In view of further proceedings being taken, he must decline to make any further statement on the subject of title.

EXCISE (IRELAND)—CORN STORES, &c.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CALLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, What reasons, if any, exist for subjecting the stores of corn

  1411
  merchants in Ireland to the visits and inspection at all hours of the Officers of Excise; whether any such regulations are in force in England; and, if not, why Irish merchants should be subjected to regulations which do not exist in England; and, whether under the circumstances instructions will be given to have the necessary steps taken to remove this anomaly?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, it is not stores, but mills and kilns, which are under Excise inspection in Ireland, the object being to prevent the malting or preparation of corn for illicit distillation. The power of inspection and the reason for it is contained in the Act 1 & 2 Will. IV., c. 55. Similar regulations are not in force in England, as it does not appear that the practice of illicit malting ever prevailed in that part of the United Kingdom. The duty of inspecting mills and kilns in Ireland is both troublesome and expensive to the revenue, and will be gladly given up whenever it shall appear practicable without encouraging the demoralizing practice of illicit distillation, which, happily, for the country, is rapidly decreasing.

ARMY—MILITARY OUTRAGE AT ALDERSHOT.—QUESTION.
SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to a report which has appeared in the newspapers of a ruffianly outrage which is said to have been committed on defenceless women by a party of armed soldiers from the North Camp at Aldershot; and, what steps the Military Authorities propose to take in the matter?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, he had ordered a telegram to be sent at once to Aldershot to ascertain the truth of the report, but he had not received a reply before coming down to the House. He had therefore no special information to give the hon. Gentleman on the subject. If such an offence had been committed, the offenders would, it was perfectly clear, be proceeded against in the Criminal Courts of the country, and it would not be till subsequently that any steps would be taken by the military authorities.

THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND).

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BIGGAR, in whose name a Notice stood on the Paper that he would move for a Copy of Correspondence between the Irish Executive, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and The O'Donoghue, M.P., with reference to his removal from the Magistracy of Ireland and the Kerry Militia in 1862, and his re-appointment to the Magistracy in 1873, not being in the House when his name was called by the Speaker,
  THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, that as personal reference was made to him in this Notice, he asked permission of the House to make an explanation on the subject. The proposed Motion contained a serious charge, if not directly, at least inferentially, that ought not to have been put forward by an hon. Member who absented himself. It was stated in the Notice that he was removed from his commission in the Kerry Militia. There was, however, no foundation for such a statement. He resigned the commission which he held in the Kerry Militia because, the regiment being quartered in England, he found it inconvenient at the end of a Session not to be able to return to Ireland for a few months. The Notice also insinuated, with reference to his restoration to the commission of the peace, that he had carried on some correspondence with the Executive in Ireland and the Lord Chancellor. He begged, however, to state that he never carried on a correspondence directly or indirectly with the Irish Executive, the Lord Chancellor, or any other official, with respect, to his restoration to the commission of the peace.

JURIES (IRELAND).

  QUESTION. RESOLUTION.
  MR. CALLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention had been drawn to this case tried before Mr. Justice Fitzgerald at the late Assizes for Down, and to the fact that four persons had been excluded from the jury because they were Roman Catholics?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I have received a telegram from the Crown Solicitor of the County Down (Mr. Murland), which is as follows:—
  "I did not exclude any person from the jury because of his religion. I directed four jurors to stand aside, two of whom were from the

  1413
  locality where the occurrence took place and the remaining two were publicans. The accused was acquitted."
  MR. CALLANthen proceeded, pursuant to Notice, to call attention to the exclusion by the Crown of Catholics from the Jury in the case of Mr. Arthur Donnelly at the late Assizes for the county of Down; and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the ordering to 'stand by' of Catholic jurors by the Crown Solicitor, more especially in the North of Ireland, and in eases of a party character, is a course of proceeding not calculated to enhance confidence in the impartial administration of the Law, and demands the serious attention of the Irish Executive."
  He wished to point out that more than one person who lived nearer the locality than the Roman Catholics who had been set aside had been allowed to sit on the jury. He would not press his Motion to a Division; but he hoped the Attorney General for Ireland would state to the House that a full inquiry would be made into all the circumstances of the case.
  [The Motion not being seconded, was not put.]

IRELAND—THE KILREA RIOTS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGcalled attention to the trials of the Kilrea riot cases at the Londonderry Assizes, and to the observations of Mr. Justice Barry thereon; and moved—
  "That this House is of opinion that an investigation into the conduct of the Magistrates referred to by the learned Judge is necessary in the interests of impartial justice, of peace, and good order in Ireland."
  MR. SYNANseconded the Motion.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL), stated that the object of the Irish Government in sending Mr. May to Londonderry, where the rioters were tried, was to ascertain the real truth in relation to this matter. That gentleman, who was selected for his well-known impartiality, had returned to Dublin; but he had not yet had an opportunity of communicating with him. Until he received full and accurate information he could not undertake to say what course the Government would pursue. Discussion on the subject was not desirable at present as further summonses on which proceedings would be necessary had been taken out in regard to the riots. The only reports yet sent in stated that justice had been
  1414
  vindicated in those cases which were tried.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

GOLD COAST (HONOURS FOR SERVICES).

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOT, in rising to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to confer a clasp as well as a medal on those Officers and Men in Her Majesty's Service who took part in engagements with the Ashantees south of the River Prah, after the late War broke out, and before the arrival of the European Troops, especially at Elmina, Essaman, Abra Krampa, and Donquah, and who thereby materially caused the retreat of the enemy from the Protectorate into his own Country: and, to call attention to the decoration of the Victoria Cross,"
  said, he was sorry he had been more more than once prevented from bringing this subject before the House at an earlier period of the Session. The hon. and learned Member was proceeding to advert to the Royal Warrant, which conferred the clasp usually given to officers and men under fire upon those troops only who went north of the River Prah, while the medal alone was distributed to the troops engaged south of the Prah, when—
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter after Four o'clock.