Commons Sitting of 11 July 1876

MINUTES.
Public Bills—Second Reading—Referred to a Select Committee—Bow Street Police Court (Site)* [191]; Arklow Harbour Improvement* [199]; Ardglass Harbour Improvement* [200]; Erne Lough and River* [187].
Committee—Elementary Education [155]—r.p.
Committee—Report—Isle of Man (Officers)* [215].
Considered as amended—Trade Marks Registration Amendment* [217]; Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c.* [209]; Nullum Tempus (Ireland)* [167].
The House met at Two of the clock.

COAL MINES—THE BIRLEY EXPLOSION.—QUESTION.
MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been directed to the report of the coroner's inquest which appeared in the "Yorkshire Post," dated the 6th inst., touching the death of three men who lost their lives in the Birley Colliery, near Sheffield, on the 26th ult.; whether he has seen in that report that it is stated there were only two safety lamps for the mine, and whether that be true; whether it be true that fire damp had been seen in the mine in the month of April; and if, in consideration of the finding of the jury, he intends to direct that the manager and the under viewers be proceeded against for the offence contemplated in the sixty-first clause of "The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1872?"
MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, he believed the facts stated in the Question were substantially true. In
1280
consequence of the finding of the jury, he at once directed that proceedings should be taken against the parties in charge of the mine.

ARMY INDIA)—ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPLAINS.—QUESTIONS.
MR. WHALLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for India, with reference to the recent increase of £8,570 a-year to Roman Catholic chaplains for the Indian army against the protest of Members of the Council, Whether such chaplains are to be permitted without restraint to inculcate on British soldiers the doctrine of the Papal Syllabus of 1864; and, whether their claim to be recognised as not being the servants of the Queen, and not to be subject to the same regulations as Presbyterian or Anglican chaplains, as was stated by the noble Lord on the 11th of February last, is conceded by the Government?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Mr. Speaker, there are three statements in the Question of the hon. Gentleman which are not correct. The increase to the allowances of Roman Catholic chaplains in India received the support of the whole of the Viceroy's Council, with one exception. My statement is not correctly represented in the Question of the hon. Gentleman. I did not state that the Roman Catholic chaplains claimed immunity from the regulations to which Presbyterian or Anglican chaplains are subject, nor did I assert their claim to be recognized as the servants of another Government. I simply stated, as a matter of fact, that some of these chaplains were not natives of these islands, and that not being upon the establishment of the Government of India, they did not receive the same salaries, pensions, and allowances as the chaplains did who are upon the establishment and subject to the regulations of the Government of India. As to the doctrines which these gentlemen may hold or preach, I think there is no reason whatever for subjecting them, in the exercise of their duties, to restraints which the Government in this country has not considered it expedient or necessary to impose upon Roman Catholic chaplains in England.
MR. WHALLEY: wished to know whether the Government conceded the claim of the Roman Catholic chaplains

1281
in India to be recognized as not being the servants of the Queen, and not to be subject to the same regulations as Presbyterian or Anglican chaplains?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I have already stated that some of the chaplains who are not natives of these islands are not on the establishment of the Government of India, and do not receive the same salaries, pensions, and allowances as those chaplains do who are on the establishment.
MR. WHALLEY: Do they consider themselves subject to the—["Order!"]
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is out of Order. He has put a Question and received an answer. If he has another Question to ask he should give Notice of it in the ordinary way.

CRIMINAL LAW—OUTRAGES IN JERMYN STREET.—QUESTION.
MR. THORNHILL (for Mr. Goddard)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to the circumstance of there having been three or four serious outrages committed in Jermyn Street and its neighbourhood during the last month, and to the fact of the police having obtained as yet no clue to the perpetrators of those offences?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: My attention has been called to the circumstances, and instructions have been given to the police to inquire into the matter, and I do hope that the perpetrators of the outrages will be found out.

BARBADOES—THE RIOTS.—QUESTION. QUESTION.
MR. THORNHILLasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the prisoners apprehended for the riots in Barbadoes in April last have as yet been brought to trial; and, if not, what is the reason of the delay; and, when the Papers on the subject of the disturbances will be laid upon the Table?
MR. J. LOWTHER: A Commission was nominated by the Governor of Barbadoes for the purpose of trying the persons charged with rioting during the recent disturbances, and that Commission received the sanction of the Secretary of State. I am unable to say, without communication with the island, whether
1282
it has already commenced its labours or not, but I will make inquiries by telegraph if necessary, and will let my hon. Friend know the result. As to the latter part of his Question—namely, when the Papers will be laid upon the Table—I undertook a short time back to endeavour to present them in about a fortnight or three weeks from that date. This promise I could literally carry out, so far as the bulk of the Papers is concerned, if it was for the convenience of the House; but after communicating with several hon. Gentlemen who take an interest in the subject I was led to believe that, owing to the postponement of the Motion relating to this question until the end of the month, it would be better to defer the distribution till all the recent Papers could be included in the series. If, however, the House wishes it, the earlier Papers can be issued at once, leaving the later ones to follow. That course would be open to the objection that the first instalment would contain for the most part one side of the controversy, leaving the replies to charges unpublished. I hope, however, that all the Papers will very shortly be in the hands of Members.

POLLUTION OF RIVERS BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. RIPLEYasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he intends to proceed with the Pollution of Rivers Bill this Session?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,in reply, said, he had reason to believe that there existed a desire on both sides of the House that the Bill should pass into law this Session. Therefore he hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw his Notice, and allow the Bill to be read a second time on Thursday next. If this were done, he was sanguine enough to hope that he might be able to arrange an Amendment in Committee which would remove the hon. Member's objection to the Bill in its present state.
  MR. RIPLEYsaid, the answer he should give to this appeal would be decidedly "No." So far as he understood the feeling of manufacturers in the country, they only wanted to be assured of the Government's intention to proceed with this Bill in order that they might come up in large numbers for, the purpose of opposing it.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL.
(Viscount Sandon, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Assheton Cross.)
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL.

  [BILL 155.] COMMITTEE.
  On Question, "That the Preamble be postponed,"
  MR. J. COWENexplained that he had on the previous evening moved to report Progress in order that several Gentlemen who had not spoken might have the opportunity of further urging the Nonconformist objections to the Bill. These Gentlemen had not come down at that early hour, and probably they thought, as he thought, that further remonstrance on the part of the friends of non-sectarian education would be hopeless. He did not wish to give a factious opposition to the measure; and, as the front benches on both sides of the House appeared to have agreed as to the course to be taken, he left it to them to arrange matters between them.
  MR. STORERsaid, he thought that this subject had been viewed too much from an urban point of view. The agricultural ratepayers were, in point of fact, paying upon their incomes seven or eight or ten times more than those of the towns, and yet this Bill professed to make the rural districts contribute out of their Imperial taxation towards the educational expenses of the towns, which were much richer in proportion than the country districts. He hoped the Government would take some notice of this fact.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, he thought they had met to discuss the Education Bill, and not the question of rating, and therefore on that point would only say that the towns paid an average of 3s. 7d. in the pound, whereas the rural districts paid only about 2s. 6d. or 2s. 8d. in the pound. Some extraordinary statements had been made in the course of last night's discussion to the prejudice of his constituents, and from these statements the House might also infer that Birmingham was a nest of heathens. He was, therefore, anxious to say that among the members of the Church of England, the Roman Catholics, and the Dissenters of Birmingham were some of the most eminent men in this country, and that the school board had merely tried to carry out a system for religious education which had worked satisfactorily to
  1284
  all sects for 12 or 14 years in New South Wales and South Australia. They had only undertaken the work of secular education, allowing certain times for religious instruction. The plan had failed because the Church of England and the Roman Catholics refused to carry it out. But the school board were not to blame for endeavouring to introduce a system which existed, under the sanction of the Imperial Government, in another part of Her Majesty's dominions, and which was there approved by the Church of England, by Roman Catholics, and even by Buddhists. At any rate, he did not wish, it to be thought that the Birmingham School Board consisted of a body of men who wished for no religion. As to the Bill, he had hitherto supported it, but hoped that now in Committee Amendments would be introduced which would render it more palatable.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he desired before the House went into Committee on the Bill to call attention to a fact that seemed to have been overlooked. He was very anxious that something should be done for national schools, and that the voluntary schools and the national schools should be placed by this Bill on a better footing than at present, so as to avoid the difficulty into which they were now in danger of drifting—namely, that voluntary, national, and other school committees, although they had provided buildings and expended, large sums on school houses, would never be able either to hold their own or to recoup themselves. No doubt some hon. Gentlemen opposite thought that it was advisable everything should be handed over to the school boards that permeated the country. He differed entirely from that view. He was anxious that religion should be taught in the schools, and there could be no question in the minds of most hon. Members on both sides of that House that while possibly some persons might object to the use of the Apostles Creed, the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments ought to be taught in every school. He was one of those who would never dissociate religion from secular instruction. There ought to be in every school at least the option to the parent to send the child to a purely secular school, or to one where he would unquestionably receive religious instruction. The Bir-

  1285
  mingham School Board had been very much, reprehended for the course they had taken. He was not there to find fault with them, but he did complain that the National School Committee should not have the power to keep in their own hands so much of their own money as would educate their own children, and to allow the school board money to be so used that it might be applicable to education in which religion was taught along with the ordinary instruction.
  MR. PEASEsaid, he should not have joined in this discussion had it not been for the attack made on the previous night by the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Hubbard) on the British and Foreign School system.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member would not be in Order in replying to the speech to which he referred.
  MR. PEASEsaid, he would accept the ruling of the Chairman, and make no further allusion to the right hon. Gentleman's speech. With regard to the Bill itself—passing its Preamble—there were in the House three classes of educationalists. There were the advocates of secular education, who were divided into two sub-sections; one represented by the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard), who, on religious grounds, declined to have anything but secular instruction in schools supported by the State, and the other—who were a small section of those who took an interest in the subject—composed of those who believed in no religious education at all. On the other side of the House there was the school of dogmatic Scriptural education. He belonged to a school of ardent friends of religious education, which he believed was common to the majority of the people of this Kingdom, and which, under the Education Act of 1870, had become the religious education of a large proportion of the children of this country. Between 40 and 50 school boards only, of which 28 were in Wales, had declined to have Scriptural education in their schools. Therefore, Scriptural education was carried on by about 1,000 school boards, and it was of the undenominational and general character which he thought the House would be willing to support. The great majority of the people of this country were op-
  1286
  posed to State funds being devoted to dogmatic religious instruction, and the secular educationalists were a small minority. During the debate on the Act of 1870, 20 teachers from the National Schools Society, 20 from the British and Foreign Schools Society, and 20 from the Wesleyan School Board conferred together and reported that, putting aside the creeds and catechisms of the Wesleyans and the Church of England, the religious education was practically the same in all these schools, and this was the unsectarian religious education of about 1,000 school boards. Consequently, he maintained that the system of the British and Foreign Schools Society had not been a failure, and that it was the only one which could be generally approved by the House.
  MR. SAMPSON LLOYDstated that the late Birmingham School Board, of which for three years he was Vice Chairman, had adopted an undenominational system of religious instruction, so simple that no parents objected to it; but the new board had abolished the unsectarian plan. The result was that 6,000 children were receiving from voluntary sources on two mornings in the week religious teaching of a certain kind, under no public authority or responsibility, and the children attending other schools, with accommodation for 7,000 children, never once in the whole year heard a word as to their duty to God or their neighbours. This might be copying an Australian system; but he hoped the House would see the change in its true colours. So far from the Birmingham School Board being pioneers of education, as some people regarded them, they ought rather to be considered to have served the less pretentious, but still useful, purpose of scarecrows to frighten the country from secular teaching, into the adoption of a better and more truly liberal system.
  MR. MUNTZexplained that under the Australian system he had mentioned the education given was secular except on one day in each week.
  LORD FRANCIS HERVEYhoped this irregular discussion of Australian systems and Birmingham squabbles would not be continued, and that the Committee would proceed with the consideration of the Bill.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKdid not accept the ruling of the noble Lord

  1287
  that this discussion was irregular. He wished to remark that this question was not in a stage where it could be considered to be settled. Hon. Gentlemen opposite represented the opinions of a considerable section of the country, but they did not by any means represent the opinions of the majority. Those who shared his views were content to wait for a better time. The tendency of the Bill was to check the further adoption of school boards where they were not at present established. He did not pretend to say whether or not that was a fair solution of the education difficulty. He believed the education given by the State in State schools, while every facility was given to all denominations to carry on the religious instruction of their children, was what the country would have to come to, but they would have a great deal to get through in the interval.
  VISCOUNT SANDONdesired to express his thanks to the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) for the handsome manner in which he had refrained on that occasion from pressing the views which he and some other Gentlemen opposite held in favour of secular education in order not to cause any further delay in going into Committee on the Bill.
  Motion agreed to.
  Preamble postponed.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Preliminary.
  Clause 1 (Short title), agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Extent of Act), agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Commencement of Act).
  VISCOUNT SANDONappealed to the hon. and learned Member for Oldham (Mr. Serjeant Spinks) to postpone the Amendment of which he had given Notice for Clauses 7, 8, 9, and 10, to take effect immediately after the passing of the Act, for the attendance at school of children habitually neglected by the parent, or habitually wandering and consorting with criminals and disorderly persons, and attendance at industrial schools. The Government were preparing with great care Amendments for the formation of day industrial schools, which he hoped to be able to submit to the Committee in two or three days'
  1288
  time. He therefore asked the Committee not to pass any judgment on the question until after they had considered the Government Amendments, and also that his hon. and learned Friend would not press his Amendment until the subject was ready for full discussion.
  MR. SERJEANT SPINKSsaid, he readily assented to the request of the noble Lord.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked the noble Lord if he intended to postpone also Clauses 7, 8, 9, and 10?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Yes.
  Clause postponed.
  Law as to Education of Children.
  Clause 4 (Regulation as to employment of child under ten, and certificate of education or previous school attendance being condition of employment of child over ten).
  MR. HARDCASTLEmoved, in page 1, line 21, after "ten years," to insert—
  "Unless any such authority as is hereinafter in this Act referred to as the local authority shall have granted a certificate in writing certifying that such child has attained the age of nine years, and that the employment of such child is upon grounds which the said local authority has investigated and found sufficient: Provided, That the employment into which such child is taken is such that the child while employed will attend school half time."
  The Amendment had been suggested to him by men of great practical experience, which had convinced him that the Act would operate most prejudicially on certain portions of the population, residing especially in Manchester and Salford. The clause laid down the hard-and-fast line that under no circumstances should a child less than 10 years of age be allowed to work at all. The experience of the Manchester School Board was that unless the clause was modified in the way he proposed it would furnish no inconsiderable number of occupants for the new industrial schools, towards the building of which the Government proposed to contribute. In many instances, when women as well as their husbands were employed in factories, they had to leave their homes at an early hour, and had no opportunity of seeing that their children went to school. The consequence of this was that many of these children became truants; whereas if they were allowed to go into some employment.

  1289
  upon condition of attending school half-time, they would be reclaimed from those truant habits, while they would be usefully occupied, and at the same time their instruction would be going on. He wished it to be distinctly understood that the Amendment was intended to meet exceptional cases, which, however, not unfrequently arose in the manufacturing districts.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, there might be exceptional cases of hardship under the operation of the clause; but if the Amendment were adopted it would practically fix the age up to which a child could not be employed at nine years, and it would be impossible to maintain the limit of 10 years, owing to the pressure which would be brought to bear on the school boards, and this part of the Bill might as well be abandoned.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that the Factory Act of 1874 fixed the age for work in textile factories at 10, and it was only just to put all other industries on an equality, and not give an advantage to one over another. In the interest of the great mass of the Lancashire manufacturers, he hoped the noble Lord would not give way on this point.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Act of 1874 had been found to work very well. The only objection to it was that other employments were not under its provisions. One of the objects for which the Royal Commission was issued was to inquire not only into the operation of the Act, but to see how far other industries ought to be subjected to the same restriction.
  MR. BIRLEY: thought there was some misapprehension as to the object of the Amendment, which was not intended to undermine the clause, but to make the compulsory system gradual, instead of forcing all persons at once into the extreme limits contemplated by the Bill. It would facilitate education by an extension of the half-time system in certain cases under a continuance of the present law.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, this Amendment would restrict the very stringent rule laid down in this Bill, not at the request of the parents, but on good grounds being shown by them to the attendance committee that it should be done. He should support the Amendment.
  MR. HERMONsaid, the Amendment would inflict injury upon Lancashire, for its effect would simply be to produce a demand for the labour of children too young to enter the factories, and to counterbalance the benefits conferred by the Factory Acts, which had done great good. He hoped it would not be pressed.
  MR. WHITWELLopposed the Amendment, urging that children outside the factories would be under less efficient supervision.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. CLARE READmoved, after "ten years," to insert—
  "3. That the child being of the age of nine years has made 250 school attendances in each of the previous four years, and since it reached the age of nine years made 250 school attendances, or had received a certificate fixed by Standard 4 of the Code of 1876."
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, the Amendment was based on a misapprehension of Clause 5 as it would stand after the Amendment of which he had given Notice. After the opposition offered to a similar proposal on behalf of the manufacturing interest, it would be unfair and inconsistent on the part of the Government to accede to a similar request from their agricultural friends. As a matter of fact, children in the agricultural districts were often employed in the mornings and evenings in light labour, while they attended school during the day, and were thus able to earn 1s. 8d. a-week.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. SANDFORDmoved, in page 1, line 21, to omit that portion prohibiting the employment of a child—
  "who, being of the age of 10 years or upwards, has not obtained such certificate either of his proficiency in reading, writing, and elementary arithmetic, or of previous due attendance at a public elementary school, as is in this Act in that behalf mentioned."
  The hon. Member said, the clause as it stood would interfere with labour in a most objectionable manner. The object which the Bill arrived at was that a child should learn to read, write, and cipher, and if it did not learn to do so, having been at school from the age of 5 to 10 years, it was probable that it would never, learn. To prevent such a child.

  1291
  from obtaining employment in the agricultural districts between the ages of 10 and 14 would be intolerable. The labour question was difficult enough at present, and instead of endeavouring to increase they should do all in their power to lessen the difficulty. Much as he was opposed to compulsion, he should prefer it to the system proposed by the clause that a limit of 10 or 12 years should be fixed up to which a child could not be employed, provided he were left free after that age.
  SIR WALTER BARTTELOTcontended that agricultural children could not be dealt with in the same way as manufacturing children in towns. It was much better, in his opinion, that they should have compulsory education of children between the ages of 5 and 10 years than that they should be prevented from earning their livelihood between the ages of 10 and 14. He quite believed that this portion of the Government Bill would break down altogether in the agricultural districts. Why should children between the ages of 10 and 14 be prevented from working because they had not attended school a certain number of times between 8 and 10 years? He should like to hear some explanation on this point from the noble Lord who had charge of the Bill, because he felt quite assured that if the provision objected to became law it would cause much dissatisfaction among the agricultural classes.
  COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISEsupported the Amendment, and said he had always been favourable to direct compulsion. He should be sorry to interpose any obstacle to the passing of the Bill; but if his hon. Friend below him went to a division he should vote with him on the principle that he was in favour of direct, as distinguished from indirect, compulsion.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, that the Amendment really raised the question between direct and indirect compulsion. Now, the Government had taken their stand upon the proposal that they had made, that they should not apply direct compulsion in all cases. They proceeded upon the presumption that the great majority of well-doing industrious parents, if the temptation of getting their children's earnings were withdrawn from them, would do their duty without being embarrassed by attendance officers. If
  1292
  they adopted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Maldon, and did away with the labour pass, they must adopt the other alternative and go in for universal compulsion, which meant universal inspection and universal school authorities. He was very glad to find that which he had never doubted—that there was so much earnest zeal for the promotion of education among those who were connected with agriculture; but then he regarded that portion of the Bill against which the Amendment was directed as essential, and he could not therefore consent to depart from it.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERobserved, that the 10th clause of the Bill as amended by the noble Lord would practically introduce a measure of direct compulsion. He had no doubt that the labour pass would be of considerable advantage, and should be sorry if it were disregarded. He could not vote for the Amendment; but he hoped that some provision might be made for a half-time system between 10 and 14.
  MR. STORERsaid, that if the age of 12 years were substituted for 14 they would get out of the difficulty. Many lads were so dull that they would never pass Standard IV. even if they were kept at school till 21 years of age.
  MR. WHITWELLopposed the Amendment, believing that the clause would operate beneficially.
  MR. EVANSremarked, in reply to what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member (Sir Walter Barttelot), that the half-time system had been found to work beneficially in the case of agricultural children.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, he would support the Amendment. As it at present stood the clause would allow children between 5 and 10 to wander about idle for half of the year. If the Amendment were carried he hoped that something more definite would be done for children between 5 and 10.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUobserved, that hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed now to be in favour of universal compulsion. He (Lord Robert Montagu) was not so easily converted, and would therefore vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Maldon.
  MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTONsuggested that, in the clause defining child, the word "fourteen" should be left out, and the word "twelve" substituted.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that if the concession now asked for were made in the case of agriculture, the same relaxation should be made in the case of children employed in manufactories under the Factories Acts.
  MR. HENLEYdeprecated one uniform law applying to poor families under all circumstances. He should therefore hesitate to support the Government on this question. The first necessity of children was to eat, and the parent's first duty was to feed them. If these halffed children were forced to school—especially one in which they were taught no religion—they would be very apt to lay their hands on what they could. An enactment of this sort should not be too sweeping; there should be some modification in the case of large families or the children of widows, and he should support the Amendment.
  MR. ISAACsaid, that direct compulsion was not required in the borough of Nottingham, and he should support the Bill as it stood.
  MR. J. K. CROSSthought there should be direct compulsion up to the age of 10, and then there would be no occasion for the cruel enactment that children up to 14 should not be allowed, under certain circumstances, to earn their own living. He doubted whether the fear of punishment four or five years hence would force parents to do their duty at present.
  Amendment negatived.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHobserved, that the clause imposed a penalty on any person employing a child under 10 years of age unless it could be proved that he had acted in good faith, in which case the penalty would fall on the parent. He believed that such penalty would be unworkable, and moved, in page 1, line 23, after "certificate," to insert "of age and." The enactment without some such security would be inefficient and worthless.
  VISCOUNT SANDONadmitted the necessity of some bonâ fide arrangement of the nature pointed out, but thought it might be more conveniently introduced into the 15th clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT SANDONmoved, in page 1, line 25, to leave out" public elemen-
  1294
  tary," and insert "certified efficient," in order that schools that were giving a sound education might count equally with the public elementary schools.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHmoved, in page l, line 26, at end, to add—
  "Unless such child is employed, and is attending school in accordance with the provisions of the Factory Acts, or of any bye-law of the local authority sanctioned by the Education Department, regulating the attendance at school of children who are necessarily and beneficially employed."
  His object was to exempt from the necessity of a certificate persons employed under the Factory Acts or attending schools in accordance with bye-laws framed by any of the local authorities. He contended that such certificates were unnecessary, and would be practically inoperative, as they had been in the case of the Mining Acts; while, according to the Report of Mr. Tuffnell, in 1867, the enforcement of such certificates would compel Inspectors to visit every parish, and every school in very parish, four times every year, in order to examine the children. It would be a great advantage in such cases to make employment and education simultaneous, under the half-time system. If they accepted his Amendment it would not in any way affect those districts where compulsory education was now carried out, and he trusted, therefore, that the noble Lord would not object to it.
  MR. J. K. CROSSsupported the Amendment on the ground that it might open the way to the adoption of the principle of half-time in the agricultural districts.
  SIR WALTER BARTTELOTexpressed his gratification that the Amendment had been moved, and declared his readiness to vote for it. The proposal was one that went in the right direction, and he was sure it must commend itself to the mind of everybody.
  MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHalso supported the proposal. If adopted it would be extremely valuable in the agricultural districts. He hoped the Government would support it, as it would tend to carry out their own principle of compulsion.
  MR. KNOWLEShoped the Amendment would be adopted, if only for the sake of uniformity.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwould also express a hope that the Vice President of the Council would accept the Amendment. He did not like to relax the stringent provisions as to education that were necessary; but unless this Amendment were adopted it would be impossible to work this clause. They were all agreed that these children between 10 and 14 ought to be working to a certain extent, and it was important that no obstacle should be thrown in the way of a child earning its own livelihood after 14. What he and the noble Lord desired to effect was that between these ages a child should be allowed to go both to work and to school until it had had schooling enough, when it should be allowed to devote itself to work altogether. The noble Lord said the child must either have had schooling enough or must show a sufficient number of attendances; but, through the fault of the parent and not the child, he might not have had the proper number of attendances, and there would be several cases in which the child would not be able to pass the Standard or the attendances. What ought to be done in such cases? The child ought not to be prevented from working. He would not deny that the desire to get hold of the labour pass would affect the minds of parents; but the Legislature ought not to subject ignorant and neglected children to the additional calamity of idleness.
  MR. HERMONthought the proposal was a step in the right direction, and ought to be embodied in the Bill.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, that the balance of argument was in favour of the relaxation of the clause in accordance with the wish of the noble Lord, but he could not promise to make any amendment to Clause 7 in the same direction. He was happy, on the part of the Government, to accept the improvement of the Bill proposed by the noble Lord.
  LORD FRANCIS HERVEYremarked that the provisions affecting the employment of children were scattered up and. down the Bill in such a way that it would be somewhat difficult for the poor people to whom this applied to apprehend them.
  MR. FAWCETTfeared that the effect of the Amendment would be to encourage parents in wilful neglect in sending their children to school because they would say "Our children will obtain work
  1296
  whether there has been the requisite number of attendances or not." The result would be to entirely destroy the system of indirect compulsion between the ages of 5 and 10. If this was done to the extent proposed they should have some security that the system of direct compulsion between those ages should be strengthened.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHreminded his hon. Friend of the important Amendments already made in the Bill, and of the provision made for the attendance of such children.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUmoved to add at the end of the Clause—
  "Provided, that a list of Public Elementary and other Schools where efficient elementary instruction is given (whether such schools are or are not in receipt of grants provided by Parliament) shall be annually published by the Committee of Council on Education; and that the list so published, or any supplementary list published during the year, on the request of the local authority or of the managers of a school, shall be sufficient evidence that every school so named is an efficient elementary school."
  There were 534 Catholic schools, and he knew not how many Nonconformist, which might be affected unjustly in this way. If a school were inspected, and the Inspector reported that it was not quite efficient, it would have to be shut up; but if proper efforts were made it might be made efficient, say within 10 months. He thought justice required that such a case should be met. If he received a proper assurance from the noble Lord opposite he would not press the Amendment.
  VISCOUNT SANDONthought it was hardly necessary to insert such a provision, because he did not think the local authorities would be rash enough to close a school such as the noble Lord had described. If, however, he found on further consideration that further provision was required he would be happy to meet the views of the noble Lord.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: called the attention of the noble Lord to the position of the canal children throughout the country. He was not going to propose any Amendment, because he believed the noble Lord had the case under consideration. He knew how difficult it was to ascertain precisely the residences

  1297
  such children, of whom there were a great number, chiefly located in the canal boats.
  VISCOUNT SANDONadmitted the importance of the subject. Though he thought these children would to a certain extent be caught under the operation of the Bill, yet he was afraid that great numbers of them would succeed in eluding its provisions. In fact, they were a class of children with whom it was extremely difficult to deal, and he was disposed to think that the best course to pursue would be to postpone the further dealing with our canal population until the time when his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department would have to legislate with respect to the various labour suggestions of the Factory Commissions. If, meantime, he found any opportunity of dealing with the question he should be glad to do so.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUwas of opinion that it would not be well to defer dealing with the subject for so long a time.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Enforcement of Act by existing local authority of inspectors of factories or mines).
  VISCOUNT SANDONmoved, in page 2, line 5, to leave out from "district," to "in this Act," in line 10, and insert—
  "By a committee (in this Act referred to as a 'school attendance committee') appointed annually, if it is a borough, by the council of the borough, and, if it is a parish, by the guardians of the union comprising such parish.
  "A school attendance committee under this section may consist of not less than six nor more than twelve members of the council or guardians appointing the committee, so, however, that, in the case of a committee appointed by guardians, one-third at least shall consist of ex-officio guardians, if there are any and sufficient ex-officio guardians.
  "Every such school board and school attendance committee."
  They were anxious, if possible, to attach the best people in the district to Boards of Guardians and to Town Councils. He trusted that, indirectly, this would strengthen the district local government of the country, and that change, he hoped, would add very much to efficiency.
  SIR WALTER BARTTELOTthanked the noble Lord for having introduced into the Bill an Amendment
  1298
  substantially such as he had himself proposed, and expressed his confident opinion that it would be found to work well throughout the country.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwas very glad the noble Lord had made this alteration, and that he had not adhered to the proposal that authority should be given to persons not of the local authorities. The noble Lord had up to this time completely fulfilled his promise that he would listen to proposals for improvement from all parts of the House. He would suggest whether there were not some districts where it would be almost impossible to secure the proportion of one-third of ex-officio Guardians.
  VISCOUNT SANDONthought it would be well to follow the precedent that had been adopted for guidance.
  MR. PELLsaid, that from his experience ex-officio members were not so willing to act as elected members.
  MR. PEASEsaid, he was much pleased with the alteration proposed to be made in this section. As the clause stood it would not work well.
  CAPTAIN NOLANobjected to the committee consisting of one-third ex-officio Guardians. He did so because it was likely to make a precedent for Ireland, and there it would not at all work well.
  MR. CLARE READsaid, it would be better to amend the Amendment by providing that, in case an adequate number of ex-officio members could not be obtained, the deficiency should be made up by elected Guardians.
  MR. PAGETcould not conceive on what ground it was assumed that ex-officio Guardians would not discharge their duty as members of the education committee.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERmoved, in page 2, line 13, after "known," to insert—
  "It shall be the duty of such local authority to report to the Education Department any infraction of the provisions of section seven of 'The Elementary Education Act, 1870,' in any public elementary school within their district which may come to their knowledge; and also to forward to the Education Department any complaint which they may receive of the infraction of those provisions.' "
  He hoped that this Amendment would commend itself to the Government and

  1299
  the Committee generally. It was designed to guard against an evil which every Member of the House would wish to see prevented, and in a way that was not open to objection. He did not believe that the Conscience Clause of 1870 had been often infringed. Indeed, he was not himself aware of any such case. But there was great fear of its being infringed, and it was a suspicion which must be treated by the Government and the House as a fact. Some security, therefore, should be provided against such infringement. He could not vote last evening for the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Richard), believing that it would not work well if the schools were put under the management of the local authority. But as the power now to be given to the local authority would benefit the schools by obtaining for them a larger grant and larger fees from the children, it was only fair that the local authority should report to the Education Department if the conditions were infringed upon which their compulsory powers were exercised. The Amendment also provided that the local authority should forward to the Education Department any complaint made to them of the infraction of the Conscience Clause.
  VISCOUNT SANDONobserved, that the Government and all hon. Members on that (the Ministerial) side were as anxious as any hon. Members on the other side could be that there should be no doubt as to the Conscience Clause being strictly and honestly carried out. In point of fact, the cases were very few in the country generally in which there were any complaints of the infraction of the clause; but whenever a complaint was received by the Education Department they immediately caused inquiries to be made into it. They had had two or three cases, and the school had been notified that if the infraction were repeated the annual Parliamentary grant would be stopped, and there was an end of the matter. He thought that the Amendment was a very good one, not for removing any real difficulties which existed; but if it was an additional assurance to persons that their conscientious scruples would not be interfered with, it would have done good work.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUcontended that as no grant was made to certified efficient schools they ought not
  1300
  to have a Conscience Clause imposed upon them.
  MR. PAGETsaid, he agreed with the noble Lord (Viscount Sandon) that all wished to see the Conscience Clause carried out in the most complete and loyal manner. He feared that the Amendment, if accepted in its present shape, would, oblige the local authorities to report any idle tale or rumour as to the infraction of the clause, and if so it would do great mischief and cause strife where we wanted peace. He would therefore move to amend the proposed Amendment by omitting all the words after the word "authority" in line 2 down to "also" in line 5.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERpointed out that it was not a mere rumour, but an infraction of the provision of the section referred to that should be reported.
  MR. A. MILLSsaid, he could not conceive words more clear than the terms in which the Amendment was drawn. It was satisfactory to the Committee to have the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford that he had known of no infraction of the Conscience Clause.
  MR. RICHARDsaid, he was greatly obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford for proposing the Amendment, and he was no less obliged to the noble Lord (Viscount Sandon) for the frank and generous spirit with which he had received it. It would be a great advantage to give this power to the local authorities.
  Amendment (Mr. Paget), by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment (Mr. W. E. Forster) agreed to.
  THE O'CONOR DONmoved, in page 2, line 16, to leave out "and not of," and insert "to assist." If the clause were left unaltered it would throw upon the Inspectors of Factories, and upon them alone, the duty of looking after the children employed in all the smaller workshops, and the consequence would be that in a great portion of the country the Act would be inoperative. The effect of his Amendment was to throw upon the local authorities the duty of enforcing the observance of the law, providing at the same time that the Inspectors of Factories should assist the local authorities in the carrying out of that duty.
  MR. W. S. STANHOPEsaid, some Amendment was absolutely necessary in the mining districts, where the Inspectors had so many important duties and large districts to attend to; thus it would be impossible for them to attend to the schools in the manner required by the Bill.
  MR. A. M'ARTHURsaid, it was utterly impossible that the Inspectors could do what this clause imposed upon them.
  VISCOUNT SANDONadmitted that it would be imperilling too much the interests of education if they relied solely upon the Inspectors, and he would therefore accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Roscommon.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.
  The House suspended its sitting at Seven of the clock.
  The House resumed its sitting at Nine of the clock.

CORONERS.—RESOLUTION.
LORD FRANCIS HERVEY,in rising to call attention to the Law respecting Coroners and Coroners' Inquests; and to move—
"That further legislation is desirable with regard to the qualification and appointment of Coroners and the mode of holding inquests,"
said, the conditions on which Coroners were appointed and the mode in which they exercised their duties had become so antiquated and obsolete as to call imperatively for reform. The number of Coroners in counties in England and Wales was 233. The number in boroughs was 99. The first thing that struck one in examining the Return from which he obtained these figures was the anomalous manner in which Coroners were distributed. The county of Middlesex, for instance, was satisfied with five. The county of Huntingdon was not satisfied with less, whilst the county of Dorset was not satisfied with less than 11. Norfolk had seven, and Suffolk five, in addition to Coroners at Bury St. Edmund's, Ipswich, Yarmouth, Norwich, The ford, Sudbury, and King's Lynn.
1302
Manchester and Liverpool, again, had only one Coroner a piece, while the borough of Malmesbury thought itself entitled to two, though he did not suppose cases of sudden death were more prevalent there than elsewhere. But it was in the qualifications of Coroners that the necessity for reform was most evident. In counties, for instance, one of their qualifications was believed to be the possession of a certain amount of landed estate, but no two authorities could agree as to how much it should be. In fixing that qualification our ancestors were supposed to have aimed at securing for the office the services of men who as being possessed of lands in fee would not be afraid of anybody; but it was unnecessary to say that the possession of land was a ridiculous qualification for a Coroner at the present day. The qualification of borough Coroners was even less satisfactory than that of their county brethren. All that was necessary in their case was that they should answer to the somewhat vague description of being fit persons, and that they should be neither aldermen nor councillors. To any reasonable mind it was perfectly ridiculous that functions of so important and delicate a character as those of Coroners should be left to auctioneers, retired tradesmen, and other persons of a similar kind. He did not believe, for his part, that they could be properly discharged by any man who had not a good legal training. He would say, indeed, that no one but a barrister or a solicitor ought to be made a Coroner, though he was well aware that The Lancet and other medical organs, which regarded such appointments as a nice perquisite for their profession, would raise an outcry at the bare idea of such a thing. In counties Coroners, generally speaking, were elected by the freeholders, and however reasonable that mode of election might have been in ancient times, it was far from being reasonable now-a-days. In these days there could hardly be a worse way of appointing a judicial officer like a Coroner than by exposing him to the chances and changes of a popular election. Of our 232 county Coroners, 175 were elected by the freeholders, and 58 by lords of manors and various officials and dignitaries of that description. In Derbyshire a Coroner was appointed by right of the possession of a horn—a

1303
hereditary relic. In Essex a Coroner was appointed by the tenants of a manor; in the county of Northampton by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; in Suffolk by the Dean and Chapter of Ely. The case of the boroughs was, perhaps, better than that of the counties. The borough Coroners were elected for the most part by the Town Councils. In the small boroughs there was likely to be a good deal of jobbery, and perhaps in some of the large ones also. In the boroughs of Rye, Tenterden, and Haverford west the Mayor was ex-officio the Coroner. He should not like to live, or rather to die suddenly, in any of those boroughs, because the inquest then held would probably be of the most imperfect character. The question of the appointment of Coroners, therefore, required a solution of a radical kind, and yet the needed reforms could be based on several ancient precedents. They had centuries ago ceased to appoint magistrates or sheriffs by popular election; and his proposition now was that Coroners should in counties cease to be chosen by the freeholders or appointed by lords of manors or other authorities such as had been mentioned before. To storm the municipal corporations was a more difficult matter, and he felt some alarm in suggesting that they should be deprived of their patronage. He now came to the remuneration of these officers, about which there had been much difficulty and squabbling between Coroners and Justices. Formerly county Coroners were paid by fees, when the county Justices used to do all they could to prevent their payment. The result was that if the Coroner did not hold an inquest he was liable for nonfeasance; and if he did he was almost sure to lose his fees. A Royal Commission and a Select Committee, however, some years ago inquired into that matter, and an Act was passed which put the remuneration of county Coroners on a proper footing by giving them fixed salaries. Borough Coroners, however, were still paid by fees, and in an inconvenient and even absurd manner, as was shown by a Return relating to that matter which was issued in 1872. But the real pith and substance of the question he had to introduce related to the duties of Coroners. He passed by inquiries into wrecks, treasure trove, and other minor duties of Coroners which were now prac-
1304
tically obsolete, only remarking that not many years ago the Coroners, in retaliation for the injury done them by Justices, attempted to claim a jurisdiction in cases of arson. The Court of Queen's Bench seemed to have been sorely perplexed at the array of antiquarian arguments marshalled before them, but at last decided very sensibly that Coroners were not to inquire into incendiary fires, or into anything but the death of human beings. The function of Coroners, then, was to make inquiry into all cases of violent, unnatural, or sudden, and suspicious death, but still their duties were not clearly laid down or clearly understood. He had been told of a case of most sudden and suspicious death, which occurred within the last few months, where the Coroner absolutely refused to hold an inquest, and where, though application was made to high authorities, nothing was done, and it was supposed that nothing could be done to make him hold one. He believed that as the law now stood, if a Coroner refused to hold an inquest where one ought to be held, an application could be made to the Court of Queen's Bench by the Attorney General. But that was a roundabout way of getting him to do his duty, because if he did not hold the inquest at once he might as well not hold it at all. The inquest must be held super visum corporis; and if there was much delay this might become impracticable. It was, therefore, a matter of importance that if the Coroner neglected his duty, there should be some machinery for promptly compelling him to do it. On the other hand, within the last year or two they had several times heard of a Coroner exceeding his duty, and obtruding himself without cause upon the private grief of a family to their great annoyance and discomfort. The Home Secretary was obliged to deal with a case of that kind not long ago when an eminent man died. Coroners certainly had not been very successful from the dawn of their history. The first mention of them that he found was that King Alfred hanged a Judge for treating a Coroner's inquest as conclusive. We were not so foolish in these days as to treat an inquest as conclusive. He need not remind the House of the scene in Hamlet which had immortalized "Crowner's quest law." Lord Holt had made some very severe remarks on.

1305
a "weak, silly" Coroner of his day. At no time did Coroners seem to have been treated with respect. Blackstone, spoke strongly of the in competency of Coroners, and, coming down to the present time, Sir John Jervis, in his book on Coroners, spoke of them as being in some instances incompetent to discharge even their present limited authority. So that, looking at the history of Coroners' jurisdiction on the whole, it might be said of those officials that, like the unfortunate maidservant in Barnaby Rudge. they had "failed to give satisfaction." But was there nothing to be said in excuse for Coroners? The statute law relating to Coroners and Coroner's inquests was contained in something over 30 different Acts of Parliament. But if the Statute Law on the subject was confused and intricate, it was almost impossible in any case to say what was the Common Law on those matters. When a Bill on that question was brought in, as it must be before long, he hoped that some effort would be made to remove the obscurities and clear up the doubts and difficulties which beset Coroners on all sides in the discharge of their duties. At any rate, the Statute Law on the subject should be reduced to a single Act, and if the Home Secretary could at the same time clear up the doubtful points, or at any rate some of them, in the Common Law, he would do very serviceable work. For instance, what was to be done if a Coroner did not properly discharge his duty? The Attorney General had found it a very difficult matter to get a fresh inquiry in a case where the performance of the Coroner was admitted to be perfunctory and imperfect. The Attorney General knew how difficult it was for him to say what was the proper remedy in such a case, what was the proper mode of proceeding, and how many different modes of proceeding there were. There were a few other suggestions which he would make with regard to the manner in which inquests were held. Could anything be more prejudicial to the proper holding of a Coroner's inquiry than the holding of it, as was so often the case, in a public-house? Surely there was something perfectly disgusting in holding an inquiry so solemn and sometimes so delicate in a public-house with jingling glasses and the shouts of drunken persons all around, As to the publicity of
1306
the proceeding, to his mind it was of cardinal importance that a judicial inquiry of this kind should be taken in the full light of day, and that it should not be open to the Coroner, from mere caprice or a desire to make a show of his authority, to clear his court—a Court of Record—of all the public, and conduct the proceedings as he pleased in the dark. That was surely a very important point. Was it advisable that we should invariably have recourse to a jury in inquiries of this kind? Did a jury really assist the Coroner? In many cases was not the Coroner impeded in the inquiry by a jury? The Coroner was supposed to take down the evidence of the witnesses in writing, and to procure the signature of the witnesses to it. On this point the law was obscure. But the Coroner sometimes took down the evidence wrong, and did not read it over to the witness. Was it to be tolerated that statements should be put into the mouths of witnesses which they never made? The object which our forefathers in their wisdom wished to attain by establishing Coroners throughout the country was that in cases of sudden or violent or suspicious death there should be a searching and immediate inquiry. They wished, as far as they could, that that inquiry should be held before officials of whose abilities there was no question, whose character was beyond reproach. We could not altogether say that that was the case now. It was surely not less necessary in these days than of old that a Coroner's inquiry should be searching and immediate and before competent persons. He thought he had made out a case for a considerable and a speedy alteration of the law on this subject. The noble Lord concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
MR. SERJEANT SIMON,in seconding the Motion, said, the House was indebted to the noble Lord for having brought under its attention this subject, which was only one of many illustrations of the extent to which the English nation was apt to tolerate an evil until some striking instance of wrong occurred. A recent case had brought the question of Coroners' inquests under public consideration. The office of Coroner was one of the oldest judicial offices on record. In olden times Coroners were not allowed to take fees. Their office was a

1307
most dignified one, and Chaucer, in his description of the Franklein mentions it thus—
"At sessions ther was he lord and sire,
Ful often time he was knight of the shire,
A shereve hadde he ben, and a coronour,
Was no wher swiche a worthy vavasour."
In fact, by the Statute of Westminster I. none but "lawful and discreet knights" were to be chosen as Coroners, and in the reign of Edward III. a Coroner was removed from office because he was only a merchant. He (Mr. Serjeant Simon) greatly doubted the utility of the office of Coroner at the present time. If we had stipendiary magistrates all over the country he would say, transfer the duties of Coroner to them. But as that was not practicable we had to consider how we could best give effect to the object for which the office of Coroner was intended. Coroners had formerly to inquire into wrecks and to perform the duties of the Sheriff during his absence, and they thus combined judicial with administrative functions. The office, however, at the present time was purely judicial, involving great responsibility and requiring judgment and tact, and great experience in the ways of life. The Coroner should possess legal knowledge to enable him to conduct his inquiries efficiently and delicacy of feeling and a wise discretion to know when it was necessary and when it was unnecessary to intrude into the privacy of a sorrowing family. He could name one signal instance where a lady having died by her own hand the Coroner had directed a post mortem examination for the purpose of ascertaining not the cause of death, but her condition which had led her to take her own life; and there were cases where Coroners through want of tact and delicacy had unnecessarily dragged matters to light which could serve no public good, and would have been better left in darkness. He had many communications corroborating his assertion that many Coroners discharged the duties of their office inefficiently, and often so as to render the inquiry a mere waste of public time and expense, and as a means for the promulgation of idle gossip. In his opinion, the office should be filled by a trained lawyer accustomed to judicial proceedings, and qualified to deal with evidence, and not by a medical man. On the question whether these inquiries should be
1308
conducted openly or in private he referred to a decision of Lord Tenterden, in which that learned Judge laid it down that as an inquest was a preliminary inquiry in which the reputations of persons might unnecessarily be placed in jeopardy, it should be left to the discretion of the Coroner whether or not it should be held openly or in private. Occasions might arise on which unnecessary pain might be occasioned to surviving relatives and friends by the holding of public inquests, and therefore power should be given to Coroners to hold inquests in private; but, as a power of this kind might be abused, it was important that every person chosen to fill the office of Coroner should not only possess the necessary professional ability, but should be a man of the highest character. He ought to be above suspicion of corruption, and should be a man of honour and a gentleman. With reference to the mode of the appointment, nothing could be less conducive to the credit of the office than the mode of election. He had great regard for popular election when applied to its proper objects; but certainly objected to popular election when applied to a judicial office. The contest for the office often turned upon the question of who could spend most money. Altogether it seemed to him that it was well worthy the consideration of the Home Secretary, whether the time had not come for bringing in some measure which would remedy the evils complained of. For his own part, he agreed with the noble Lord as to the need there was for a consolidation of the laws relating to Coroners, an alteration of the mode of appointment, and the providing of some guarantee that Coroners should be men of character and possessing proper qualifications for the office.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That further legislation is desirable with regard to the qualification and appointment of Coroners and the mode of holding inquests."—(Lord Francis Hervey.)
MR. CLARE READ,in supporting the Motion, said, he was prepared to go further than his noble Friend who had brought the question forward, and to say that the time had arrived when the office of Coroner might be abolished altogether with very satisfactory results. The office was a very ancient one, but

1309
it was of no use continuing it if it was not required. In 90 per cent of inquests held the verdict was one of death from natural causes, and he believed that a great number of inquests were held when they were entirely unnecessary, and much trouble and expense were thereby entailed upon everybody concerned. He hoped to live to see the day when a great change would be made in the mode of these inquiries, some of which would be much better made before magistrates. One of the chief difficulties arising from the existing state of the law was that the jurisdictions of the Coroners overlapped each other, and the people who found it necessary to suggest the holding of inquests did not know to which Coroner in a county, or a division of a county, application should be made. With regard to the mode in which Coroners were elected, there were many absurdities that ought to be swept away. As they had heard, there were no fewer than seven different Coroners for Norfolk, while in East Anglia there was one Coroner an auctioneer, another a land agent, a third a doctor, a fourth called himself a gentleman, but he (Mr. Read) really did not know what he was by profession, and there were two or three who were lawyers. Could anything be more confusing, perplexing, or stupid than this arrangement? Conservative as he was, he was enough of a Reformer to think that the time had come when the office of Coroner might be abolished, and when better arrangements might be made for the fulfilment of the duties of the office.
MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the noble Lord opposite had done good service in bringing the subject under the consideration of the House. He had not expected, however, to hear the question treated in so radical a spirit as had been evinced by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down; and he could not go so far as to say that Coroners ought to be abolished, as there was a great deal of work which could be properly and justly done by Coroners. The recommendations of the noble Lord were more practical. He agreed with the noble Lord that the existing mode of appointment was unsatisfactory, and that a change was necessary; but as to how the appointments should be carried out that was a difficult matter to decide. He should
1310
not like to see all these appointments centralized in the Home Office, although it would probably be acceptable to almost every Member of the House that the responsibility of choosing the body which should in future appoint the Coroners should be left with the Government. Inquiries before the Coroner had often to be re-opened, and of late there had been many cases of complaint of this kind in relation to Coroners, and there was a ease in point relating to the case of Mr. Bravo. There were numerous cases in which Coroners' inquests did not give satisfaction; and there were some in which there was an absolute failure of justice. Surely it ought to be sufficient to make application to the Home Secretary or the Lord Chancellor to have an inquiry re-opened instead of having to resort to the circuitous process of applying to the Court of Queen's Bench. The question of law was one which affected the legal administration of the country, and there was no doubt that the present appointment of Coroners was bad, and that there should be some better procedure in the matter of Coroners' inquests. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite intended to deal with the subject, he would suggest that all the Acts relating to Coroners should be consolidated.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSexpressed a hope that the House would disassociate the discussion altogether from any recent case which had happened. He rather regretted that the Motion should have been brought forward just after a case of a Coroner's inquest had been prominently brought before the public. Long before that case occurred this question had occupied a good deal of his attention, and indeed he had for years been of opinion that the time had come when the whole question of Coroners and their inquiries should be subjected to great change. After what had been said as to individual Coroners, however, he would say that a great deal of good had been performed by the existing Coroners. Though in individual instances justice might have miscarried, the great body of the Coroners did their duty to the best of their knowledge and ability, and that a great deal of good had resulted from their inquiries. In his opinion, it would not do to abolish the office of Coroner. He happened to be mixed up to a great extent with in-

1311
quiries as to colliery and other explosions, and in such cases a great deal of information had been furnished to him, and the inquiries by Coroners had given rise to great satisfaction among the classes whose lives were subjected to accident in this particular way. He had, indeed, in such cases sent down an officer from the Home Office to see that the case was properly conducted and the whole facts brought out. Having said so much on behalf of the Coroners as a body, he had not the slightest hesitation in adding that the present state of the law was bad in many particulars. It was true that there were too many Coroners, and that they were unequally apportioned over the country, though this did not work any practical evil; but, if the law was to be altered, that question must be taken into consideration. In the case of the appointment of an officer who had one of the highest judicial functions to perform, and who always held out his office as being older and higher than that of the magistrate, such an officer should, in his opinion, have particular qualifications for his office. An inquest was a judicial inquiry, and the person presiding at it ought to have been trained as a lawyer, to be practised in weighing evidence and drawing the truth from the witnesses, so that he might guide the jury to a right conclusion. If, therefore, the law was altered, the qualification for the office of Coroner should be a knowledge of the law and some standing in the legal Profession. A great deal had been said of the election of Coroners, and he must say he could not conceive a worse mode of election for a judicial officer than a popular election by the freeholders of the county. There were instances without end of enormous sums of money being spent in order to secure the election of a Coroner. He did not know that the statutes against bribery extended to the elections of Coroners, although the Common Law might; but if such sums of money as were sometimes heard of were necessary to be spent in the election of Coroners, the sooner that kind of election was put an end to the better. He would not, however, say with whom he thought the appointment of Coroners should rest. He certainly had not the smallest wish that it should rest with the Secretary of State; but he thought the means might be found by which the process of appoint-
1312
ment might be much simplified and the best man selected. With respect to the duties of the Coroner, he must say when a man duly qualified was appointed, they ought, in a matter of this kind, to leave a great deal to his discretion. Formerly the Coroner stood in a very awkward, position. The justices of quarter sessions might be of opinion that he had held inquests which he ought not to have held, and might stop his fees, and, at the end of five years, fix a low average in order to limit his salary. One of those cases which often happened was this—a great explosion occurred in a mine and a large number of people were killed. He had known instances where the Coroner held as many as 30 or 40 inquests. He might clearly have ascertained the cause of death by holding two or three, though more than one might have been necessary, because all the persons might not have met their deaths in the same way; and certainly imputations had been brought against Coroners of increasing the number of inquests to increase the amount of fees. That was extremely improper. But he thought the duties of the Coroner might very easily be better defined by statute than at present. Something had been said of holding inquests in public-houses. He always regretted that should be the case, but inquests must be held somewhere. They had no right to hold them in a private house, and they could not always secure a place other than a public-house in which inquests could be held. He thought that was a matter that might fairly be left to the discretion of the Coroner. With respect to the persons who should compose the Coroner's jury, he thought they should be drawn from the same panel as in all other cases. Every man was bound to perform the office of juryman for the benefit of his fellow-countrymen, and this was one of the most important functions of a juryman. The jury lists for the Coroner should, therefore, be made out like all other lists by the Sheriff. With regard to the consolidation of the law relating to the office of Coroner, he thought the whole law should be put in one clear and intelligible statute. The re-opening of the inquiry was, he thought, rather a difficult question. When a duly qualified man was properly appointed, he did not think the inquiry should be rashly re-

1313
opened. The Court of Queen's Bench for some time considered, that they should not grant a second inquiry unless some imputation, almost imputing fraud, were made against the conduct of the Coroner. But in a recent case they had come to another conclusion. He certainly thought that it would not be right to give the Secretary of State or even the Lord Chancellor power to grant a second inquiry. They ought to take great care where the liberty of the subject was concerned not to place such a power in the hands of any political officer. It would be much better to leave it to the Courts of Law, although it might be possible to simplify and shorten the process by which the application should be made. He was very glad this question had been brought forward by the noble Lord; but he hoped the country would not think it had been brought forward simply on account of any special circumstance that had arisen of late. It was a question which had received not only his own attention, but that of other Secretaries of State, and he promised the noble Lord it should not be lost sight of. He was far from wishing that the noble Lord should withdraw his Resolution; he rather desired that it should be affirmed by the House in order to show that it was the deliberate opinion of the House that the time had arrived when the office of Coroner should be reformed. In what he had said he had no desire to impute to the Coroners anything like misconduct in the way they generally discharged the duties of their office, believing that in the vast majority of cases honest and substantial justice was done.
SIR THOMAS BAZLEYfeared that the conduct of some Coroners had fairly exposed an ancient office to the attacks that had been made upon it; for instance, take two cases in which Coroners had directed juries to return verdicts of wilful murder. In one a young schoolboy inadvertently killed another by discharging a pistol, and in the other a child was run over by a brewer's dray, and the verdict was given, not against the driver, but against the owner, who was a hundred miles away from the place. He concurred in the opinion of the Home Secretary that the office of the Coroner should be perpetuated, but altered so as to make it more serviceable to the country by a
1314
better discharge of the duties appertaining to it. He was in favour of a thorough reform of the present law for the election and regulation of the office of Coroner.
DR. LUSHsaid, he was glad to hear from the Home Secretary that he was desirous of preserving the ancient office of Coroner. As a general rule, Coroners were not open to the reproach that had been cast upon them in the course of that debate. No doubt many inquiries were improperly held, but they had a beneficial effect in deterring persons from committing punishable offences. They were Courts of Inquiry rather than Judicial Courts, and if judicial knowledge was necessary in the person who filled the office, so also was medical knowledge essential to the proper discharge of the duties.
MR. H. T. COLEsaid, that last Session he introduced a Bill on this subject, but unfortunately it shared the fate of Bills introduced by private Members. In considering the question he came to the conclusion that the election of Coroner by the freeholders—a grave in a churchyard giving a qualification—should be abolished, and given to the magistrates in quarter sessions; and if that was not sufficiently popular the Guardians of the poor could be joined with them, which would give a sufficiently popular mode of election, and materially lessen the expense attendant on the present mode of election, which frequently cost from £10,000 to £12,000. The result was that the expense deterred the most competent man from soliciting the office. He had no wish to abolish the office, because if that were done a similar one must be created. He was much pleased to hear the Home Secretary say that the office should be held by a trained lawyer, because trained medical skill could always be obtained, and at a moment's notice, to make the necessary examinations and give the proper evidence as to the cause of death. The noble Lord had done good service in bringing the subject before the House, and he trusted the Resolution would not become a dead letter.
Motion agreed to.

NAVY—CAPTAIN SULIVAN.

  RESOLITTION.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY,in calling attention to the circumstances under

  1315
  which Captain Sulivan R.N., was recently superseded by the Admiralty from the command of H.M.S. "London;" and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, Captain Sulivan should not have been removed from the command of one of Her Majesty's ships for any alleged error, shortcoming or neglect of duty, without having been given an opportunity, if he desired it, of explaining or defending his conduct before a competent Court,"
  said, that this was not brought forward as a personal grievance or at the solicitation of Captain Sulivan, who was entirely unknown to him till a few days ago. He brought it forward in the public interest, as it involved a question of importance connected with the Naval Service. The Correspondence which had been laid on the Table spoke for itself. Briefly stated, the circumstances were these. Captain Sulivan, a distinguished officer of 30 years' honourable service, sailed from England in July, 1874, for the East Coast of Africa in command of Her Majesty's ship London. Among the officers of the ship was a chaplain, the Rev. Mr. Penny, and it was on account of the disagreement between the captain and the chaplain that Captain Sulivan was superseded in his command and recalled home at the end of 1875. The purport of the Resolution he offered to the House was that under the circumstances which he would shortly relate Captain Sulivan should have been granted a court martial, for which he had asked no less than three times. It was unnecessary to weary the House with all the details of the squabbles—for that was the most appropriate word—which for 15 months embittered the relations between the superior officer and his subordinate. Captain Sulivan was not a member of the Church of England, and he undoubtedly appeared to have been a Nonconformist by conviction, and to have been ready at all times to assert his principles. Mr. Penny, on the other hand, belonged to the very High Church party—in fact, to the highest order of priestcraft. Each, no doubt, was sincere from his own point of view, but the discordant elements no sooner met than they exploded. The first cause of dissension that arose between Captain Sulivan and Mr. Penny was the absence of the former from the Holy Communion, which Cap-
  1316
  tain Sulivan declined to receive at Mr. Penny's hands. Shortly afterwards Captain Sulivan thought it his duty to order the chaplain that the service on Sundays, which was held on the quarterdeck, should be shortened by limiting the amount of chanting, so as not to interfere too much with the working of the ship. The week-day service was also directed to be limited to "short prayers" from the Liturgy, strictly in accordance with the Instructions for the Navy. These orders evidently constituted in Mr. Penny's mind an unpardonable offence, for from that moment he "cut" his captain and behaved on many occasions in a most disrespectful manner. This was acknowledged by the Admiralty letter of 15th of September, 1874, in which—
  "My Lords are of opinion that Mr. Penny's conduct has in several instances been highly disrespectful towards his Captain."
  When the London arrived at the Cape, Captain Sulivan applied to the Commodore there for a Court of Inquiry to investigate these matters of difference between himself and Mr. Penny. Commodore Hewett replied that he should forward the application to the Admiral commanding on the Indian Station, to which the London was going, in order that the ship might not be delayed, and that Admiral Cumming should decide as to the charge of "disrespectful behaviour" made against Mr. Penny. The Admiral, however, declined to grant a Court of Inquiry, but directed the chaplain to cease wearing certain gold crosses on his stole, which had given offence, and which Captain Sulivan had remonstrated against as being a "non-regulation uniform." Mr. Penny, however refused to comply with this direction of the Admiral, and the authorities at home, by a letter of the 4th February,1875, declined to make any order on the subject. This was a small matter, but it was a triumph for the chaplain, and contributed to make him persist in his defiant attitude on other points. A few months after, in February, 1875, Mr. Penny again sent through Captain Sulivan a complaint as to the conduct of Divine service, which Captain Sulivan forwarded, with his remarks, to the Admiral. The Admiral, in his Report to the Admiralty at home, stated that, in his opinion, Mr. Penny—

  1317
  "Had acted in a spirit apart from that which should be shown by any officer, and especially by a clergyman."
  He also said—
  "That on any future occasion he should consider it his duty to take most serious notice of it."
  It was a pity that serious notice was not taken of it at the same time. Nothing further occurred till the arrival of Admiral Macdonald to relieve Admiral Cumming on the station in July, 1875, when, by instructions from home, he directed that a Court of Inquiry should be held "in the disputes between Captain G. L. Sulivan and the Rev. Mr. Penny." Of course, nothing was known to the public of what had taken place, but an answer to the Report of that Court came from the Admiralty, in a letter dated the 15th of September, 1875, and it was to the following effect—
  "After a careful perusal of the whole correspondence, commencing as far back as September, 1874, my Lords have been compelled with regret to come to the conclusion that Captain Sulivan has not acted towards Mr. Penny with that consideration and judgment which is expected from the Captain of one of Her Majesty's ships.
  "My Lords are further of opinion that Mr. Penny's conduct has in several instances been highly disrespectful towards his Captain; and as they entirely agree in the opinion of the Court that so long as these two officers remain together no harmony can be expected, they have decided to remove them both from the ship, and they are to be so informed."
  But the correspondence of 1874 here referred to was not admitted before the Court of Inquiry, so that Captain Sulivan had no opportunity of dealing with it; and, further, Mr. Penny was not removed, although Captain Sulivan was, and the "disrespectful" subordinate had the satisfaction before the whole ship's company of bowing over the side his commanding officer, with whom he had been notoriously at war for a long time. He should ask the First Lord of the Admiralty to explain how this happened, and whether he considered such an affair to conduce to the dignity or discipline of the Service? Captain Sulivan had since in vain sought for a court martial to vindicate himself. The Lords of the Admiralty stated in a letter of the 6th of December, 1875, that, apart from this disagreement with Mr. Penny, they were quite satisfied with the way in which he discharged his duties while in command of the London;
  1318
  and yet they appeared to justify their very arbitrary proceeding by refusing the redress which the Captain demanded. Admiral Macdonald wrote to Captain Sulivan as follows:—
  "My dear Sulivan,—I can assure you it was with much regret I heard first through the papers that the Lords of the Admiralty had resolved to remove you from your command. I make no comment as to this discharge, but a sense of justice alone has induced me to write to their Lordships my very high opinion of the zeal and ability that you displayed under trying circumstances in the arrangement of the ship."
  Considering the trying duties which Captain Sulivan had to perform, it was only natural that he should have lost temper with a chaplain of that kind. Before leaving the London he wrote to the Admiralty making a formal complaint of gross misconduct on the part of Mr. Penny, in the presence of several Natives, to which the Admiralty replied that they had called upon Mr. Penny for an explanation. Mr. Penny, accordingly, did write an explanatory letter, in which he made the grossest accusations against Captain Sulivan; but would it be believed that letter had never been seen by Captain Sulivan till it appeared in the Correspondence which was published yesterday? In his (Mr. Ashley's) opinion, the fact alone of such a letter having been written by Mr. Penny rendered it imperative on the Admiralty to grant the court martial which Captain Sulivan had asked for three times and failed to obtain. It was conducive neither to the welfare nor to the popularity of the Service that commanding officers should be subjected to the treatment which Captain Sulivan had experienced. Even had the two officers in the present case been treated alike, their punishment would have been very unequal; for there was a very heavy pecuniary fine inflicted on Captain Sulivan by the circumstances of his super session, not to mention the greater publicity which attached to the recall of a commanding officer. Captain Sulivan had been 30 years in the Service, and the Lords of the Admiralty had themselves expressed an opinion that what had taken place ought not to operate against his future employment in Her Majesty's Navy. He was content to rest the case thus. The Admiralty said that this officer was deserving of employment, and yet he had been.

  1319
  superseded in his ship, because he had not been able to get on with a subordinate officer who had been pronounced guilty of highly disrespectful conduct. It seemed to be the opinion of the Admiralty that an officer in command of one of Her Majesty's ships should combine the indifference of a Gallio in religious matters with the tact of a Talleyrand in the affairs of the world. He doubted greatly whether the demand for such qualities would secure for us equally efficient officers; but certainly, if the absence of these qualifications were to be made reasons for punishment, the interests of Her Majesty's Service would be gravely imperilled. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONseconded the Motion, because he believed that great injustice had been done to a distinguished officer, and that the Admiralty in his case had departed from the line of procedure laid down by Parliament for the administration of justice in the Navy. He was an entire stranger to Captain Sulivan, but he had come forward to support this Motion from a sense of duty. Captain Sulivan was accused of undue interference with his chaplain; but according to Naval Regulations a captain was responsible for the due performance of religious duties on board his ship, and was invested with a certain amount of discretion as to the length, of the prayers to be read. It was also to be borne in mind that Captain Sulivan had on board his ship some 52 Nonconformists, whose religious opinions were entitled to some consideration. He asked hon. Members acquainted with the practice adopted in private families whether it was usual at prayers to read the Creed and those parts of the Liturgy which Captain Sulivan had directed should be omitted? Why, the Chaplain of the House of Commons who read short prayers before they commenced their Sittings, was not required to read the Creed or those parts of the Liturgy; and the House could hardly blame Captain Sulivan for following its own example in that respect. The second complaint made against Captain Sulivan was that he directed the chaplain to omit chanting in the open air on the upper deck, and to confine himself to the singing of hymns. There he thought that gallant officer had used a wise dis-
  1320
  cretion. The third objection raised by the chaplain was that he was desired to omit the priestly invocation, which, not being in the Church service of the Church of England, Captain Sulivan was justified in requesting him to omit. That priestly invocation would have been offensive to all the Nonconformists on board, as it certainly would have been to him if he had been in the ship. Then the fourth and most important point was that Captain Sulivan found that his chaplain appeared in a dress which he had never seen before—a stole with three gold crosses upon it, and on asking his chaplain what that dress was, as he did not know of any Admiralty Regulation authorizing it, the chaplain told him it was a dress given him when he was made a priest by the Church, and that the Admiralty should not take it from him. Captain Sulivan, in his complaint about the stole with those gold crosses on it, said it would destroy the simplicity which had hitherto characterized the service held in the ship, and thus justify the Nonconformists, of whom there were 50 in the London. in objecting to it, and in absenting themselves from it, as would certainly have been the case if these novelties had been tolerated. Admiral Cumming, who commanded at the Cape of Good Hope Station, writing to Captain Sulivan in reference to that matter, asked him to inform Mr. Penny that it was his wish, that he should discontinue the use of the stole with the gold crosses on it in order to prevent dissension on board the London. The Rev. Mr. Penny, in a letter to the Admiralty of the 7th February, 1875, which was not among those Papers, but which the First Lord of the Admiralty had that day kindly laid on the Table, said that in regard to the Admiral's wish that he should for the present discontinue the use of his stole, he felt himself conscientiously unable to gratify him; that he had used the stole for 10 years without its causing the least offence to any one except to Captain Sulivan, who was not a member of the Church of England. Therefore, it was the opinion of the chaplain that to give offence to a person who was not a member of the Church of England was of no importance, forgetting that Captain Sulivan and the 50 Nonconformists were as much members of his congregation as the highest Churchman on board. What

  1321
  was the decision of the Admiralty? On the 2nd of March, 1875, my Lords said that as regarded the stole described they made no order on the subject, observing, however, that in a matter so indifferent no unnecessary offence should be given to anybody on board. Therefore, the Admiralty declined to give any opinion and left that unfortunate difference to be fought out in the ship as best it could be. What had been the consequence? Why, that in the same command, on board of a man-of-war, within the last few months, the chaplain was seated at table, and never rose as the other officers did to the Admiral, saying that he had nothing to do with the Admiral, that he was independent of him, and was under the Lords of the Admiralty. If that was the way in which the Lords of the Admiralty upheld the discipline of the Navy, he thought they would find that discipline rapidly sink. That in subordinate chaplain had been encouraged in his insubordination. He wrote a letter in June which caused Captain Sulivan to apply for an inquiry, which was this time granted, but it was too late. The Court of Inquiry could not go into the matter, because the Admiralty had given their decision upon it. Therefore, Captain Sulivan had had no opportunity of defending himself against the accusations made by the chaplain. No doubt the House would be told that Captain Sulivan had not been dismissed, but only removed from his command, and that had he been dismissed he would have been entitled to a court martial. When he himself asked for the Papers relating to the dismissal of Captain Sulivan, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) corrected him, and said that that officer had not been "dismissed," but only "removed." He had altered his Notice accordingly; but he asked the House what was the difference to Captain Sulivan? If Captain Sulivan had been tried in accordance with his request by a court martial, he did not think they would have done anything more than to severely reprimand him, and he would have remained in command of his ship up to the present time. But the Admiralty had practically inflicted a more severe punishment on Captain Sulivan than if he had been tried by a court martial. He believed he was correct in saying that the Chaplain's Department of the Admiralty was
  1322
  managed by the private Secretary of the First Lord. The private Secretary of the First Lord was not a responsible officer. If he gave advice to the First Lord, the First Lord was responsible. He would now allude to what was, perhaps, the most important point connected with this question—namely, the holding of Courts of Inquiry instead of courts martial. That was a practice which had been gradually growing for f many years both in the Navy and the f Army, to the great discontent of the officers of both Services. He did not at all wish to raise the question of the prerogative of the Crown to dismiss any officer. He freely admitted that the Crown had the right—and had properly the right—to dismiss any officer without giving any reasons whatever. But that was a very different thing from the course that was now adopted—namely, that of condemning an officer first of all and then removing him. The Crown had no prerogative to condemn any man without hearing what he might have to say in his defence. The Lords of the Admiralty referred to the opinion of the Court of Inquiry as justifying them in removing Captain Sulivan. They did not say they removed him by virtue of the prerogative of the Crown without giving any reasons. If Courts of Inquiry were to be held, they ought to be regulated on well-known principles. He thanked the hon. Member for bringing forward the Motion, and he hoped the House would agree to it.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, Captain Sulivan should not have been removed from the command of one of Her Majesty's ships for any alleged error, shortcoming, or neglect of duty, without having been given an opportunity, if he desired it, of explaining or defending his conduct before a competent court."—(Mr. Ashley.)
  Mr. HUNTsaid, the Motion which had been placed on the Paper by the hon. Gentleman opposite was somewhat ambiguous in its terms. ["No!"] It said that—
  "Captain Sulivan should not have been removed from the command of one of Her Majesty's ships for any alleged error, shortcoming, or neglect of duty, without having been given an opportunity, if he desired it, of explaining or defending his conduct before a competent court."
  The hon. Gentleman did not explain what a competent Court meant in this

  1323
  Motion; but he inferred from the speech of his hon. and gallant Friend who seconded the Motion that he was of opinion that Captain Sulivan should not have been removed without having been tried by a court martial. Well, that raised a very important question—namely, whether the Board of Admiralty, in exercise of the power of the Crown, which was delegated to them, were or were not competent to supersede an officer in his command without a court martial. He maintained that they had the fullest power and authority to do so, and when his hon. and gallant Friend spoke of there being no difference between dismissing an officer from his ship under the Naval Discipline Act and removing him by superseding him and appointing another officer in his place he made the greatest mistake possible. What had been done in the case of Captain Sulivan had been done outside the Naval Discipline Act. The Admiralty had exercised the supreme authority reserved to them by the Naval Discipline Act, and had not apportioned to Captain Sulivan any punishment mentioned in the Naval Discipline Act. Therefore, it was perfectly correct to say there was a great difference between the case of dismissing an officer from a ship and that of relieving him from his command by the supreme authority vested in the Admiralty. Hon. Gentlemen might say that in each case the officer had to leave the ship. That was perfectly true; but in the one case he left his ship with a distinct punishment recorded against him, and in the other be was simply told that he no longer commanded his ship. In the case of Captain Sulivan no punishment whatever was recorded against him in the books of the Admiralty. He had been relieved of the command of his ship because the Admiralty considered it undesirable on public grounds that he should any longer continue in command, but no disgrace or punishment was recorded against him, as would have been the case had he been dismissed from his command. The hon. Member opposite had not alluded to the question of the power of the Admiralty to supersede an officer in his command without an inquiry before a court martial; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman behind him (Sir Alexander Gordon) had fully admitted
  1324
  the existence of that power. That power, indeed, had been exercised by the right hon. Gentleman who had preceded him in office in a notable case in which he had superseded two Admirals in their command. He therefore submitted that the Admiralty possessed an undoubted right to supersede an officer in his command if they thought fit to do so, and that such a course was for the good of the Service. The hon. Member who had brought forward this Motion had made a very clever selection of passages from the Papers suitable for his own purposes, and with the permission of the House he would read other passages from them which would give a different colour to the transaction. What was the case of Captain Sulivan? He had himself appointed Captain Sulivan to the command of the London. and he had also appointed the chaplain; therefore, he was naturally inclined to have supported the captain whom he had himself selected. It was also the practice at the Admiralty to support an officer in command as far as they could properly do so, and therefore he had a double motive in desiring to support Captain Sulivan. But what had happened? When the ship arrived at the Cape of Good Hope on her way to Zanzibar complaints were made by the Captain of the chaplain. It so happened that Captain Sulivan had come within the notice of three senior officers—namely, Commodore Hewett, the Commodore of the Cape; Admiral Cumming, the Commander-in-Chief on the East Indian Station; and Admiral Macdonald. What was the view taken of the conduct of Captain Sulivan by these three officers? When the London touched at the Cape, Captain Sulivan made a complaint with regard to the conduct of his chaplain; but Commodore Hewett thought that there was no necessity for an immediate inquiry into the matter, thinking that were one instituted it would delay the ship unnecessarily, and that the vessel had better go on, leaving the question to be determined by the Admiral on her arrival at her station. It had been put to the House that the chaplain had been insubordinate from the beginning to the end, while all that Captain Sulivan had done was to carefully discharge his duty. But what said Commodore Hewett upon the subject? The Commodore at the Cape was satis-

  1325
  fied that the apprehensions of Captain Sulivan with reference to the performance of the Services by the chaplain were imaginary, and that the chaplain had acted in a temperate and a proper manner, and had complied with his orders in every respect. Thus the matter was passed over to the Commander-in-Chief on the East Indian Station. It was exceedingly painful to him to have to bring forward what he believed to be these unfortunate indiscretions of Captain Sulivan. He was anxious that the matter should have rested where it was. In the interests of the Service, and in the interest of Captain Sulivan himself, he was anxious that the conduct of the latter should not have been dragged into notoriety. He was not satisfied with his conduct, but he was willing to have treated it as an exceptional incident in his career. He knew how fiercely the odium theologicum burnt in some breasts, and he was willing to make allowances for it, and for the excitement produced by the temperature of Zanzibar, in the case of Captain Sulivan, and he had told him that he intended to give him further employment. But it had been said by the hon. Member opposite—"What was the use of superseding a man to whom it was intended to give further employment?" Therefore, because he had taken an indulgent view of Captain Sulivan's case, he was told that he had no right to take any notice of his conduct. What said the Commander-in-Chief? In his letter of the 7th of January, 1875, he said, after duly considering the whole correspondence I have informed Captain Sulivan—
  "I cannot see any ground for inquiry into the manner in which the chaplain has conducted himself. He appears in every instance to have implicitly obeyed his orders."
  He was not going to uphold the chaplain of the London. He had superseded him. But that was the recorded opinion of these two officers? He went on to say he could see no great disrespect or unbecoming conduct which had been shown towards Captain Sulivan by the chaplain. He went on to say that if Captain Sulivan, instead of pointing out what prayers should be said and what parts of the Church Service should be chanted, had told the chaplain what length of time he wished the Service to
  1326
  occupy, he believed all the discussion which had arisen might have been avoided. He went on to say that if the Captain had desired that the chanting should be omitted for reasons made known to him it would have been wrong if the chaplain had not complied. But he added that Mr. Penny appeared to have conducted the Service in accordance with the Liturgy of the Church of England. With regard to the wearing of the stole, the matter was referred to the Admiralty, and they thought the wearing of the stole should be discontinued for the present. The hon. Gentleman had stated that he did not know what a stole was. A stole was a black narrow silk scarf worn by clergymen of the Church of England over their surplices, which fell down towards their ankles. It was worn in nearly every Episcopal church in the country, except where the clergyman, was entitled to wear a broad scarf. For himself he saw no virtue or magic in a stole, and he listened with equal pleasure to a clergyman if he did his duty well whether he were a stole or not.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONreminded his right hon. Friend that the stole was not so much objected to as the gold crosses on the stole.
  MR. HUNT: Well, as a matter of taste, he preferred the stole to the gold crosses on the stole. But the crosses on the stole were simply crosses worked in yellow floss silk. It was a pity that crosses should be worn where they gave offence; but when they were sanctioned by Bishops in this country it was impossible for the Admiralty to lay down a positive rule that no chaplain should have a cross upon his stole. They made no order about the stole, but suggested no unnecessary offence should be given to anyone on board the ship. He maintained that to be a truly Christian principle, and held that they were right in not in making a positive order as to the crosses. He now came to the next complaint. The House would observe that according to the opinions of Commodore Hewett and Admiral Gumming, up to that time the chaplain conducted himself most respectfully and obeyed every order. He regretted, however, that that course was not continued; but he must say that the Captain's conduct to the chaplain was most vexatious and aggravating. He interfered with what

  1327
  was to be read, to say nothing as to interference with the chanting of portions of the Service, which the Rubric said might be said or sung. Chanting, however, might possibly be inconvenient on board a ship; but when the Captain went on to forbid the use of the Apostles' Creed, he was certainly going beyond the line of his duty. But he must tell the House also that when the chaplain got up to preach Captain Sulivan walked out. He said he "withdrew from the service when the chaplain preached."[Sir Henry James: Because he was personally referred to.] Yes, that was what he said; but the chaplain denied that he had made any personal reference, and said he could not have done so, as he was preaching an old sermon. Of course, if the chaplain was preaching at the Captain he was doing what was very wrong; but there were other ways of dealing with the matter besides getting up and walking out, and he altogether denied that he made any personal reference to the Captain. Then there was another matter. The chaplain was in the habit of taking a voluntary mission service on shore, and the Captain forbad him to do so. It was true that he rescinded the order after a certain time, but it was calculated to annoy; and nothing could be more aggravating or tend more to lessen the influence of the chaplain than that the Captain should tell him to shorten the prayers, omit certain parts of the Service, walk out when he began to preach, and stop his volunteer service on shore. It appeared from the Correspondence that the chaplain had occasion to complain that the Captain had neglected to make any provision for the officers and men of the smaller ships of the Squadron attending Divine Service, and the Admiral, while he considered the explanation of Captain Sulivan indefinite and unsatisfactory, found fault with the chaplain for complaining to another captain who appeared at the station, and who was senior to Captain Sulivan. He was not there to defend the chaplain, whom he had superseded. Going on a little further a new Commander-in-Chief, Admiral Macdonald, was appointed, and on the 30th of July he wrote to the Admiralty, saying that he had ordered a Court of Inquiry. That was occupied 10 days with these wretched squabbles, from the 14th to the 24th,
  1328
  and the Report was made on the 28th, so that the duties of the station were neglected for a fortnight. According to a rule that had always been maintained, he could not produce the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry; for his own sake he wished he could, because he thought they would show that a right decision had been arrived at. He read the proceedings most carefully, and the conclusion produced by the perusal of that Report was that both the chaplain and the Captain were to blame—the Captain, in the first instance, when the dissensions arose, and the chaplain afterwards, when he exhibited an improper spirit for a clergyman and disrespect for the Captain. Therefore, he could not uphold either, though the Admiralty, if possible, always upheld a captain, and, with the entire concurrence of his Colleagues, he felt that the only thing to be done was to supersede the Captain. A Court of Inquiry was most essential and most desirable. This was not a case of a charge against the Captain and of evidence before a court martial. These were matters of manner, and a course of conduct creating ill-feeling, which could not be placed in a charge before a court martial. It seemed to him that this was a case in which the two officers should be superseded, for it was impossible that the state of things which had arisen should be allowed to continue; there was discord in the ship, and the services of the ship could not be properly carried on with the existence of so muchill-feeling. Both officers were simultaneously informed that they would be superseded, and that their successors would be sent out by the next steamer. Unemployed captains were many, but unemployed chaplains were few, and it was much easier to send out a captain than a chaplain. He had intended that both should come home at once, and it was through an accident and inadvertence that this was not the case, though they were both superseded at the same time. The captain came home, and the chaplain was directed to come home before his successor arrived. The captain came home and demanded a court martial. The fact did not appear in the Papers because the demand was made on a personal interview. The request made was that a ship should be sent to Zanzibar with a lot of officers to form a Court, for at these distant stations it was often

  1329
  impossible, even when desirable, to obtain a sufficient number of officers to form a Court. The reply he gave to the demand was that he did not consider it possible to frame a charge that would be cognizable by a court martial. He had been told that the Captain ought to have been tried by a court martial, but some of the witnesses were in England while the others were in Zanzibar, so that the difficulties were insuperable. The truth was that both these officers had got into such an antagonistic attitude and into such a state of excitement that everything in their conduct to each other appeared to their jaundiced vision to be disrespectful. He believed that there had been faults on both sides; that originally the fault was in Captain Sulivan, that it soon became a matter of mutual offence, and that eventually the Admiralty did the best thing for the service by removing both officers from the ship. In a private interview, he informed Captain Sulivan that it was an unfortunate business, but that he might tell his friends it would not be looked at in the light in which he regarded it, and that the Admiralty were willing to employ him again. In his opinion, it was to be regretted that Captain Sulivan did not accept this proposition instead of taking the steps he did. The matter would then have been forgotten, for it was one of those unfortunate personal squabbles which sometimes, though very rarely, arose on board Her Majesty's ships. However, as the subject had been brought before the House he had been obliged to go into it fully and to say things against Captain Sulivan which he should not have said except in self-defence. The Admiralty was responsible for order being kept on board Her Majesty's ships. In conclusion, the right hon. Gentleman expressed his belief that the Admiralty acted wisely in removing both officers and in refusing the court martial to investigate a question of insolence of conduct and manner that was wholly beneath the dignity of such a tribunal.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not mentioned any charge which could be brought against Captain Sulivan. In the course of this discussion many hon. Members must have asked themselves the question—"What has Captain Sulivan really done, and why has he been discharged from his ship?"
  1330
  According to the right hon. Gentleman, it was on account of some miserable squabbles which ought not to have been brought under the attention of the House. It was indeed to be regretted that incidents which had caused scandal in the Navy should have occurred at all; but it was not by shirking the question in that House that the difficulty could be got over. Captain Sulivan ought to have been supported in his position in order that it might have been shown that the presence of a chaplain did not make it a difficult duty for a Nonconformist to command one of Her Majesty's ships. Captain Sulivan's position as a Nonconformist was full of difficulty, and seemed to have been made more difficult by the conduct of the chaplain in introducing some of the more novel forms of the Church of England Service, and, arising from this, the proper order and discipline of the ship was risked in consequence of a miserable squabble about a stole and a gold cross. It was bad taste also and want of discretion on the part of the chaplain to speak as he did of "the heavy disabilities under which the Church of England labours in this vessel," for members of the Church of England on board the London certainly enjoyed advantages as compared with the Dissenting portion of the crew. He thought it was well that cases of this kind should be brought forward, in order that chaplains should understand that the enormous advantages they enjoyed should be exercised with some consideration for the opinions and feelings of those who differed from them. Inasmuch as the Admiralty had recorded their opinion that the chaplain's conduct in this case was "highly disrespectful towards his Captain," it was an unfortunate inadvertence, to say the least, that the chaplain had not been superseded at the same time with the captain; nor was it usual, he thought, when a superior and an inferior officer could not work harmoniously together and the conduct of the inferior had been "highly disrespectful," to remove the superior officer. The difficulty might surely have been cut short by the removal of the chaplain, and not of the Captain. To be removed from the command of his ship was a most grave circumstance in a captain's career, and any personal assurances given to him to the contrary would count for very little. One point

  1331
  made against Captain Sulivan was that he had desired the omission of the Creed from the services; but it should have been added that these were the weekday, not the Sunday services. On the whole, he thought that a reprimand in the case of Captain Sulivan would have met the case. There might have been indiscretion justifying such a reprimand as had been given in the case of other captains; but surely to come into collision with a chaplain was not so great an offence as to come into collision with one of Her Majesty's ships. It was said in the Papers that the chaplain had strictly complied with orders. But there was a way of strictly complying with orders, and yet doing so in such a manner as to be very insubordinate. There might be inuendoes, too, even in an old sermon. But how did the right hon. Gentleman know that this was an old sermon? He saw nothing to this effect in the Papers. Did this statement occur in the private proceedings of which the House knew nothing and which the Captain therefore was unable to contradict? That brought him to the last point, which was that a private inquiry might properly lead to a court martial, but ought not to be allowed to take the place of one. The Admiralty stated that, in their opinion, the matters involved were not of a kind that required to be submitted to a court martial. He thought, however, it would have been better if the Admiralty had decided on the Papers alone without a private inquiry, instead of having to fall back again on the Papers. He acknowledged that the Admiralty had a perfect right to supersede any officer who might have been guilty of indiscretion, or whom they might think unfit to command one of Her Majesty's ships. But then they were in this position: that the Admiralty had information before them which the House had not. On the whole, the matter was left in a most unsatisfactory state, and he regretted that the impression should go forth in the Royal Navy that the Admiralty would not sustain the authority of the captains in the maintenance of discipline.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that he found in the letter that had been placed on the Table of the House that day that the chaplain stated that the sermon which Captain Sulivan said was preached at him
  1332
  was an old sermon preached 12 months ago.
  SIR JOHN HAYregretted exceedingly that Captain Sulivan's application for a court martial had not been acceded to. The place where an officer who had his conduct arraigned should be called on to defend himself was before a court martial. He must remark, however, that the First Lord of the Admiralty had justified the course he had taken by the precedent which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) had established in the case of Admiral Wellesley and Admiral Wilmot. If a division were taken he should certainly support the Resolution, on the grounds that captains were entitled to have their conduct publicly inquired into.
  MR. ANDERSONpointed out that the punishment of the two officers was utterly unequal, for Captain Sulivan had lost the opportunity by his supersession of gaining an increase of half-pay.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 91; Noes 103: Majority 12.

BLACKWATER FISHERY (IRELAND).

  RESOLUTION.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNArose to call the attention of the House to the circumstances affecting the public rights of Fishery on the Blackwater and on the tidal waters of the estuary of that river; and to move—
  "That, without desiring to infringe upon private rights of several fishery in the Blackwater, this House is of opinion that it is the duty of the Government to watch over and protect the rights of the public in respect to fishery in the tidal waters of that and other Irish rivers."
  He strongly recommended the matter to the attention of the Government.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, without desiring to infringe upon private rights of several fishery in the Black-water, this House is of opinion that it is the duty of the Government to watch over and protect the rights of the public in respect to fishery in the tidal waters of that and other Irish rivers."—(Sir Joseph M'Kenna.)
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he had hoped the hon. Member would have stated a little more clearly what it was he wanted the Government

  1333
  to do. He understood it was a question of law.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.