Commons Sitting of 16 April 1877

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEE — Public Offices and Buildings (Metropolis), appointed.
SUPPLY — Resolutions [5th April] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered — First Reading —Public Libraries Acts Amendment (No. 2)* [136].
Committee — Report—Mutiny; Marine Mutiny; Settled Estates (re-comm.)* [61].
Considered as amended—Game Laws (Scotland) Amendment [122].

PARLIAMENT — PRIVILEGE — UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE BILL (PETITION FOR ALTERATION).

  ORDER FOR DISCHARGE.
  MR. J. R. YORKErose to call attention to a Petition from the University of Oxford presented on the 9th of April by the Secretary of State for War. It had 122 signatures of graduates, Heads of Houses, Professors, &c.; but there was only one name signed to the Petition itself; the others, instead of being signed to the Petition, were on separate pieces of paper and attached to the Petition by a string, which was contrary to rule. There was, however, a greater irregularity, which was that the names of five of the petitioners from Trinity College were in the same handwriting. The attention of the Petitions Committee had been called to the subject, and they had reported on it; but, considering that the Petition proceeded from men of the highest intelligence, he thought it necessary to call attention to the matter in a manner likely to attract notice. He begged to move that the Order be discharged; but, if the House was of opinion that such a course was not required, he should not persevere with the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order [9th April], That the said Petition do lie upon the Table, be read, and discharged."—(Mr. J. R. Yorke.)
  SIR CHARLES FORSTERsaid, that as no male fides was attributed, and as the irregularities were probably the result of want of acquaintance with the rules of the House, it would be an extreme course if the Motion were pressed.
  MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he had not the slightest doubt that the Petition was bonâ fide, and he hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

QUESTIONS.
  METROPOLIS — THE CORDWAINERS' COMPANY—CHARITY TRUSTS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. D. JENKINS (for Mr. JAMES)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to an inquest into the circumstances attending the death of Mary Ann Nash, held by Mr. Humphreys on the 6th instant; whether it was stated in evidence that the deceased was in receipt of £5 a-year from the Cord-wainers' Company, which was to be forfeited in the event of her receiving parochial relief; whether the medical man stated that the cause of death was starvation, and that he had never known a worse case; whether the jury returned a verdict to that effect, adding that the regulations laid down by the Company compelled a family to starve, and requesting the coroner to write to the Company on the subject; if the coroner has complied with the jury's request; and, if there would be any objection to lay a Copy of his Letter before the House?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, he believed it was true, as stated at the inquest in question, that the deceased was in receipt of £5 a-year from the Cordwainers' Company, and the medical man did state that the cause of death was starvation; but it was untrue that the regulations laid down by the Company had anything at all to do with the case. The sum so allowed the woman was out of money which they had to dispose of under charity trusts, subject to and under direction of the Charity Commission; but certain clauses of the will bequeathing it to the Company specifically stated that such allowances wore not to be made to those who were in receipt of parochial relief. No further application was ever made to the Cordwainers' Company for any sum out of their ordinary funds, and they had no power to alter the conditions under which the sum allowed was given.

    CRIMINAL LAW — INQUEST ON MR. GEORGE WOOD.—QUESTION.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
    1210
    ment, Whether his intention has been called to the mysterious death of the late Mr. George Wood, of 296, King's Road, Chelsea, as disclosed in the "Whitehall Review" of the 31st March last; and, whether it is his intention to take any steps to obtain a full investigation into the circumstances of the case?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, he had that day seen the copy of the depositions taken at the inquest, and he should be glad to show them to the hon. and learned Member if he desired it. The coroner reported that the jury were unanimous, and that he agreed with them in their finding. He (Mr. Cross) had no reason to suppose that the coroner had conducted the inquiry in an improper manner.

  INDIA-THE CIVIL SERVICE OF INDIA.

    QUESTIONS.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been directed to some passages in a speech delivered by the Viceroy of India, at a Convocation of the Calcutta University, in which Lord Lytton expresses views regarding a new classification of civil appointments, and the necessity for the stoppage or rigid restriction of the present system of supplying young civil servants from England; and, if he can say whether the views of the Viceroy had the concurrence of the other Members of the Government of India and of the Secretary of State before being thus publicly announced to the Native Community?
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, I have read with great interest the speech alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, and in order to explain the purport of that speech, it will be necessary very shortly to state what the law is as regards these appointments in India. By an Act passed in 1861 Parliament specially reserved certain classes of appointments for the Indian Civil Service, entrance into that Service being by competition alone. In 1870 another Act of Parliament was passed, by which special facilities were given for the employment of Natives of India in offices and places hitherto reserved for the Indian Civil Service, subject to rules to be prescribed by the Governor General in Council and sanctioned by the Secretary of State in Council. Some necessary delay occurred

    1211
    in framing these rules, but they were finally agreed to in May, 1875. Such being the law, Lord Lytton took an appropriate opportunity of alluding to it at some length. He pointed out the practical difficulties of carrying out the latter Act, and the necessity of acting cautiously in "a matter in which one false step might be irrevocable and the mischief of it beyond calculation." He also pointed out that whatever was done should be carried out in such a way as to affect as little as was possible the promotion of the Civil Service; and he concluded by saying that if Natives were to be admitted to certain of the posts hitherto reserved for the Civil Service, it would be in his view advisable to reclassify the appointments, in order that the annual supply of civil servants from England might be properly regulated. The objects the Viceroy had in view seem to the Secretary of State to be in conformity with the intentions of an Imperial Act of Parliament. At the same time, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no reduction upon the supply of young civilians now sanctioned is in immediate contemplation; and that if in future years any such reduction is necessary, it will be carried out in such a way as to avoid impairing the efficiency of the Service, or the quality of the candidates competing for that Service.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCKasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it has been definitely decided that from next year candidates for the India Civil Service are to go up for examination between the ages of 17 and 19; if so, from what date this rate would take effect; and, whether the candidates passing the first examination on those terms are to be allowed, as heretofore, £150 a-year for two years while at the universities, on the condition that they subsequently successfully passed the final examination?
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: There will be two examinations in 1878, one for the last of the candidates selected under the older system, the other for the first of those who come under the new. To this last examination all candidates will be admitted who are 17 years of ago and are under 19 years of age on January 1 previous. In future years the candidates must be under 19 on June 1 of the year in which they are examined. With respect to the second
    1212
    part of the Question, I have to answer it in the affirmative. I cannot say at what date the first examination under the new system will be held.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT—THE LONDON DAIRIES.

    QUESTION.
    SIR GEORGE BOWYERasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is true that cattle are kept in the dairies in London, or premises appertaining thereto, in places defective in light and air, and not favourable to the health of the animals; and, whether he has considered the desirability, having regard to the existence of cattle plague for three months in and about London, of forbidding the keeping of cattle within the Metropolis, and, if necessary, of obtaining powers from Parliament for that purpose?
    VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, a large number of cowsheds in London are, I fear, as the hon. and learned Baronet says, in a very defective condition in regard to sanitary arrangements—a condition of things not altogether unknown, I am afraid, in other districts, both town and country. The question, however, of prohibiting the keeping of any cattle whatever within the metropolis is a very large one, and though the Government are taking very stringent measures to deal with the cattle plague in London, we are not prepared, with our present information, to propose to Parliament to take the extreme measure of forbidding all cattle being kept within its limits.

  NAVY—CLAIMS OF MR. JOHN CLARE.

    QUESTION.
    MR. BIGGARasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Why the Memorial, dated 12th February 1873, endorsed by the note of the Right honourable Richard Assheton Cross, and signed by Sir Thomas Bazley, M.P., and Mr. Henry Brinsley Sheridan, M.P., on the case and claims of Mr. John Clare, the inventor, patentee, designer, promoter, and upholder of the Metal Ship-building of the State Navy since 1853, and the plaintiff in "Clare v. The Queen," has neither been replied to nor acted upon by either the Admiralty or Treasury departments, and that after Her Ma-

    1213
    jesty the Queen's command, bearing date 13th May 1874, to Mr. Clare "to apply to the Government departments "for the liquidation of his claims on the British Nation; and, whether he has any objection to lay the said Memorial, and the Letter that accompanied it to the Right honourable W. E. Gladstone, upon the Table of the House?
    MR. HUNT,in reply, said, that Mr. Clare brought an action against the Crown in 1873, and a verdict was then given against him. Subsequently a letter to the late Prime Minister, and a memorial, undated and unsigned, were sent, but no answer to either was given by Mr. Gladstone. Under those circumstances, the present Government did not think it necessary to take any further steps in the matter; but there was no objection to that memorial being laid on the Table.

    CRIMINAL LAW—DEATH OF A DISCHARGED PRISONER.—QUESTION.
    MR. PARNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to an account in the "Liverpool Daily Post" of an inquest on the body of a prisoner recently discharged from Walton Gaol; and, if so, whether he will direct a post-mortem examination of the body to be made, and a fresh inquiry to be held?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, it would be impossible to order a post-mortem examination; and, if it could be done, no good would result from it. The unfortunate prisoner died as long ago as the 18th of February of virulent small-pox. An inquest was held by one of the most experienced coroners in the country, who -took the precaution of having a perfectly independent medical gentleman called in order to give his opinion of the case before the jury. The jury were a most intelligent jury, and gave patient attention to the case, and the result of their verdict was that the boy died of virulent small-pox, which apparently came on very suddenly. The visiting justices made a searching inquiry, and said they could find no trace of any treatment in the gaol which called for any remark on their part. Under these circumstances, I consider it is not desirable to hold another inquiry.

    WILD FOWL PRESERVATION ACT—SALE OF WILD FOWL.—QUESTION.
    MR. R. W. DUFFasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in consequence of the admitted evasion of the Wild bowl Preservation Act, 1876, he will place that Act in the same relative position as the Salmon Preservation Act, 24th and 25th years of Victoria, chapter 109, section 19, whereby the burden of proving the commodity exposed for sale during close time is imported is thrown on the salesman? He further asked, if the attention of the right hon. Gentleman had been called to two cases reported in the "Times" of that morning, where the presiding magistrates appeared to have come to different conclusions?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, his attention had been called to the two police-court cases reported in The Times of that morning. He hoped the question raised would be settled in one of them by a Superior Court, and until some decision was arrived at he did not think it would be expedient to legislate with the object referred to in the Question.

  ARMY — CAMPAIGN IN THE MALAY PENINSULA—MEDAL FOR TROOPS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended to grant a medal in recognition of the arduous and gallant services of the Officers and Troops engaged in the late campaign in the Malay Peninsula?
    MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, while I am willing to give the greatest credit to the gallantry of the troops employed in the Malay Peninsula, it is not thought to be of a character to require a medal.

    RAILWAYS—LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY—HARRISON'S LEVEL CROSSING.—QUESTION.
    MR. BRIGGSasked the President of the Board of Trade, What steps, if any, are being taken by the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company to remedy the dangerous condition of Harrison 's level crossing, by which five lives have already been sacrificed?
    SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY,in reply, said, that an inquiry was being held,

    1215
    and when the Report of the Inspector was received, he would lay it on the Table of the House.

  SPAIN—THE SOOLOO ARCHIPELAGO.

    QUESTION.
    MR. MARK STEWARTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If a treaty has been signed by England and Germany with Spain in regard to the Sooloo Islands; and, if so, to state the nature of it, and lay a Copy of the same upon the Table of the House?
    MR. BOURKE,in reply, said, that a Treaty had been signed at Madrid by the Representatives of Germany, England, and Spain; and the Protocol as well as the Despatches relating to it would be laid on the Table of the House tomorrow.

    TURKEY—ALLEGED CRUELTY TO A TURKISH STUDENT.—QUESTION.
    MR. HANBURYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any information has been received respecting the case of the student alleged to have died in the circumstances telegraphed to the "Times" last week, contradicted by Musurus Pasha, but described more fully in a letter published in the "Times" that morning?
    MR. BOURKE: Sir, my hon. Friend has no doubt seen the explanation which Musurus Pasha has given with respect to this matter, and which has been published in The Times newspaper. We sent a telegram on the subject to Mr. Jocelyn, and he has ascertained that no student at the Military School was bastinadoed.

    TURKEY—RUSSIAN OFFICERS IN SERVIA.—QUESTION.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked, Whether the Government has received any information of the fact stated in the "Morning Post" of to-day, that on the 3rd instant, while Russia was insisting upon the immediate disarmament of Turkey, the Russian Colonel Miloradovitch, together with four other Russian officers, was engaged in Servia in reorganising the lately disbanded corps of volunteers for the service of the Russian Government?
    MR. BOURKE: Sir, we have heard that an agent of the Moscow Slav Committee has been endeavouring to procure recruits in Belgrade to join Despotovitch, the insurrectionary leader in Herzegovina, and has been especially trying to get volunteers from the disbanded corps which served during the war with Turkey under Colonel Miloradovitch; but we have not heard that the latter was himself engaged in recruiting. By the last reports it appears that the office of this agent had been closed.

  TURKEY — THE BULGARIAN ATROCITIES—SENTENCES ON CRIMINALS.

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. GLADSTONEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When it is likely that the account of arrests, sentences, and execution of sentences, on account of the Bulgarian rising and its suppression, for which Her Majesty's Government telegraphed to Constantinople on or soon after the 12th of February, will be in the possession of the House; and, whether Her Majesty's Government are in possession of any information proving that, at the commencement of that rising, six Turkish policemen were burnt slowly to death in quicklime by the insurgents?
    MR. BOURKE: In reply, Sir, to the first part of the Question of the right hon. Gentleman, in reference to the account which we have been endeavouring to get for some time in consequence of a Return which he moved for, I have to state that we have received the Returns with regard to the sentences and executions of the prisoners under the commissions held at Philippopolis, Sophia, and Adrianople. Mr. Jocelyn has been using his best endeavours to get at the facts, and we have received several telegrams from him on the subject of obtaining further information as to other places. The Returns which we have already received will be laid on the Table whenever the right hon. Gentleman expresses a wish on the subject; the others will be as soon as possible. In regard to the second part of the Question, the House is, no doubt, aware that in the Blue Books that were presented last year, Mr. Monson reported to our agent at Ragusa, in April, 1876, that it was stated in that place that some Zaptiehs had been burnt alive; but that relates to a

    1217
    different part of the country to that which the right hon. Gentleman referred to. With regard to Bulgaria, we did hear that in September last, at Bilovar, some Zaptiehs were killed at the time that the burning of the station took place. There was also a report, which was mentioned at the time, that some Zaptiehs had been covered with petroleum and burnt; but it will be in the recollection of the House that Mr. Baring's remarks upon that subject showed the story to be utterly untrue. In regard to Zaptiehs being burnt to death in quicklime, I cannot find anything in the Papers relating to the subject that have been presented to the House.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman, in regard to the particulars mentioned by Mr. Monson, referred to in the report regarding the affairs at Ragusa, Whether he has provided us with all the information, which seems to have been rather undefined, as to time and place; and whether he has been able to verify or to disprove that report, or can afford any clue by which we may clear up those points?
    MR. BOURKE: No, Sir. The only information is contained in the despatches to which I have already referred, and in those despatches it will be remembered there is an explanation by the Turkish Government of the reasons for their having been obliged to resort to the appointment of Bashi-Bazouks.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    MUTINY BILL.
    (Mr. Gathorne Hardy, The Judge Advocate General, Mr. Stanley.)
    COMMITTEE. [Progress 12 th April.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 94 to 103, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 104 (Militia may be attached to regular forces).
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONmoved, as an Amendment, in line 7, after "passed," to insert the words—
    "Provided, That no Militia officer shall be eligible to command any portion of the Regular Forces, unless such officer belongs to a regiment or corps which is at the time embodied for service or assembled for training."
    MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, as he did not wish to put any slight on the Militia officers, he could not assent to the Amendment of the hon. and gallant General, because it provided for a contingency which was not likely to happen, and which could not happen without the cognizance of the military authorities. He could assure the hon. and gallant General that the military authorities would take care that the Regular Troops should always be commanded by officers I of the Army. He should not like, there' fore, to insert a provision which might be thought to cast a slight on Militia officers.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR,thought that the feelings of the Regular Forces as well as of the Militia should be considered.
    COLONEL MUREobjected to the Amendment, and hoped that the Secretary of State for War would not give way.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 105 agreed to.
    Clause 106 (Liability of soldier to maintain wife and children).
    MR. P. A. TAYLOR,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 63, line 23, to leave out "may," and insert "shall thereupon," said, he did it in order that the clause should have the effect of rendering more effective the provisions in reference to soldiers' liability for the maintenance of their families. In past years this Bill did not excite sufficient attention, and the result was that a clause crept into it, exempting soldiers from liability to the support of their wives and children. That was the case for many years, and, although some alterations had been made, they were so qualified that they did not effect any real improvement. Under existing regulations a magistrate's order upon a soldier to contribute to the support of his family might be overruled by the War Office, and if summonses were granted at the instance of soldiers' wives against their husbands who were stationed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court from which the summonses issued, service of such processes would be invalid unless the soldier summoned was provided with sufficient money by his wife to enable him to appear at the Court, and, after

    1219
    the hearing, to return to his quarters. This, he contended, would in many cases deprive starving wives of any remedy against their defaulting husbands. By a Return laid on the Table of the House, he found that during the last year there were 629 wives of soldiers and 1,241 children receiving relief from the poor rate, which, he contended, was a great injury to the ratepayers. The law also as it stood prohibited a soldier, if he married without leave, from giving any support to his wife and children. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 63, line 23, to leave out the word "may," and insert the words "shall thereupon."—(Mr. P. A. Taylor.)
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKopposed the Amendment on the ground that the soldier had no legal redress for his pay against the Secretary of State for War, and where the primary claim of the soldier could not be enforced, à fortiori, a secondary claim could not. If the Amendment were carried, it would come into conflict with the 177th Article of War, which empowered the Secretary of State, if he thought fit, to withhold a portion of the soldier's pay. For seven years past, under the provisions of that Article, there had been a perfect administration of the soldier's money, and a soldier's wife who was of good character was not put to any cost in enforcing her claim. He hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment, inasmuch as this subject had been already fully discussed. The practice at present was that when a wife or when Guardians of the poor applied to the War Office, the question was referred to the commanding officer of the soldier. If the soldier did not object, the stoppage was made at once; but if he did object, the character of the wife was inquired into, and if the inquiries were satisfactory the stoppage from the pay was immediately enforced. In cases where a soldier married without leave, no step whatever was taken in this matter.
    Question put, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 218; Noes 122: Majority 96.—(Div. List, No. 68.)
    Amendment proposed, in page 63, line 27, after the word "decree," to leave out to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. P. A. Taylor.)
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 213; Noes 126: Majority 87.—(Div. List, No. 69.)
    Clause agreed to.
    Remaining clauses agreed to.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURmoved the insertion of the following Clause:—
    (Return showing the number of soldiers actually maintained to be laid before Parliament.)
    "And in order that Parliament may be in.. formed as to whether the numbers maintained during the year have been below or above the total numbers provided for in the Preamble Be it further Enacted, That the Secretary of State shall annually present to Parliament, as early as the same can be done, a certified statement of the effectives of the several arms on the first day of each month of the previous year, showing the numbers of the respective arms in the United Kingdom, in depots, in Her Majesty's Possessions, and in India, and totals thereof, with a separate column to show the numbers in excess or below the numbers in the Preamble."
    MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the Returns were given already in the Estimates, and also in the Report of the Inspector of Recruiting, and the adoption of the clause would involve an unnecessary multiplication of Returns. He therefore hoped the hon. Gentleman would not put the House to the trouble of dividing upon it.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that notwithstanding what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, it was impossible to obtain in this country information in a shape corresponding to that in which similar information was regularly published in France.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Schedule read, and agreed to.
    Preamble read.
    On Question, "That it be agreed to,"
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURmoved, as an Amendment, in page 1,

    1221
    line 12, after "numbers," to leave out "serving," and insert "according to the establishment fixed for," his object being to revert to the terms of the Mutiny Act in the time of the East India Company, so far as to limit the number of men at any time in England belonging to the Indian Establishment. If it was necessary to make up the depôts in India the men, instead of being taken from those serving in India, should be drawn from the depôts at home.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the proposed Amendment was useless, and would not improve the Preamble in the sense intended by the hon. Gentleman. The numbers in the depôts in India were known, and if the Amendment were adopted they could not be very accurately computed.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that the words "belonging to regiments in India" had always been used in Mutiny Acts, and he believed it was only in 1863 that the phraseology had been altered. He thought that the words he proposed were more in accordance with the good government of the troops.
    MR. F. STANLEYsaid, that all the depôts were now merged, which necessitated an alteration. The Preamble as it stood was in conformity with the mode of payment which was adopted as between this country and India.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that, having brought the subject forward, and being opposed by the Government, it was useless his forcing the House to a division. He would therefore reluctantly withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday.
    MR. GATHORNE HARDYgave Notice he would propose that the Bill be considered as the first Order on Thursday, and that it receive its final reading then, in order that it might go up to the House of Lords without further delay.

    MARINE MUTINY BILL.
    (Mr. Hunt, Mr. A. F. Egerton, Sir Massey Lopes.)
    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committe read.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 18 (Swearing and summoning witnesses).
    CAPTAIN PIMmoved, as an Amendment, the insertion of a clause to follow Clause 17, providing that in all trials by courts martial prisoners who desired it might have the assistance of counsel.
    MR. HUNTsaid, that the Amendment well deserved consideration; but he was not, at present, prepared to accept it, because it would make so great a change in the procedure of courts martial. If it were adopted in the Navy, it should also have a place in the Army Mutiny Bill, and in that case it would be necessary to make other alterations in both Bills, so as to make their provisions conformable to it. If, however, the hon. and gallant Gentleman would withdraw it, he would confer with the Secretary of State for War and see whether some such change could not be introduced next year into both Bills as would virtually carry out the desired object. It was too late now to introduce it, as a similar clause had not been introduced in the Army Mutiny Bill that had just passed through the Committee.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 19 agreed to.
    Clause 20 (Crimes punishable with death).
    MR. PARNELLsaid, it might be in the recollection of the Committee that he drew attention to a similar clause in the Army Mutiny Bill, and pointed out that there were many offences in the clause which he thought ought to be punished by a sentence of penal servitude. He referred to the higher classes of military offences, such as joining in any mutiny, or not using the utmost exertion to suppress such mutiny, or conspiring with any person to cause such mutiny. He had pointed out that many of the offences in the clause were of such a character as ought not to be at-

    1223
    tended with reformatory discipline which was intended for the criminal classes who had led immoral and depraved lives, and whose natures had become hardened by constant contact with others like themselves. He would suggest that there should be some classification of offence in the clause, and that any offences which did not involve any moral depravity, and which did not involve any injury to an officer or to any other person, might be punished by imprisonment, with or without hard labour, instead of penal servitude, which was necessarily a punishment of a reformatory character. It was not his intention to move an Amendment until ho had more time to consider what shape that Amendment ought to take. He would move his Amendment on the Report of the Bill, and would content himself meanwhile by directing the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty to the matter.
    MR. HUNTsaid, that the matter had been fully discussed when the Army Mutiny Bill was before the Committee, and he must abide by the decision that was then come to.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that the answer was not at all satisfactory. He must deny that the matter was discussed at all, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War seeming to treat it with contempt. He could easily imagine circumstances in which such extremely degrading penalties would be quite undervalued. How would the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) himself like, supposing on those occasions, when he unfortunately fell asleep at his post, he incurred the penalties of penal servitude, death, or imprisonment? Why then should such extreme penalties be allotted to a soldier who fell asleep at his post?
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 21 (Commutation of death for penal servitude or imprisonment, &c.).
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERmoved to insert the words—
    "Provided always, That the solitary confinement hereinbefore mentioned shall in no case exceed seven days, at intervals of not less than 14 days between each period of such confinement."
    He objected to perpetual solitary confinement being added to the punishment of penal servitude.
    MR. PARNELLsupported the Amendment, pointing out that the effect of the clause as it stood was that the commanding officer could inflict solitary confinement during the whole term of a prisoner's confinement. That was such a fearful, horrible punishment that it could scarcely be the intention to inflict it. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the proposal.
    MR. HUNTsaid the Bill in this particular only followed the lines of that the Committee had just passed.
    MR. PARNELLurged that the Amendment would simply place those prisoners whose sentence had been commuted upon the same footing in regard to the punishment by solitary confinement as those prisoners undergoing the original sentence of penal servitude from a court martial.
    MR. CHILDERSsupported the Amendment.
    MR. HUNTpointed out that Clause 38 limited the term of solitary confinement to 14 days, and from the wording of the clause he was disposed to think that that limitation extended to the whole of the Bill. [Mr. O'CONNOR POWER dissented.] His hon. and learned Friend near him thought it did so apply. It was inconvenient that an Amendment of the kind should be brought forward without Notice, and if hon. Gentlemen wished to raise the question, he hoped they would raise it at a future stage.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERunderstood there were differences of opinion on the subject on the Treasury bench. If the right hon. Gentleman thought that the limitation in Clause 38 reflected upon Clause 21 there could be no objection to the Amendment.
    MR. PARNELLagreed it was desirable to give Notice of Amendments, but it was not the custom to bar Amendments unless that was done, and he regretted the right hon. Gentleman did not seem perfectly acquainted with the Bill.
    MR. HUNTsaid, he was unwilling to accept the Amendment without more consideration.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERcommented upon this as a most unsatisfactory answer, and said there had been no argument against the Amendment.
    MR. HUNTadmitted that the power of inflicting solitary confinement ought to be limited; but, at the same time, it

    1225
    was impossible at a moment's notice to accept the Amendment without reference to the Legal Advisers of the Government. There might be no discussion on the Report, but he found it desirable to introduce a limitation such as that proposed. The Bill should be re-committed for the purpose.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 22 to 27, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 28 (Power to inflict corporal punishment in certain cases).
    MR. MONKsaid, there was a strong feeling that, as corporal punishment had been practically got rid of in the Army, it was desirable to abolish it also in connection with the Navy. He should move, as an Amendment, that so much of the clause as related to corporal punishment be omitted.
    Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 21, to leave out the words "in time of peace."—(Mr. Monk.)
    MR. HUNTsaid, that the same words occurred in the Army Bill, and the hon. Member ought to have raised the discussion upon that. He ought, moreover, to have given Notice of his Amendment, which he had not done. In consequence he (Mr. Hunt) could not immediately decide as to what course he should pursue. He would, however, promise the hon. Gentleman to give the question a careful consideration.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 103; Noes 70: Majority 33.—(Div. List, No. 70.)
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERmoved an Amendment providing for the reduction of the number of lashes which might be inflicted under the clause from 50 to 25, in order to mitigate the punishment of flogging which the Committee had refused to abolish; but which, in his opinion, was not at all necessary. He confessed he saw no reason for inflicting 50 lashes on any man, for, unless the victim was possessed of an unusually good constitution, he lost consciousness after the first 10 or dozen strokes.
    Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 27, to leave out the word "fifty," in order to insert the words "twenty-five."—(Mr. O' Connor Power.)
    SIR JOHN HAYhoped the hon. Member did not mean to refuse to the Navy a power of punishment which was exercised in civil life. By an Act of 1863 persons committing some offences in civil life were liable to be sentenced to 50 lashes, and surely that was not too great a punishment to hang over the heads of desperate men who, in time of war, could not be restrained by any other means from the gravest breaches of discipline.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERavowed himself an opponent of flogging civil offenders as well as soldiers and sailors.
    MR. M'LARENspoke in favour of the Amendment. The maximum punishment was never inflicted, and if corporal punishment was to be retained he thought the punishment authorized by the Act should be brought more into harmony with that which was usually inflicted. The old Mosaic dispensation, with its principle of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, was not very remarkable for leniency, yet there the amount of flogging was 40 stripes, save one, while the Bill gave that number, and 11 in addition. It should be further remembered that the punishment of flogging exercised a strong influence in deterring men from entering the Naval Service.
    COLONEL BERESFORDsaid, as the application of the "cat" had a wholesome effect on garotters, there was reason for retaining it in cases where men disgraced Her Majesty's Service.
    MR. A. M'ARTHURdenied that the crime of garotting had in any way been affected by corporal punishment.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, it would be time enough to discuss the amount of flogging for garotters and wife beaters when that subject occupied their attention; but it was surely not desirable that our gallant sailors should be classed with those criminals. He considered that flogging ought not to be inflicted for the offences of insubordination, drunkenness, or desertion. If there was one thing which had made a great impression on him in reference to this subject, it was reading the account an officer gave of the first time he witnessed the

    1227
    punishment inflicted on as good and brave a soldier as ever stepped in uniform. The man had gone through the Crimean War, the Kaffir War, and the Indian Mutiny; but, because he was carried away by that desire for drink, so common to cold climates, he was lashed to the triangles and flogged in such a way that strong, healthy men fainted at the sight. He (Mr. Parnell) denied that even a garotter ought to be flogged, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would yield to the dictates of humanity and consent to this inhuman and disgusting punishment—which it was seldom necessary to inflict on our gallant soldiers—being altogether removed from the Statute Book.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out to the Committee that the question had not reference to flogging in the Army but in the Marines.
    MR. SULLIVANthought that it was scarcely creditable to the House, when we were on the brink of a European war, to be discussing the question of the torture of our Marines. If it was necessary, in order to preserve order, to have a torture of some kind, he would suggest that Her Majesty's Government would find the thumb-screw and the "scavenger's daughter" far more efficacious than the lash. We might disguise the fact from ourselves as much as we chose, but it was evident that we were equally barbarous with our forefathers, seeing that we merely changed one instrument of torture for another, which was just as bad and more degrading than the "scavenger's daughter" or the thumb-screw. Indeed, it was a disgrace when Russia had flung down the knout that England should retain the cat.
    Question put, "That the word 'fifty' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 86; Noes 64: Majority 22.—(Div. List, No. 71.)
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 29 (Power to inflict corporal punishment and imprisonment).
    MR. PARNELLmoved an Amendment restricting the duration of solitary confinement to seven days. The other evening he took a division upon the Amendment restricting the time to three days in the Army. The Committee,
    1228
    however, had adopted seven days, and he did not wish to lay himself open to the charge of obstruction by proposing three days again. He, therefore, proposed that the limit of solitary confinement should be seven days, and intervals between such confinement of not less than 14 days. To many temperaments solitary confinement was a more fearful punishment than the cat, and, indeed, temporary insanity had been known to ensue. He would provide that out of each 336 days of penal servitude in no case should a prisoner suffer more than 49 days' solitary confinement.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 16, line 31, to leave out the words "the periods" to the end of the Clause, in order to add the words "seven days at a time, nor forty-nine days in any one period of three hundred and thirty-six days, with intervals of not less than fourteen days between the periods of solitary confinement."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    MR. HUNTpointed out that to agree to the Amendment after the course that had been taken upon the Army Mutiny Bill would be to make an invidious distinction between the treatment of soldiers and sailors. This he did not think the Committee would consent to do.
    MR. PARNELLthought the objection made by the First Lord of the Admiralty was absurd and illogical, and that it was not because the Mutiny Bill had slipped superficially through the Committee that the Committee should refuse to entertain the Motion he now proposed.
    MR. CHILDERSobserved that the hon. Member for Meath was prejudicing his case by urging a Motion on a subject now which had not been thoroughly considered in itself. The present was not an opportune moment for raising so large a question, and the hon. Member would do well to bring it forward in an abstract form after information on the subject had been obtained concerning it from the medical and other officers of military and naval prisons.
    MR. PARNELLsaid he had brought forward the Motion because he believed that the prolongation of solitary confinement was a cruel and inhuman practice. The matter had been so long before the country that no further information could be required with respect to it. It was very difficult for private Members to get an opportunity of raising such questions, and entertaining the strong

    1229
    opinions he did with respect to it, he must press the Motion to a division.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLmaintained that the Bill strictly proportioned the term a solitary confinement to the length and severity of the imprisonment. That was exemplified in Clauses 21, 29, 30 and 37.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that the facts were not so, but he agreed with the principle stated. Where the period of imprisonment was short, the period of solitary confinement was also short; but then, where the period of imprisonment was long, the period of solitary confinement was also long. Now that was inconsistent with the principle contended for by the last speaker—that the less severe the sentence of imprisonment, the larger might be the proportion it passed in solitary confinement. It seemed to him to be very cruel to sentence a man both to a long term of imprisonment and to a long period of solitary confinement.
    MR. BIGGARsupported the Amendment as one required in the interests of humanity. He would remark, with reference to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ponte-fract, that the surgeons always reported in favour of increased punishments.
    MR. W. WHITWORTHsaid, that in his opinion, founded on his own experience, these severe and cruel punishments instead of being deterrent, had a directly opposite effect. He should certainly vote for the Amendment. He had once ordered a man to be flogged, and he should never forgive himself; but he had known a whole ship's crew flogged. If they had a man so bad that it required him to be sentenced to seven days' solitary confinement, in addition to a term of imprisonment, they had better dismiss him the Service.
    MR. SULLIVANwould like to hear the opinion of some medical Member of the House present in Committee on the subject. Solitary confinement was a form of torture to a Marine or seaman accustomed to active life and to the society of his messmates. Nothing could in fact be more injurious to a man's mind than to have seven days' solitary confinement, followed after an interval by a further period. He believed that the effect of solitary confinement in our prisons had been most disastrous; for when protracted, it would injure the mind of any man of active temperament.
    1230
    Now, although he did not wish to detract from the severity of the punishment given to criminals, he did not think it should be pushed to an extent which would have this effect. It ought to be given with such intervals as would leave the offender fit for his duties. He should, therefore, vote with the hon. Member for Meath.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsupported the Amendment. That was the most appropriate time for bringing forward the Motion.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: — Ayes 81; Noes 51: Majority 30. — (Div. List, No. 72.)
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 30 (Power to commute corporal punishment).
    Amendment proposed, in page 17, line 4, to leave out the words "twenty-five," in order to insert the word "twelve."—(Mr. O'Connor Power.)
    Question put, "That the words 'twenty-five' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: — Ayes 86; Noes 53: Majority 33. — (Div. List, No. 73.)
    MR. PARNELLmoved that in the term of imprisonment contemplated by the clause, or inflicted under it, no period of solitary imprisonment should follow another at a less interval than 14 days. As the principle of this Amendment was that which he had moved but a short time ago, he should not trouble the Committee with any observations, but should content himself with simply moving the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 17, line 6, to leave out the word "seven," in order to insert the word "fourteen." —(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question put, "That the word 'seven' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 96; Noes 47: Majority 49.—(Div. List, No. 74.)
    MR. SULLIVANmoved to insert after Clause 30—
    "Provided always, That the lashes aforesaid shall not be administered by any instrument save one approved and duly stamped by the Lords of the Admiralty."

    1231
    [Laughter.] Hon. Members who laughed would find out very well, if they had just been subjected to the experiment, that there might be a great difference in the instrument of torture applied. An Irish witness was once asked what was the size of a stone, and he replied it was the size of a lump of chalk. There was nothing that really stamped or settled what was to be the cat, and if they were to retain that barbarous torture he, at all events, would demand that the First Lord of the Admiralty should set his seal upon every such instrument of torture before it was issued. He was quite willing to avow, in moving this addition, that he was actuated by a feeling that they were that night killing the cat, and that, in fact, they were doing more by these divisions to extinguish torture in the Navy than was done the other evening by his hon. and esteemed Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor).
    MR. FORSYTHasked whether the hon. Member was in Order in proposing the imposition of a "stamp" on the subject? It depended on the nature of the stamp.
    THE CHAIRMANobserved that it was perfectly competent for the hon. Member to propose the imposition of the kind of stamp which the Amendment appeared to contemplate.
    MR. W. WHITWORTHthought that the addition proposed by the hon. Member for Louth should not be made to the clause, unless it could be shown either that the "cats" now employed in the Navy were in themselves unfair instruments of punishment, or that captains used them in an unfair and unfeeling manner. Indeed, he could not but regard the Amendment as a direct slur upon the humanity of the captains of our Navy. He had not had a great deal of communication with those gentlemen; but, so far as he knew anything of them, he believed that they were humane and honourable men, and he was sure that they would scorn to take advantage of a poor wretch by using an instrument that was unusual or cruel. Of course he was opposed to the infliction of such punishment altogether; but while it remained in force he objected to such a slur being cast on captains in the Navy.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, the hon. Member for Newry had had very little experience of this matter. The hon. Member had never seen a man flogged in his
    1232
    life but once under his own sentence, and to his great honour he had regretted it ever since. As he (Mr. Sullivan) understood, there were two different cats used in the Navy—one called the "thieves' cat," the other the ordinary cat—showing that it was necessary his Amendment should be adopted. He was also told that when a victim was flogged by a left-handed man that the whole thing was so botched that it was abhorrent to all who were standing by at the time. He should like to see specimens of both sorts brought into the House to show hon. Members what they were like. There was a great difference in the severity of the punishment inflicted by the two, and he had seen gentlemen of the press in Dublin who had come away from witnessing the worst form of punishment with their faces bespattered with the blood and torn flesh of the victims. ["Oh, oh!"] He was delighted to hear that there was humanity there if not elsewhere. He stated solemnly what had been recorded in the newspapers of his native city. He insisted that this matter of flogging should be subjected to the closest scrutiny. He had no objection to leave the selection of the instrument to the humanity and honour of the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty; but he objected to its being left to the caprice of any commander in the Navy.
    MR. O'CONNOR, POWERsaid, that if they were to rely upon the humanity and honour of captains in the Navy, why need they fix a limit of 50 lashes? Unfortunately, they could not trust to the clemency or humanity of officers in the Navy or Army. They were human, and were as liable to be swayed by passion as other men, and were consequently capable of performing acts of cruelty. Although they had been beaten several times in divisions, he believed they were engaged in a work which would yet be of great benefit to the Army and Navy.
    LORD FRANCIS CONYNGHAMsaid, that having served in the Navy for many years, he voted for the abolition of flogging in the Navy from a conviction that it was unnecessary for the preservation of discipline. He entered the Navy at 13 years of age, and he had frequently seen three and four men flogged before breakfast, and some with the thieves' cat. The common cat had nine lines of white cord. The thieves' cat had

    1233
    three knots on each line, and so severe was the pain inflicted by it that it was very properly only administered when a thief was discovered on beard ship, who, he need not say, was a man cordially detested by every blue-jacket. It was his sincere conviction that the discipline of the finest Service in the world, to which he was so proud to belong, would be improved by the abolition of this accursed practice.
    MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, that not having had Notice of the Amendment, he had not been able to make inquiries; but he was under the impression that the cats were supplied to the Navy from the dockyards according to a certain pattern; and if that was the case the pattern must have been approved by the Lords of the Admiralty, so that the Amendment was unnecessary.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCKsaid, the less the cat was used the better, and the Navy in that respect should be put under the same rules as the Army. In that Service, the punishment of flogging could not be inflicted except upon the sentence of a court martial upon sworn evidence, whereas, as he understood, it might be still inflicted in the Navy on the order of one man.
    ADMIRAL SIR WILLIAM EDMONSTONEdenied that such was the case. At least two officers had to decide on the matter.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that it was notorious that some captains were much more severe in their discipline than others, and he thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Louth was a perfectly reasonable one.
    MR. HOPWOODsupported the Amendment. He thought it would have a good effect to see Members of the Board of Admiralty sitting in grim judgment upon the cat, and perhaps in playfulness trying its effect upon each others shoulders.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that no doubt the punishment was both a severe and disgusting one. He would, however, remind the Committee that the clause did not apply to the Navy, but to the Marines; and no Marine could be flogged except for some such offence as rendered civilians liable to the same punishment. Yet all civilians did not feel degraded thereby. Under those circumstances it would be just as reasonable to ask the learned Judges of the
    1234
    land to try upon each other the effects of the cat used in the common gaols.
    MR. PEASEwould wish to see the punishment entirely done away with; but if the time had not come for that, he thought the object of the hon. Member for Louth would be met if the First Lord of the Admiralty would accept the proposal that there should be a standard cat adopted for the Service. It was hardly worth while for the right hon. Gentleman to oppose the Amendment, seeing that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. A. F. Egerton) "was under the impression" there was a pattern cat approved of by the Admiralty, and that therefore it should appear in the Mutiny Act seemed almost necessary—as, whilst this punishment was in force, it could not be contended that commanders should choose the instrument with which it was to be inflicted.
    MR. HERMONobjected to the proposal that the cat should be stamped, but suggested that the hon. Member for Louth's (Mr. Sullivan's) purpose would be equally effected if the cat used were one authorized by the Department. The question might be settled by a Committee or a Board.
    MR. GOSCHENapproved of the suggestion of the hon. Member who had just spoken, and hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) would adopt it. When he or his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract were in office they did not see their way to doing away with the cat, and they would not in opposition vote differently to what they did when in office.
    MR. FORSYTHsuggested the withdrawal of the Amendment and the substitution of another proposing that the cat used should be of a regulation pattern.
    SIR JOHN HAYthought that if the proposal made was merely to have a "cat" of the same pattern as to length and thickness for all cases, there could be no difficulty in carrying it out. In fact, that was practically done already.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYpointed out that if a captain violated the Admiralty regulations by using a cat different from that sanctioned by the authorities, he could only be punished by the Admiralty; but if he violated the Act of Parliament, he would commit a crime, and render himself liable to a criminal prosecution or an action-at-law. He there-

    1235
    fore could not advise his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment.
    MR. HUNTsaid, he did not think any necessity existed for putting any words about the cat into the Bill. It was right that the cat should be of a regulation pattern, and he thought it was so; but the matter was one that could be dealt with by the Admiralty regulations, and he was willing to deal with it in that way. He could not agree to the Amendment proposed for the stamping of the "cat."
    MR. SULLIVANoffered to omit the words "and duly stamped."
    MR. CHILDERSappealed to the First Lord of the Admiralty not to persist in objecting to the Amendment as it had been modified.
    Amendment amended, by omitting the words "and duly stamped," and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 31 to 36, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 37 (Power of imprisonment by general, district, and garrison courts-martial).
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he had an Amendment to move to the clause. The clause provided that a garrison court martial must sentence a Marine to imprisonment with or without labour. He wished to point out that the clause gave him an opportunity of settling the principle, that where a long term of imprisonment is given the amount of solitary confinement should be small. He thought it was important that a man sentenced to a long term of imprisonment should not be subjected to a long period of solitary confinement. By the clause power was sought to give a man sentenced to a year's imprisonment solitary confinement for a period not exceeding 14 days, and not more than 84 days in one year, he proposed to substitute seven days for 14 days and 49 days for 84 days.
    THE CHAIRMANruled that the two Amendments could not be put together.
    MR. PARNELLmoved to substitute seven days for 14 days.
    Amendment proposed, in page 21, line 41, to leave out the word "fourteen," in order to insert the word "seven."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question put, "That the word 'fourteen' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 139; Noes 64: Majority 75.—(Div. List, No. 75.)
    Amendment proposed, in page 21, line 41, to leave out the words "eighty-four," in order to insert the words "forty-nine."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question put, "That the words 'eighty-four' stand part of the Clause." The Committee divided:—Ayes 159; Noes 53: Majority 106.—(Div. List, No. 76.)
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 38 to 72, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 73 (Billeting of marines).
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the clause regulated the billeting of Royal Marines on shore, and, according to the present system, the officers were not compelled to pay for the night's lodging where they were billeted. This was a matter which affected Ireland more than England, because in Ireland the accommodation was very limited. He therefore moved to amend the clause by leaving out the words "Provided always that no officer shall be compelled to pay for the lodging on which he may be billeted."
    THE CHAIRMANhaving put the Question—
    MR. PARNELLcomplained of the want of courtesy on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty in not giving an explanation.
    MR. HUNTsaid, he had not risen to give any reasons to either this or the preceding Amendments of the lion. Member, because he considered they had been only proposed to obstruct the progress of the Bill. The innkeepers did not object to receiving officers on those terms, because if they did not pay for their lodgings they paid for a good many other things.
    MR. PARNELLsaid that innkeepers in England might not object, but they certainly did object in Ireland.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause agreed to
    Remaining clauses agreed to.
    House resumed.
    MR. HUNTgave Notice that he would take the Bill as amended into consideration on Thursday, when he hoped to be able to pass it through its final stage.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday.

    MARINE MUTINY BILL.
      WAYS AND MEANS.

        COMMITTEE.
        Order for Committee read.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
        CAPTAIN NOLAN,in rising to move—
        "That in levying Income Tax a certain portion of each income should be exempted from this tax, and that this sum should be the same for all incomes,"
        said, he considered that the incidence of the tax as at present levied was grossly unjust and unfair as regarded certain classes. He maintained that in order to place the matter on a proper footing a certain sum ought to be deducted from every income before it was subjected to this tax, and that the tax should be made on the over-plus. The principle on which the income tax was supposed to rest was that every person should pay according to his income, but the existing system entirely violated that principle; because one was made to pay not only according to his income, but also on articles of consumption to the Excise and Customs. If the matter was taken ad valorem it would be found that in this way the poor paid more on articles of consumption than did the rich. He trusted the Government would take the matter into consideration, with a view to placing the tax on a more satisfactory footing. The tax was a varying one, and no one could tell how high it would be in a short time if the country were to have a war tax. A man with a limited income of £160 a-year paid more in proportion on his spirits and beer in duty to the Excise than the rich man paid on his wine. Suppose a man spent 6d. a-day in spirits and beer—and that was not very much—he would pay to the Revenue £7 a-year; and thus it was that the poor man with a family paid twice over—first to the Income Tax, and next to the Excise. Therefore, on the principle that the necessaries of life ought not to be taxed, there ought to be exempted from the Income Tax an amount of income upon which the tax would amount to £7. This would be £840, with a minimum tax of 2d. in the pound, and £105 with the maximum as yet reached of 1s. 4d. in the pound. That, however, was imposed in time of war, when some indirect duties would
        1238
        be also raised; so that, perhaps, £120 might be reasonably taken as the lowest amount of the necessary expenditure of a family that ought to escape taxation. It might be thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would lose a great deal of revenue if he permitted a uniform deduction to be made from very large incomes. He had, however, looked over the figures, and he found that if at the present rate of Income Tax it was in no case charged upon the first £150, the rich would gain very little, and that the great gain would accrue to persons of moderate income. He contended that people with incomes of from £400 to £600 deserved to be exempted from payment on the first £120 or £150, because at present they were paying double—first on the Income Tax and then by their expenditure on the Customs and Excise. With the tax at 3d. in the pound, the total loss to the Exchequer by this universal exemption would be only £3,750. Of course in the case of a war, if the Income Tax rose to 1s. in the pound, an additional 1d. in the pound would have to be put on to cover the cost of these exemptions, which would be quite fair and reasonable. He did not propose any change in the Budget this year; but he wished the House to agree to his Resolution, in order to justify the Chancellor of the Exchequer on some future day in placing these exemptions on a just and more equitable footing. He begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
        Amendment proposed,
        To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in levying Income Tax, a certain portion of each income should be exempted from this tax, and that this sum should be the same for all incomes,"—(captain Nolan,)
        —instead thereof.
        Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
        THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwished to acknowledge the pains which the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Captain Nolan) had taken; but it was the same subject that was discussed on the Budget Resolutions of last year, and one which had been brought before successive Houses of Commons ever since the Income Tax was revived

        1239
        by Sir Robert Peel. There was undoubtedly at first sight some plausibility in the proposal which the hon. and gallant Member now made; but at the same time he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not very clear as to the nature of the hon. and gallant Member's argument in regard to the payment which he said a man made from his income through Excise and Customs. The sums a man contributed to Customs and Excise duties were governed by other circumstances than the mere amount of his income, and were, in fact, no more than he found it right or convenient to spend. The systems of taxation upon income and of taxation by Customs and Excise duties to a certain extent balancing and supplementing one another seemed to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) more nearly a fair system of taxation than one resting solely upon the one or the other. He felt that in all these attempts to re-adjust the Income Tax they were pursuing something which was very much in the nature of a phantom—a shadow; they were trying to catch that which could not be caught; endeavouring to balance an egg upon its end; because, whatever might be done in order to get the tax perfectly fair, they would find that it lurched to one side or the other. What they had to do was to get a system which was tolerably and fairly workable, and which upon the whole exhibited as little as might be of gross inequality. Any attempt to get any adjustment with precise and absolute accuracy would, he thought, be found a failure. In regard to exemptions, he did not at all see the fairness of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman proposed. He did not see why they should take off from a rich man an arbitrary sum and say they would tax him upon his income, minus that particular and arbitrary sum. If incomes up to £150 were exempt, it was hardly fair that a man having an income of £151 should be taxed to the full amount. It was for this reason that the exemptions were introduced; but, in the cases of large incomes, it could not be said that it was necessary to give them the £150 exemption. In fact, to admit the principle would land them in an untenable, and sometimes an absurd, position. It was a very different thing when they were at the bottom of the scale; what they had then to consider
        1240
        was not to tax a man upon income if he had not more than enough to support life. On that ground it had always been considered desirable to take a certain sum as the minimum taxable amount, and it was fair that from incomes somewhat above the minimum a deduction should be made, in order that there might not be a sudden difference between the taxation of an amount immediately below and that of an amount immediately above the minimum. That was done partly for convenience; but, in the case of a man with £1,000 a-year, it would be absurd to allow him £150 to live upon, and to treat the rest as surplusage. Ho would not discuss the figures which had been submitted to the House, further than to say that the adoption of the hon. and gallant Member's proposal would undoubtedly entail a considerable loss upon the Exchequer, the effect of which would be to render an increase in the tax necessary. He maintained, as a question of principle, that it would be a mistake to introduce this new complication into the Income Tax, for it was not so simple a thing as the hon. and gallant Member seemed to suppose to exempt the first £150 of incomes. Exemptions gave a great deal of trouble, and if they were extended to all incomes, much additional labour would be thrown upon the Inland Revenue officers, and inconvenience caused to the taxpayers themselves. Therefore, while fully acknowledging the spirit in which the hon. and gallant Member had brought forward the subject, he trusted the proposal would not be accepted by the House.
        MR. CHARLES LEWISagreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in attempting to adjust the Income Tax they were trying to catch a shadow, and believed that to be one of the reasons why the Income Tax had been so unpopular; and so long as it existed in its present form it would be the source at different periods of continual agitation. The proposition of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Nolan) would exempt no less than £25,000,000 of income—taking into account only incomes of over £400 a-year—from the Income Tax, and, although at present the tax was but lightly felt, the House ought to consider what the effect would be if war were to break out, and that

        1241
        large sum were relieved of a tax at the rate of 1s. to 1s. 4d. in the pound. Such an exemption was utterly worthless and unnecessary so far as the higher class of incomes was concerned, and could only have been introduced from a respect for abstract symmetry. For his own part, he thought that instead of extending exemptions, we ought to limit them or abolish them altogether. They were fully discussed last year, and he could not help thinking still that the system was of a pernicious character. They ought to bear in mind that the tax had now passed from an occasional impost for war or other extraordinary circumstances to a part of the financial system of the country.
        MR. MORGAN LLOYD,after adverting to the different modes that had been suggested for adapting the Income Tax to the capabilities of the different classes that had to pay it, said, it did not seem to him to be at all right that a man with an income of £400 should pay nothing, while a man with £500 should pay the full amount. He thought the fair thing would be a graduated scale, extending from the highest to the lowest, without the inequalities and exemptions which existed in the present system. It was right that all incomes—except, perhaps, those below £100—should be liable to the tax; but ho thought the percentage of the charge should increase at a uniform ratio proportionate to the amount of the income, so that the incidence of the tax should fall heaviest upon the wealthy. He could not approve of the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway.
        MR. CHILDERSsaid, he desired to bear witness to the fair and moderate manner in which the Motion had been brought forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway; but the present moment, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had nothing to spare, was a somewhat inconvenient time for discussing a difficult proposition. If the same amount of revenue was to be raised by means of the tax as at present, he asked his hon. and gallant Friend whether he proposed to relieve the higher incomes at the cost of the lower, or the lower incomes at the cost of the higher? So far as he could follow his hon. and gallant Friend, they would really be left in the same position they were in at present, if the system he advocated were carried
        1242
        out, as the first result of it would be that the rate of the tax should be increased if the exemptions of which he spoke were made. That would be necessary to secure the same return from that source of Revenue. He would not go into the question as to other results of the change, but it was necessary in the first instance that they should have a clear understanding as to whether the higher incomes were to be relieved at the cost of the lower or the lower at the cost of the higher.
        MR. CHADWICKsaid, that all the most eminent financial authorities of the country—Mr. Farr, Mr. Newmarch, the principal bankers, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London's (Mr. Hubbard's) Committee—had concurred in holding that a graduated Income Tax, approximating to an equitable Income Tax, was a thing perfectly possible and attainable. With a war before us, it would be deceiving ourselves to suppose that a tax which Sir Robert Peel meant to last for only a year or two would be removed in our time, and hence the great necessity there was for placing it on a more just foundation. He believed that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would refer the question to the heads of the financial Departments, he would receive a Report on the subject to which he might well give effect. He (Mr. Chadwick) regarded the tax as a permanent impost, and it was therefore all the more necessary that it should be justly assessed. He had come to look upon it as a very good and very honest tax; but as one most unjustly and inequitably levied. The incidence of the tax was full of injustice at every point. They could not point to a single Schedule that was not full of glaring anomalies; and, that being so, why should the Chancellor of the Exchequer continue to shut his eyes, instead of grappling with and endeavouring to remove the injustice? There had been no legal definition of income, and he believed no better definition would be made than was put forward by Adam Smith in his time. There was no doubt some difficulty in the way of re-adjustment on equitable principles, but it was high time that the difficulty should be faced. Was it just that the owner of freehold property should be assessed at the same rate as the owner of property held for 19, or, perhaps, nine years?

        1243
        Take trades. The mine owner had to pay on his capital as well as his income. So also had the cotton-spinner, neither being allowed anything whatever for the annual depreciation of their property. He charged the Chancellor of the Exchequer and all who were in office in that Department in allowing these anomalies to exist, when it was proved that they were inducements to the making of false returns. There was no doubt that a great number of fraudulent returns were made, as less than 1,000 persons returned their income above £10,000 a-year under Schedule D, whereas London alone should return a greater number, and the entire country at least 10,000, and perhaps 20,000 such incomes. Resident farmers, again, were assessed on totally different bases in the three Kingdoms. In short, the whole system of the present Income Tax was a piece of patchwork, and fragments, and there was no justice in the mode in which it was levied. If the tax were honestly levied and collected, and proper deductions made in the case of precarious incomes, short leases, and depreciation, he believed it would produce 33 per cent more than it did now.
        SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLwished, as a Liberal Member, to say one word on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. Fault had been found with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the course he had taken last year with reference to the Income Tax. But, so far from blaming the right hon. Gentleman, he thought that, on that occasion, the right hon. Gentleman had taken a step in the right direction, and had remedied a great blot in its incidence. At the same time, he agreed with those who thought that the Income Tax required still further re-adjustment, and thought that it should be still farther graduated so as to fall heavier on large incomes which paid less in other ways, and lighter on small incomes which paid more in other ways.
        CAPTAIN NOLANintimated his readiness to withdraw his Amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
        MR. PEASEmoved the Adjournment of the Debate, as it would be useless to go into Committee at so late an hour
        1244
        (midnight). He further wished to give the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms) an opportunity of bringing forward a Resolution of which he had given Notice on the incidence of Imperial Taxation, and its pressure on the poorer classes.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Pease.)
        THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was always reluctant to take important Business at a late hour; but he must remind the House of the position in which matters stood. On Thursday last he made his Financial Statement; and the propositions in that Statement were in fact nil. He had not suggested any new tax; he had not proposed any alteration in taxation, and he thought it would not be an unreasonable thing if, in these circumstances, the Government should have been allowed on Thursday last either to have a short debate and then go on with other Business, or else be permitted to pass the Resolutions. But the Members of the Committee raised a discussion in which the Estimates he had submitted were challenged by some right hon. Gentlemen of authority in the House, and they were left in the present position. It was desirable there should be an opportunity of vindicating the Estimates, which he was prepared to do, and, at the same time, of having any discussion which might be necessary in order to satisfy hon. Members of the soundness of the financial position. The unexpectedly long discussion upon the Mutiny Bill had made it impossible to get into Committee of Ways and Means until late in the evening, and now it was proposed to adjourn the Committee in order, as he understood, to give the hon. Member for Paisley an opportunity of raising a discussion on the general incidence of taxation. That was a very large question, and one which might be raised at almost any time in the course of their financial discussions; but it was hardly reasonable to ask that the whole of the Business should be suspended in order that it might be brought forward.
        MR. GOSCHENsaid, he must demur entirely to the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Although there was to be no change in the taxation of the

        1245
        country, yet the state of the finances of the country was then as deserving of the serious examination and consideration of the House as at any other time. They would not be disharging their duty, if they allowed the unambitious and modest Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pass without subjecting the Estimates and the whole financial policy of the Government to such criticism as hon. Members thought necessary. He sympathized with the Government at the great length of time that had been occupied in discussing the Mutiny Bills. They had taken a much longer time than had ever been the case before; and no doubt the Government had been somewhat embarrassed by it; but still that was not sufficient to ask the House to refrain from discussing the Budget. He thought the Resolutions ought to be postponed in order that the hon. Member for Paisley might have an opportunity of bringing forward his Motion.
        MR. W. H. SMITHsuggested that the hon. Member for Paisley might make his speech at once.
        MR. CHILDERSsaid, it would be impossible at that late hour (12 o'clock) to proceed with a discussion on so important a question.
        THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was obviously impossible to resist the wish for an Adjournment.
        Question put, and agreed to.
        Debate adjourned till Wednesday.

        SUPPLY—REPORT.
        Resolutions [5th April] reported.

        (1.) "That a sum, not exceeding £34,105, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for the Maintenance and Repair of Royal Palaces."

        (2.) "That a sum, not exceeding £117,645, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."

        First Resolution agreed to.
        Second Resolution read a second time.
        MR. DILLWYNsaid, he again intended to renew the objection which had been raised on a previous evening by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to the sum of
        1246
        £155 for the feeding of pheasants in Richmond Park. Although he did not admit the propriety of voting public money in aid of the amusements of the Ranger of the park, it was not on that ground that either he or the hon. Baronet were opposed to the item just mentioned; but on the ground that the preservation of game in the parks was incompatible with the full and free enjoyment of them by the public. He thought it was time to call attention to that subject, because complaints were made by people living in the neighbourhood of Richmond of increasing encroachments on the park, and he believed that the same thing was going on in Great Windsor Park to the exclusion of the public. He begged, therefore, to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £155.
        Amendment proposed, to leave out "£117,645," in order to insert "£117,490,"—(Mr. Dillwyn,)—instead thereof.
        MR. GERARD NOELwas sorry that the hon. Member for Swansea had brought that question forward again, because a satisfactory answer regarding it had been given a few nights ago. That sum of £155 was taken for rearing and preserving a small amount of game in Richmond Park, and any hon. Gentleman who had experience of the matter knew how small was the quantity of game that could be preserved for that sum. In fact, the greater part of the expense incurred was borne by the Ranger, who had the privilege of shooting over the Park, and ho reserved what game he liked for himself. The rest went to the Queen, who disposed of it as she thought right; and those who read the newspapers knew that Her Majesty periodically sent game to the London Hospitals, and also to the poor and sick at Windsor. He had seen in The Times, a few days ago, a letter written by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea, stating that those parks were mainly used by the Crown authorities for the preservation of game, instead of for the benefit of the public. To that statement he now gave the most unqualified contradiction. The number of people who walked in the parks, who picniced there, and who drove there, were annually on the increase. They might roam about as much

        1247
        as they pleased, so long as they did not break into the plantations or commit any depredation. Those plantations were not made for the preservation of game; but for the purpose of beautifying the Park and of restoring the timber which was cut down every year, and which formed a source of revenue to the country. He would ask the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) if he had a plantation in his own park, whether he would allow the villagers to go indiscriminately into it and to mutilate and destroy the trees? If the Office of Works did not guard against such an evil they would be justly blamed. He did not think it was just or right to bring against persons occupying official positions charges which were based upon mere rumour, and without having obtained evidence for the correctness of the statements.
        SIR CHARLES W. DILKEexplained that he should not have dreamt of writing the letter to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had alluded, had not the question been wholly misrepresented in the papers, and he had no opportunity of referring to it through any other channel. The right hon. Gentleman had made a most official speech which furnished a strong argument in support of the Motion. He had spoken of the public, for whose use the Park was intended, as trespassers, and of the Board of Works as if they were private owners of the property. [Mr. GERARD NOEL: I said the public had perfect liberty to roam everywhere they pleased; except in the plantations.] Instead of a light iron fence which could easily be climbed over, the plantations were surrounded by a great deer fence, and the public were thus excluded from a large portion of the Park. The only reason for this exclusion that he could see was the preservation of game. It was true the amount challenged was small, but they desired to take the opinion of the House upon it as a question of principle.
        MR. M. BROOKShoped the Motion would not be persevered with. He could not see any harm in having game in Richmond Park, for he thought the people who frequented the Park derived much pleasure from seeing the pheasants and other game. Dubliners who visited Richmond Park regretted that their own Phœnix Park was not equally well taken care of.
        Question put, "That '£117,645' stand part of the said Resolution."
        The House divided:—Ayes 123; Noes 51: Majority 72.—(Div. List, No. 77.)

        GAME LAWS (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 25.]
        (Mr. M'Lagan, Sir William Stirling Maxwell Sir Edward Colebrooke, Mr. John Maitland.)

        CONSIDERATION.
        Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
        Bill, as amended, considered.
        MR. M'LAGAN (for Mr. J. W. BAR-CLAY)proposed to amend Clause 6 by leaving out line 16 and inserting—
        "Six days before each time the valuator appointed by the lessee to assess the damage inspects such grass for the purpose of estimating such damage."
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 2, line 38, to leave out the words "harboured on the lands of the lessor," in order to insert the words "six days before the grass is inspected, for the purpose of having such damage valued,"—(Mr. M'Lagan,)
        —instead thereof.
        Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
        MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, in the absence of the hon. Member who had given Notice of the Amendment, he thought the House ought not to agree to it unless some explanation was given as to the object which was desired to be effected.
        MR. M'LAGANsaid, of course if the Amendment was objected to, he would not press it, though personally he had no objection to it.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

        (PUBLIC OFFICES AND BUILDINGS (METROPOLIS).
        Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the annual expenditure on Public Offices and Buildings, and to see whether the adoption of a more comprehensive plan for the extension and improvement of the public buildings would not be more economical and advantageous than the present system."—(Mr. Baillie Cochrane.)
        And, on May 14, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. GERARD NOEL, Mr. ADAM, Mr.

        1249
        GOLDSMID, Mr. BERESFORD HOPE, Sir WILLIAM MAXWELL, Sir WILLIAM FRASER, Mr. RALLI, Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Mr. DODSON, Sir RICHARD WALLACE, Lord ELCHO, Mr. MITCHELL HENRY, Mr. REED—,Mr. BRISTOWE, Mr. MINTZ, Mr. O'REILLY, Mr. MULHOLLAND, and Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE: — Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to ho the quorum.

        PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACTS AMENDMENT (NO. 2) BILL.
        On Motion of Mr. ANDERSON, Bill to amend the Public Libraries Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ANDERSON, Mr. MUNDELLA, and Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY.
        Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 136.]
        House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.