MARINE MUTINY BILL.

HC Deb 16 April 1877 vol 233 cc1222-49

(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 PIM

moved, 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. HUNT

said, 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Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.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. PARNELL

said, 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- 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. HUNT

said, 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. PARNELL

said, 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 POWER

moved 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. PARNELL

supported 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. HUNT

said the Bill in this particular only followed the lines of that the Committee had just passed.

MR. PARNELL

urged 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. CHILDERS

supported the Amendment.

MR. HUNT

pointed 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 POWER

understood 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. PARNELL

agreed 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. HUNT

said, he was unwilling to accept the Amendment without more consideration.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

commented upon this as a most unsatisfactory answer, and said there had been no argument against the Amendment.

MR. HUNT

admitted that the power of inflicting solitary confinement ought to be limited; but, at the same time, it 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. MONK

said, 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. HUNT

said, 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 POWER

moved 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 HAY

hoped 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 POWER

avowed himself an opponent of flogging civil offenders as well as soldiers and sailors.

MR. M'LAREN

spoke 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 BERESFORD

said, 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'ARTHUR

denied that the crime of garotting had in any way been affected by corporal punishment.

MR. PARNELL

said, 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 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 CHAIRMAN

pointed out to the Committee that the question had not reference to flogging in the Army but in the Marines.

MR. SULLIVAN

thought 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. PARNELL

moved 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, 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. HUNT

pointed 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. PARNELL

thought 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. CHILDERS

observed 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. PARNELL

said 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 opinions he did with respect to it, he must press the Motion to a division.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

maintained 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. PARNELL

said, 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. BIGGAR

supported 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. WHITWORTH

said, 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. SULLIVAN

would 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. 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 POWER

supported 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. PARNELL

moved 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. SULLIVAN

moved 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. [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. FORSYTH

asked 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 CHAIRMAN

observed 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. WHITWORTH

thought 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. SULLIVAN

said, the hon. Member for Newry had had very little experience of this matter. The hon. Member had never seen a man flogged in his 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, POWER

said, 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 CONYNGHAM

said, 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 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. EGERTON

said, 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 HAVELOCK

said, 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 EDMONSTONE

denied that such was the case. At least two officers had to decide on the matter.

MR. BIGGAR

said, 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. HOPWOOD

supported 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 HAY

said, 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 land to try upon each other the effects of the cat used in the common gaols.

MR. PEASE

would 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. HERMON

objected 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. GOSCHEN

approved 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. FORSYTH

suggested the withdrawal of the Amendment and the substitution of another proposing that the cat used should be of a regulation pattern.

SIR JOHN HAY

thought 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'SHAUGHNESSY

pointed 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- fore could not advise his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. HUNT

said, 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. SULLIVAN

offered to omit the words "and duly stamped."

MR. CHILDERS

appealed 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. PARNELL

said, 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 CHAIRMAN

ruled that the two Amendments could not be put together.

MR. PARNELL

moved 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. PARNELL

said, 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 CHAIRMAN

having put the Question—

MR. PARNELL

complained 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. HUNT

said, 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. PARNELL

said 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. HUNT

gave 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.

1. WAYS AND MEANS.
cc1237-45
1. COMMITTEE. 3,369 words
cc1245-8
2. SUPPLY—REPORT. 919 words
c1248
3. GAME LAWS (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 25.] 12 words
c1248
4. CONSIDERATION. 179 words
cc1248-9
5. (PUBLIC OFFICES AND BUILDINGS (METROPOLIS). 116 words
c1249
6. PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACTS AMENDMENT (NO. 2) BILL. 42 words