Commons Sitting of 4 May 1877

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Montgomery Borough, v. the Honble. Charles Douglas Richard Hanbury-Tracy, now Lord Sudeley.
QUESTIONS.

  ARMY SURGEONS—THE ROYAL WARRANT, 1877.—QUESTION.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the Secretary of State for War, If he would state why the Commissions of the gentlemen who were gazetted as Surgeons under the Royal Warrant of April 28th 1877, were not ante-dated as was heretofore the case; and, in the event of their not being ante-dated, will the time spent at the Army Medical School, Netley, count towards promotion for those who may be continued in the Department after ten years?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, that previous to the year 1876 the time of instruction at Netley was allowed to count as a period of service. When, however, the 10 years' system of short service was adopted, it appeared undesirable to cut off the period during which they were under instruction. It was not desirable to make a distinction between those who left at the end of 10 years and those who did not.

  IMPORTATION OF AMERICAN MEAT.

    QUESTION.
    CAPTAIN NOLANasked the President of the Board of Trade, If the cost of freight of fresh meat from America to this Country (¾d. per pound as stated in Return 151) includes the cost of keeping the meat fresh by ice; and, if not, could he state approximately the cost per pound, in addition to freight, of keeping meat imported from America fresh during its voyage to this Country?
    SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, the rate of freight for conveyance of fresh meat to Great Britain from America is stated in the Return named at 27 s. 6d. to 30 s. per ton measurement of the space occupied by refrigerators, together with 5 per cent primage, equivalent to ¾d. per lb of meat. I am informed this does not include the cost of ice furnished by the shippers. I have no means of stating what this additional cost maybe.

  ST. CATHERINE'S HOSPITAL.

    QUESTION.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer,

    317
    Whether it is intended to advise Her Majesty to fill up the sinecure office of Master of Saint Catherine's Hospital now vacant?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, that some time ago a Commission was appointed, with Lord Hatherley at its head, to inquire into the position of this institution. That Commission had made a Report containing separate recommendations on the subject of increasing the utility of the institution, as the funds had increased, and that Report was now under consideration.

  MERCANTILE MARINE — NORTH SEA HARBOUR AND CANAL.—QUESTION.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he will obtain and lay upon the Table of the House the official papers containing the tables of rates and charges of various kinds leviable on the trade and shipping entering and leaving the Great North Sea Harbour of Holland, passing up and down the new Canal, and for loading and discharging at the quays of Amsterdam; and also such other statistics of trade, &c. as will show the progress since this great work was opened?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, the tariff of tolls and rates leviable for the use of the new canal from the North Sea to Amsterdam was, on the 30th of March last, published in extenso in The Shipping and Mercantile Gazette, which is much more accessible to the British trade that use the canal and harbour than any Parliamentary Paper can be. The ordinance of the Dutch Government for the general regulation of the navigation of the canal, containing upwards of 70 Articles, was also published in extenso in the same paper on the 25th of December last. As the canal was only opened in November last, statistics of trade, &c., for so short a time would not be of much value.

  ARMY—"GENERAL MONTHLY RETURN."—QUESTION.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House, for the use of Members in the Library, a Copy of the " General Monthly Return
  318
  of the British Army," which is printed every month at the War Office for the use of Government?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, he would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Return referred to had always been regarded as a Departmental document. There was, however, nothing secret in it, and he saw no objection to a copy being left in the Library for the use of Members.

  GIBRALTAR—PROPOSED TRADE REGULATIONS.—QUESTION.
  MR. WHITWELLasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What steps the Colonial Department is proposing to take with reference to trade at Gibraltar and the neighbourhood calculated to affect British commerce on that coast; and, whether, before any instructions are issued on the subject, they will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, the intention is to frame regulations which, while in no way interposing obstacles in the way of legitimate commerce, shall prevent the port of Gibraltar from continuing to be a smuggling depot. I am afraid I can add nothing to what I said the other day—namely, that the Manchester Chamber of Commerce have been informed that no final action will be taken until they have been again communicated with, and that a copy of the regulations will be laid upon the Table before they are brought into operation.

  NAVY—ROYAL MARINES—PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT.—QUESTION.
  MR. SAMPSON LLOYDasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Committee appointed to consider a Scheme of Promotion and Retirement in reference to the Royal Marines has made its Report; if it has not reported, whether he can state when it is expected that it will do so; and, if it has reported, whether he has any objection to lay the Report upon the Table of the House?
  MR. A. F. EGERTON,in reply, said, that the Committee referred to had not yet made their Report. He was unable to say when it would be ready; but he would take care it should be laid on the Table as soon as possible.

  COAL MINES—TYNEWYDD COLLIERY.

    QUESTION.
    MR. MACDONALDasked why it was—as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department promised—that counsel did not attend the investigation into the mine explosion at Tynewydd?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, that he was glad the hon. Gentleman had called his attention to the subject. He had given orders more than a week ago, through the Secretary of the Treasury, that counsel were to attend the inquest, and he had sent a message to ascertain why counsel had not attended. He could not imagine the slightest reason why his instructions had not been carried out. He would, however, make inquiries.

  THE EASTERN QUESTION—PRINCE GORTCHAKOFF'S CIRCULAR.

    QUESTION.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question of which I have given him private Notice, If he can inform the House whether an answer has been sent to Prince Gortchakoff's Circular to the different Powers at the time of the declaration of war; and, if so, whether he can lay it on the Table of the House?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, an answer has been sent to Prince Gortchakoff's Circular, and it will be laid on the Table. I believe that it is not in accordance with the usages of diplomacy to lay a communication of that kind before Parliament or the public until it has been received by the Power to which it has been addressed. We shall know by telegram when it has been received, and then it will be laid on the Table of the House without delay. I presume it will be at the beginning of the week.

  RUSSIA AND TURKEY—THE EASTERN QUESTION-MR. GLADSTONE'S RESOLUTIONS.—QUESTIONS.
  SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEasked the hon. Gentleman the Member for Christchurch (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) and his hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock), Whether, seeing that Amend-
  320
  ments to the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Gladstone's) Resolutions had now been placed upon the Paper, and that as, according to the Forms of the House, no Amendment could be proposed after a decision on the Previous Question—whatever that decision might be—had been arrived at, it was their intention to persevere in the Motion of which they had given Notice to move the Previous Question?
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I gave my Notice of moving the Previous Question, Sir, because I thought that in the present state of Europe it would be wrong to embarrass Her Majesty's Government in their foreign policy, and that it was therefore undesirable that Parliament should even entertain such a question as that raised by the right hon. Member for Greenwich. I am still of that opinion; but, as I gave my Notice on national and not on Party grounds, I am indifferent whether the Previous Question is moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone or myself. If, therefore, the hon. Baronet adheres to his intention, I will readily give way to him, so that the Motion may not appear to have a Party character. But if the hon. Baronet does not intend to adhere to his Notice, then I will move the Previous Question myself.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: As my hon. Friend appeals to me, I may be allowed to say that I am of opinion the Resolutions to be moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich cannot be satisfactorily met either by a distinct negative or by an affirmative, and it is therefore my intention to persevere with the Amendment of which I have given Notice. At the same time, if the Government should desire to support the Amendment of which Notice has been given by the noble Lord the Member for Haddington (Lord Elcho), or any other Amendment implying confidence in Her Majesty's Government, I should feel it impossible to stand in the way of the issue to be raised on such a question.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, bearing in mind the various speeches and declarations which have been made from the other side of the House, and especially by the Leader of the House, in expressing the anxiety of the Government to have a declaration of policy stated from this side, I am justified, I think, in

  321
  asking Her Majesty's Government, whether it is their intention to use any influence they possess with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Christchurch for the purpose of enabling us in the face of the country to take issue on this question, or whether they are content that the vote should be taken on the Previous Question?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think, Sir, that the question of the right hon. Gentleman is one of a very unusual character, and one to which it is hardly necessary the Government should give any answer. The Motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich does not raise any direct issue of want of confidence in Her Majesty's Government; but it sets forth a series of propositions which, as I understand, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone are of opinion ought not to be entertained by the House. In these circumstances, it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to interfere either with the hon. Baronet opposite or with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, as it is a matter of indifference to us who moves the Previous Question.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
    THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND) — CASE OF MR. ANCKETELL, J.P.

      RESOLUTION.
      MR. SULLIVAN,in rising, according to Notice, to call attention to the conduct of Mr. William Ancketell, a Justice of the Peace and Deputy Lieutenant of the county Monaghan, in reference to his public conviction of having cut the throats of two dogs belonging to humble people in the village of Emyvale, on suspicion that the dogs had an hour previously barked at and frightened his horse; also to call attention to the conduct of the magistrates sitting at Emyvale Petty Sessions on the 21st September last, and to the circumstances whereby a failure of justice ensued in respect of
      322
      the prosecutions instituted against Mr. Ancketell by the police, and by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; and to move— "That, in the opinion of this House, the retention of Mr. Ancketell's name on the Commission of 'the Peace for the county of Monaghan is not calculated to inspire the humbler classes of the people with respect for the administration of the Law, or with confidence in the impartiality of its application to rich and poor in that locality,"
      said, the conduct to which he wished to call the attention of the House was so lawless and brutal, that if Mr. Ancketell had been a humbler individual he would instantly have been punished by the criminal law of the country; and he contended that such a man was not a fit person to be retained upon the Petty Sessions bench to administer the law which he had so grossly violated. In bringing this matter forward, he entirely disclaimed making any imputation upon the character of the magistracy in Ulster or any other Province of Ireland, who, he believed, heartily condemned this transaction. They had often heard of what was called Justices' justice; but he was happy to say that there were few magistrates in Ulster against whom a similar complaint to that he had to refer to could be made. It was an exceptional case; but he would ask the House to say what would be thought if a humble peasant had forced his way into the magistrate's house and cut the throats of two of his dogs? That, however, was the offence which this magistrate had committed. On the night of the 13th August last Mr. Ancketell and a groom were driving through the street of the little village of Emyvale at one o'clock, and the noise of the wheels set the village dogs barking. Had they barked at a commercial traveller with his baggage they would have been safe; but they dared to bark at the gig-wheels of the local Bashaw, and they forfeited their lives for the offence. There was no doubt Mr. Ancketell had some cause for irritation, as the mare he was driving got restive and did some damage; and, in the heat of the moment, if he had shot the dog the ease would never have been brought forward. But what did he do? He drove to the police barrack, took his horse from the trap, put it in the stable, and called upon the police to go with him to search for the dogs and take

      323
      their lives; but this was an hour after the occurrence. Being a magistrate, the police, who were bound to prevent such an outrage, accompanied him upon his bloody errand, and stood by while he surgically operated upon the dogs. The party went to the house of the widow Armstrong, who, with her household, was asleep. They broke into her yard, and found that there was a dog in one of the out-houses. Her son, a youth, came down to the door in his night-shirt, and in answer to their inquiries said there was a dog in the out-house, and at their bidding unsuspectingly went down the yard and brought out his pet. Mr. Ancketell immediately cut the dog's throat, and, according to the sworn evidence of the boy, the poor animal ran across the road with the blood spurting from its throat, and he followed and took it in his arms until it died. The magistrate crossed the street and found another dog, the throat of which he also cut. He then returned to the police barracks and washed his hands. Was this a gentleman who ought to sit upon the bench at Emyvale to administer the law? Supposing the dogs had even violated a statute in barking at a magistrate's car, was he justified in taking the law into his own hands? Now, he would call the attention of the Government and the House to the manner in which this conduct on the part of a magistrate had been dealt with, notwithstanding every effort that had been made to bring him to justice. If it had been the conduct of a humble individual the police would have left a summons the next morning; but here they did nothing whatever until the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals took up the prosecution. To show there was nothing of political animus, he might mention that the person who invoked the action of the Society was a strong Conservative gentleman—though he was a dog-fancier it was true. No sooner did the Society take action, and open the prosecution, than the police intervened, bringing a friendly prosecution at the instance of the very policeman who had accompanied Mr. Ancketell in the butchering of the dogs. So little confidence did the people have in their magistracy that application was made that a stipendiary magistrate should be sent down from Dublin to hear the case, but this was refused. Well, the
      324
      result of the friendly police prosecution was that the mode of death inflicted on the dogs had so little of cruelty in it, and so much of surgical skill, that the case did not come within the words of the statute, "torture of animals," and upon that miserable pretext the case was dismissed. Upon this the Secretary of the Society retired, declaring he would take no further part in a farce. But other gentlemen in the county, and those, too, of the same religion and political opinion as Mr. Ancketell, thought the matter should not rest, and another summons was taken out for the breaking into the premises and the merciless killing of the dogs, and Mrs. Armstrong took out a process for the recovery of the value of the dog—£20. When the second summons was called on, Mr. Ancketell's brother magistrates postponed the case, on the ground that a civil action was pending. He (Mr. Sullivan) complained not only of the conduct of Mr. Ancketell, but also of his brother magistrates, for the part they took in baffling justice, and not exercising the powers of an Act of Parliament. At length the case came before the assistant-barrister of the County Court, who in indignant terms, which ought to suggest the impropriety of Mr. Ancketell holding Her Majesty's commission, condemned his conduct, declaring it to be grossly and abominably bad, and decided against him to the fullest extent. Mr. Ancketell appealed to the going Judge of assize (Mr. Justice Barry), and carried that appeal. He (Mr. Sullivan) did not know who had the selection of foremen; but it was a singular circumstance that when the case was being called Mr. Ancketell was taking his seat as chairman of the Grand Jury upstairs. He had been fined a sum representing the value of the dog, and the amount was reduced on appeal from £10 to £5. At the same time, the Judge asked where was the policeman who stood by when the brutal act was done; and being told that he had left the Force, replied that the Force would be the better for it. Thanks to the action of the Superior Courts, widow Armstrong had received at least some satisfaction; but what satisfaction had been given to the outraged humanity of the country? Mr. Ancketell had accused him (Mr. Sullivan) of having brought this question forward from political mo-

      325
      tives, arid because of his (Mr. Ancketell's) high social position and political opinions; but the fact was that when he (Mr. Sullivan) put his Question to the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary on the subject, he had not the remotest notion of what Mr. Ancketell's political opinions were, nor that he considered himself of such lofty social position. It so happened that Mrs. Armstrong, whose dog he had butchered, was of the same political opinions as himself; and it had been asserted that, although representing himself as a Constitutional Tory, this gentleman was, under the rose, a Home Ruler, having been present at a Home Rule banquet held in Dublin. The question before the House, however, was not one of Party politics, but whether the conduct complained of was of a nature that was calculated to inspire the people of Ireland with confidence in the administration of justice by the magistrates of the country. He would conclude by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
      MR. ANDERSONsaid, he had great pleasure in seconding the Motion. Even if Irishmen could be accused of party bias in the matter, he as a Scotchman could not. He knew nothing otherwise of Mr. Ancketell, either of his social position, or of his political views. All he knew was that he had read all the evidence in this case carefully. He saw that Mr. Ancketell was a magistrate, a justice of the peace, and a deputy-lieutenant of the county, and he must say that he was perfectly horrified with the evidence he read. Not only were the dogs not identified as those which frightened the horse, but the act was one of utter brutality. It was the case of a man of social position, a magistrate, a gentleman, going deliberately out into a village to cut the throats of two dogs which were not in any way injuring him at the time, the only excuse being that an hour before he supposed that these dogs had annoyed him. How could the people of Ireland place any confidence in the magistracy of Ireland, or in the administration of the law, when a magistrate like that could retain his position on the Bench? The man should have been kicked off the Bench immediately by an indignant Government; and he had greatly regretted to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland endeavour to palliate the offence when it was brought on some time ago.
      326
      He hoped that right hon. Gentleman, now that he had read the evidence, would no longer attempt to palliate it, but would visit it with the righteous indignation it deserved.
      Amendment proposed,
      To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the retention of Mr. Ancketell's name on the Commission of the Peace for the county of Monaghan is not calculated to inspire the humbler classes of the people with respect for the administration of the Law, or with confidence in the impartiality of its application to rich and poor in that locality,"—(Mr. Sullivan,)
      —instead thereof.
      SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHdeprecated discussion on this matter at the present time. The Motion of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) was practically that Mr. Ancketell should be dismissed from the commission of the peace for his conduct. He could not reply to the Motion in so far as it merely referred to Mr. Ancketell, as proceedings in that respect were still pending. In the month of March the hon. Member for Louth brought this matter forward in the shape of a Question, to which he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) replied that he would forward such information on the subject as he possessed to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, with whom the decision of such matters rested. He accordingly handed papers to the Lord Chancellor next clay; and the Lord Chancellor required from Mr. Ancketell an explanation of his conduct. Mr. Ancketell furnished an explanation, with which the Lord Chancellor was not satisfied, and the latter deemed it necessary to advise the Irish Government to issue a Commission to inquire into the circumstances of the case. The special Commissioner appointed was a very eminent lawyer, who had, on ninny occasions, held an important position as going Judge of Assize—namely, Dr. Battersby—whose other engagements prevented him from holding the inquiry so soon as he would otherwise have done. The inquiry had been made, but the Report had only come into his hands a few days ago, and it had to be sent to the Lord Chancellor for Ireland before anything further could be done. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) informed the hon. Member for Louth of these facts yesterday, and had suggested to him to consider whether it would not be better that the Motion should not be

      327
      discussed that evening; and he was bound to say, although their conversation was private, that the hon. Member appeared to regard the matter in the same light. The House would feel that, in this state of things, he was precluded from saying one word on the merits of Mr. Ancketell's case; because the matter was one which was for the decision, not of himself, but of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and he had no doubt that his decision would be consistent with justice and with the facts of the case. He, however, wished to say that the charges which the hon. Member for Louth had brought against the magistrates on the local Bench were entirely without foundation. The circumstances were these — Summonses against Mr. Ancketell were issued at the instance of the police and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. These summonses were wrongly taken out under the Cruelty to Animals Act; and the magistrates, acting as they were bound to do, held that they were unable to convict under the provisions of that statute—that there was not in the mere killing of the dogs a statutable case of cruelty proved on which they could convict. The hon. Member for Louth had looked upon this as a mere technical objection; but he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) should be sorry to blame the magistrates for declining to go beyond the letter of the law. Those summonses were dismissed after full hearing. Subsequently, a fresh summons was issued at the instance of Mrs. Armstrong against Mr. Aneketell, under the proper statute, for malicious killing; but the hearing of that summons was adjourned in consequence of civil proceedings being commenced by both sides, Mrs. Armstrong claiming damages for the loss of her dog, and Mr. Ancketell claiming damages for the injury to his horse and carriage. These actions were tried at the quarter sessions, and from the best information he could obtain he did not believe that the Chairman made the remarks which the hon. Member for Louth had been informed that he had used. He believed further, that the decision of Judge Barry was arrived at not only without influence being brought to bear on the learned Judge, but absolutely without Mr. Ancketell giving evidence on being represented in any way at the hearing of his case. That was all that he had to state to the House upon this
      328
      subject that evening, except to say that, looking at the position in which the matter stood, he regretted that the hon. Member for Louth should have brought it forward on this occasion, and that he trusted, after the statement he had made, the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion; or that, if pressed, the House would decline to assent to it.
      MR. SULLIVANwished to say that he had twice offered in conversation with the right hon. Gentleman to postpone the Motion, if his doing so would have been a convenience to the right hon. Gentleman; but that he had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that there was a portion of the Motion to which his objections did not apply.
      SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHexplained that the hon. Member had certainly offered to postpone his Motion as a matter of favour to himself; but, of course, he could not ask him to postpone it upon such a ground as that.
      SIR JOHN LESLIE,as one of the magistrates who sometimes presided at the petty sessions of Emyvale, and one of the Representatives of the county in which this affair occurred, was anxious to refute and repel the charges and the insinuations which the hon. Member for Louth had made against that Bench. When reduced to the proportions of truth the circumstances were utterly insignificant, and it must be regarded as a favourable sign of the calmness and of the happy condition of Ireland that the hon. Member for Louth could waste his time and his eloquence on a matter so utterly insignificant as that now before the House. He thought the hon. Member must be at a loss for employment—at all events, for a legitimate grievance on which to exercise his talents. Aquila non capit muscas—the eagle did not usually condescend to swoop at a fly. As far as concerned Mr. Ancketell, he was entitled to say that this Motion ought never to have been made, because the whole subject had been fully gone into by the hon. Member on the 15th of March in putting his Question to the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The Answer to that Question was, that the facts stated in the hon. Member's Question were in many parts inaccurate, and in others very much exaggerated. That he conceived to be an almost complete answer to the Motion of the hon Member. With regard to the magistrates, the hon. Member for Louth had allowed their

      329
      names to remain on the Paper for five or six weeks in connection with imputations highly dishonourable to them, which had been already fully and entirely answered by the Report of Dr. Battersby, who had exonerated them from all reproach in the matter, and had expressed his opinion that they had conducted themselves throughout the whole business with the greatest possible propriety. The House would probably be curious to know how this small village scandal came into such remarkable prominence. There were three causes for it. In the first place, he attributed it to the machinations of an unprincipled attorney living in the neighbourhood; secondly, to the injudicious and intemperate conduct of the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions; and, thirdly, to the unmistakeable desire on the part of the hon. Member for Louth, as well as of other hon. Members who had equally attacked the magistrates in different counties, to bring into disrepute the Protestant magistrates of Ulster. With regard to the first cause—the machinations of the unprincipled attorney—[Laughter]—probably hon. Members did not believe that there was in existence such a thing as an unprincipled attorney; but, for his own part, he believed that that there was one. Mr. Ancketell was allowed to repose for a fortnight after committing these indiscretions. [Laughter.] Well, they were merely indiscretions. Mr. Ancketell was young, and, like others who were young, indiscreet. For his own part he (Sir John Leslie) did not defend the act, but it was an indiscretion. A fortnight after that act had been committed, Mr. Ancketell did what everybody of proper feeling would, under the circumstances, do. He expressed his great regret for what he had done in the public newspapers, and offered to compensate the owners of the dogs—an offer which the owners would have been only too happy to accept had the unprincipled attorney not appeared upon the scene. The unprincipled attorney had addressed the following letter to a friend of Mr. Ancketell—
      "Omagh, Sept. 10, 1876.
      "My dear——,—You have taken such an interest in this horrible case of Aneketell's, I do not hesitate to tell you all the facts, as on his father's account I don't want to bring unnecessary disgrace upon him; but he must pay handsomely for such an outrage. You say you wonder who has put the Humane Society in motion.
      330
      I reply, it is done under my advice, so that we may be fully prepared with the evidence on the trial of the record in Dublin, in November. The summons and plaint are ordered in both cases by my son, and I fancy a Dublin jury will give sweeping damages in a case of the kind. You say you would wish the case hushed up. If so, let Mr. Ancketell send you down £50, and on receipt of it, I shall do all I can to withdraw all actions, and shall try and get the Society to forego further proceedings, on the ground of Mr. Ancketell having compensated the parties fully; and if they do not withdraw, I will, or my son will attend the Bench and state Mr. A. has fully compensated and made amends, and thus get a nominal fine. If Mr. Ancketell does not at once adopt this course, he need not expect any favour from the hands of yours faithfully,
      "CECIL MOORE."
      So much for an unprincipled attorney. Mr. Ancketell had been prosecuted no less than five times. He had been followed about by attorneys and lawyers. Mr. Ancketell was at last brought to bay before the Chairman of the Quarter Session in a civil action for damages—the value of these wild beasts. The Chairman of the Quarter Sessions showed a decided bias against Mr. Ancketell. That the Chairman was wrong was proved by the fact that the Judge of Assize, on an appeal from the decision of the Chairman, reduced by one half the amount which the Court of Quarter Sessions ordered Mr. Ancketell to pay. Tact, temper, and discretion were qualities which were requisite in a Chairman of Quarter Sessions, and he was bound to say that the county of Monaghan was most unfortunate with regard to the qualities displayed by their Chairman of Quarter Sessions. Almost simultaneously with the bringing of this charge against Mr. Ancketell, three other charges were brought; against different magistrates. Those charges had been disposed of. They seemed to owe their origin to a desire to attack the Protestant magistrates of Ulster. Admitting that Mr. Ancketell had committed a fault, he did not see why that gentleman should be made a scapegoat of in order to bring odium upon the county magistracy in Ireland. He would ask the House to contrast the tender emotion—the more than feminine sensibility—that the hon. Member for Louth had shown for the possible physical suffering of two cur dogs, with the pain, the moral pain he was inflicting on those of his own species. Mr. Ancketell had a wife, a mother, a sister. Had they no hearts to feel, no human sympathies to be wounded when they had

      331
      to witness their husband, son, brother dragged through the mire of calumny, held up to public infamy and disgrace? But it was well for Mr. Ancketell as for those he held dear, that there was a tribunal such as this, which was guided by truth, and which administered impartial justice; and, therefore, he (Sir John Leslie) appealed to the House to declare that the magistrates were free from even the slightest suspicion of reproach, and to restore Mr. Ancketell to the good opinion of all honest men, as also to the enjoyment of an unsullied reputation.
      SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, that the Question of his hon. Friend (Mr. Sullivan) first appeared on the Notice Paper on the 4th of March, and on the 15th of March the Chief Secretary promised to refer the matter to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland for investigation. It was extraordinary that it should take two months to discover whether or not a magistrate had acted improperly, and that the Report of that investigation had only been communicated to the Chief Secretary on the day before this Motion was made. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth had acted without communication with him; but in October last he (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) happened to read a report of the case, and he was so shocked at it that he immediately addressed a letter to the Lord Chancellor, stating that he knew nothing of the case, except what appeared in The Irish Times; that by a reference to the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, the Lord Chancellor could ascertain whether the strong statements were true; and that if they should be found true, Mr. Ancketell was, in his opinion, unfit to hold the commission of the peace. Mr. Ancketell had a good and earnest advocate in the hon. Member for Monaghan (Sir John Leslie); but he must complain of the observations he had used. He had spoken of a solicitor, Mr. Cecil Moore, in unjustifiable terms, seeing that he was not there personally to defend himself. The language "unprincipled attorney" was, he thought, language unfit to be used by a Gentleman in that House. He had also attacked the Chairman who had tried the case, and stigmatized his conduct as most partial and unfair. [Sir JOHN LESLIE: No, Sir; I said most injudicious.] He had understood the hon. Baronet to say "that the Chairman had shown a decided bias." If he was wrong, he
      332
      apologized. Having the honour of the acquaintance of the Chairman attacked, he would appeal to everyone who knew him, and in particular to the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, whether he was not the last person against whom such an imputation could be made. The decision was that of a jury, and the Chairman's language was not stronger than was jutified, and he believed that if Mr. Justice Barry had been aware that Mr. Ancketell had been examined before the jury and the Chairman, he would not have altered the decision of the Court of Quarter Sessions. He did not know whether his hon. Friend would divide the House on the question, but he thought it was quite proper to bring it forward. The Lord Chancellor ought to have investigated it much earlier than he did.
      MR. CALLANsaid, he had had the privilege of knowing the gentleman who had been spoken of as the "unprincipled attorney" for the last 12 years. Differing as he did, both in politics and in religion from Mr. Cecil Moore, the gentleman referred to, he wished to say there was not any professional gentleman in the North of Ireland who was more highly respected. As a proof of the high estimation in which he was held, he might mention that the Government had lately appointed him to the responsible office of Clerk of the Rules in the Common Pleas, and the appointment had been unanimously approved by the Profession. He therefore felt pained, and he must be allowed to tell the hon. Baronet that the expression he had used was an infringement of the privileges of the House, and he was confident that he would not use that language outside of the House. [Sir JOHN LESLIE: I read a letter in support of my statement.] He had taken down the words, and he appealed to hon. Members whether the hon. Baronet was reading from a letter at the time. Perhaps he would avail himself of the opportunity to withdraw the expression, which he (Mr. Callan) was sure the hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had been pained to hear. In that case he (Mr. Callan) would be satisfied. When the hon. Baronet spoke of the cruelty to the ladies of Mr. Aneketell's family which this Motion would inflict, he should have thought of the pain which his own remarks were sure to inflict upon the female members of Mr. Moore's family.
      MR. LAWsaid, he agreed with the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Leslie) that gentlemen in a judicial position ought to be possessed of tact, temper, and discretion. And the question which had now to be decided by the authorities in Ireland appeared to him to be whether in this unhappy matter Mr. Ancketell had conducted himself with such tact, temper, and discretion as that he could with advantage to the public interest any longer remain in the commission of the peace. The House was not in a position at the present moment to deal with the subject; and when the Government had had time to consider the Report that had been made by Dr. Battersby, it was not to be assumed that they would adopt any course of which the House would have reason to complain. The hon. Baronet must surely regret having in such sweeping terms brought under the very unpleasant notice of the House persons who could have had no idea that they would be thus attacked. They had had the phrase" the machinations of an unprincipled attorney" applied to Mr. Cecil Moore over and over again. Now, Mr. Cecil Moore had lately been selected by the present Government for a most responsible and important office in one of the Superior Courts of Ireland, having been promoted to it from one which he previously held in the county of Tyrone. The House, he hoped, would do the Government, as well as Mr. Moore, the justice of believing that they would not have placed Mr. Moore in that position, if he had really been a person who deserved the epithets which had been applied to him that evening. It was, too, in his (Mr. Law's) opinion, unfortunate that language had been used as to Mr. Barron, the Chairman of the County Monaghan, accusing him of showing a decided bias in dealing with this case. A Judge must, of course, form a decided opinion, or he would probably not come to a decision at all. But was not such language as had been used calculated to shake the confidence felt by the people of the county in their Chairman? Having, he (Mr. Law) presumed, arrived at the conclusion that he ought to give a decision adverse to Mr. Ancketell, Mr. Barron pronounced his judgment against him accordingly; but it must in all fairness be believed that, in so doing, he proceeded on the sworn evidence in the
      334
      case, and not on any prejudice or prepossession against Mr. Ancketell. He concurred with the hon. Baronet's observation that consideration should be had for the feelings of relatives; but that principle must not be pressed very far, or it might be used to screen any official from having his conduct brought into question. He would, however, ask the hon. Baronet whether he thought that Mr. Cecil Moore or Mr. Barron had no near relatives whose feelings were entitled to consideration? There was, as it seemed to him (Mr. Law), some justice in the complaint that a stipendiary magistrate, unconnected with the district, had not been sent to preside at the Petty Sessions, having regard to the existence of so much local feeling. In conclusion, he would suggest that the hon. Member for Louth should withdraw his present Motion.
      MR. BUTTsaid, that he entertained the highest respect for the privilege of Members of the House to speak freely and openly their opinions. But if a gentleman was unfairly attacked, as in this case, he thought it equally right that those who knew him should testify what they knew in his favour. Now, it was the simple truth that there was no man who occupied a higher position in his Profession than Mr. Cecil Moore. He could not understand that any letter in the least degree justified the epithet of "unprincipled," which the hon. Baronet (Sir John Leslie) had applied to Mr. Cecil Moore, or the statement that the beginning of this business was the machination of an unprincipled attorney.
      SIR JOHN LESLIE: My words—"unprincipled attorney" had reference entirely to the proposal for the payment of £50.
      MR. BUTTsaid, he did not think that that proposal in any way justified the the hon. Member's expression. There was nothing discreditable to Mr. Moore in the letter, and the hon. Baronet must have known that no man in the North of Ireland stood so high in his Profession. Mr. Moore had been selected to take one of the most important offices connected with the administration of justice in the Irish Courts. He thought it was his duty to say that the expression "unprincipled attorney," as applied to Mr. Cecil Moore, would be simply looked upon as an outrage in Ireland.
      MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORDbelieved Mr. Barron to be most careful and painstaking, both as a magistrate and an assistant barrister.
      MR. W. JOHNSTONdeclared that in professional as well as in private life Mr. Moore, who had been a personal friend of his for many years, occupied the highest rank.
      LORD CLAUD HAMILTONlikewise bore testimony to the high character of Mr. Moore, and suggested that the hon. Member for Monaghan should withdraw the offensive expressions he had used. For his own part, he did not altogether defend the letter, but he did not think it ought to be pitted against Mr. Moore's long honourable and straightforward professional career.
      MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGconcurred in the good opinion which had been expressed of Mr. Moore's professional and private character. With reference to the main question before the House, he stated that some years ago an Irish magistrate named O'Driscoll struck a boy with a whip for not telling him which way a hare had run, and that the Lord Chancellor of the day decided in consequence that Mr. O'Driscoll was unfit to hold his position on the Bench.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND(Mr. GIBSON) observed that the Motion had been brought forward at a most unfortunate time, and that the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) ought in fairness to have postponed it in accordance with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. [Mr. SULLIVAN: No such suggestion was made.] Well, as the hon. Member was no doubt aware that an inquiry was being made into the circumstances of the case by direction of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, his own judgment ought to have led him to take that course. He was the only Member who had directly referred to the transactions connected with the case, for nearly all the other hon. Gentlemen who had spoken had alluded to other matters, and he (Mr. Gibson) thought it would have been better if the hon. Member had waited until that decision had been announced. He believed the Lord Chancellor of Ireland could not have taken any earlier action than he did, as the matter was still sub judice until very recently. On October, when the representation was made that had been
      336
      referred to by the right hon. and learned Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen), an appeal was actually pending which could not be heard before the Judge of Assize until the recent Spring Assizes. Therefore, it would have been both unreasonable and unjust for the Lord Chancellor to have prejudiced the case. Whatever offence Mr. Ancketell might have been guilty of, it would have been unjust and unreasonable on the part of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to have taken action in respect to it until all the facts of the case had been fully ascertained, and for that purpose, he sent down one of the most experienced and able Queen's Counsel at the Irish Bar to make a full investigation in open Court at the very scene of the occurrence. He ventured to think that his right hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Law) had not rightly gathered the facts of the case. He understood the hon. Member for Louth to concede that Mr. Ancketell took no part in the decision of any of the cases at the petty sessions. [Mr. LAW said he merely alluded to the constitution of the Bench.] He came to the conclusion that it was suggested that Mr. Ancketell was sitting on the Bench and taking part in the cases; but after the explanation no more need be said on that subject. It was said to be unfortunate that, under the circumstances of the case, a resident magistrate was not present; but when the second summons was brought forward, of unlawful killing, a resident magistrate (Mr. White) of very great experience, was in attendance, and the Bench was unusually strong. On that occasion it was decided, as was not unusual, to postpone the criminal proceedings till the civil action had been tried. The matter was not in position for decision. He did not think the Papers were yet before the Lord Chancellor, but he had no doubt—and no one in that House could doubt—that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland would mete out justice to all parties, whether it might result in the vindication or punishment of Mr. Ancketell. Under these circumstances, he thought the hon. Member for Louth ought to withdraw his Motion.
      MAJOR O'GORMANsaid, Mr. Ancketell certainly appeared to him a most fortunate individual, for there had been a Commission sent down to inquire into the circumstances of his case; and no end of magistrates were present when

      337
      the inquiry was gone into. When he (Major O'Gorman) was deprived of the commission of the peace no Commission was sent down at all to inquire into his case. But then it was not a gentleman of the name of Ball, but one of the name of O'Hagan, who was Lord Chancellor. He had since been ennobled with the title of Baron O'Hagan. He sent down no Commission; he simply wrote him (Major O'Gorman) a letter something like this—or, rather, Mr. Uppington, his secretary, wrote—"Sir, I wish to know if you wrote a letter which appeared in The Freeman's Journal on such a day, and if it was published by your authority." He took up his pen and wrote back—"Sir, I beg to acquaint you, for the information of the Lord Chancellor, that the letter in question was written by me, and published by my authority." And then he was deprived of the commission of the peace, without receiving the common rights which a convicted felon should receive. A man convicted of a capital crime was usually asked by some official whether he had anything to say why sentence of death should not be passed upon him, but he had not been asked a single question at all. Now, he thought it a very admirable thing to have such a Chancellor as Lord Chancellor Ball, who took time to consider the circumstances of every case. He was not so very rapid in his decisions, but he was principled in fact. He (Major O'Gorman) remembered that one day he was standing in Sackville Street, when he met a friend. His friend said to him—"Do you know whose carriage that is passing by?" He replied—"No, I don't." His friend said—"That is Lord Chancellor O'Hagan's carriage." "Well," said he, "what do I care?" His friend rejoined—"He is going to learn the art of equitation." Just at that minute, a third party came up, an ill-natured man, very. He (Major O'Gorman) said—"That is Lord Chancellor O'Hagan, and he is going to learn the art of equitation." "Well," the ill-natured man replied—"It would be a very fortunate thing for the miserable suitors attending his Court if, in addition to learning equitation, he would try and teach himself a little equity."
      MR. SULLIVANsaid, he would not press his Motion to a division. In deference to what he took to be the feeling of the House he would withdraw it until
      338
      they had the decision of the Lord Chancellor before them. ["No, no!"]
      Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
      Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

    THE CHANNEL ISLANDS—THE LAWS AND JUDICATURE—CASE OF COLONEL DE FABY.—OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. J. COWEN,in rising to call attention to the case of Colonel he Faby, said, the House had been for the last hour-and-a-half engaged in commenting on the proceedings of the Irish magistracy. He would invite them for a short time to turn their minds to the magistracy in the Channel Islands. He wished to call attention to a case of singular severity and oppression that had recently occurred in Guernsey. His object in doing this was two-fold. He was desirous of securing some consideration or compensation for an unfortunate gentleman who had suffered great harshness at the hands of the authorities in that island. In the second place, he was anxious to use the incidents of the case for showing the necessity there was for a complete and radical reform in the administration of justice in these small dependencies. The Constitution existing in the Channel Isles was substantially the same as was in operation in the 12th century. The administrative and fiscal departments had not been materially altered since the time of the Norman Conquest. There had been no attempt to adapt their laws to the altered circumstances and the new conditions of modern life. While every other portion of the United Kingdom had had its institutions re-cast, those in the Channel Islands had remained stationary and stereotyped. They were a sort of constitutional or local Rip Van Winkles. While the other parts of the Kingdom had been progressing they had been asleep—only their sleep, instead of being of 20 years' duration, like that of Washington Irving's hero, had extended over 20 times 20 years. The facts of the case he wished the House to consider were briefly these:—Colonel de Faby was a French officer. When a young man he served with the French Army in Algiers. Afterwards he held a situation of re-

    339
    sponsibility and trust in the Civil Service. At the commencement of the war with Germany he resumed his military profession at the wish of the Government, and was given the command of a regiment. He went through all the disastrous campaign on the Rhine—at Woerth, Metz, and afterwards at Sedan. When peace was concluded, along with many other partizans of the Empire, he returned to the Channel Isles. Messrs. Rouher, Baroche, and others went to Jersey. Colonel de Faby, his wife, his father, and mother, went to Alderney. His father had been connected with the Consular Service, and was at that time in receipt of a pension. This was in 1871. In 1872, M. de Faby, sen., died, and shortly after his wife also died. A dispute arose as to the disposition of some property that M. de Faby left. Mr. Clucas, the Judge in Alderney, and his wife, had made the acquaintance of Messrs. de Faby, and when the old gentleman and his wife died Mrs. Clucas alleged that they had left her some jewellery and other property. This statement might be correct, or it might be incorrect—he was not in a position to offer an opinion. Colonel de Faby alleged that Mrs. Clucas had got possession of the property of his father and mother fraudulently, and he brought an action against her in the Alderney Court; but, strange to say, Mrs. Clucas's husband was the Judge, and he actually presided on the case when the charge against his wife was preferred. Such a proceeding might be legal, but he thought the House would admit that it was not altogether decent. When the case was considered the Judge charged Colonel de Faby openly in the Court with being a liar—adding to the phrase a somewhat offensive adjective which he, however, did not care to repeat. The case was removed from Alderney to the Royal Court at Guernsey, and was yet unsettled. The law in those islands was sometimes very prompt, and at other times it was as slow as in the old Chancery Court in this country. Shortly after the death of his parents, Colonel de Faby settled in Guernsey, and with the assistance of some of his friends, commenced a newspaper. The paper was established in 1873, and had a fair measure of success. In 1876 Mr. Clucas, the Alderney Judge, died. Colonel de Faby, in his paper, gave a sketch of his life, and
    340
    commented upon his career as a Judge and a public man. In this he followed the example of other and more influential papers on the death of any local or national celebrity. It was out of this article that the unhappy dispute had arisen. He (Mr. Cowen) was willing to admit at once that the article was a very severe one. It was written with great smartness and sarcasm. It set forth the career of Judge Clucas in not a very attractive light. He did not defend the article, nor did he apologize for it; but he thought it was only fair to the writer to state that he had had great provocation. It should also be stated that Mr. Clucas himself had either published or caused to be published a pamphlet reflecting on the life and character of Colonel de Faby which was quite as severe, if not more objectionable, than the offending article. Mrs. Clucas commenced an action for libel in the Royal Court at Guernsey. When Colonel de Faby was summoned to appear before the tribunal he found to his astonishment that Mr. Utermarck, the Attorney General had been retained for the prosecution. This gentleman had been retained previously by Colonel de Faby to prosecute Mrs. Clucas for fraudulently getting possession of his mother's property; and yet, notwithstanding this, the gentleman considered there was no breach of legal etiquette or custom for him to turn right round and offer his services to his former client's opponent. English barristers would consider such procedure utterly indefensible. Mr. Utermarck had become possessed of a full knowledge of Colonel de Faby's case from that gentleman's self, and yet he transferred his services to Colonel do Faby's opponent in a case arising out of the same dispute. The simple statement of the fact would in the estimation of all the lawyers in this country be sufficient to condemn the procedure. There was another point in which the case against Colonel de Faby was conducted in an irregular, if not in an illegal manner. It was the custom in the Channel Isles to associate the officers of the Crown with both the plaintiff and defendant in certain cases. The Attorney General was joined to the plaintiff, and the Controller was joined to the defendant. These officers were not to act as advocates, but to use their supposed superior knowledge in guiding the Court when

    341
    settling all difficult legal points. Probably no one in the House would contest this statement; but he would refer hon. Members to the Report of the Royal Commission appointed in 1846 to inquire into the Criminal Law of the Channel Islands, and which would fully bear out what he had just said—that the Law Officers of the Crown ought to be associated in such cases with both parties to the trial; and that therefore legally Colonel de Faby should have had associated with him the Controller of the Guernsey Court. The Attorney General was with his opponent; but Colonel de Faby had no one associated with his advocate. He stood, therefore, at a great disadvantage in not having his case fairly put before the Court. The House would know that the Court in Guernsey consisted of the Bailiff, who presided, but took no part in arriving at any decision—he simply explained points of difficulty and legal doubt. The Jurats or judges were the parties who were supposed to try the case. The two Law Officers, the Attorney General and Controller, constituted really part of the tribunal, and no Court for trying a case of criminal libel was fairly or legally constituted without the Crown officers were adjoined to both the prosecution and the defence. That was the first disadvantage under which Colonel de Faby laboured, and it was not only an irregular, but, as he contended, an illegal procedure. In the second place, the law in Jersey required that all the witnesses, both for the plaintiff and defendant, should be summoned by the Attorney General, and their expenses paid by the Crown. He did not think the Home Secretary would contest that point either; but if he did, he would refer again to the Report of the Royal Commission. Colonel de Faby, it would be seen, when he went to the Court, was placed in a very adverse position. He found that the lawyer who had been his advocate against Mrs. Clucas had turned round and had become his prosecutor; that the Court was not legally constituted and he was deprived of the assistance that ought to have been extended to him by the Controller being associated with his advocate; and, in the third case, none of his witnesses were in attendance. His case was, therefore, practically undefended. His advocate, Mr. Falla, had given a list of these wit-
    342
    nesses to the Attorney General, and according to the law of Guernsey, that official ought to have summoned the witnesses. He failed to do so; and, therefore, placed Colonel de Faby at very serious disadvantage. When the case was heard, the Attorney General Utermarck made a very violent speech against Colonel de Faby. Instead of contenting himself with a calm and judicial exposition of the law, he entered into a virulent personal attack upon the defendant, and declared in conclusion that he wished the Court had the power of realizing in practice the well-known couplet—
    "To put in every honest hand a w hip
    To lash the rascal naked through the world."
    The Attorney General was required in Guernsey to demand the amount of punishment that should be inflicted. He demanded a fine of £400 upon Colonel de Faby—£200 to go to Mrs. Clucas and £200 to the Crown. It was usual for the Court to halve the demand of the officer; but, in this instance, no opinion was offered by the Court at all. The Bailiff was an old man, 75 years of age, did not hear well, and consequently was not thoroughly acquainted with what took place before him. All that he said on the occasion was, that it was to be regretted that the witnesses for Colonel do Faby had not been called. The Jurats made no comment, and the result was that, without any formal judgment being pronounced, Colonel de Faby was practically sentenced at the demand of his opponent's lawyer, to the very heavy fine that he (Mr. Cowen) had just mentioned. No sooner had the Jurats bowed their acquiescence to the decision, than the Attorney General cried out in Court to the Sheriff to "collar" Colonel de Faby, who was thereupon taken to the Sheriff's office, and a demand made that he should pay the £400, or go to prison as a debtor for the sum. Colonel de Faby was quite unable to meet such an extortionate claim, and he went to gaol. For 10 weeks he was treated as an ordinary debtor, had his victuals supplied, edited his newspaper, and was allowed to conduct his business. During this time the arbitrary procedure of the Attorney General had been the subject of comment in the island, and had been discussed with some warmth in the newspapers. The authorities then adopted a very extraordinary mode of curtailing

    343
    the sale of Colonel de Faby's journal. The Attorney General, or some of the officials in the island, sent the constables to the different agents and urged them not to sell Colonel de Faby's paper, intimating to them, at the same time, that if they did so they would be liable to the same or nearly similar punishment as had been meted out to Colonel de Faby. This very extraordinary procedure seriously injured the sale of the journal, and no doubt the interference of an officer so powerful as the Attorney General would have an effect in a small island with a population of 30,000 or 40,000, which would fail if in a large community. Soon after, without any notice, a most extraordinary change in the treatment of Colonel de Faby was made. Up to that time he had been treated as he (Mr. Cowen) had said, as a debtor, but afterwards he was treated as a criminal, and transferred from one side of the gaol to the other. It would appear that the Court, for some reason or other, held a private sitting, and a sort of Guernsey Star Chamber declared that this change should take place. Colonel de Faby was not summoned before the Court, had no notice that his case was to be re-considered, nor had his advocate any intimation that anything was to be done; but in his absence, privately and secretly, the change in his treatment was effected. Anything more unjustifiable and more out of accord with an Englishman's notion of justice he could scarcely conceive. Colonel de Faby was in extremely bad health when he was sent to prison. He was suffering from such an accumulation of complaints as any man that had been through the terrible campaign of 1871 could be well supposed to suffer from. The medical officer of the gaol, with much more humanity and good feeling than the lawyers, declared that if the treatment of Colonel do Faby as a criminal was persevered in he would certainly die. Indeed, he believed this benevolent official gave notice to the governor of the gaol that if he transferred the debtor to the criminal side of the prison, that it would be nothing less than assassination, and he declared that he would take the consequences of the gaoler refusing to comply with the arbitrary order of the Court. Colonel de Faby, although not removed in consequence of the urgent remonstrances of the surgeon,
    344
    was still kept in close confinement 22 hours out of the 24. The doctor again interfered, and declared that unless a larger amount of fresh air was given and the door of his cell was opened, his state of health was such that he would certainly die. This humane recommendation of the doctor was again complied with; but the case, meanwhile, had excited a large amount of sympathy and attracted great interest in the island. The Lieutenant Governor, the Home Secretary, and the Queen had all been communicated with, and the case of Colonel de Faby had been brought before them all individually. In December last the Lieutenant Governor wrote to Colonel de Faby intimating to him that his imprisonment should terminate in a month—that was to say, six months after the trial—that on January 15th he would be released; but that He would be required to leave the island. On the day mentioned, Colonel de Faby was taken out of prison, and though in a very bad state of health and unable to make much exertion, he was taken to the steamboat in charge of the constable and banished to Jersey. He was not informed why he was sent away—no charge was made against hint warranting such banishment—he was simply deported in accordance with the order of the Governor. He (Mr. Cowen) made no charge against the Governor of acting illegally, as he believed the law permitted the Governor to transport an alien without trial under certain circumstances. The custom was a very old one; but it had been acted upon repeatedly even at comparatively modern times. In 1856, Victor Hugo, Piancini, and nearly a score of French, Polish, and Italian exiles were banished from Jersey by the edict of the Governor. These gentlemen had written severe articles respecting the Emperor of the French. The Governor, in consequence, sent them out of the island without accusation or trial. There was, however, usually some reason, good or bad, for laws of this kind, which, as in this case, gave the Governor of the Channel Islands the power of deportation. The islands were within sight of the French coast, and in time of war it was feared that foreigners in small numbers might land on the shores, promote insurrection, and lead to their occupation by the Queen's enemies. No one, however,

    345
    would pretend to say that Colonel de Faby was acting in this manner. He was pre-eminently loyal, and there was no one in the island a stouter defender of the Monarchy. He was neither a Republican nor Revolutionist. There had been no political' charge preferred against him. The whole dispute arose out of a purely private quarrel. It was simply a contention about the disposition of certain property, and no one could maintain that such a dispute would endanger the safety of the islands or shake the allegiance of some 30,000 of the most loyal subjects in the United Kingdom. Colonel de Faby was sent to Jersey. His permanent removal would have been absolute ruin, as it would have prevented him conducting his newspaper and carrying on his business. The Home Secretary, however, removed the interdiction upon him after a few weeks, and allowed him to return to the Island of Guernsey, where he now was. These were substantially the facts that he wished to submit to the House. -What he contended was, that in the first instance Colonel de Faby had been treated with great severity. Even admitting that he had libelled Mr. Clucas, the punishment was quite out of proportion to the offence. The trial for libel was irregular and informal, and placed Colonel de Faby at great disadvantage. His imprisonment was attended with unnecessary and uncalled-for severity, and the property that had been seized, and would have been sold, if it had not been for the kind interces-cession of friends—was really not his own. He had lost everything he possessed in France, was ruined both in health and in purse, and the modest establishment he had in Guernsey had been found by his wife's friends. It had not been sold; but at the present time it was in charge of the Sheriff, and if the security was withdrawn the whole of the effects would be at the mercy of the authorities. He thought the case was one for the generous consideration of the Government, and that some restitution should be made to Colonel de Faby. He (Mr. Cowen) had listened to his tale of sorrow and misfortune with very great concern. It was well calculated to excite the commiseration of all humane persons. Colonel de Faby's family had been, and he himself had been ruined by the disasters in France. He was a
    346
    partizan of the Empire. He (Mr. Cowen) was not a sympathizer with, and had very little respect for the Government of Louis Napoleon; but it was only fair to recollect that he ruled France for the better part of 20 years, that he was the Ally and friend of this country, and there was no more discredit to Colonel de Faby for having been an official of the Emperor Napoleon, than there was in this country having been his Ally. His wife, Mrs. de Faby, was an English lady. Her father was an officer in our Army, four of her brothers had been officers, her brother-in-law was an English General, and another brother was a clergyman of the Church of England. She had a modest but competent fortune, which was lost in the failure of one of the rascally joint-stock banks which scattered such widespread ruin a few years ago. He put their case before hon. Gentlemen, and asked them to consider what they would have said if an English subject living in the Island of Corsica had been treated as harshly and arbitrarily as Colonel de Faby had been in Guernsey? If such had been the case this country would have rung with condemnation of the French Government, whether it had been Imperial, Monarchical, or Republican. He asked them—as they would have sympathized with their own countrymen under such circumstances—to extend the same consideration for this unfortunate Frenchman and his wife in the distressing position in which they had been placed by the illegal exercise of arbitrary power in a portion of the United Kingdom. He hoped the exposure of this case would be a means of moving the Government to take some steps to reform the administration of the Channel Islands. This was only one case. There was constantly occurring cases—not so serious, perhaps, but still very hard cases—where the authorities used their power with great injustice.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would admit that the hon. Member had done good service, in a Constitutional way, by bringing this case under the notice of the House, and thus strengthening the hands of the Government in their endeavours to reform the laws of the Channel Islands. He was not there either to defend those laws or the practical manner in which they were administered—nor did he wish to make

    347
    any imputation against any officers; but he must say the laws were so peculiar and so repugnant to our feelings that nothing would satisfy him better than to be the humble instrument in working some change. There was, however, he was bound to say, a very great practical difficulty in the way. He believed no subjects of the Queen were more loyal or more devoted to the Crown than the inhabitants of the Channel Islands. They possessed enormous privileges, which they thoroughly appreciated, and they were as loyal as they could be. If hon. Members wanted a specimen of Home Rule they had it in the Channel Islands. This question of the state of the law of the Channel Islands was no new matter to either the Government or that House. As far back as 1846 and 1847 a Royal Commission made an inquiry respecting the Channel Islands, especially with regard to the criminal law, and for 30 years their Report had been before the House. The difficulty was that the people themselves did not wish to change their laws, some of which were most extraordinary. For instance, all the jurats were elected by the people. He had a case before him the other day when one of these jurats became bankrupt under circumstances by no means creditable, but quite the reverse. He was asked to interfere and dismiss him, and put some one else in his place; but he found he had not the slightest power to do so. There was a great difficulty in reforming the laws of the Channel Islands, because the people would not attempt to reform them themselves. There was likewise this peculiarity in the Channel Islands. Although we might pass an Act of the Imperial Legislature to govern these Islands, yet until that Act was registered in the Royal Courts in the Islands it had not any effect there at all. It was true that the Secretary of State was invested with certain arbitrary powers, but he would never think of resorting to them. He had, however, done his best to induce the people to have the laws changed, and he was still continuing those endeavours. When there was a vacant position in the Island of Jersey last year he appointed a man on the express understanding that he was to assist him (Mr. Cross) to the best of his power in endeavouring to bring about a reform. Therefore, so far as that part of the case was concerned, the hon. Member might
    348
    rest assured that it was not one which he could possibly advance at all. He would not lose sight of the subject, because he would very much like to see a reform established. To come to the individual case which the hon. Member had brought forward, he had not a word to say against the manner in which it had been stated; and if he made one or two remarks he trusted the hon. Member would not think he was doing so in order to prejudice this particular case. In discussing this case he thought he was discussing the conduct of the Law Officers and other officers of the Island; and the hon. Member must admit that whatever might have been the provocation in the first instance, the libel at all events was gross. He believed it was true that, although Colonel de Faby had served very gallantly in the Army, yet matters had been brought against him before he left France of a somewhat serious character. When, however, he went to live in Guernsey he (Mr. Cross), had no reason to suppose that he conducted himself in any other way than as an ordinary citizen, except that in the newspapers the libels which he published were very gross. On the part of the Lieutenant Governor he must say that the articles which Colonel de Faby had written in this newspaper since the charge was made against him were such as the hon. Member for Newcastle would be the last to defend. The hon. Member complained of the husband of the party acting as a Judge. He (Mr. Cross) had nothing to say in defence of that. He would not now go into the case of the Attorney General, because it was Colonel de Faby's intention to prosecute him in the Courts of Law, and it would be wrong for the Secretary of State to say anything that would prejudice the trial. As to the summoning of the witnesses, he was informed that the case of libel was one in which the ordinary practice in this respect was not followed. With reference to the place in which Colonel de Faby was imprisoned, he had letters in his possession from the Lieutenant Governor, which he should be happy to show to the hon. Member privately, which showed that every consideration had been paid to him. He ought to have been placed on the criminal side, but he was placed on the civil side and treated as a debtor. He (Mr. Cross)

    349
    knew that in the Island a great deal had been said against the Lieutenant Governor; but he did not believe that that official ever had one thought across his mind, except to do what was right. As to the question of deportation, he believed it was perfectly true that the Lieutenant Governor had power to de-port persons from the Island. Such a law was recognized by an Order in Council so late as 1846. He was bound to say that, considering the peculiar situation of the Islands, it was a law which it might become very necessary to put into force; but he did not think he should allow it to be put in force, except in very special cases. But in Colonel de Faby's case, he was liable, under the existing law, to have remained in prison for the rest of his life. In the course of the correspondence which passed, the Lieutenant Governor recommended that in default of paying the fine he should be kept in prison for the space of nine months; but on the facts of the case coming before him (Mr. Cross), he thought that, under the circumstances, the man might be liberated at the expiration of six months. He knew perfectly well that there was a great feeling in the Island among his friends, and the Lieutenant Governor suggested that when he came out of prison he should leave the Island. To that he (Mr. Cross) assented; and Colonel de Faby was let out of prison and deported. As soon as the matter came under his notice, he telegraphed to the Governor that deportation was not intended—but he did not know of it until after Colonel de Faby had left the Island. It should be borne in mind that he did not suffer in consequence, as he would not have been permitted to leave after so short a space of imprisonment, unless he had promised to leave the Island. He could not allow any imputation to rest on the Lieutenant Governor with reference to this subject, and he hoped the House would consider that the Lieutenant Governor was not in any way to blame.
    MR. WHITBREADreminded hon. Members of the powers of a journal in a small community like Guernsey, and that the libel, which was very gross, would be read from one end of the Island to the other. He thought it was clear that Colonel de Faby had been allowed great privileges during the time that he
    350
    spent in prison, the offence with which he was charged being one of a very grave character, inasmuch as he had assailed not only the character of a man, but his relations also. He thought that the Home Secretary had done full justice, but still no more that he deserved, to the Lieutenant Governor, under the trying circumstances in which he was placed.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that the authorities in the Islands claimed to be independent not only of the Privy Council, but of Parliament. No Englishman who went to the Channel Islands could go there without risk of his personal liberty and loss of his property. No Englishman was safe from being put into prison for imaginary claims of debt. No one could rely on the security of property, so complicated were the conditions on which rights in land were held. The real Judges of the Courts of Law were elected, in a form and out of a class, totally opposed to all the arrangements existing in Europe. The reforms were urgently needed, but so great were the difficulties in overcoming the home rule prejudices of the clique interested in the present bad system, that he could only say that he wished the Home Secretary God speed should he make an attempt to carry out the reforms to which reference had been made.
    MR. J. COWENexplained that he had said nothing at all reflecting on the conduct of the Lieutenant Governor.

    PARLIAMENT—DESPATCH OF PUBLIC BUSINESS—RULES OF DEBATE.

      OBSERVATIONS.
      MR. GOLDNEYrose to call attention to the present Rules of Debate. The hon. Member said, he had placed on the Paper a Notice of Motion for a Select Committee
      "to consider and report on the best means for facilitating the despatch of Public Business, and, especially, to inquire whether some limit might not be advantageously placed on Motions for Adjournment."
      The Rules of the House, however, precluded him from submitting any such Resolution. He observed that the necessity for doing something to facilitate the transaction of Public Business was felt by many hon. Members. Attention had been called to the subject in 1848, 1861,

      351
      and again in 1871. It had also been considered by Select Committees, and certain changes had been recommended, but the fear that the rights of private Members might be infringed stood always in the way. Being himself a private Member and one of some years' standing, he ventured to come forward to propose a moderate change, which would not have the effect of placing a minority at the mercy of an overbearing majority. He would, in the first place, point out that the number of hours which they sat was on the increase. During an ordinary Session they sat altogether some 1,400 hours, of which, at least, 150 were after 12 at night. The number of Motions that were recorded on the Order Book exceeded 10,000 in the Session. It seemed to him that some parts of the Rules and Orders were to a certain extent detrimental to the progress of business and to the convenience of the House. First there was the Rule that no Opposed Business should be brought forward after half-past 12. That Rule, which might be a very good one, applied even in cases where the Member who had given Notice of Opposition was not present, and he thought it might with advantage be altered to the extent of requiring that the opposing Member should be in his place when the Order was called. Another matter to which he wished to call attention was the frequency of Motions for reporting Progress or for the Adjournment of the Debate or of the House. For over a century—perhaps a century and a-half—it had been held in that House that it was necessary 40 Members should be present.
      Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
      MR. GOLDNEYcontinued, by saying that so jealous were Members of Business being transacted by an inadequate number, that they allowed any Member to interpose and call attention to the fact that a quorum was not present. The point he desired to have specially considered was that, if it required 40 Members to carry on legislation, it ought to require a majority of 40 to say that it should be stopped, by adjourning the House or the Debate, or by reporting Progress, subject to the exercise of a discretion on the part of the Chair, de-
      352
      pendent in part upon the period of the evening at which the Motion was made. Early in the evening he might rule that the Business should proceed; later, that it should stop. In this way the rights of the minority might be fairly protected, and at the same time the Business of the House saved from undue interruption. Evidence had been given before former Committees by distinguished persons, including Speakers of the House, which was well worthy of consideration. After two or three Motions for the Adjournment of the House or of the Debate had been made, it might be rendered competent for any Member to move that the question in debate should be put, and the decision of the House taken. The practice of moving alternately the Adjournment of the House and of the Debate was one of very modern origin. It used at one time to be a Standing Order that, after a Motion for the Adjournment of the House had been negatived, another Motion for Adjournment should not be made until a new Motion had intervened, and it was contemplated that a substantial Motion should have been made; but in 1819, on the East India Bill, when a Motion for the Adjournment of the House had been negatived, Mr. Hume moved the Adjournment of the Debate, and the Motion not being questioned as to correctness, that seemed to have been accepted as a substantial Motion ever since. A rule, indeed, was made by the last Speaker that succeeding Motions for the Adjournment of the Hope should be made by separate Members and not by the same; but in Committee it was competent for any two Members to move and second the Motion alternately, though they could not do so in the "House" when the Speaker was in the Chair. When a Motion for Adjournment had been made, Members speaking thereupon ought to be confined by the Chair to the subject of Adjournment, and ought not to be allowed to speak on the Main Question. In past time the Speaker exercised more power than now, having since been controlled by precedents and Sessional Orders. These matters had been considered by Committees in 1820, in 1848, and in 1861, and might now fairly be considered again; for, while taking the greatest care not to interfere with the Rules which had grown up in the course of time, their operation ought to be

      353
      carefully watched to see that they did not conflict with changing requirements. Members were now occupied in attending the House for an average of nine hours a-day, in addition to which 250 were sitting on Select Committees and others on Private Bills; and having regard to the pressure of their duties, no duty could be more incumbent on them than to adopt any measures they could to lighten the burden of their labours and to expedite the transaction of the business of the country. These were some of the matters for consideration with a view to amendment, and on their account he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able on a future day to assent to the appointment of a Select Committee.
      MR. NEWDEGATErejoiced that this subject was brought forward by his hon. Friend, for it involved a question of some importance. The hon. Member was proceeding, when—
      Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
      House adjourned at Eight o'clock till Monday next.