Military Prisons.

HC Deb 03 July 1879 vol 247 cc1332-403

Clause 131 (Establishment and regulation of military prisons).

SIR HENRY HAVELOCK

said, that lie proposed to move an Amendment upon this clause, for the purpose of ventilating a principle; but he did not intend to insist upon the Amendment being accepted as it stood. He desired, in common with all interested in the welfare of the Army, that a practice which went at the root of the welfare of the Army should be taken into consideration. If he received an assurance from the Government that the matter would be considered, then he should not press his Amendment. The Amendment which he had to move was to provide that soldiers under sentence of court martial should be confined in military prisons, and not in civil gaols. The reason for this Amendment was strongly urged by all who had to deal with the Army, and were acquainted with the injurious effect that contact with the civil population in the gaol had upon the soldier. The class of military offenders, whom he did not desire to extenuate, but who had committed purely military offences, ought to be confined in military prisons, and not herded in civil gaols with felons undergoing sentences for crimes of a disgraceful nature. In a letter which he held in his hand, a gentleman of much authority said that, in his opinion, it was inconsistent with the self-respect of the soldier to imprison him in the common gaol with the felon or pickpocket, for he not only obtained his first lesson in crime, but afterwards might recognize his former fellow-prisoner, and, what was more, might be recognized by him. This was a subject which required the immediate attention of the military authorities. There had been considerable changes in these matters from time to time. The system in use before 184C was to confine soldiers convicted of military offences with ordinary felons, and the most injurious consequences resulted from that practice. A Committee was appointed, presided over by Lord Cathcart, and in 1844 reported as to the desirability of providing military prisons solely for the reception of persons convicted of military offences. As the result of that Committee, military prisons were instituted, which were continued till some years back, when the system was again changed. He did not desire to draw any distinction between the civil offender and a certain class of military offenders; but there were some offences for which a soldier was imprisoned—such as long-continued drunken- ness, or insubordination of the lesser degree—which were purely military crimes, although they required to be punished for the discipline of the Service. He thought it right that the greatest possible distinction should be made between such offences as these and crimes which inflicted a social stigma upon the offender. He believed it would have a most beneficial effect upon the Army if this distinction were made, and would induce many men to enlist who were now kept from doing so. At present, for the breach of some small matter of military discipline, a man who, under no circumstances, would be guilty of any offence of a disgraceful nature, might, through indiscretion, bring into the position of an offender, and be sent to the civil prison and compelled to associate with the worst offenders. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was entirely with him in this matter, and that all over the country, in consequence of the Prisons Act of 1877, prisons were becoming empty every day. What he desired to see was some part of these prisons set apart solely for military offenders-for those persons who had been guilty of purely military offences. The decision come to in 1870 to do away with prisons, and in consequence of which military prisons were closed, was come to on very partial and insufficient grounds. A Royal Commission reported that their attention had been drawn to various military prisons; but the prisons which they had seen were amongst the worst in the Kingdom. Then they were shown some model civil gaols, and they drew a distinction between the military and the civil prisons, very unfavourable to the former. But some military prisons were at that time being conducted on the best principles. One of the prisons which the Commission saw was that at Chatham, a very old place, dating back its arrangements from the time that the, French were confined there; it was objectionable altogether. Still more objectionable was the military prison at Aldershot, which was a mere temporary edifice, in which there were no proper arrangements to carry out the confinement of prisoners. The Royal Commission of 1869 recommended the abolition of military prisons on what he could not but consider partial and insufficient grounds. He hoped that the Government would not now refuse to re-consider that decision; and that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would inform them whether there was any possibility of doing, away, at an early period, with the anomaly which he desired to see abolished? He should not press the Amendment, if it were understood that some action would be taken by the Government in the matter.

COLONEL COLTHURST

was also in possession of information as to the bad effect upon soldiers from being confined in ordinary prisons. The governor of a large city goal stated ho had about 30 soldiers on an average as prisoners. He knew they had not committed any grave crimes, poor fellows; he rather liked them, they gave no trouble, were not up to the tricks of the old gaol birds; consequently, they were employed by the warders in many offices which gave them greater freedom. This showed that the soldiers who were confined in prisons would be contaminated by being mixed with the ordinary occupants of civil gaols. Tie knew that some civil gaols were now on the separate system; but some were not. At the present time, soldiers convicted of military offences were divided among about 14 gaols in England, in numbers of from five to 40 in each. Under a system of military prisons, it was considered to be a great part of the discipline, and as a matter which would be likely to have a great effect upon the soldier, that the governor of a military prison was an officer selected for the duty, and that the warders were generally non-commissioned officers; and the discipline of a prison conducted in that way would be likely to make a good impression upon soldiers who load committed what were often in a moral sense really very slight offences. There was another grievance of which the Catholic soldier could complain. Under the present system, in military prisons there was both a Protestant and a Catholic chaplain. In the case of gaols where a few soldiers were confined, there might be only seven or eight Catholics among them. That was not a sufficient number to entitle them to the services of a Catholic priest. If in a town where there was a Catholic priest, no consideration of money would prevent him from attending them, no doubt; but such Catholic priest would not have the position of a chaplain, nor, what was very desirable, the authority of the prison official. He did not wish to go too much into that argument; but he wished to say that amongst the grievances which the present system of confinement in civil gaols entailed, Her Majesty's Catholic soldiers enjoyed their full share. The Queen's Regulations provided that soldiers who were sentenced to penal servitude, and afterwards to be dismissed with ignominy, were in all cases to be sent to civil gaols, and thus the authorities had attached to civil gaols a certain stigma. But now, this ignominy, which the Queen's Regulations reserved for the worst offences, was inflicted upon every soldier. An officer of great experience had told him of an incident which showed the system in very strong colours. He stated that he had seen a young soldier, sentenced to imprisonment for being disrespectful to a, non-commissioned officer, manacled with a prisoner sentenced to be discharged for disgraceful conduct. He hoped that this state of things would not be allowed to continue; and that there would be an inquiry, either by a Committee of that House, or by a Royal Commission, or in any other way, by which a satisfactory result might be obtained. The President of the Royal Commission that recommended the abolition of military prisons in 1870 now seemed to have had his eyes opened in this matter. In his Report for 1877, he said— That a re-distribution of prisoners was necessarily governed by the accommodation of the prison; but it was worthy of consideration whether it would not be worth While to enlarge existing prisons to enable them to hold all prisoners of three months' sentences. He trusted that the Government would give some assurance that they would deal with this matter.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that this was a question which had often been brought forward, and it was one of the utmost importance. He most entirely agreed with everything that had fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had brought forward this matter. For This part, he had never concealed his opinion that a soldier, when sent to a prison for an offence, not against the laws of the country, but for some breach of Army discipline, ought to be kept entirely separate from the ordinary occupants of the prison. The notion that a soldier should become a gaolbird was so entirely objectionable that it ought to be provided that soldiers should be kept separate in this way—that a soldier should not be allowed to make a companion of a man who had been sentenced for a crime against the laws of the country. He most entirely agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that that ought to be the case. Till about the year 1840, soldiers who had committed breaches of Army discipline were confined in civil prisons; and he believed the origin of military prisons was this—magistrates made complaints with respect to the evil effects of mixing up soldiers with other prisoners in gaols, and they suggested that there should be military prisons. Certain military prisons were established; and, eventually, a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the whole matter, and they reported that all soldiers should be confined in separate prisons, and that was done. He was not prepared to say now that prisons should be built for soldiers, for his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have something to say on that matter; but they had endeavoured to do what they could to prevent military prisoners being brought in contact with civil prisoners, though they had not at present done it as fully as he hoped to do. They had prepared certain prisons in Scotland for military prisoners, which prisons would have been closed altogether had they not been used for that purpose. They could only proceed by degrees in this matter, and deal with the prisons as they came into their hands; but they hoped, in other parts of the country, to do what was necessary in order to separate military prisoners from civil. They had sometimes to confine ordinary prisoners with military offenders in the same walls; but it was their intention, so far as practicable, to keep the two classes of prisoners entirely distinct, and not allow them to mix up, in any shape or form, or to be allowed in any way to associate with each other. He trusted that there would be no difficulty in carrying this out. If he found no more difficulty than he had at the present moment, he should be willing to carry out the principle suggested, with which he entirely agreed, that soldiers who were sent to gaol simply for a breach of military discipline ought not to be considered as criminals in the ordinary sense of the word, nor as gaol-birds, but should be kept as absolutely separate and distinct as possible. With the assurance which he had given on this matter, he hoped that the hon. and gallant Member would not press his Amendment. If they did find any difficulty in the matter, he should be disposed to request the War Officer to consider the subject.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

did not think that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had touched upon one very great evil of the present system, and that was that a soldier convicted of a military offence was put upon the ordinary low diet of a prisoner. He thought that that was a very bad rule. They could not afford to punish the soldier to the extent of the loss of his services. In his opinion, the right hon. Gentleman would find it necessary to make some distinction between the dietary of the civil and military offender. With regard to the class of crime which they had heard of within the last two days, there was no reason to exempt those soldiers from the position of ordinary civil criminals. He would, however, impress very strongly upon the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War the desirability, if it could be done, of taking away from military offenders the stigma which attached to a man being sent to prison. It had been well observed the other night, when they were discussing the punishment of soldiers, that they could not remedy by law the stigma attaching to a soldier who had been punished. But if they found that there was a stigma which could be removed, then the Government should do their best to remove it. When a man was sentenced for a military offence, which imputed to him no moral wrong, to herd with criminals, a state of things was brought about which kept the better class of men from enlisting in the Army. He thought it highly desirable that the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman should be agreed to.

MR. PARNELL

thought that the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Baronet was an exceedingly good one. It was a principle which they had been advocating for the last four or five years. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had gone so far to meet the views of the hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House. He took it that the definition of a military offence would be an offence under this Act, and not an offence created by the law of the land. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had promised them that such offenders should be kept separate from offenders against the law of the land. That was a proposition which he most cordially agreed with. As to the rules and regulations to be made for these military prisons which it was proposed to establish, these would, he presumed, be a question for the Secretary of State for War. It would be impossible for the Home Secretary to frame rules and regulations applicable to military prisons, on the same principles on which he had framed rules for the civil prisons. Perhaps he would be enabled, as regarded matters of detail, to make some explanations. Of course, if the Home Secretary felt that he had sufficient power to make these rules it would not be necessary to give him any additional power. Otherwise, it would be necessary to give him sufficient power to carry out the alterations he intended. As regarded the question raised by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) as to the dietary, he thought it was a matter which should be attended to. Some soldiers were being constantly sent to prison for short terms of imprisonment; and it was unwise, by giving them an unduly low diet, to render them unfit for performing their duty. The prison diet consisted, for short-service prisoners, of 16 ounces of bread, and about 1½ lbs. of stirabout per day. The latter consisted of three ounces of meat and three ounces of oatmeal; it seemed to him that that was a very small dietary for a military prisoner; and he thought some alteration should be made in their case. They knew that soldiers were sentenced to penal servitude for breaches of discipline; and he desired to know whether those cases would be covered by the Amendment? After the action of the Queen v. Hogarth, a sergeant was sentenced to five years' penal servitude for what was nothing but an error of judgment or breach of discipline. The man, however, could not have been a very bad character, because he was a sergeant who was in command of an outpost de- tached for important duty; and it would be a very hard case that that man should be sent home to England, and placed in one of the penal prisons to undergo his sentence. He was anxious to know what the idea of the right hon. Gentleman was with regard to such a case as that? He would also point out that military prisons were not now under the same control as the penal prisons. The military prison which they had was not now under the Prisons Acts of 1865 or 1866; and he rather thought it would be necessary to take power in this Bill with regard to that prison and the prisoners brought there. Otherwise they might find they had not power to carry out their intentions. He supposed a military prison was governed in the same way as the convict prisons, though he should be glad to have further information on the subject.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

said, it had been stated that there was only one military prison—namely, Gosport. He should like to ask whether the Dublin military prison had been closed?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

No; my statement referred to England.

MR. BIGGAR

, was glad his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) and his hon. and learned. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) had drawn attention to the desirability of giving sufficient food to the military prisoners, because they ought not to be starved as well as imprisoned. The object of sending men to prison—whether they were political or military prisoners—was not to starve them to death, but to subject them to some very strict discipline, and keep them from the outside world. To suppose that they were to be subject to a species of starvation which would endanger their lives seemed a rather serious matter. He thought the proper rule to adopt would be to have a prison régime, under which a soldier would be kept in decent and fair health, and that they should give the same amount of food to other prisoners; because he did not see that a special exception should be made in favour of soldiers. Of course, there was a money consideration with the Government, for it was their interest to retain the soldier, though he did not consider that was a sufficient argument why there should be any different rule as to the way in1 which prisoners should be kept, supposing them to be of the same age and capable of the same amount of work. As to the classification of prisoners, he thought it would be perfectly easy for the right hon. Gentleman to arrange that certain prisons, or certain parts of some prisons, should be set apart for the reception of particular prisoners. He did not think there was any necessity for a Committee of Inquiry, because the Home Secretary had already the power to make arrangements with respect to the prisons under his control.

SIR HENRY HAVELOCK

would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding which had been given by the Home Secretary. He hoped no unnecessary time would be allowed to elapse before this great improvement was carried out. They knew that when the pressure of a discussion of this sort was removed for a time there was a tendency to shelve these matters; therefore, he hoped there would be no time lost in dealing with the matter after the undertaking of the right hon. Gentleman. There were upwards of 4,000 military prisoners, 1,300 of whom were in civil prisons.

MR. SULLIVAN

desired to know whether they were to understand that prisoners sentenced to penal servitude, as well as those sentenced to imprisonment, would be placed under the excellent arrangements suggested by the Home Secretary? He had understood the observations of the right hon. Gentleman to apply to offences against this Act, irrespective of the length of time of the punishment—that was to say, whether it was penal servitude or imprisonment.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the question of penal servitude was a very difficult one, and his observations were not meant to apply to prisoners sentenced to penal servitude. If a man was sent to penal servitude, it was not for the persons who bad charge of the administration of those prisons to distinguish between them and other prisoners—they must treat everyone alike, and not make a distinction in the case of either A, B, C, or D. To do so would lead to the establishment of a very objectionable state of things. His impression was that soldiers who were sentenced to penal servitude were seldom, if ever, taken back into the Army.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

said, it was true that up to within a very short time a soldier sentenced to penal servitude was ipso facto discharged; but it was found, according to that rule, that soldiers committed offences punishable with penal servitude in order to be discharged from the Army. Therefore, the rule was altered, and the words "may be discharged " were inserted in the 23rd Article of War. That alteration was made a few years ago.

COLONEL STANLEY

It is quite true to say that it is in the minds of the authorities, when an offence is serious enough to be visited with penal servitude, that the man should not any longer remain in the Army.

MR. PARNELL

did not see that because a man was sentenced to penal servitude for breach of discipline, therefore he had necessarily been guilty of a disgraceful act, and that he was to be subject to the same regulations which he would be provided he had committed a crime punishable with penal servitude. He should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had received any information respecting the case of the sergeant to which he called attention the other day? At that time he was told he was out of Order; but there had now been plenty of time to receive a report on the subject. He admitted that cases like those of desertion were disgraceful offences; but there were many other offences in this Act for which penal servitude, if inflicted, ought not to be carried out in the same way as it was in the ease of ordinary prisoners. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that soldiers sentenced to imprisonment had a difference made in their favour, and those sentenced to penal servitude ought to have a similar difference made.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. PARNELL

moved, in page 70, line 12, before the word "visitors," to insert "and for independent inspection by." This question of independent inspection by Visitors was one of the most important which they had yet reached with regard to military punishment. The Prisons Act of 1865 provided that all the prisons throughout England should be subject to the local authorities. These authorities were the local magistrates sitting in Quarter Sessions, and they were empowered to appoint Visiting Committees, who went to the prisons for the purpose of inquiring into all complaints of prisoners, and so forth. In addition to that, the local authorities had power to make rules with regard to the management of these prisons, and as to the discipline, treatment, and nature of the labour of the prisoners. These rules, and any subsequent alteration in them, had to be submitted for the approval of the Home Secretary. The prison authority, in addition, was entitled to appoint all the warders, gaolers, and prison officials, and under that Act it secured that the powers conferred were of a very extensive character; in fact, the authorities were supreme in regard to the management of the prisons, the Home Secretary having only a general sort of veto to their proceedings in case it was necessary to exercise such veto, and such veto was rarely exercised. Now, the Prisons Act of 1877 entirely changed all this; and it transferred the prisons of England, Ireland, and Scotland over to the Home Secretary. That Act limited very materially—almost, in fact, entirely did away with—the powers of the Visiting Committees of the Justices, and it left to the Board of Quarter Sessions only the power to appoint a certain number as a Visiting Committee. This power, which was left to them, simply amounted to no power at all. They had power to visit the prisons periodically, and examine into the condition of the prisoners, and the quality of the food. They might hear any complaints which were made, and put them into a complaint-book, and report anything they thought fit to the Home Secretary. They, however, hind no original power whatever; all they could do was to bring these matters before the Home Secretary. In certain cases they still retained power to inflict corporal punishment. That was, in fact, all they could now do. Now, they were asked, in this clause, to give power to the Secretary of State and the Governor General of India to make, alter, and repeal rules for the inspection and management of military prisons; and what he wanted was to secure that there should be an independent inspection of these prisons by Visitors not under the control of the Government. He very much feared that many of the prisons in India, more particularly owing to the nature of the case, would receive no inspection what- ever. The inspection retained in the Act of 1877 for England, Scotland, and Ireland, was very slight indeed; and he would show how slight and imperfect it was by the testimony of one of the gentlemen themselves. In India they did not know that that slight and imperfect inspection existed at all. He, therefore, desired an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that there would at least be the same independent inspection by Visitors in India that there was in this country. No doubt, there was a difficulty; but it was one with which the Government ought to grapple and deal. It was clear they could not give up all the safeguards, and go without any security whatever for independent inspection. The word " inspection " was put into the Act; but there was a great deal of difference between an independent inspection and an Inspector. An Inspector was a man covered with officialism. He had said that the inspection in England was not what it ought to be; and in proof of that he would refer to the evidence given at the Coroner's inquest lately held in the case of John Nolan. Sir William Henry Wyatt, Chairman of the Visiting Justices Committee, who visited the prison at Clerkenwell where Nolan died, said, in his evidence—

THE CHAIRMAN

I would point out to the hon. Member that his Motion is one which is for an independent inspection in the case of military prisons. I have not hitherto thought it my duty to stop him in his somewhat discursive remarks; but I must now remind him that, in proposing to discuss the practice in civil prisons, he can only use what he proposes to read as an illustration of of his argument.

MR. PARNELL

quite agreed with the ruling, and would keep himself within the proper bounds. His argument was this. He wished to show, first of all, that the inspection in the English prisons was very imperfect, and of a slight character—in fact, not nearly sufficient; and he wished to base on that an argument that they ought to secure for India as good an inspection as they had in England. He would now refer to the evidence of Sir William Henry Wyatt.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

I may say the statements of Sir William Henry Wyatt are quite incorrect, as will be found at the end of the evidence. He gives quite an incorrect statement as to the powers of the Justices.

MR. PARNELL

was aware there was a difference of opinion between the Visiting Justices and the right hon. Gentleman as to the power of the Justices; but Sir William Henry Wyatt, in his evidence, said the existing rules were no protection at all. He did not go with him quite to that length, because he thought they were some little protection.

THE CHAIRMAN

I beg to point out that the hon. Member, in going into this detail, and in making the references he has, and is about to make, is necessarily opening a very large discussion which must naturally be forced beyond the clause before the Committee. His statements may contain allegations which will probably have to be met; and I have already pointed out he is only justified in alluding to these matters in a cursory manner, and by way of illustration.

MR. PARNELL

replied, that he had only given an illustration of his Amendment. What he wanted was an independent inspection; and he had no objection to that inspection being made even more independent than an inspection by Visiting Justices. He was rather uncertain as to the extent of the Chairman's ruling, and whether he was not to finish reading the paragraph?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, as he had pointed out, the hon. Member should confine himself to illustrating the particular Question before the Committee; and it was for the hon. Member to consider how far he was within the limits of that ruling in continuing to quote passages from the Report. He had not stated that the reading of that Report was out of Order; but that these lengthy illustrations were very inconvenient.

MR. PARNELL

was sorry if he had caused inconvenience; but he was afraid he was very often obliged to do so. The witness went on to say—" In my opinion, all the power is in the hands of the governor and surgeon;" and lower down in his evidence he said— The officers used to give us a hint if anything was wrong. They do not tell us anything now. I do not believe the Home Secretary would protect them if they did so, and they would most likely lose their situations. That showed the general tendency of the change which the Prisons Act of 1877 made in the question of inspection. He did not go so far as Sir William Henry Wyatt went, in saying the Visiting Justices were now utterly powerless; nor did he go to the extent the Home Secretary went, when he said they had a great deal of power. The fact was that their power had been enormously shaken, and there was very little left for them to do; they were entirely under the control of the Home Secretary, and were bound hand and foot. They had the power of hearing complaints and reporting abuses; but they had no power of preventing an abuse which was going on before their very eyes. They were required to do such acts, and perform such duties in relation to a prison, as they might be required to do by the Secretary of State; but, up to the present moment, the Secretary of State had not required them to do anything, and was not likely to do so. He should be very glad if the result of this discussion was to lead the Home Secretary to make more use of the Visiting Justices, and to give them more power; and, at any rate, that some independent inspection of prisons would be provided. He moved to insert, in line 11, the words of his Amendment, " and for independent inspection by."

COLONEL STANLEY

wished to point out that if the words were understood in their ordinary sense they would be mere surplusage; and if they were not to be understood in that way, but as meaning inspection by a certain class of persons, they would be most objectionable, because if they were to take persons unconnected with the administration of justice in the country, and unconnected with military affairs, they would exclude precisely the two classes of persons who were most competent to see whether prisoners were well treated or not. If the hon. Member meant independent inspection under the clause, it was perfectly open for anybody to be appointed, as far as the clause went; and, therefore, the Amendment was either objectionable or not needed.

MR. MUNTZ

quite agreed with the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) that the visitation of prisons by the visiting magistrates had become an absolute farce. The Commissioners were not only omnipotent, but they almost sneered at any suggestion of the visiting magistrates. However, the Prisons Act was now the law of the land, and the House was not prepared to alter it; and, moreover, he did not see any sense in making any difference between the military prisons and the ordinary goals. If they were to touch this clause, they must take up the whole prisons question; and he thought they must give the new law a fair trial. He still felt that the Act was a fatal mistake, and would lead to a great deal of mischief; but he could not vote for the Amendment.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY

thought there was a general consensus of opinion that the inspection by the Visitors at present was in an unsatisfactory state; but the remedy might be found, not so much in an addition to the clause, as by an altered tone on the part of the Home Secretary. With whatever safeguards the position of the Visiting Justices might be surrounded, the thing would really depend on the Home Secretary. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to consider the matter.

MR. O'DONNELL

believed it the duty of the Committee to take advantage of every opportunity of introducing a reform. The only thing that could make official inspection useful was the provision of unofficial visitation also. In nine cases out of ten the coming of the Inspectors was known beforehand, and preparations were made for their reception. He could not understand the objection to independent inspection. The Government could take care that the unofficial Inspectors were selected from a certain class of the community, and were of a certain social position; but within that limitation care should be taken to have a thorough visitation of all public institutions by persons unconnected with the Government. To him it was a marvellous thing that so large and influential a body as the Visiting Justices should put up with such a snub as they had received. He had received several letters on the subject of prison inspection. There was a tendency amongst all officials to stick up for one another, and to yield to the silent pressure of "the Service." He had listened with the utmost surprise to the hon. Member (Mr. Muntz), whose argument was one of the most singular he had ever heard from the mouth of an independent Liberal. It amounted to this—that, because an admittedly bad Bill had been passed, therefore he would not amend another Bill which dealt with a portion of the same subject. He hoped the hon. Member would not maintain that position, and thus encourage the Government in ignoring the complaints which were raised of the working of the Prisons Act.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

hoped the hon. Member for Meath would press his Amendment, which was one of vital importance, and would attract public attention to a crying blot in the present system. It would tend to attract public attention to the steady over-centralization of all our institutions; and if this kind of thing went on, instead of having to deal with English officials of the old school, they would be having a set of French prefects introduced into the country, and capable of treating as crimes any reflections upon their manner of doing business. He was not without hope that the hon. Member (Mr. Muntz) would follow his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) into the Lobby, and he would press his hon. Friend to go to a Division.

MR. RYLANDS

felt bound to say why he could not support the Amendment, because he sympathized very much with the objects the hon. Member for Meath had in view, and felt, as he did, that a very suspicious step was taken by the Government in withdrawing the prisons from independent inspection. But, looking to the proposal of the hon. Member, he asked, where was he to get these independent Inspectors from? They were to be nominated and controlled by the Home Secretary, and to take their orders from him; and did the hon. Member suppose that any country magistrate, or local man of independent character, would submit to the indignity of being bound hand-and-foot in that way? That would be no independent inspection. If they wanted independent inspection, they must intrust it to some local authority; and this Conservative Government had struck away a great Conservative element in that direction. It would be quite impossible to make up for that fatal mistake by such an Amendment as this; and, therefore, while giving the hon. Member for Meath every credit for THE object he bad in view, he should feel bound to vote against the proposal.

MR. SULLIVAN

had been rather struck by an objection in the direction suggested by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands); but he wished to point out to the hon. Member that it would be quite impossible to propose an Amendment which would obviate that difficulty. Their object ought to be to secure independent inspection by the Visiting Justices of the district; and he would suggest to insert in the clause the words " and for facilities for independent inspection by the Visiting Justices of the district." It was one thing to give reasonable facilities for independent inspection; and it was another thing for the Home Secretary to pick out creatures of his own choice, and to say they should be the Inspectors. Therefore, he suggested the withdrawal of the hon. Member's (Mr. Parnell's) Amendment in favour of the words he had suggested. He appealed to the hon. Member (Mr. Muntz), whose exertions on the Prisons Bill he well recollected, to remember that " the time to hit a blot is whenever and wherever you see it; " and that if they allowed this Dill to still further extend the faults which at that time the hon. Member so manfully resisted they would fail in their duty. An earnest effort should be made to preserve and increase the shred of authority remaining to the Visiting Justices. The tendency of prison officialism upon the human mind was to lead to severity, and often, unconsciously, to cruelty. He asked the Committee to recollect that when the President of the Dublin College of Physicians attempted to resist the irregularities of prison rule ho was sent about his business. Prison officials did not want independent inspection; but no one could tell where the present system would lead, if the wholesome influence of the independent element was to be altogether excluded. He hoped his hon. Friend would adhere to his endeavour to restore the civilizing and humanizing influence of the power of the Visiting Justices.

MR. MUNTZ

said, the hon. and learned Member was either mistaken, or he (Mr. Muntz) was mistaken, as to the law of the land. When the Prisons Dill was before the House the power was taken away from the Visiting Justices. It was hardly for that side of the House to find fault with the Prisons Bill, which was an ultra-Radical measure, and a bad one, too. He regretted that Act was ever passed. But it was now the law of the land. They had passed an Act establishing military prisons; and he would ask, were they to pass an Act in 1877, and, before two years had elapsed, try to alter it in an indirect manner of this sort? That was his objection to this clause.

MR. BIGGAR

could not agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz); because the fact that a bad law had only been passed in 1877 was no reason why they should continuo that law in force a moment longer than could be helped. On the contrary, he thought they should try to improve it as soon as possible. He would suggest that, instead of the Visiting Justices having the authority, local representative bodies of districts in which gaols were situate should have the power. If a gaol was situate in a borough, then the Town Council should have the power; and if the gaol was in the country, the Door Law Guardians should have the power of visiting these prisons, and report to the public outside if they saw anything amiss. The Visiting Justices had sold their birthright for a mess of pottage, in the shape of a reduction of local taxation. They had lost their authority with a reduction of taxation, and now they felt so sore on the point that inspection was a farce. If a new class of Visitors, consisting of men of not so high a position, but greater energy, and as much intelligence as the existing Justices, was selected to visit the prisons and report to the public outside, he thought there would be an enormous advantage. The representative bodies to which he had referred—Town Councils and Poor Law Guardians—were, more or less, under the control of local public opinion. They wished to stand well before the public who selected them; and, therefore, they were naturally disposed to show industry and intelligent energy by going into and inspecting these prisons. He could not, four the life of him, understand what possible objection there could be to this suggestion. Seeing that the present system did not answer, that under it the Visiting Justices did not visit, he really could not admit that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) filled all the conditions required. But the idea was rather better than the existing state of things; and in the absence of any better Amendment he was disposed to support it.

MR. PARNELL

adopted the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Louth, and asked permission to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. PARNELL

I propose to insert after " thereof," in page 70, line 12— And for securing facilities for efficacious inspection of such prisons by visiting justices of the district in the United Kingdom, and by persons occupying an analogous position elsewhere.

Amendment proposed,

In page 70, line 12, after the word " thereof," to insert the words " and for securing facilities for efficacious inspection of such prisons by visiting justices of the district in the United Kingdom, and by persons occupying' an analogous position elsewhere."-(Mr. Parnell.)

Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

said, his hon. Friend had fallen into an inaccuracy in using the words "visiting justices of the district." There were no visiting magistrates of the district. The Court of Quarter Sessions appointed visiting magistrates for a particular prison. He thought it would be difficult to define what an " analogous " person was. As to the remarks made about the Prisons Act, he must say he thought it one of the grossest blunders ever committed by any Government. He hoped the hon. Member would re-consider his Amendment, and make it more practical and useful.

MR. PARNELL

was ready to accept the suggestion. It would only involve the alteration of a word; and ho would also propose to leave out the words " analogous persons elsewhere," as he did not wish to mix up India with the present Amendment before the Committee. He wished to ask the Government why they objected to the proposal? It was not proposed even to alter the Act of 1877. They merely punctuated a certain portion of that Act, and desired to carry it out in a different way from what it had been carried out. That was a fair thing. He should like to know how the Government provided for inde- pendent inspection in the Colonies? The Committee was in the dark as to what was to be done in India and the Colonies. It would be necessary to alter several points in the Prisons Act, by several clauses in this Bill, to be proposed further on; and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cross) need not be so terrified by this proposal. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would understand, as they got on, that the clauses would do good. At present, he should like to hear the views of the Government.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the hon. Member asked why the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, or himself, did not say anything upon this Amendment of his. The fact was, they had the same point brought before them in an Amendment moved some little time ago by the hon. Member, and withdrawn by him at the suggestion of various hon. Gentlemen; and what was to be said on the point was said then. The point now before the Committee was the same, only in somewhat different language, as was previously raised. In the course of the discussion, the Chairman had more than once pointed out to the hon. Member that lie was travelling rather beyond—[An hon. MEMBER: No.]—but he said "Yes "—travelling beyond the scope of the Bill, and that it would be inconvenient; if the remarks were to take so wide a range as the hon. Member gave to them. The hon. Member said ho was sorry to put the Committee to inconvenience; but he was obliged to do it. The Government did not take that view. They were anxious to spare the Committee inconvenience; and having expressed their views they had not thought it necessary to go into the point over and over again. The discussion ranged all over the whole subject of the Prisons Act of two years ago; and he did not think it was to the advantage of public convenience that they should enter into a discussion of that sort. He was not able to accept the proposal of the hon. Gentleman; and he thought, if the Committee wished to make any progress with this Bill, they ought to come to a decision on a subject which had been fully discussed on all sides.

Question put.

THE Committee divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 134: Majority 98.—(Div. List, No. 143.)

MR. PARNELL

rose to move an Amendment in line 15 of the clause. Parliament had given power, by the Prisons Act of 1877, to the Visiting Justices, and also to the Commissioners, to inflict with a cat or birch rod, on persons of the age of 18 strokes to the number of 36; and in the case of a person below the age of 18 the same number of strokes with a birch rod. They had just had a very important admission made by the Home Secretary, that there should be a distinct difference between the treatment of prisoners committed for breaches of military discipline, and prisoners convicted of offences against the ordinary law of the land. Now, ho had drawn his proposed Amendment, both because he was against the infliction of all corporal punishment, and because he thought that, following out the reasons of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, they were, at least, entitled to have a limitation as regarded prisoners convicted of breaches of discipline as distinct from persons convicted of offences of an immoral and fraudulent character. There were two points to be considered. First of all, he was against all corporal punishment, because he thought if discipline within prisons could not be maintained without it, there must be something radically wrong in the general character of that discipline, and in the general character of the officers who administered it. Secondly, he was against all corporal punishment for the class of prisoners convicted of breaches of military discipline. Therefore, he moved the omission, in line 15, after the words " punishment by," of the words " personal correction."

Amendment proposed, in page 70, line 15, to leave out the words " personal correction."—(Mr. Parnell.)

Question put, " That the words ' personal correction ' stand part of the Clause."

THE Committee divided:—Ayes 151; Noes 37: Majority 114.—(Div. List, No. 144.)

MR. SULLIVAN

had an Amendment to propose, which he believed the Committee would have no difficulty in accepting, inasmuch as they had already accepted, both as to the Army and Navy, a limitation of the number of lashes to 25. He was about to move that "not exceeding 25 stripes" should be given in military prisons, and anticipated the assent of the Secretary of State for War to this limitation, because it would be certainly anomalous if, having made the sweeping reduction from 50 to 25 lashes in the Army and Navy, they were, in the secrecy of a prison, to allow a larger number to be inflicted. Therefore, lie begged to move the insertion, after the words "personal correction," of the words " not exceeding 25 stripes."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) appeared to assume that personal correction meant flogging; but he (Sir William Harcourt) did not take the same view. It might, of course, include flogging; but it might also mean a good many other things. He imagined that personal correction would include shot-drill, and other forms of punishment to be found in prison discipline. It was well known that there were many forms of personal punishment, and, undoubtedly, flogging was one resorted to in the case of violent and refractory persons; but he apprehended it would not be inflicted, either on soldiers or anybody else without cause; and in the cases he had mentioned it was absolutely necessary. He did not think the Amendment could be supported, except on the supposition that personal correction was necessarily flogging.

MAJOR NOLAN

suggested that the Amendment should read, " not exceeding, in case of corporal punishment, 25 stripes or less."

MR. O'DONNELL

thought the difficulty would be more thoroughly removed by inserting the words " except corporal punishment," after the words "personal correction." That would leave to the Secretary of State for War, for the time being, to provide, by anticipation, far any amount of personal correction, with the exception of corporal punishment.

MR. SULLIVAN

asked leave to amend his proposed Amendment, by adding the words "in case of corporal punishment."

Amendment made.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

could not accept the Amendment; but if the hon. and learned Member for Louth was willing to withdraw the Amendment he would move some words in substitution. He was prepared to accept the word " lashes " instead of "stripes."

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he was desirous that the country should be made aware that this figment of hypocrisy and legislative falsehood of inserting a number of lashes, where nine times the number was meant, was to be continued. He besought the Committee to remember that the principle which had been laid down that evening—namely, that it was necessary to torture turbulent, noisy, and violent prisoners with corporal punishment, was utterly unfounded in fact. The practice of the prisons of Europe and America was against us. It was a contradiction in terms to say that corporal punishment was necessary in prisons.

MR. RYLANDS

wished to ask the Home Secretary whether the cat-o'-nine tails which was used in prisons was the military or prison cat?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

believed that it was the Admiralty cat.

MR. CALLAN

had found, after three days' inquiry, that there was no such thing as a sealed cat at the Admiralty, notwithstanding that the Secretary of State had said there was. However, after two days, he got a cat from the stores, and an official also telegraphed to Portsmouth for the cat used on board the Duke of Wellington. He had taken the measurements of both these cats, and found that, in length of handle, weight of handle, length of lash, and weight of lash, one was twice as great as the other. He tried them on the carpet of the room at the Admiralty, and the effect of the large instrument was ten times that of the smaller. The only sealed cat at the Admiralty was a " marine cat; " a different thing altogether. It was about 18 inches long, made of thick whipcord, and each lash had nine knots, and there were nine lashes. This cat would, if used with the lash downwards, inevitably make 81 holes in the back of the man upon whom it was used. However, it was explained by the official that it was used by drummer boys, who could not wield it so heavily as a man could the Admiralty cat. He felt sure that the sight of these cats would fill hon. Members with horror and disgust. He had himself entertained different views with regard to them; but from the time when he had seen them with his own eyes he had determined to vote against corporal punishment in every Division which might take place in the House. Therefore, he considered that the Government were bound to afford an inspection of the cat, in order to allow hon. Members to see for themselves what they were asked to vote for.

MR. EVELYN ASHLEY

asked the Secretary of State for War, whether it was true, as he was informed, that the instrument of punishment used in Her Majesty's Royal Horse Guards Blue at the time when flogging existed in that regiment was a single thong, and not the cat-o'-nine tails. If this were so, it would have some bearing on the Amendment before the Committee.

MR. BIGGAR

did not understand what the Government could want more than the 25 stripes named in the Amendment. The unfortunate prisoners were already quite at the mercy of the prison officials, who had a system of feeding them on bread and water, taking away their clothes, and tying their hands behind their backs in a way that prevented them from eating their meals. In his opinion, the acceptance of the Amendment would save an enormous deal of time. The allegation of the Government, that the time of the House was wasted by hon. Members who opposed the Bill, was entirely unfounded.

MR. MACDONALD

felt that an opportunity should he afforded to hon. Members of seeing these cats, and, therefore, begged to move that Progress be reported.

Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." — (Mr. Macdonald.)

MR. PARNELL

thought the Government had not treated the Committee fairly with regard to this matter. It must be remembered that the question was not one of yesterday. It was three years since the subject had been brought before the House, and the then First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Ward Hunt) had promised that a sealed pattern of the Naval cat should be deposited at the Admiralty, and that all the cats used throughout the Service should be of the same pattern.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, that had been done.

MR. PARNELL

inquired when it was done?

MR. W. H. SMITH

When the engagement was made.

MR. PARNELL

asked, if that was so, how came it that the cat used on board the Duke of Wellington, the Marine cat, and the cat deposited at the Admiralty, were all of different descriptions?

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, there was no Marine cat.

MR. PARNELL

said, that the statement of the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan), and the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, were inconsistent with each other; and the Committee would desire to know, before it proceeded with this Dill, which of them had spoken the truth? He had no hesitation in saying that if the statement of the hon. Member for Dundalk was true, all the exertions that they could make against this clause would be made, until they were assured that a humane cat, and not a cat which was an instrument of torture, would be used. [A laugh.] When they considered what au important matter this question was, he was astonished that a Gentleman in the position of the First Lord of the Admiralty should laugh when it was spoken of. They knew something about flogging in Ireland; and, unfortunately, they knew something about imprisonment, too. Knowing these things, it was important for them to give to the Committee of the House of Commons the information which they possessed upon this question. He recollected a tale, which was told him by an old man 25 years ago, with regard to military flogging. He had never forgotten that terrible story. It was with reference to a man who was treated to the punishment which was now being recommended to that House by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Brighton (General Shute)—it was flogging at the cart's tail. This incident occurred within a short distance of the place where he lived, in County Wicklow; it was true the victim was not a soldier—he was merely an ignorant peasant. He was flogged under martial law at the cart's tail, in the manner recommended by the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton, until his entrails fell out upon the road. He well recollected the expression upon the face of the man who was an eye-witness of the scene, and repeated the story to him. He wished he could re-produce his ex- pression before the Committee. Colonel Leo was the name of the gentleman who superintended the agonies of the poor sufferer. Finding that he was being treated in this manner, the poor victim cried out—" Colonel Leo, do you allow your men to flog my guts out? " The flogging was continued, notwithstanding that exclamation; and the flogging was continued as the lifeless body of the victim was dragged along the road at the cart's tail. Of course, by the provisions that had been introduced from time to time, it was no longer possible to give a man 1,000 lashes, nor was it any longer possible to flog a man from that as was done on that occasion. This flogging was an evil thing, and had been used at all times by tyrants for purposes of their own; and so long as it remained it would continue to be used in an unlawful and cruel manner. He did hope that the Committee, that hon. Members, would not treat this subject in the light manner that they had. He hoped that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) would be agreed to, and that the Government would inform them what was the pattern of the cat which was used, and whether they had a more severe cat for the Navy than for the Army; or whether they had a more severe cat in the prison than for either. It was well know that naval flogging was more severe than Army flogging; it was well known that 50 lashes in the Army were equal to 10 in the Navy, and that prison flogging was twice as bad as Navy flogging. They wished to have a regular rule in this matter; and the only way in which they could impress their views upon hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House was by continually bringing the matter before their notice. Did the right hon. Gentleman know that there were nine tails to the cat? He believed that he did not know that; for he would feel little confidence in any Minister if such a thing should be deliberately sanctioned, or in any Government which possessed such a Minister. If the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty did not know the nature of this cat, why did he not take the trouble to inform himself—would the right hon. Gentleman take the trouble, also, to inform himself of the pattern of the present cat, and would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War also find out what sort of cat was used in the Army? They had been told that there was a sealed pattern; but they had not been able to see it. The Committee ought to know what sort of cats were used, and how many knots they had, and whether they were instruments of punishment, or instruments of torture.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath had appealed to him very strongly with reference to the observations that had fallen from the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan). He would again repeat that there was no distinction between the cat for the Marines and the Navy cat; and in saying that he was speaking what he knew to be the truth. The subject was a painful and a disagreeable one to speak about; it was distasteful, in the highest degree, to them to have to inflict punishment of this character. He wished it to be distinctly understood that, in consequence of the allegations that had been made, there was no separate cat for the Marines—and he was stating what was universally known to hon. Gentlemen connected with either Service. There was a sealed pattern of cat for the Navy; it was sealed under an engagement entered into by his Predecessor in Office (Mr. Ward Hunt); but he had not had that cat before hint, nor did he think that it was any part of his duty to be constantly inspecting an instrument of that kind. Ho might say, however, that he knew, as a matter of fact, that it was in the custody of the proper officers, and was the pattern which was used in the Navy, and, when occasion arose, in the Marines. He was happy to tell the Committee that the occasions for its use were extremely rare.

MR. CALLAN

observed, that the right hon. Gentleman had stated that there was a sealed pattern of cat for the Navy. The best way he could meet that statement was by telling the Committee what he had himself seen; and he would repeat again exactly what happened, and give a flat contradiction in toto to what the right hon. Gentleman had stated. He had no strong opinion on this question; but on last Tuesday week he went to the Admiralty for the purpose of inspecting these cats, and sent in his card to the First Lord. He received him most courteously, but said—" I know nothing about the cat; no doubt, it is in the custody of the First Seagoing Lord; I will make arrangements with him for you to see it." The First Sea Lord was then at Liverpool; but he came back on Thursday, and he (Mr. Callan) again called at the Admiralty, and sent in his card to the First Seagoing Lord. On informing that gentleman of his errand, he said that it was the first time that he had ever heard of the cat. The Secretary of the First Seagoing Lord was sent for, and he said he did know something about the cat. A search was instituted, but no sea cat was found. It was suggested, however, by the Secretary that there was a Marine cat, which was kept in New Street. On Friday he called again at the Admiralty, when the First Seagoing Lord was in attendance at some Committee, and the Private Secretary showed him the eats. But there was no Navy eat at all. The Marine cat was a very beautiful cat, of about 9 or 12 inches in length in the handle; the plait was divided into nine tails, and was about 12 inches in length. At the end of the tails there were nine knots. They were unable, however, to find any cat for the Navy. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to produce any sealed pattern of the sea cat. There was a cat in the stores in 1877; the Marine cat was scaled and signed by Mr. Gordon; but the Admiralty cat was not sealed, and had only a piece of paper round it, and was covered with green baize. What was the use of the sealed pattern of cat, unless it was as a sample for other cats? The First Naval Lord telegraphed for the sea cat used on board the Duke of Wellington, and that was shown to him; it was one-half heavier and much larger than the cat which he was told was the Navy cat. He maintained that the First Lord of the Admiralty was bound, in honour, to produce the sea cat, the Marine cat, and the Duke of Wellington cat; and he maintained, further, that the cat which he had himself seen at the Admiralty was a fraud. Therefore, he would ask the hon. Member who had moved to report Progress to persist in his Motion, and to go to a Division repeatedly, unless they had an assurance that the First Lord would have the common decency to produce these cats. If the right hon. Gentleman challenged the veracity of any hon. Member of that House, he was, in common decency, bound to produce them. It would be a dishonourable act ["Order, order ! "]

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out to the hon. Member that it is not a Parliamentary expression to impute to any other hon. Member a dishonourable act.

MR. CALLAN

I did not say it will be a dishonourable act; but I say it would be a dishonourable act. I say it would be a dishonourable act on his part, if a right hon. Gentleman in his position challenges the veracity of an hon. Member of this House, and said, before he challenged him, that he had personal knowledge upon the matter—I say it would be a dishonourable act, if he did not give facilities to hon. Members to judge between his statement and mine.

MR. JACOB BRIGHT

said, that the subject of their discussion was flogging in military prisons. He was quite sure that no hon. Members in that House—that no Party in that House—desired to flog in military prisons, unless some good case was made out for it. If it could be shown to be absolutely necessary, some hon. Members, and some Members on the Government Benches, would rise and show what that necessity was. He would undertake to say that no one could make out a case for it; and if anyone could it would be the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt). The hon. and learned Gentleman had endeavoured to make out a case; but he never heard a more utter failure. He said that they could not deal with a refractory prisoner unless they could flog him. But the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) affirmed that this was the only country in the world where flogging existed in prisons. The argument for flogging soldiers in the field had some force, for they were told that they could not employ other punishments in those circumstances sufficient to keep men in order. But that was not true of a military prisoner; they had that man completely in their power, inclosed within four walls. He could be starved, or he could be kept in solitary confinement—could be punished in many ways. When they were asked to continue the use of this disgraceful and degrading punishment in military prisons, it was only fail that some hon. Gentleman should rise and show the Committee how the necessity arose.

MR. E. J. REED

said, he thought some hon. Members had fallen into an error as to what had been stated by the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) in moving his Amendment. Speaking from his own recollection of what had occurred, his impression was that the hon. and learned Gentleman's object was to bring the present clause into harmony with one which had been previously passed, and to provide that in military prisons no more severe punishment should be inflicted than the soldier would be liable to if convicted of an offence for which he might be subjected to corporal punishment while serving in the field. The Government, if he was not mistaken, had expressed their readiness to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman if the word "lashes" were substituted in it for the word "stripes." That being so, he saw no necessity for wasting the time of the Committee by prolonging the discussion on a point on which they were, practically, all agreed. ["No, no! "] Ho would appeal to any hon. Member who had heard what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department to say whether he (Mr. E. J. Read) was not right in the interpretation which he put on what had taken place? The desire of the Committee, so far as he was able to judge, was to bring the clause into accordance with an analogous clause to which the Committee had already agreed; and they were, he believed, all practically of one mind on the question. ["No!"] That, at all events, was his impression from what had taken place; and he would appeal to the Chairman to say whether it was not open to any hon. Member to move that the word "lashes " should be substituted for "stripes" in the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Louth? If so, he should be willing to make such a Motion.

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out that the Question before the Committee was the Motion of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) to report Progress. That Motion must be disposed of before another could be moved. When it had been disposed of, it would be open to any hon. Member to move to amend the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Louth.

MR. SULLIVAN

said, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) seemed to have misunderstood the position which he had taken up in moving his Amendment; and the argument which he had used was, perhaps, calculated to leave an erroneous impression on the mind of an hon. Gentleman who had not been present at previous discussions on the subject. He had referred to the fact that the Government had already accepted the principle that the number of lashes should be reduced from 50 to 25; but he had in no way retreated from the ground which he had always taken up—that no proof had been given for the necessity of inflicting corporal punishment at all. Entertaining the opinions which he did on the subject, he could not conscientiously move an Amendment which would sanction the infliction of the lash; but lie had, at the same time, stated that if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Homo Department, or any other hon. Member, would move that the word " lashes " should be substituted for "stripes," he should not object. He would vote against such a proposal if it were carried to a Division; but he had not the remotest wish to prolong the discussion upon it.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

thought the difficulty might be met by the substitution of the word " lashes " for " stripes."

MR. BIGGAR

could not help thinking that the Committee was getting into a state of great confusion. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, for instance, did not seem to be in the slightest degree aware what the question was which was before the Committee. He might, however, inform the right hon. Gentleman that it was a Motion to report Progress, which had been made by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) in order to afford the Government an opportunity of producing, for the inspection of hon. Members, the various sorts of cats which were used in the different Departments of the Public Service. There was a great deal of contradictory evidence as to the cats which were in use at the Admiralty. There was no direct evidence as to the nature of the cat which was employed in the Army or in our prisons; and, as he understood the matter, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) desired that the House should have an opportunity of seeing those instruments of torture before the Committee on the Dill was again resumed. The subject was a very important one, and the evidence, as he had said, was perfectly contradictory. The system of flogging had not that evening been defended by the Government, or by any hon. Member sitting on the Government side of the House. Its defence had been left to an hon. and learned Member, and to another hon. Member who sat above the Gangway on the so-called Liberal side of the House. But with all respect to hon. and dishonourable Gentlemen—

THE CHAIRMAN

I must call on the hon. Member to retract an expression which he must know is entirely out of Order.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he wished to explain—

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member has been called upon by the Chair to retract an expression which, as applied to Members of this House, is entirely contrary to Order. I must, in the first place, call upon him to withdraw that expression. Any explanation which he may have to offer he can make after.

MR. BIGGAR

, who rose amid cries of " Withdraw ! " said, that if hon. Members opposite would allow him, he would tell the Committee what 'it was he had said. He did not refer to Members of that House when he used the word " dishonourable." He used the word " honourable " as having reference to Members of the House; but in using the word " dishonourable," he had no intention of applying it to them. Hem never alluded to Members of the House in any other terms than as " hon. Members."

THE CHAIRMAN

Am I to understand the hon. Member as disclaiming having used the word " dishonourable " as applied to any Member of this House?

MR. BIGGAR

Certainly; and he might add that if hon. Members opposite would get up and defend the action of the Government in flogging our soldiers and sailors instead of interrupting other hon. Members in the middle of their sentences they would do better. The fact was, hon. Members opposite seemed to be ashamed of the position in which they had placed themselves.

MR. BARING

rose to Order. The hon. Member for Cavan bad used the words " honourable or dishonourable Members."

MAJOR NOLAN

said, the hon. Member for Cavan had used only the words "honourable or dishonourable," and had stopped there. He had not spoken of Members of that House as "dishonourable."

MR. O'DONNELL

wished to know whether, after the ruling of the Chairman, who had decided the whole point at issue in favour of the hon. Member for Cavan, it was open to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Baring) inferentially to impute falsehood to the hon. Member?

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member for Dungarvan has not accurately stated the matter when he says that I have ruled any point in reference to this matter. I endeavoured to obtain from the hon. Member for Cavan an express withdrawal of an expression which, as I understood, he had applied to Members of this House. I understood the hon. Member for Cavan expressly to withdraw that expression. [Mr. BIGGAR: Disclaim.] To disclaim, then, the use of any such expression as referring to Members of this House. I cannot say that the hon. Member for Essex (Mr. Baring) is out of Order in stating what, in his opinion, were the words used by the hon. Member for Cavan; but I hope I have succeeded in obtaining from the hon. Member for Cavan a disclaimer which may be considered satisfactory to the Committee.

Question put.

The Committee divided:— Ayes 35; Noes 171: Majority 136.—(Div. List, No. 145.)

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that the observations which had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) were perfectly consistent with the position which he had taken up throughout the whole of the discussions on the Bill. He thought, he might add, that the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman was a very fair one; and he was, therefore, on the part of the Government, ready to accept the suggestion which he had made, and which would practically give effect to what he believed to be the wish of a large majority in the country. He begged to move the omission from the Amendment of the word " stripes," in order that the word " lashes" might be substituted for it.

MR. PARNELL

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman had made the proposal which lie now submitted to the Committee an hour before it would have led to a solution of the difficulty with which the Committee had to deal. But a great many things had happened within that hour. There had been one very painful occurrence. An hon. Member of the House, speaking from his own personal knowledge, and after personal inspection, had told the Committee that there was no sealed pattern of the cat used in the Navy at the Admiralty. The same hon. Member had informed the Committee that the cat on board The Duke of Wellington was several times more severe, longer, and thicker, than the cat, which was not sealed, which he saw at the Admiralty. The hon. Member had also stated that the Marine cat, which he saw at the Admiralty, was one with nine tails, with nine knots in each tail. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty then rose and said that there was a sealed cat, or cats, at the Admiralty, but that there was no Marine cat. Now, that statement of the right hon. Gentleman was not made of his own knowledge, for he admitted that lie had not seen the cats of which he spoke; while, at the same time, the right hon. Gentleman undertook, on the strength of something which had been told him by someone else, to contradict the accuracy of the statement which had been made by his (Mr. Parnell's) hon. Friend the Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan). An element had thus been introduced into the discussion which was, in his opinion, of great importance. It was clear, from what had taken place, that the Admiralty officials were in complete ignorance as to the pattern of the cat which was used in the Navy. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) was to the effect that " stripes" should be inflicted instead of " lashes; " and it would be seen that that was a proposal which bore directly on the nature of the instrument to be employed. The Com- mittee were, therefore, he contended, entitled, before they proceeded any further with the Bill, to know whether the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for Dundalk or that of the First Lord of the Admiralty was the correct version of the actual state of things with reference to those cats. In the absence of that knowledge, the Committee would be voting blindly, and in the dark, on the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Louth. The statement which had been made by the First Lord of the Admiralty had, he must confess, taken lain altogether by surprise. He had also been taken by surprise by the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for Dundalk. He had no idea that there was a cat at the Admiralty with nine knots and nine tails. Before the Committed went any further they ought to know the truth about the matter. They ought to know what punishment it was to the infliction of which they were assenting—whether it was one of a severe and unmerciful description; or whether, on the other hand, the instrument with which it was to be inflicted would render it as little of a torture, and as little cruel, as he maintained it ought to be. In order that an opportunity might be afforded for clearing up the matter, he should move that the Chairman leave the Chair.

Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Parnell.)

MR. SULLIVAN

thought that the Government ought to move that the Chairman do leave the Chair; for they could not, in justice to the character of the House and of the Government, let that painful matter rest where it was. He felt very strongly that it would not be right to agree to any such course of procedure. If the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty would state of his own knowledge as to the real circumstances of the case, they would take his word as to any matter within his own purview with the greatest pleasure. He would put it to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether it would not be desirable to have an opportunity of clearing up this mystery now before the Committee? It should not be allowed to rest where it was. He should cer- tainly vote for the Motion that the Chairman do now leave the Chair.

MR. W. H. SMITH

wished to point out that what they were discussing was, after all, a side issue. Let them look, for one moment, at the simple facts of the case. It was perfectly true that there was an Admiralty cat; but he was very glad to say that it was most rarely used in the Navy, and it was many years since corporal punishment had been inflicted in port. It was a very rare occurrence, either as regarded seamen or marines, that it should be necessary to inflict corporal punishment. The Bill which was then under discussion did not affect the Navy at all, and had no bearing on the Admiralty in any sense or form. They would be perfectly prepared to give any hon. Member an opportunity of inspecting the sealed pattern, at the Admiralty, of the Navy cat. He might assure the hon. Member for Dundalk that there was a sealed pattern of the cat for the Navy kept at the Admiralty.

MR. CALLAN

remarked, that he had seen a cat at the Admiralty; but it was not a sealed one.

MR. W. H SMITH

did not impute to the hon. Member any want of veracity; but he was sure that he was under some misapprehension. [Mr. CALLAN rose, but was met by cries of " Orders!"] It was not possible for the hon. Member to be other than under misapprehension upon this subject. Everyone was liable, occasionally, to that. He wished to repeat to the Committee the statement that there was a sealed pattern of cat at the Admiralty; and he would only add that it was rarely used, and had no reference to the question now before the Committee. Any hon. Members who took an interest in this question could have an opportunity of inspecting this sealed pattern if they went to the Admiralty.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty thought he had been treated somewhat unfairly, he must points out that that side of the House was not responsible for it.

MR. HOPWOOD

thought that they might arrange matters if the view he suggested were adopted. A great deal of hostility was exhibited by hon. Members with reference to flogging, and the nature of these eats had been strongly commented upon. After what had passed, lie thought it was necessary that they should all see what these cats were like. As a good many of the Members did not wish to go to the Admiralty to do so, he would suggest that the Government should agree that these three instruments should be brought to the House, and be deposited either in the Library, or any part of the House which might not be too much dishonoured by their presence, in order that hon. Members might have an opportunity of seeing what the cats were like, and judging for themselves. He was quite sure that if that were done a great deal of unpleasantness would be saved; and the House would be much better able to judge whether it was necessary to retain the punishment of 25 lashes, or abolish flogging altogether. He hoped that the Government would agree to the proposal he had made, for there was no reason for their not doing so. He could understand that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite felt that only the dire necessity of the case should compel them to advocate what they themselves would scarcely look upon or touch. For his part, lie entirely sympathized with them in the false position in which they were placed as advocates of this system. But they could get rid of that position. These repeated discussions were doing away with the system; and he did not doubt, in a short time, to see the whole Treasury Bench converted to the opinions held on the Opposition side of the House, while the Opposition remained steadfast in theirs, and the system would be abolished. He would suggest, in the meantime, that if the Government would allow them to see the cats in the House they could proceed to the discussion of this Amendment.

MR. WATKIN WILLIAMS

was not at all satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, and he did not feel able to give a satisfactory vote upon the question. He would like to tell the Committee what pressed upon his mind. The hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) had asserted, front his own knowledge, that there was no sealed Navy cat at the Admiralty. The First Lord of the Admiralty had began by assuring the Committee that what he was about to say was from his own personal knowledge. Again, the right hon. Gentleman repeated that he was speaking from his own personal knowledge that there was no difference between the Marine cat and the cat for the Navy, and further said that there was a sealed pattern of cat for the Navy. If there was any value at all in a sealed cat—if it was not an absolute deception—it was a security that the cats in use should correspond accurately with it. The First Lord of the Admiralty dealt with that, and asserted that his Predecessor had religiously and carefully observed the pledge he had given, and that a sealed pattern of the cat for the whole Navy was kept at the Admiralty. But the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten to answer one point, which struck him as most unfortunate. The hon. Member for Dundalk said that there was no sealed cat for the Navy, or what was called a sealed cat. And, further, he said that the cat which he had been shown as used on board the Duke of Wellington did not correspond with the cat—not a sealed cat—which he had been shown at the Admiralty as the Navy pattern. This seemed to him a most serious accusation to bring against the Government; and he did not think that the Committee ought to progress with this Bill while these statements remained as they were. For his part, he had no doubt on which side the truth lay; and he should do his best to assist in preventing the progress of that Dill until they had got to the bottom of this matter. He would not be satisfied until he had seen these cats for himself. It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to say that this matter had nothing to do with what was in this Bill. It had everything to do with it, because it affected their judgment in this matter. What confidence could they have that the cats used would correspond with what they were told were sealed patterns, when the cat used on board the Duke of Wellington was asserted to be by the hon. Member for Dundalk directly at variance with that at the Admiralty? He should certainly vote against further progress until these matters were cleared up.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, that there had been no flogging in Portsmouth Harbour since 1853—before the Crimean War—and flogging was not now allowed in harbour, either by courts martial or in any other circumstances. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundalk had alluded to the sea cat used on board the Duke of Wellington. He had no doubt that the hon. Gentleman saw a cat which he was told was the cat kept on board the Duke of Wellington. But it must be a very old cat, and why it was kept there he did not know. He would endeavour to tell the Committee what he did know upon the matter, as he had no wish to express any particular view on the subject. He wished to mention some facts, in order to assist the Committee in arriving at a satisfactory conclusion. He believed that there was a sealed pattern of cat kept at Portsmouth, at Plymouth, and at Chatham, at which places the article was manufactured. So far as he could remember, it consisted of nine tails, and with a handle 18 inches in length. The tails were tied up with a piece of thread at the end, but there were no knots; the Marines were punished with the same cat. Boys were punished by cats with six tails, or with a birch rod, and a very good thing it was for them, if they deserved it. They were flogged precisely as they were at Eton or Harrow. He believed that the late First Lord of the Admiralty promised that patterns of the cat should be kept at Chatham, Portsmouth, and Plymouth; but whether the patterns were sealed or not he did not personally know. He would say, further, that in Portsmouth Harbour, even before 1853, it was extremely rare to flog. He was not an advocate of flogging; but he believed that flogging was a very good punishment for boys before they got to a certain age, as well as for men who were incorrigibly bad. He would mention that while afloat the Marines were punished by exactly the same instruments as seamen of the Navy.

MR. HERSCHELL

thought that it might be possible that there had been on board of the Duke of Wellington an old cat which had been sent to the Admiralty and shown to the hon. Member for Dundalk. That was a very likely explanation of what had happened, though it was not clear why this old cat had been kept. He thought that everyone must feel that it was only reasonable an opportunity should be given to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty to give the Committee satisfactory information on these points. He thought that the fact was very likely as he suggested; but, at the same time, care should be taken that these old-fashioned cats should be withdrawn from the Navy, and instruments that were in conformity with the patterns should be substituted for them. He thought that some inquiry and explanation upon these matters was required. What was the third cat of which they had heard? He could not tell, unless it was one formerly used for the Marines. They ought to be told for what purpose that cat had been used, and how it came to be where it was. From the statement made by the hon. Member for Dundalk, it was clear that the Committee was entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty to make inquiries and explain the points that had been raised.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, that in answer to the appeal of the hon. and learned Member he would state that inquiries should be made on the points mentioned. He would also undertake that no punishment should be inflicted by any other cat than the sealed pattern. He wished to repeat to the Committee that corporal punishment was exceedingly rare.

MR. GRAY

remarked, that the explanation given by the right hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir John Hay), seemed to have rendered confusion worse confounded, for he had given them an assurance that a knotted cat was unknown. The hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) had told them that within the last three or four days he had inspected the cat at the Admiralty—that used either for the Marines, or for the Navy, which had nine knots on each tail. The Government had given them no information as to the nature and use of the sealed cat, which was said to be for the Marines. They had only been able to elicit the information that the cat was an old pattern, used on board some of Her Majesty's ships. After a great deal of conversation, it was only then that the right hon. and gallant Admiral told them that the cat made in the pattern of the sealed cat should be the only one used in the Navy. Surely it was time now that the Committee should be allowed an opportunity of inspecting these three cats, and knowing what they could with regard to them.

MR. CALLAN

remarked, that his statement was that he had seen three separate cats at the Admiralty. He waited upon the First Seagoing Lord, and, in reply to his inquiries, the noble Lord stated that he knew nothing of any cat. But his Secretary said that he was under the impression that there was a cat in New Street. The next day the cat was shown to him in the room of the First Lord of the Admiralty. The Private Secretary then informed him that the cat which he saw—one with knots, and sealed—was the one used for the Marines. He was also shown a cat, not sealed, to which was attached a piece of paper, saying that it was a pattern cat in store in 1877. The First Seagoing Lord, on the first occasion which he saw him, said he would telegraph to Portsmouth; and, on another occasion on which he (Mr. Callan) was at the Admiralty, a cat from the Duke of Wellington was shown to him. The Duke of Wellington cat was one-half longer in the tails, and heavier in: the handle, than the cat which was said to be the Admiralty pattern. What he had stated was, that attached to the heavy cat which he saw was a piece of paper, on which was written that it was used on board the Duke of Wellington. Under these circumstances, he thought that the cat at the Admiralty was a fraud upon the House, and upon the public at large. The cat used on board of the Duke of Wellington, in the hands of a strong man, would inflict much more severe punishment than the cat which he was told was the Navy pattern. It was for his own information that he had gone to see these cats, and he was sorry that his veracity had been called in question. That charge must be proved or withdrawn; and he would then state a Notice which he would give for the purpose of placing the House in possession of this question:— That, previous to the further consideration of the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill, the specimen of a cat-o'-nine-tails for use in the Navy, now at the Admiralty, the sealed cat-o'-nine-tails for use in the Marine service, also at the Admiralty, and the cat-o'-nine-tails in actual use on board the Duke of Wellington, now also at the Admiralty, be deposited in some convenient place in this House, for the inspection of hon. Members.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that one expression which had fallen from the hon. Member had induced him to take a part in the discussion, in order that there might be no misunderstanding. The hon. Member alleged that he had made a statement, and that his veracity had been questioned. He thought that no hon. Member ought to be placed in a position in which he could say that his veracity had been questioned, or that any charge had been made against him. He wished to say that he was quite sure, from what had fallen from his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, or from any other hon. Member on that side of the House, that there was no intention of questioning the veracity of the statement of the hon. Member for Dundalk. All that his right hon. Friend the First Lord stated was that he was sure that there must be some misapprehension, and that it was desirable to clear up that misapprehension. For his part, he was quite sure that no hon. Member of that House doubted for a moment the veracity of the hon. Member for Dundalk, or of any other hon. Member. It was obvious that there had been some confusion upon this subject; but his right hon. Friend had promised to make some inquiries with regard to these cats. As far as they could judge from the explanation given by his right hon. and gallant Friend (Air John Hay), the cat sent from the Duke of Wellington seemed to have been one that had been laid up on that vessel for a very considerable time; and, in all probability, was an old implement, never now made use of. That seemed to be the explanation that would be forthcoming. There could, of course, be no meaning in sealing a pattern of a cat if another might be actually in use. No doubt, that would be a gross abuse, and one which he was quite certain no First Lord of the Admiralty would sanction. The point deserved inquiry, and inquiry should be made. As regarded the question of the sealed pattern, his right hon. Friend the First Lord had positively stated that there was a sealed pattern of cat. Further, his right hon. Friend the First Lord had said that there was no Marine cat, for the cat that was used for the Marines was the Navy cat. At all events, his right hon. Friend would inquire into the matter, and would then give some explanation. But he wished it to be distinctly understood that no imputation had been cast upon the veracity of the hon. Member for Dundalk. He did hope that the Committee would now proceed with this clause. At an earlier period the question of corporal punishment was discussed at very great length; and the result was that this House arrived at the conclusion that, to provide for ordinary offences, the number of stripes or lashes should be 25; now they had come to the point where the question had arisen as to what punishments should be inflicted in prisons. Unfortunately, they were under the necessity of inflicting corporal punishment in prisons, and a majority of the House recognized the necessity of inflicting corporal punishment; and it was now proposed, on behalf of the Government, that, upon their own responsibility, they should accept a proposal to limit punishments in prisons to the same amount as had been already provided for civil criminals. He thought that the Committee would be acting entirely in accordance with what it had already done in coming to a conclusion on this point; and in leaving the clause as the Government had suggested it would be entirely in harmony with what had been already done. The clause was objected to by some hon. Gentlemen; but he would put it to them whether, at all events, they would not be satisfied, after taking a Division, that there was no necessity to continue the discussion, which really, to a great ex- tent, could only be repetitions of the same arguments?

MR. SULLIVAN

said, the Committee could not proceed until it know how it came to pass that there were three different patterns of the lash. He did not wish to assume anything as proved, because he hoped the Committee would have an opportunity afforded them of seeing for themselves how the matter really stood. He referred to the speech of the right hon. and gallant Admiral opposite (Sir John Hay), as opening up a matter for the serious reflection of the Committee. That speech had revealed the fact that the pattern lash had not been served out to all the ships in Her Majesty's Navy. It was a matter of serious alarm that a ship in the Indian Seas, or on the American Coast, should have a cat on board which was not in keeping with any of the three patterns at the Admiralty. The bearing of his remarks was this—that in the secrecy of a prison—say, in Durham, Preston, or Dublin—there might be cats of a pattern which no one could have any means of comparing with the cat at the Home Office. It was a very easy thing to place the pattern of the cat in the Library of the House, for the inspection of hon. Members; and they would then be able to determine whether to agree to the word " stripes " or " lashes."

MR. R. W. DUFF

, from an experience of 12 years, could corroborate all that had been said by the right hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay). The hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) appeared to be under the misapprehension that different instruments were used for flogging in the Navy; but, during the whole time of his experience in the Navy, he (Mr. R. W. Duff) had never known a cat with a knot in it to be used. That being so, lie could not understand from where the pattern cat came, which was referred to as having nine knots in each lash. His experience was entirely in confirmation of the statement of the right hon. and gallant Admiral opposite and the First Lord of the Admiralty.

MR. DILLWYN

said, as the Admiralty had sent to the Duke of Wellington, at Portsmouth, and a cat had been returned, the Committee had a right to suppose that the cat was of the pattern served out to that ship and to others. The right hon. and gallant Admiral had said that flogging was not practised on board the Duke of Wellington. Why, then, did the Admiralty send a pattern cat to that vessel?

MR. MONK

said, there could be no doubt that the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) had been shown three cats, and the Government had been appealed to, to exhibit them in the Library of the House. He thought it would have been better had the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he would request the First Lord of the Admiralty to have these cats sent to the House, because, in that case, the Committee would have been able to go on with the Bill.

MR. RYLANDS

rose to make an appeal to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Stanley). It was then 10 minutes after 1, and he did not think that any specific progress could be made with the Bill at that hour. The Government, as reasonable men, must see that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House had some grounds for saying that the question raised was an im- portant one; and, therefore, he appealed to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, with a view to the progress of the Bill, to allow Progress to be reported.

MR. PARNELL

said, the whole history of this question, during the last two or three years, had shown how entirely valueless was negative evidence of the kind offered by the hon. Member for Banffshire (Mr. R. W. Duff). The hon. Member had given evidence which, at first sight, seemed very valuable; but the experience of some hon. Members had shown it to be entirely value-less. He said that he had never known a knotted cat to be used in the Navy. But what had been the history of this question? The hon. Member probably did not know how it was that the attention of a former First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Ward Hunt) had been called to it; but it was in this way. On the occasion of one of the annual Mutiny Acts going through the House, the question of the kind of eat that was to be used was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), and the noble Lord the Member for Clare (Lord Francis Conyngham) rose in his place ands said that he had seen the thieves' cat used in the Navy on men who had committed breaches of and that, after such use, he had seen the boatswains' mates combing the flesh out of their whiskers, and from between the lashes of the cat. That statement so impressed the then First Lord of the Admiralty that he promised to have a pattern eat kept at the Admiralty. Thus might be seen the valueless character of negative evidence. The hon. Member had never seen the thieves' cat; and therefore he contradicted the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan), who had seen the pattern. Exactly the same kind of statements were made with reference to flogging in the Army. The hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock) had said that cases of flogging were very rare; but the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) thereupon informed the Committee that a very great deal of flogging was going on in the Army; and immediately afterwards accounts came from Zululand that there had been a regular carnival of cats on the banks of the Tugela. Therefore, the Committee could not accept this negative evidence as proving a negative contrary to the experience of hon. Members. The Government would have to produce these pattern cats. The Committee were now legislating for the prisoners, and had been told by the Government that the cat used in prisons would be the same as the Admiralty cat; therefore, the Committee ought to know what the Admiralty cat was like. All hon. Members could not run into the Admiralty to get a sight of the cats; and even if they did, perhaps they might return with conflicting views which would tend to personal encounters, such as had taken place that evening between the First Lord and the hon. Member for Dundalk, who had seen the cats. Hon. Members were entitled to have the cat placed in the House, so that they might know what kind of punishment was to be administered before the Dill proceeded any further.

MR. MACDONALD

said, the Committee had the admission that another cat was in existence other than that sealed by the Predecessor of the First Lord. Hem demanded from the Government to know whether there was another cat in use; and the assurance that, if that was so, there should be but one cat used, and that only after it had been submitted to the House?

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he would inquire into the matter; but he had distinctly stated that the sealed cat of the Navy was the eat which would be used; and ho undertook, upon his own responsibility, that no other cat than that should be used in the Navy.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, that all hon. Members would appreciate the anxiety of the First Lord of the Admiralty to see that no other than the Navy cat was used. But the matter stood thus. The Committee had been frequently engaged, during the progress of the Bill, in discussing the question of flogging, and felt that if they could examine the cat their views would be enlightened. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) thought the Government ought to save hon. Members the trouble of going to the Admiralty, or on board ships, by placing the cat to be used in the Library of the House. The First Lord of the Admiralty had said he would inquire into the matter; but was it a matter of so much inconvenience to him to produce the cat? The question before the Committee was, whether they should pro- ceed with the Bill before the cat was produced? If it was so laborious a matter, and such a sacrifice of principle, for the Government to bring it down to the House, then, indeed, they ought to resist the Motion that the Chairman do leave the Chair. But there appeared to him so much in favour of the appeal made to the First Lord that he would ask him whether he would not give orders to-morrow, after satisfying himself as to the nature of the cat used in the Navy, which would enable hon. Members to see the Admiralty cat in a manner more convenient to them than going to the Admiralty—that was to say, by having it placed in the Library of the House? Unless the First Lord acceded to this request, it would very likely happen that after dividing on the Motion before the Committee some hon. Member would move that Progress be reported. The Committee were not in a position to pronounce judgment upon the question until they had had an opportunity of examining the cat. They required to have the same opportunity of seeing the cat as that which had been afforded to the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan); and unless it was promised, he did not believe that any progress would be made. The position was this—either produce the cat, or stop the progress of the Bill.

MR. O'DONNELL

remembered distinctly that, on the occasion of the proposed improvements at Knightsbridge Barracks being under discussion, plans were placed in the Tea Rooms for the purpose of assisting hon. Members who were engaged in the discussion of the Estimates. Now, as the disagreeable necessity of flogging was said to exist, he thought the Government of the day ought freely to come forward and place within the reach of hon. Members all the cats in use in the different Departments of the Service. But that was no reason why a dead set should be made on the First Lord of the Admiralty, who, the Committee were quite satisfied, had as much regard for humanity as any of his Colleagues. Let all the cats in use in the different Departments be presented. The practice of flogging bad come down from a long time ago; and the Government would suffer no disgrace by placing these cats within the reach of hon. Members. They could produce them in the same way as they produced the plans for the Knightsbridge Barracks; and he thought that, without great pressure from either side of the House, the Heads of Departments in which these instruments were used might accede to this demand. He was quite satisfied—and he had been authorized by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) to say—that this continued opposition to any further progress of the Dill would cease only with the production of the cats; that on Saturday the very same demand would be made, and the Bill would not be allowed to move an inch until the cats were produced. He was satisfied that, if necessary, 500,000 Londoners would be assembled in Hyde Park—[" Order, order "] He was speaking—

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Air, I beg to move that the words of the hon. Gentleman be taken down.

THE CHAIRMAN

Is it your pleasure that these words be taken down?

MR. PARNELL

said, the Committee, first of all, wanted to know what the words were? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken upon himself the responsibility of moving that the words of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) should be taken down. He (Mr. Parnell), therefore, said the right hon. Gentleman should take upon himself the responsibility of stating correctly what those words were.

MR. SULLIVAN

asked the Chairman to state whether there was any precedent for the interruption of an hon. Member in the middle of a sentence, without the Leader of the House knowing what the hon. Member was about to conclude with? If he were right in his belief that there was no such precedent—and upon that point he awaited the opinion of the Chairman—he should denounce such a proceeding as a menace by the Leader of the House, who had attempted, by a Motion threatening and importing punishment, to interfere with the liberties of hon. Members. The Chairman, as an experienced Parliamentarian, would know that a Motion of this kind meant punishment; and that the Leader of the House had risen to make a proposal for punishment, without allowing the hon. Member for Dungarvan to finish his sentence. He (Mr. Sullivan) would be the last to defend a sentence menacing the liberty of the House, whe- ther spoken by an hon. Member before or behind him; but so bold an outrage upon the independence of a Member of the House as that which had just taken place he had never heard of in the history of the British Parliament.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I think the hon. and learned Member for Louth has expended a good deal of needless indignation upon the Chair. He said that I proposed that the words of the hon. Member for Dungarvan should be taken down before he had finished his sentence. I beg to say that the words which I desired to be taken down had been completed.

An hon. MEMBER

The words, but not the sentence.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Yes; the sentence.

MR. O'DONNELL

Certainly not.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I will state to the Committee what the words were. The hon. Member said, or used words to this effect—that "unless it was agreed that the cats should be produced the Bill should not be allowed to move one inch." Those were the words which I moved should be taken down, for the reason that, in substance, they imported that on Saturday morning the Bill will not be allowed to proceed until the cats are produced. Well, Sir, I moved that these words be taken down, because they appeared to me to require the notice of the House, in order that it might be seen whether they did not amount to a threat that unless a certain step were taken the Bill should be stopped by obstruction. It is, of course, competent for any hon. Member to move for the production of the cats; and if the Motion were carried by the House the cats would be produced; but for a Member of the House to state that obstruction should be applied unless some act were done which had not been ordered by the House appeared to me so serious that I moved that the words of the hon. Gentleman should be taken down.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the circumstances of the case, which he would state in answer to one or two inquiries addressed to him, were these—the hon. Member for Dungarvan, in the course of his speech, made use of a certain expression, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer took exception, in the form which was well known to the Com- mittee—"I move that these words be taken down." Thereupon he had sought to ascertain the pleasure of the Committee in the ordinary form — "Is it your pleasure that those words be taken down? " The words were taken down by the Clerk at the Table; but the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) rose at once to object to the course taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in requesting that those words be taken down. He (the Chairman) had to point out to the Committee that it had been, he believed, a practice frequently followed, that when the Leader of the House, who was responsible to the House for the conduct of the Business of the House, rose in his place to ask that the words of any hon. Member be taken down, opposition was not offered; because it was impossible that the House should have before it any question on which discussion could be founded, until the words to which exception had been taken had become a matter of record. It was for the Committee to consider, after the words had been taken down, whether any action should be founded upon them. Until the words were in the possession of the Committee, it was impossible that any discussion could be conducted with any approach to Order. He therefore called upon the Clerk at the Table to read the words.

The Clerk-Assistant:— On Saturday morning this Bill will not be allowed to move one inch before the cat is produced; and, if necessary, 500,000 Londoners will assemble in Hyde Park.

MR. GRAY

, as a young Member of the House seeking for information, asked if, when a Motion was made by the Leader of the House, or by any other hon. Member, that the words of another hon. Member be taken down, that Motion could be carried without the Question being put from the Chair, whether or not it be accepted by the House?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the question that the hon. Member for Tipperary had asked was one not difficult to answer, although it had not frequently come within his own experience to witness proceedings of that description. The course taken was to appeal to the Chair with regard to the words; and it was the duty of the Chair, under the circumstances, not to put a Question in the regular form, but to appeal to the House for the sense of the House. The proceeding was somewhat analogous to that which took place when an hon. Member proposes to withdraw an Amendment— you invite the opinion of the House. But it was for the Chair to judge in this case what was the prevailing wish of the Committee. He had pointed out to the Committee the practical inconvenience of demurring to the words to be taken down; because, in the absence of the words, it was impossible to conduct the discussion with any approach to Order.

MR. DILLWYN

had certainly understood the Question to be asked—"Is it your pleasure that these words be taken down? "Upon the Question being put, a number of hon. Members below the Gangway answered, "No." He respectfully put it to the Chairman that the words taken down were not those which were uttered by the hon. Member for Dungarvan. The Clerk at the Table had read other words than those which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had moved to be taken down. The words read were relative to an assemblage of Londoners. If they were to be taken down, he (Mr. Dillwyn) unhesitatingly stated that the hon. Member had not finished his sentence when he was interrupted.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he believed that words could not he taken down, unless they were taken down at once. If that was the Rule of the House, he asked whether it was possible that the words in question could be taken down?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. Member for Liskeard was perfectly right in what he had stated. It was impossible, after discussion, to take down words, because great difference might then arise as to what those words were. He had taken the course which he believed was ordinarily followed in inviting from the Committee an answer to the Question—"Is it your pleasure that these words be taken down?" He was not aware that any hon. Member had cried "No." A considerable amount of confusion prevailed at the time; and the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) immediately rose, and proceeded to make a speech upon the subject of the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he certainly did not hear any hon. Member cry "No."

MR. HERSCHELL

was sitting nearer to the hon. Member for Meath than the Chairman, and had been rather sur- prised to hear no one cry "No." He had no doubt many hon. Members did say it; but other hon. Members were, perhaps, making more disturbance in their excitement than they were aware of. It was only fair and right to say that if he (Mr. Herschell), sitting where he did, had not heard the cry of "No," the Chairman might not have heard it.

MR. PARNELL

said, the Chairman had stated that nobody objected to the taking down of the words, and that, consequently, the words were taken down. But he pointed out that before the words could possibly be taken down he had risen to his feet; and it was a physical impossibility for the Clerk at the Table to have taken down the words before he had risen, and, in the most open way, objected to them. The hon. and learned Member for Louth had done the same thing. He (Mr. Parnell) had asked whether words could be taken down until the Committee knew what the words were which the Chancellor of the Exchequer required to be taken down? and, subsequently, the Chancellor of the Exchequer repeated some words, which were only a portion of those taken down by the Clerk at the Table. What was the fact as regarded the words taken down by the Clerk at the Table? They were words which came between the beginning and the end of the sentence of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, and were taken down by the Clerk at the Table in the teeth of remonstrances by hon. Members, and in the face of a point of Order, and included words in addition to those which the Chancellor of the Exchequer subsequently asked should be taken down.

MR. SULLIVAN

had risen to the point, as to whether there was any precedent for an hon. Member being interrupted in the middle of a sentence? And the words since read by the Clerk at the Table showed that the sentence of the hon. Member for Dungarvan was unfinished. He now repeated his question to the Chair. Was there any precedent for a Member being interrupted in the middle of a sentence, in order to have his unfinished sentence taken down with a view to punishment?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

, on the authority of Mr. Hatsell, conceived that the proper form was for objection to be made, and then, if there was a general call in support of that objection, that the Speaker or the Chairman would direct the Clerk at the Table to take down the words objected to. According to that authority, the following were the duties of the Clerk at the Table in regard to the matter:— As the Clerk ought to take notes of nothing but the Orders and Reports of the House, he is always under some difficulty, when exception is taken to the words of a Member as being irregular, the House, or any number of Members, calling out to have them taken down; as this call of particular Members, though ever so general, is not properly—indeed cannot be—an Order of the House; and as the taking down the words at the Table is with a view to ground a censure against the Member who used them, the Clerk ought not to be too ready in judging of the sense of the House, or in complying with this call. I have looked over all the cases that I can find in the Journals, and have consulted Grey's Debates, to see whether I could collect from them any precise rule for the Clerk to follow upon these occasions; but I cannot find that it is by any express order or authority that he takes down the words. Not finding, therefore, any precise rule by which it can be collected what are the directions of the House,' and being of opinion that the Speaker is the only person from whom the Clerk ought to receive the sense, or directions, or Orders of the House; the rule I have laid down to myself, and have observed upon these occasions, has been to wait for the directions of the Speaker, and not to consider myself as obliged to look upon the call of one Member or any number of Members as the directions of the House, unless they are conveyed to me through the usual and only channel by which, in my opinion, the Clerk can receive them. I was, therefore, put under very extraordinary difficulties when, upon the 16th of February, 1770, exceptions were taken to some expressions used from the Chair by Sir Fletcher Norton, then Speaker; but, notwithstanding the loud and repeated cries of several Members, and that I was often particularly called upon by Mr. Dowdeswell—who had been Chancellor of the Exchequer—and many others, to do my duty, and write down the words, I recollected my own rule, and declined writing them down till I had the consent and directions of the Speaker for so doing. And if the Speaker had not given me those directions, I should have persisted in declining to take them down; and would, perhaps, have submitted the regularity of my conduct, in this particular, to the House, and received their explanation of the rule, Whether the Clerk is justified in obeying any other orders or directions but what are signified to him by the Speaker?"—[Hatsell's Precedents—The Clerk.] It also seemed to him (Air William Harcourt) essential that, in the first instance, the Member objecting should at the time and on the spot state the words to which he objected. The Committee were in difficulty in this matter; and it was, perhaps, a fortunate difficulty. It seemed to him that there was no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had omitted to take the initial proceeding which was necessary, when proceeding he to have the words taken down, of stating what the wards to be taken down were. It was quite true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had subsequently stated the words as he understood them; but that, ho (Air William Harcourt) conceived, did not meet the case. The words must be stated at the moment they were objected to, and if ho was right, it was now too late to take objection to them.

MR. GRAY

said, in his recollection the words taken down were not the words used by the hon. Member for Dungarvan.

MR. O'CONNOR, POWER

rose to Order, and appealed to the Chairman as to whether, if the view of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) was right, the whole of the proceedings were not vitiated. Whatever share the Chairman had had in assenting to the ill-advised proceeding of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman had no precedent for moving that words be taken down, when ho was not prepared to state the words. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not stated them; he had relied entirely upon his memory; and, therefore, he (Mr. O'Connor Power) appealed to the Chair on the point of Order, as to whether the Committee could further consider the matter, the Chancellor of the Exchequer having failed to take the necessary initiatory step with reference thereto?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. and learned Member for Oxford had conferred a benefit on the Committee by reading from the work of Mr. Hatsell. The Committee were, no doubt, aware, of the authority which attached to that work as regarded the practice of the House at the time at which Mr. Hatsell wrote. But he would point out to the Committee that, since that work was published, many years had elapsed, and the practice of the House certainly, during that period, in some degree had varied. A case similar to the present occurred since he had occupied the Chair, and on that occasion the words objected to were used by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell). The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in that case, rose to request that the words of the hon. Member be taken down; he did not, on that occasion, quote the words according to the precedent quoted by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, but no objection was taken, and the words were taken down in accordance with what he (the Chairman) believed to be the general view of the House. Acting on that view on the present occasion, he had felt it to be his duty to direct the Clerk at the Table to take down the words to which exception had been taken. He thought that the Committee would see that a matter of this description, which raised the question of the Privileges of Members of the House, would be more conveniently discussed with the Speaker in the Chair, and in the presence of the House, because the present discussion, he thought, could hardly lead to any practical result. It would be open to any hon. Member, who thought the course which had been pursued was irregular, to challenge it before the House at largo if any Motion was made.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

In what form, Sir, ought this matter to be brought before the House?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the most recent precedent on the subject was the one to which he had referred, and which he would then read to the House— Mr. PARNELL, Member for Meath, having, in the course of debate, expressed, regarding further Progress of the Bill in Committee, 'his satisfaction in preventing and thwarting the intentions of the Government in this respect,' the Clerk was directed to take down those words, and the same were taken down accordingly:— Motion made, and Question, "Chat the Chairman do report the same to the House,' put, and agreed to. MR. SPEAKER resumed the Chair, and Mr. RAIKES reported that he was directed to report to the House the words used by Mr. PARNELL, the hon. Member for Meath."—[July 25, 1877, South Africa Bill.] There could be no further discussion of this matter unless a Motion were made.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Sir, I move that the words be reported to the House. I only wish to say, with reference to the form of proceeding, that I challenged the words to which I objected the moment they were spoken, and requested that those words should be taken down, and on being subsequently asked what the words were I stated what they were.

Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Chairman do report those words to the House."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, the words quoted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to the effect that the hon. Member for Dungarvan had said, in certain eventualities, the Bill should not be allowed to move a single inch. The words taken down by the Clerk at the Table were to the same effect, but with this addition—that the hon. Member for Dungarvan had also said that 500,000 men would meet in Hyde Park. He asked, whether it was competent to take down words which had not been excepted to, and which he, therefore, submitted could not be taken down? Further, bearing in mind the precedents referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Air William Harcourt), he begged to ask, seeing there was a different opinion as to the words used, whether the Committee had not the right to divide on tins Question before any words could be reported to the House?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had stated quite accurately that the Chancellor of the Exchequer took exception to part only of the words read by the Clerk at the Table. But the Clerk at the Table had been directed by the Chair to take down the words as he heard them. As to the course to be taken by the House, and as to how far the Chancellor of the Exchequer could include, in the Motion made by him, any other words than those to which he excepted, those appeared to him to be matters for the House to consider. As to there being a Division taken before the words could be reported to the House, he would point out that this was really an impossibility, because the words had been at once taken down, and it was, therefore, necessary for the Speaker, or for whoever occupied the Chair, to exercise such discretion as he might deem proper as to the words taken down. He believed himself to have been acting in accordance with the general wish of the Committee. It was impossible to take a Division, because it was asked that the words should be taken down. The effect of the words being taken down was not necessarily a premature proceeding, but placed the House in a position to express an opinion on the words used by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell).

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, the Chairman now declared that he felt it his duty to direct the Clerk at the Table to take down certain words, although he had certainly put the Question to the House—" Is it your pleasure that these words be taken down?" He could not conceive a more unfortunate thing than for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make the Motion which he had made. There was the greatest possible doubt as to what were the words which were used. He had taken them down immediately the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose, as did several hon. Members near him, and the results agreed, with the exception of one word. But these words differed in several important points from the words taken down by the Clerk at the Table. [Shouts of "Read!"] He would have the greatest pleasure in reading the words which ho (Air Charles W. Dilke) had taken down to the House, if the Speaker was brought into the Chair. There could be no greater waste of time than the course taken by the Government on that occasion. It bad already been said that if a question arose as to the accuracy of the words excepted to, it should be decided upon by the House; and upon that question, should it arise, he and his hon. Friends would certainly divide. But with regard to the words themselves, were they not of a character heard in the House over and over again? He should think 100 Members in the House had made such statements as that now complained of. There could hardly be a Member in the House who had not heard such a statement a dozen times in the last Parliament. Ho remembered to have heard it said that the Ballot Dill should not be allowed to proceed unless some concessions were made. It was absurd for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a solemn Motion to take down such words; and was, moreover, a preposterous waste of time, which could only lead to sitting up late at night.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, in that case it was the duty of the hon. Baronet (Air Charles W. Dilke) to have intervened at the time when his recollection, and that of the hon. Baronet, would, of course, have stood upon an equal footing; but the course 110W adopted, after the lapse of so many years from the time of the alleged occurrences referred to, was scarcely calculated to lead to any satisfactory result, especially when they had recently found the great difficulty of verifying what had occurred only a few minutes before within the hearing of all present; but he (Hr. J. Lowther) certainly stated, most positively, that never, in the whole course of his career in that House, had lie made use of any such threat. The hon. Baronet and himself were equally in the recollection of several hon. Members present. He had, no doubt, frequently taken exception to particular Dills; but he unhesitatingly denied that he had ever stated that, under any eventualities whatever, would he adopt a course inconsistent with the Rules of the House.

MR. SULLIVAN

was obliged to press his question upon the Chair; it involved distinctly the independence of Members of the House, and their freedom from menace. He, therefore, again asked, whether there was any precedent for an unfinished sentence being taken down?

THE CHAIRMAN

replied, that the sentence to which objection was taken had been completed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressly stated, at the time he made the exception, that the sentence to which he excepted was not the last portion of the words taken down by the Clerk at the Table, but the sentence completed before they were uttered.

MR. SULLIVAN

said, the matter affected him personally, and he, therefore, appealed to the Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not give any words until he (Mr. Sullivan) had made his short speech. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not supplied the Chairman nor the Clerk at the Table with the words; he merely rose to correct him (Mr. Sullivan) in what he thought was wrong as to his conception of the words. The right hon. Gentleman was not aware that the Clerk had the words down, because they had been taken down before he rose. The words to be given to the Speaker were the words taken down by the Clerk at the Table, and the portion of the sentence at which the Chancellor of the Exche- quer stopped was followed by the word " and." The Clerk at the Table had read — " and, if necessary, 500,000 Londoners will assemble in Hyde Park." Immediately the hon. Member for Dungarvan mentioned men assembling in Hyde Park, there arose a shout of " Order! "—not simply a murmur, but a shout. The hon. Member was going on to explain, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved that the words be taken down. What words? Why, everyone in the House at that moment believed it was the words about the assembly of men in Hyde Park, and the Clerk did take down those words; and he said it was not worthy for anyone to shrink back now from that which lie meant to do—namely, to make the penalty of the House fall upon the menace which he thought was conveyed in that expression. Now, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he did not mean to include those words, and he did not think they were a menace, he would accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance most freely; but he wished to put this point to the Chair. The Chairman had on record an unfinished sentence, and he was going to report to the House an unfinished sentence. But what words would he report? Would they be the version of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the version as taken down by the Clerk at the Table?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had charged him with what he called unworthy conduct, and other expressions of that sort, and he altogether denied the right of the hon. and learned Gentleman to use any such language. He must remind the Committee not only of the particular words which had been used, and to which he took exception, but of the connection in which they were used. The hon. Member for Dungarvan had given them a very plain intimation that the Motion which was then before the Committee for the Chairman to leave the Chair would be followed by another Motion for reporting Progress; and he added that the matter would not stop there, for he stated, on the authority of another hon. Member, that something of the same kind would be renewed on Saturday; and then he went on to use these words—that unless the cat were produced the Bill would not be allowed to move an inch on Saturday. Now, that was a threat to the House—[" No ! "]—that was a threat to the:House that unless something was done which the House had not ordered to be done, at all events, that steps should be taken to obstruct the Business of the House. There could be no question whatever what the meaning of it was; whether one view were taken of the course to bed pursued or another view, it was obvious to everyone what the feeling was against which they had to struggle. When he heard that very plain and significant statement, that that course was to be pursued on Saturday, he paused for a moment to consider whether he ought to notice those words or not. Whilst he was considering, other words were used; but he rose with reference to the Bill not being allowed to proceed on Saturday, and he had nothing else in his mind. He considered the sentence complete—at all events, the statement was complete—and he challenged those words, and those words only. [" No! "] Ho challenged those words, and those words only; and if the Committee decided that the words should be reported to the House, it was his intention to call attention to the words, which lie had more than once stated he accepted as a threat.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, of course, the assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be received by the House with implicit confidence; but that did not remove the difficulty in which they were placed. Now, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, there were two totally distinct statements made by the hon. Member for Dungarvan. He confessed that until he heard the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he believed—and he thought a good many other hon. Members had believed—that the exception that was taken was to the latter statement, as to the 500,000 men assembling in Hyde Park. Well, no doubt, any exception to those words would be open to the objection taken by the hon. and learned Member for Louth. They would remember the celebrated instance of Patrick Henry in the United States, who said " Cæsar had his Brutus, and George III."—and then there were loud cries of " Order ! " and " Treason !" and he ended by saying that George had profited by the example—showing how a man might get out of a sentence in a way which people did not expect. These words, he thought, could not have been objected to until it was known how they were to be applied. That brought him to the real technical difficulty. The words they were going to report to the House were not the words to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer took exception. It was an indictment with one bad count; but if they were going to report, nothing could prevent the House from debating the latter words as well as the former. The Chairman had no control when the words were reported to the Speaker; they then became matter for discussion. That showed the necessity of the rule laid down by Hatsell— that the Member objecting should state the words to which he objected. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated the words at the time, those words only would have been taken down; but in consequence of his not doing so, other words were taken down. That showed the absolute necessity of the rule— If the Member who objects desires the words to be taken down, he must repeat the words he objects to, and state them as he conceives them to have been spoken, before they are taken down; which had not been done on this occasion; and the consequence was, that it was not the objectionable words which were taken down, but other different words. The essential and important rule in taking down the words had not been pursued; and on that ground he thought these proceedings were wrong, the preliminary condition not having been followed, and that condition not being a trivial matter, but a matter which lay at the root of the whole thing. It seemed a perfectly sensible rule, and one that ought to be adhered to. In 1604, a celebrated person, named John Howe, reflecting, with great bitterness, on the then depression of affairs, and with some personal reflections on the Government, moved that the House go into Committee to consider the state of the nation. The Motion was seconded by a Member who spoke two or three sentences. After that, Mr. Montgomery—afterwards Lord Halifax—took notice of Mr. Howe's remarks, upon which another Member stood up to Order, and stated that for the security of hon. Members it was essential that the words should be objected to at the time they were spoken; and that view was upheld. Therefore, it was absolutely necessary that the instant the words were spoken the first Member objecting to them must get up and state what were the words. That was a condition precedent to their being taken down. It was a Constitutional Rule of the House, and if it had been pursued on this occasion this debate would not have arisen.

MR. RYLANDS

rose to make an appeal to the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer requested the Committee to take a very serious course, which was only justified under two conditions. One was, that the course taken should be perfectly clear, admitting of no subsequent question, so as to divert the attention of the House from the case to a question of procedure. Another essential condition to any Motion calling in question the language of a Member was that it should have the general consent of the House. Well, supposing the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to carry his Motion, which would, doubtless, be supported by a majority of the Committee, what would the right hon. Gentleman expect to gain by it? He would not gain the consent of the whole House; it would not be a question between the great majority of the House and one or two disorderly Members; but he would find that a very large section of the House—the Opposition generally, and not merely those sitting below the Gangway — would decline to follow the lead of the right hon. Gentleman, and would oppose, as far as they could, any action being taken in the matter. Everyone understood the meaning of the Motion. They knew the Government had been put in circumstances of considerable difficulty in regard to the Bill; and he did not deny that time had been occupied, sometimes on small points, which necessarily tried the temper and patience of the Government. The Leader of the House, under those circumstances, had exhibited the greatest possible good temper; but there was no doubt that a good deal of irritation had been produced by the discussions on this Bill; and when they saw so large a portion of valuable time occupied in that way, the Government, naturally, began to feel some resentment at what appeared to them to be an intentional obstruction of the Business of the House. But for that irritation and resentment, caused by those preliminary circumstances, he was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would never have taken notice of the words which dropped from his hon. Friend. Hon. Members were entitled to object to any portion of a Bill, and to use all the Forms of the House in opposition, without being put under penal discipline for it. However, he did not wish to dwell upon that, but simply to put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, considering the peculiar position this matter had now assumed, the opposition to the Motion, and the irregularity of the mode in which the words had been entered, it would not be better to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Air William Harcourt), who occupied so deservedly a high position in the House, and to decide that the matter should not be further proceeded with?

MR. COURTNEY

thought they must all feel they were in a very unfortunate position, and he hoped to avoid making that unfortunate position worse. They must all be conscious that disorderly words might be spoken in this Assembly, and the rule was evidently reasonable that, if taken notice of, they must at once be taken down without debate in the House; because, if a discussion arose, there would follow a contest as to what the words were. The principle laid down by Hatsell had been shown by experience to be of paramount importance, that the words complained of should be stated by the Member objecting to them; but that principle had been neglected on this occasion. He wished to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the extreme inconvenience in which they would be landed if this matter proceeded further. The words taken down were not the words complained of. If they proceeded to lay the matter before the Speaker, the first thing would be to acquaint the Speaker with the words complained of and the words taken down. If the words taken down were thus communicated, the objection would at once arise that they were not the words complained of; and vice versâ; and they would have a most disorderly discussion, with the Speaker in the Chair, as to what were the exact words. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consult the dignity of the House by withdrawing his Motion.

COLONEL STANLEY

hoped, as the Minister in charge of the Bill, and the primary cause of the discussion, the Committee would allow him to say a few words. As regarded the immediate subject of discussion, he thought it was not very material to the point whether the sentence as taken down by the Clerk at the Table was or was not incomplete. Stating his own opinion, for what it might be worth, he thought the first part of it, which was the essential part, appeared to be complete; and, as regarded the second part, he hoped they all agreed it was very much better in this case that it should not be complete. However, that was not the matter upon which he wished to trouble the Committee now. What he thought was that the statement of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who sat below the Gangway, and had opportunities for conversation with hon. Gentlemen there, might be accepted as coming from an authority, and. that they should take as correct his interpretation that in the words used there was no attempt at menace or organized obstruction of the Business of the House. They had all their various modes of expression, and no doubt it was quite competent to hon. Gentlemen to say they would use all the Forms of the House. Attention had been drawn to words which he took down at the moment they were spoken, and which certainly appeared to him to be of a character somewhat beyond that to which they were accustomed in the ordinary use of the Forms of the House. Well, the hon. Baronet had stated the view he entertained of those words. The hon. Baronet did not think they were intended to convey any threat of obstruction; and if that interpretation were borne out by any explanation which the hon. Member for Dungarvan might think it consistent with his duty to offer, he could not help thinking they might still see their way out of this difficulty. After all, was it becoming to them, as men of business, to waste the substance in fighting with the shadow, and to waste precious time in disputing whether they really meant to obstruct Business or not? He hoped the hon. Member for Dungarvan and the Committee would take those observations in good part. A good deal had been said about loss of temper. He was as cognizant of the proceedings which had taken place on this Bill as anyone; and he thought there were at least some Members who could go on without loss of temper. He hoped that in the character of one who had had a great deal to do with the Bill be might great be allowed to make an appeal to the Committee, and to say that if the hon. Member for Dungarvan offered an explanation it would be advantageous to them all.

MR. DALRYMPLE

was sure no one had a better right to appeal to hon. Gentlemen on the grounds of sense and good temper than the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down. He was not in a position to appeal to the hon. Member for Dungarvan at all; but he might remind the hon. Member that the words which gave rise to this lengthened discussion were really not the hon. Member's own words. The speech of the hon. Member struck him as being—for that hon. Member—of a very moderate kind, and in unusually good taste, and the hon. Member was for the moment betrayed into using the language of another. The hon. Member announced to the Committee that he was charged by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) to make an announcement; and he used remarks of the hon. Member for Stafford, which were of a character dangerous to adopt, even if they were only used at second-hand. He said the hon. Member for Stafford had authorized him to say that if the cat were not produced the Bill should not proceed an inch on Saturday, and that, if the cat were not produced, 500,000 men would assemble in Hyde Park—and then there was what was called the " oonfinished sentence." Well, without hoping that this suggestion would be adopted, it might, at least, be suggested that the hon. Member for Dungarvan would not be humbling himself in any way if he withdrew those secondhand remarks, and then there would be no question of anything to be reported to the House.

MR. O'DONNELL

had great pleasure in responding to the amiable invitation of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, to whose conduct of any Business no one certainly could object; but really he had nothing whatever to withdraw. When he stated now that he used no language of any un-Parliamentary ten- dency, he merely repeated what he was trying to convey when the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose in such alarm. It was true, as the hon. Member (Mr. Dalrymple) had remarked in his interesting speech, that he was quoting the opinion of another hon. Member, and was deducing a uniform conclusion that was to be drawn from it. Further than that he was not aware that he had anything to say at present on any point of Order; and he would only conclude by expressing a very sanguine hope that, for the future, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen would feel perfectly sure of the intentions of Members of that House before they sought to attribute to them intentions which were quite apart from the views of the speakers. The fact was that he rose with a conciliatory intention. He distinctly said he did not see why the Military and Naval Departments should not produce the cats, in the same way as other Departments produced plans of public buildings, for the inspection of hon. Members. His remarks were calculated to induce the Government to consider that a little concession to the feelings of a considerable number of Members on his side of the House was likely to facilitate the progress of the Bill. He was very sorry the Leader of the House misconceived his intention; and he trusted the incident would impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of more caution in such matters.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

understood the hon. Gentleman to say that his words were misconceived by him, and, as he imagined, by others. If that was so, of course the matter might come to an end. If the words were reported to the House, the natural course would be that the Speaker would call upon the hon. Gentleman for an explanation. He felt it his duty to challenge the words, because he understood them to mean a threat of deliberate obstruction of Business. The hon. Gentleman now disclaimed that intention, and said lie took exception under a misconception. Of course, he had now nothing to do but to accept that answer, and withdraw the Motion.

MR. MACDONALD

said, his name had been called in question, and he wished to say that in the course of discussion he mentioned to the hon. Member for Dungarvan that he intended on Saturday to raise the question again by moving the adjournment of the House. Ho presumed he was exercising a full Parliamentary right, and ho did not think he deserved any animadversion from the hon. Member for Buteshire (Mr. Dalrymple); but at 3 o'clock in the morning, after the hon. Gentleman had been ho should not believe anything that was said by the hon. Gentleman.

MR. O'DONNELL

felt he owed it to the House and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to finish the unfinished sentence. He was stating, from his own knowledge of popular feeling on the subject, that a meeting of 500,000 Londoners would meet in Hyde Park, to protest against the employment in a degrading and severe punishment of an instrument of torture, which the majority of Members of Parliament had not had an opportunity of examining previous to coming to a decision on the subject.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. PARNELL

said, he had no wish to press this Motion that the Chairman do leave the Chair; but ho presumed the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not object at that late hour to report Progress.

Motion, " That the Chairman do now leave the Chair," by leave, withdrawn.

COLONEL STANLEY

, resuming the discussion of his right hon. Friend's (Mr. Assheton Cross's) Amendment, said, the point was not a very wide one. He would make no objection to reporting Progress at the end of the clause.

MR. DILLWYN

thought the point could not 'be settled until after the production of that wretched instrument which had caused the debate. He moved to report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)

COLONEL STANLEY

said, the Government would defer to the wishes of the Committee in the matter.

MR. E. J. REED

thought the Government ought to express some regret to hon. Members who had been sent on what was, practically, a fool's errand, when they sought to find the pattern Navy cat at the Admiralty. If they separated as the matter now stood, what was the prospect for Saturday? On the other hand, it was but a reasonable request that hon. Gentlemen should be allowed to see this instrument.

COLONEL ARBUTHNOT

hoped the Government would not consent to report Progress; but he saw no particular objection to producing the cat. At the same time, he was bound to say he did not think those hon. Gentlemen who had made such a stir in the matter would stand any higher in the opinion of their fellow-countrymen for common sense than they did before.

MAJOR NOLAN

thought nothing would be more ridiculous than to continue this discussion until 9 o'clock in the morning, and nothing could be more simply and easy than to bring clown the cats and. leave them at the House for inspection. He had seen cats before, and there was nothing very wonderful about them, except that they were rather severe instruments; and he thought it better that those who had not seen them should see them before they went any further with the Bill.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

also appealed to the Government to report Progress. He wished to say nothing that could possibly be construed as a menace to the Committee; but no important progress would be made as long as these discussions were continued. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was mistaken, if he thought this clause would require no further serious consideration after the point at Present before the Committee was disposed of.

MR. CALLAN

wished to know whether there was any right to stop a Member from speaking in that House?

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out to the hon. Member that if he challenged the decision of the Chair he ought to take a proper opportunity for bringing forward the question.

COLONEL STANLEY

did not wish that there should be any misconception about the matter. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had given Notice of an Amendment that in military prisons there should not be any more severe regulations as to corporal punishment than in other prisons. The Government had fully assented to that; and at an earlier stage of the Bill his right hon. Friend had stated that they desired to make the rules for as many military prisons as there were in the United Kingdom.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, that he quite understood that rules were to be made; but there was nothing to prevent flogging being inflicted in military prisons on the same occasions on which it could be used in civil prisons, and the rules allowed it to be used on very trifling occasions.

MR. PARNELL

said, that they had been sitting there 11 hours—since 4 o'clock in the afternoon—and a very important debate would take place that day upon the agricultural question; and he thought that, under those circumstances, as they had really made fair progress, it would not be asking too much if they requested the Government then to allow them to report Progress. They had got through nine clauses of a very important character.

COLONEL STANLEY

said, that the hon. Gentleman had used one argument that had a good deal of force in it—that the Committee had been 11 hours upon the Bill. Out of consideration to his hon. and right hon. Friends, and other persons in the House, he thought it was only fair that they should then adjourn.

Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

moved that the House should sit at 1 o'clock on Saturday next for the purpose of proceeding with this Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, " That this House will resolve itself into the said Committee on Saturday, at One of the clock." — (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

MR. PARNELL

thought that that was a proper occasion for discussing the question as to the time of the Sitting of the House on Saturday. As hon. Members were aware, the funeral of Lord Lawrence would take place on Saturday morning; and as so many Members of the House desired to attend it, the matter became one of considerable importance. The funeral was arranged to take place at half-past 12, and he did not see how hen. Members who wished to attend the funeral could return to the House in time for the Sitting at 1 o'clock. As it would be impossible for hon. Members to be present both in Westminster Abbey and in the House, he should move, as an Amendment, that the House should assemble at 4 o'clock instead of 1.

MR. BIGGAR

seconded the Amendment, and, in doing so, he expressed his opinion that it was unfair of the Government to ask them to meet at 1 o'clock on Saturday. It did not make any practical difference to himself; but to hon. Members who proposed to attend the funeral of Lord Lawrence a Sitting at 1 o'clock would be most inconvenient.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word " One," and insert the word " Four."—(Mr. Parnell.)

Question proposed, " That the word One' stand part of the Question."

MR. MUNDELLA

thought that the Government could hardly expect them to be in their places at 1 o'clock, when the funeral only took place at half-past 12. At the same time, a Sitting at 4 o'clock would defeat the object of the House in having the Morning Sitting. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer desired that they should not be wanting in respect to the great man who would be interred that day. If the House met at 2, it appeared to him that the difficulty would be well met, and hon. Members would be enabled to attend the funeral, and yet be in their places at the Sitting of the House. Ho should, therefore, ask that the Sitting should take place at 2 instead of 1.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that, of course, he did not wish the Sitting of the House to prevent hon. Members attending the funeral of the late highly-respected Lord Lawrence; but it must be borne in mind that if the Sitting of the House were commenced at a much later period than he had named it would be a great inconvenience to hon. Members and to the Business of the House. He thought, under the circumstances, the best pro- posal to make would be that the House should sit at half-past 1.

MR. PARNELL

did not wish to put the House to the trouble of dividing upon his Amendment; but he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say 2 o'clock instead of half-past 1.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

If the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will move to make the time of the Sitting half-past 1.

MR. PARNELL

consented to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BIGGAR

said, if he was in Order, he begged to move that 2 o'clock should be the time of Sitting, instead of 1.

Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Resolved, That this House will resolve itself into the said Committee on Saturday, at half-after One of the clock.