Commons Sitting of 5 August 1881

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—ARMY ESTIMATES; CIVIL SERVICES, Class III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
Resolutions [August 4] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—East Indian Railway (Redemption of Annuities) *.
First Reading—Patriotic Fund* [240].
Second Reading—National Debt * [236]; Indian Loan of 1879 * [237].
Committee—Report—Conveyancing and Law of Property (recomm.) [231].
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Corrupt Practices (Suspension of Elections) [238]; British Honduras (Court of Appeal) * [233], and passed.
Report—Drainage (Ireland) Provisional Order * [220]; Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London) * [215].

QUESTIONS.

  INDIA—MORTALITY IN INDIAN GAOLS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true, as stated in the "Times" of August 1, that the mortality in the gaols of the principal provinces of India has for two years averaged from 8 to 11
  990
  per cent, per annum; and, if so, whether, considering that after many years discussions and great expenditure the mortality is still so large, he will take steps to make very searching inquiry into the subject?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, it is true that the mortality for the years 1878 and 1879 in the gaols of Bengal, Madras, Bombay, the Punjab, and Central Provinces ranged from 8 in Bengal to 12 per cent in the Punjab. My attention has already been directed, among other matters, to the mortality of Indian gaols. I have communicated by telegraph with the Viceroy, and am now awaiting a promised despatch on the subject. Meanwhile, I have requested a Committee of the Council of India to investigate the Returns on the subject which are already at the India Office.

  INDIA—MADRAS CIVIL SERVICE.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he has received a Copy of the reply of the Government of India to the communication of the Government of Madras of April 1880, forwarding the Memorials of certain members of the Madras Civil Service complaining of their present position and future prospects; and, if so, whether he will state the nature of the reply; but if no copy has been received, whether, with regard to the delay which has already taken place, and to prevent further delay, he will communicate with the Government of India by telegraph, so that the desired information may be furnished at an early date?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, further Correspondence on the subject has been received. It appears that the Government of India are awaiting further information from the Madras Government asked for so long since as January, 1879, and on its receipt promised to lose no time in considering whether any, and, if so, what, measures should be adopted to meet the complaints preferred by certain members of the Madras Civil Service. I am afraid that decision will not be made known before the rising of the House.

  VACCINATION ACT, 1867—AWARDS TO PUBLIC VACCINATORS.
  MR. BURTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, as the awards for vaccination (paid

  991
  under section 5 of 30 and 31 Vic e 84) are now very considerable in amount, and as they are given year after year to certain public vaccinators, though the Act prescribes that they shall be paid for "number and quality" only, he will state what is the officially recognised principle upon which these awards are given, in addition to the ordinary salaries of the public vaccinators?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, the principle upon which these awards are given is that an Inspector of the Board should be satisfied in every case, by a careful personal examination of the arms of a considerable number of recently-vaccinated children, that the results are up to the prescribed standard of merit—namely, that the scars should cover a certain area and be thoroughly well marked. Moreover, the Inspector is required to see that the public vaccinator has been regular and punctual in his attendance at the vaccination station at the appointed times, and that the cases have been duly certified and registered. If it is found that these conditions have not been complied with, the award is withheld.

  STATE OF IRELAND—JULY CELEBRATIONS, CO. DOWN.
  LORD ARTHUR HILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to a proclamation issued at Downpatrick, county Down, and dated 11th July 1881, prohibiting the erection "of any arch of whatever description across any street, lane, or road within the boundary of said borough;" whether such proclamation was issued consequent upon sworn information to the effect that a breach of the peace would probably ensue if such arch were erected; and, whether he will cause to be laid upon the Table of the House all Correspondence bearing upon the subject?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he found that the magistrates of Downpatrick, acting on sworn informations, issued a proclamation on the 11th of July prohibiting the erection of arches of any description within the boundary of the town. The noble Lord was doubtless aware that the erection of arches in Downpatrick on the 15th of August last gave rise to rioting. He did not know that there was any Correspondence to produce.

  STATE OF IRELAND—MURDER OF POLICE-CONSTABLE LINTON.
  LORD ARTHUR HILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in the case of Police Constable Linton, who was murdered in Church Street, Loughrea, county Galway, at about 10.20 p.m. on the 24th of last month, the authorities are prosecuting any inquiries as to the circumstances under which the deceased came by his death; and, whether any, and, if any, what, reward has been offered by the Government for the apprehension of the person by whom Police Constable Linton was murdered?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that the authorities were making all possible inquiries into the case referred to, and that two persons had been arrested on sworn informations. As yet no reward had been offered; but, if it was found necessary, there would, of course, be no hesitation in offering a reward.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—INTERMEDIATE AND HIGHER EDUCATION (WALES)—REPORT OF THE COMMISSION.
  MR. RATHBONEasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he will take care that the Report of the Commission on Higher Education in Wales is laid upon the Table of the House before it separates, so that there may be no unnecessary delay in circulating so important a document?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, I am informed that this Report is on the eve of completion, and will be ready in time to be laid on the Table before the close of the Session.

  SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM—THE PLANE TREE.
  MR. MITCHELL HENEYasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether there is any intention to cut down the beautiful plane tree which stands opposite the old entrance to the South Kensington Museum?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Sir, there is no intention to cut down the tree to which my hon. Friend refers, and I have given directions that it shall not be subject to maltreatment. I may observe,

  993
  however, that if the plans for the extension of South Kensington Museum, decided upon in 1876, be carried out, and if a frontage be added to the blank wall of the Art Library recently erected, it is difficult to see how the plane tree can be preserved; but, at the rate at which money has been voted for the South Kensington Museum during the last few years, it will be about 20 years before the period of danger is reached.

  ANCIENT MONUMENTS (RESOLUTION MARCH 11TH).
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he proposed to take any, and, if so, what, steps to provide for the better preservation of Ancient Monuments, in accordance with the Resolution of the House of the 11th of March?
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, that a wish had been expressed by the House that any plan submitted to the Government with regard to the preservation of ancient monuments should be carefully considered by the Government. No such plan had, however, been submitted, and he must confess that he had not been in a position, nor did he know when he should be, to undertake what was expected from the Government. Seriously, he hoped that, after what had happened, some plan would be brought forward to which the Government might be able to give careful attention.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION—THE NEW ROYAL WARRANT—RETIREMENT.
  MR. HEALY (for Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR)asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether similar conditions of retirement will be sanctioned for the Captain and Lieutenants of Orderlies, A.H.C., who do not wish to serve under the new Royal Warrant as Hospital Quartermasters, to those granted by the Royal Warrant of the 12th July 1878 to the Assistant Commissaries who declined to accept the position of Quartermaster in the Commissariat Department?
  MR. CHILDERS: No, Sir; the circumstances are entirely different. The Assistant Commissaries were largely reduced in number, and were no longer eligible for promotion in the Department, and it was reasonable to offer them, under such circumstances, facili-
  994
  ties on a liberal scale for leaving the Department. This is not the case with respect to the officers referred to by the hon. Member.

  PARLIAMENT—THE HOUSE OF COMMONS —CONDUCT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS —NEW RULES.
  MR. RATHBONEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government will consider the necessity of bringing before the House, at the commencement of next Session, proposals for amendment of the Rules for the conduct of the Business of the House?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am sure my hon. Friend will understand, with his knowledge of Parliamentary proceedings, that the Government are not able to give any definite pledge, in the present state of their knowledge upon the question, as to what Business it may be their duty to submit to Parliament at the commencement of next Session; but, undoubtedly, subject to reservations which are necessary as to everything in the future, I cannot hesitate to say, with increasing strength of conviction from every week's and month's experience, that the question of the re-organization of the arrangements of the House in such a way as to restore it—for I must use the expression—to its full efficiency, has become a question of the very first order, not only in point of magnitude, but in point of claim to precedence. I may, perhaps, Sir, while I am addressing you, say, with regard to the Boer Convention, on which I spoke yesterday, that the Paper has been presented to Parliament, and it will be distributed, I believe, very shortly. I do not know what day it will be distributed, but copies of it are to be obtained in the Agenda Office by anyone who wishes to see it. I also wish to refer to a Question put to me yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Hubbard), on which the right hon. Baronet opposite offered some observation, with regard to the Bill for the conversion of certain Stocks into certain Annuities. I am very much disposed to regret that there should be any difficulty or any burden upon the time of the House in respect to the passing of that Bill in its integrity. If I am pressed about it, with a desire to escape from all unnecessary labour, there is this to be said. There is only one portion of

  995
  that Bill which is of great practical influence to pass, with the view of relieving the Exchequer from unnecessary charge with relation to the conversion in Stock of £7,500,000 of Exchequer Bonds, on which we are paying 3½ per cent. The portion of the Bill which relates to that I should feel myself bound, in any circumstances, to go forward with. There is also another enactment of the Bill for the purpose of curing a legal flaw which has been discovered in the Act of last year relating to the Savings Bank Fund. If it is desired that such a course should be taken, I would, in lieu of going forward with the Bill as it stands, be willing to read the Bill a second time, and pass it through Committee pro formâ with the view of striking out all that relates to the larger function with regard to conversion, and reduce it to the provision I have now spoken of. If I find that is so, I will take the stages of the Bill accordingly.

  PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—MR. BRADLAUGH.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I apprehend, Sir, that I shall be in Order in laying before you the conduct of a Member of this House within the precincts of the House. I need not say I refer to the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. R. N. Fowler). I have received the following letter from my Colleague in the representation of Northampton:—
  "20, Circus Road, St. John's Wood, N.W.
  "August 4.
  "My dear Labouchere,—Among the excessively painful incidents of yesterday there is one matter which I cannot help bringing to your notice. Alderman R. N. Fowler (London) followed me downstairs, and at the door leading on to Palace-yard, just as the police and other officials were forcibly ejecting me, I heard Mr. Fowler say, 'Kick him out,' and the people near on this hooted at Mr. Fowler. Surely, as this took place within the precincts of the House, and as I was debarred by my being in the hold of 12 men from retorting as this deserved, and am also debarred from protecting myself in my place in Parliament, I may appeal to you to bring this matter before the House. If the House should hold that this did not occur within its precincts I shall at once summon Mr. Alderman Fowler for endeavouring to excite to a breach of the peace.
  "Yours very sincerely,
  "C. BRADLAUGH."
  I need not add anything to that letter,
  996
  and I shall leave the matter, Sir, in your hands.
  MR. E. N. FOWLER: I have to thank the hon. Member for his courtesy in deferring this Question from yesterday until to-day to suit my convenience. If I take any notice of the letter it is not from any respect to Mr. Bradlaugh, whose admission to this House I have always opposed, and shall continue to oppose by the best means in my power. It is because I think it would be inconsistent with the duty of any Member of this House to interfere with the police in the discharge of a difficult duty, which I may say, from what I saw, they discharged with very great moderation and forbearance. All I have to say is, that I never used the words in question, and I emphatically deny the statement made in the letter read to the House.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— THE NATIVE TRIBES.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked whether the Papers to be laid before the House with respect to the Boer Convention would include the address of Sir Hercules Robinson to the Natives, which he thought might have an important bearing upon the construction of the Convention?
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, he had not heard from the Colonial Office any account of the receipt of that Paper officially in this country. What he had just said had reference not to Papers in relation to the Transvaal generally, but only to the Convention. They had received a copy of the full text of the Convention, but had not had time to lay it on the Table. He quite agreed with the hon. Baronet that the address of Sir Hercules Robinson ought to be presented to Members immediately on its receipt.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked what was the extent of territory to be handed over to the Boers?
  MR. GLADSTONEbegged to refer the hon. Member to the Convention. The hon. Member would find there authentic terms, which he was unable to supply from memory. He might say, however, that it was not thought that there would be any advantage in retaining the slip of territory between Zulu-land and the Transvaal.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE NEW CODE.
  In answer to Mr. BRIGGS,
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, if the Education Estimates were taken on Monday, he should lay on the Table the proposals for the revision of the Education Code.

  SEIZURE OF EXPLOSIVE MACHINES AT LIVERPOOL.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSasked the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary whether he could inform the House as to any communications which had passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States with reference to the recent discovery at Liverpool of infernal machines which have been sent to this country from America?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, Her Majesty's Government, as I stated some days ago, thought it their duty to make representations to the Minister of the United States in London, on the subject of the machines which were discovered at Liverpool. The Government have received from the Government of the United States a communication, couched in the friendly and satisfactory spirit which I ventured confidently to anticipate. With the leave of the House I will read the answer from the Government of the United States. It is from Mr. Lowell, the Minister of the United States—
  "Legation of the United States, London,
  "August 1, 1881.
  "My Lord,—Referring to my conversation with Lord Tenterden on Friday, the 29th ult., in relation to the discovery of explosive machines at Liverpool shipped from the United States for criminal purposes, I have the honour to acquaint your Lordship that I sent to Mr. Blaine on the 30th ult. by cable a memorandum of this conversation, and that I have received from him this morning a despatch by telegraph in which he instructs me to inform Tenterden that the National, State, and municipal authorities of the United States are all engaged in the work of discovering the wicked authors of the dynamite plot. Mr. Blaine adds that it was a stealthy, secret crime, and it is not believed that any considerable number of accomplices were engaged in it. He further states that no pains or expense will be spared in the detection and prosecution of the guilty parties.
  " I have, &c,
  " J. R. LOWELL.
  "The Earl Granville."

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was proposed, after the Army Estimates had been completed, to proceed with the Civil Service Estimates in the order of the Votes as they stood, with the exception of the Education Votes, regarding which a special arrangement would be made. It was also intended, if possible, to, in a similar way, make a special arrangement in regard to the Irish Votes. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had given Notice of an Amendment in connection with those Votes which would raise important Irish questions, and he thought it was the duty of the Government to afford that hon. Gentleman every convenience in their power to bring on the discussion which he desired to raise. No Irish Votes would, therefore, be asked for either to-night or to-morrow (Saturday), but another day would be given to their consideration. No idea of urgency in regard to these Votes had been entertained by the Government. It would be necessary for the Secretary to the Admiralty, who was nearly out at elbows, to ask for a Vote on Account tomorrow; but he would not propose to take any Votes on which discussion was likely to arise, but to deal with the non-effective Votes. The House would meet at 12 o'clock to-morrow. It was intended to propose the Education Estimates on Monday.
    MR. CALLANasked whether it was intended to postpone the Irish Votes until after the Land Bill had been returned to this House from "another place?"
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, there was no such intention, and added that, in the view of the Government, they would be justified in asking urgency for the consideration of any Amendments that might be proposed.
    SIR STAFFOED NORTHCOTEasked when the Irish Land Bill was likely to be returned to this House from the House of Lords? With regard to the statement of the Prime Minister as to the Terminable Annuities Bill, he entirely concurred in the course which had been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was inclined, in answer to the good-humoured

    999
    question of the right hon. Gentleman, to ask the same question of him.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: The right hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted my meaning. I should be glad to know whether, if the Bill comes back on Monday or Tuesday, the Government propose to consider the Lords' Amendments the same day or on some day or days after?
    MR. GLADSTONE: If the Bill comes back on Monday night we shall propose to consider the Lords' Amendments to it on Tuesday; but if it comes back on Tuesday night, we shall take the sense of the House whether they shall be considered on Wednesday or on Thursday. The Amendments will be placed in the hands of Members with all possible dispatch. They will be printed separately. To insert them in the Bill would necessitate the breaking up of type, so that I cannot promise that a copy of the Bill shall be supplied as amended.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked what were the intentions of the Government with reference to dealing with the subject of local self-government in Ireland?
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the strong desire of the Government, conveyed through the medium of the Speech from the Throne, at the commencement of the present Session, might give the hon. Member every assurance that it was in their power to convey with regard to the very earnest desire of the Government to proceed with that very important matter.
    In answer to Mr. OTWAY and Mr. MACFARLANE,
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he could make no further statement on the subject of the day on which the Indian Budget would be taken than that which had been made by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He hoped that they might take it next week; but he could not say positively, nor could he even say whether it would be taken the week after. He would take care that the usual Papers incidental to the subject were laid upon the Table of the House before the discussion came on.

  AFGHANISTAN—REPORTED MOVEMENTS OF TROOPS.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he had
  1000
  received any recent news as to the movements of General Hume's force on the frontiers of Afghanistan?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: No, Sir. The Viceroy of India has informed me that no important movements have taken place on the Afghanistan Frontier.

  FRANCE AND TUNIS—MILITARY OPERATIONS—THE BOMBARDMENT OF SFAX.
  MR. BOURKE: I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question which he will probably be able to answer, although I have not given him Notice of it—namely, whether since the bombardment of Sfax any British claims on the French Government have arisen, or are likely to arise, out of that affair?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No British claims have yet reached the Government at home. But I think that it is probable, from a telegram sent by Mr. Reade, the British Consul, that British claims will arise out of the bombardment of Sfax. He had an interview before the bombardment with some British subjects at Sfax possessing considerable property which was of a nature likely to be injured by a bombardment, and I have reason to believe that a portion of that property was destroyed. It is, therefore, very likely that British claims will arise out of the matter.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  LAW AND JUSTICE—OUTRAGE UPON THE PERSON.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. MACFARLANE, in rising to move—
  "That the administration of the Law in oases of outrage upon the person has long been a reproach to our Criminal Courts; that outrages and assaults of the most brutal character, especially upon married women, oven when they cause a cruel death, are commonly punished less severely than small offences against property; that the admission of the crime of drunkenness as an extenuation of other crimes is immoral,

  1001
  and acts as an incentive to persons about to commit outrages to wilfully deprive themselves of the guidance of reason;"
  said, in bringing forward this subject he did not propose in any way to censure Her Majesty's Judges; but he desired to draw the attention of the House to the striking inequality of sentences passed upon persons guilty of offences against the person as compared with those passed upon persons guilty of offences, often of a trivial character, against property. Thus, whereas the Lord Chief Justice sentenced a man to six weeks' imprisonment who had, while drunk, assaulted his wife in such a manner that her death resulted from it, others, like the man Murphy, who was convicted at the Surrey Sessions of stealing a few pieces of indiarubber, were sentenced to 10 years' penal servitude. A man met a woman in the street, struck her a violent blow in the face, knocked out four of her front teeth, loosened the remainder, and cut her lip in two. He was sentenced to two months' imprisonment, the magistrate observing that the sentence ought to be more severe. He had taken these few cases out of the papers since he asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman a Question on the subject, and he had no doubt he might have found hundreds of similar cases. There was no person in any class of society who did not admit that there was in this country an undue tendency to punish the smallest possible offences against property, and, comparatively speaking, almost to ignore offences against the person. He knew the Home Secretary would tell him he had no power to revise sentences. He had no doubt that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would say that in the one class of cases the sentences were too severe and in the other were not severe enough, that would have considerable influence on the Judges. At any rate, he did his duty in bringing these cases before the House. A man of the name of Harcourt—he begged the right hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon, William Harcourt—was charged with having beaten a woman in a most unmerciful manner. His plea was that that he did not know he had struck her—that was to say, he was in a state of brutal intoxication at the time. The magistrate sentenced him to a month's hard labour. But if that man
  1002
  had put this hand into her pocket and had taken 6d., he would probably have been sentenced for some years to penal servitude. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the administration, of the Law in cases of outrage upon the person has long been a reproach to our Criminal Courts; that outrages and assaults of the most brutal character, especially upon married women, even when they cause a cruel death, are commonly punished less severely than small offences against property; that the admission of the crime of drunkenness as an extenuation of other crimes is immoral, and acts as an incentive to persons about to commit outrages to wilfully deprive themselves of the guidance of reason,"—(Mr. Macfarlane,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he must point out to the House that the Motion which they were asked to accept was of a very grave character. It was not an impeachment of particular decisions into which that House certainly could not enter with advantage, but it was a general charge against the administration of the law in cases of outrage, which the hon. Member asserted to have been long a reproach to our Criminal Courts. In this Motion the hon. Member included the whole of the magistrates of this country, from the Chief Justice down to the borough and county Justices. He must point out that those magistrates came from the same class as hon. Members themselves, and were members of the same community; and he would ask the hon. Member how he could account for the fact that many hundreds, he might almost say thousands, of persons having the same feelings of humanity, the same sense of right and wrong as himself, should have all conspired together habitually to do that which was injurious to the society in which they lived? The thing was improbable on the face of it. It was certainly contrary to his experience and conviction. He could not believe that the Chief Justice and the whole Bench of Judges—["No, no!"]—yes that was the hon. Member's proposition. He could not read it in any other sense, for

  1003
  the Motion said the administration of the law had been long a reproach to our Criminal Courts, and the hon. Member had started his illustrations with a case in which the Lord Chief Justice was the Judge, and descended to cases in police courts. He could not regard the Motion or the speech of the hon. Member otherwise than as a general indictment and impeachment of the administration of the Criminal Law in all its branches. If the hon. Member had had the same experience as he (Sir William Harcourt) was obliged to have of the reports which went forth to the public of these cases, he would know how extremely inaccurate those reports were, and how much they led to prejudice. Half the work in his office consisted in writing to inquire, either at the instance of other people or on his own motion, for explanations of reports in which improper sentences were alleged to have been given, and in 99 cases out of 100 he found that the report of those cases omitted to notice the material particulars on which the sentences were based. Why they were to assume that a magistrate or Judge whom they had every right to suppose was as fit to form a judgment as they themselves were, should have gratuitously come to a foolish and ridiculous conclusion, disadvantageous to society, he could not understand. His official experience showed that in 99 cases out of 100, popular prejudice on the matter was not well-founded, because it rested on reports which did not accurately convey the condition of things on which the magistrate had acted. He did not mean to say that there were not occasional cases in which sentences were imposed which he could not approve of, or, at all events, different from what he himself would have imposed; but it must be borne in mind that that was the greatest and insoluble difficulty in the administration of the Criminal Law. The hon. Member had complained of inequality in sentences. There was great inequality of sentences. There must be inequality in sentences as long as we found sentiment varied; and he did not see, unless they could secure uniformity in the temperament of the human mind, that we could ever get that uniformity of sentences which the hon. Member desired. He had no doubt the hon. Member and himself would claim for themselves sentiments of equal rectitude and benevolence;
  1004
  but it was quite possible that in judging of the same case, with the most honest intent, they would pronounce very different sentences. That always must be so. They never could, by Act of Parliament, settle absolute sentences. All they could do by statute was to fix the maximum sentences; but between the maximum and minimum there would always be immense room for diversity of feeling and judgment on the part of the magistrates who administered the law. He was quite conscious of that, and could see no remedy for it. The hon. Member had complained that there was a broad distinction between the manner of dealing with offences against the person and offences against property. One fact, which did not solve all the cases, but which had a bearing on them, was this. They often saw what seemed to be a very small offence against property visited with a very heavy sentence, but newspaper reports almost universally omitted the circumstances, that it might be the sixth, seventh, or tenth conviction. People saw that a man had been punished for larceny with, say, five years' penal servitude; but they did not know the fact that that man was a confirmed offender, whereas in these cases of personal outrage, however brutal, they were more commonly than not first offences, a circumstance which very often accounted for the variety of sentences. Those were some of the difficulties which surrounded that matter. He had no objection whatever to the hon. Member discussing it. It was very useful and wholesome that sentences should be canvassed and considered by public opinion with a full knowledge of the facts. He felt sure, however, the House would not accept or endorse the general and severe condemnation of the magistrates of this country contained in the Resolution. If that Resolution were well-grounded they ought to dismiss all their magistrates and Judges. He knew no other remedy, because if for years those magistrates and Judges had been acting in a manner which was a reproach to the Criminal Courts, the only cure was to get rid of them. The House could not properly review the decisions of Judges without informing themselves of all the circumstances, and hearing the Judges' explanation of the reasons which induced them to pass the sentences complained of.
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, that, as his object had been gained, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CRIMINAL LAW—CASE OF EDMUND GALLEY.—OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOT,in rising to call attention to the case of Edmund Galley, to whom Her Majesty graciously granted a free pardon in 1879, in accordance with the Prayer of this House, said, that the Motion just submitted to the House having been negatived, he was thereby prevented from bringing forward the Resolution of which he had given Notice in a substantive form; but that circumstance would not prevent him from presenting it in the shape of an appeal to the Government, in fulfilment of the pledge which he had given to those who, both inside the House and out of it, had taken a deep interest in the case of the unfortunate man Edmund Galley. He would commence by apologizing to hon. Members and to the Government for taking a course which, at that late period of the Session, and in the pressure of so much Public Business to be dealt with, would postpone their going into Supply; but the interests of a much-injured man had been intrusted to him, and he knew that the ear of the House of Commons was never closed against the humblest of Her Majesty's subjects, when he sought justice at its hands. They would remember that in 1879, at the close of the Session, the case of Galley had been carefully considered in a long debate, which lasted from 9 p.m. till 2 in the morning, and that the discussion ended by the House unanimously resolving to pray Her Majesty to grant him a free pardon. He (Sir Eardley Wilmot) would not re-open the details which convinced the House of the innocence of Galley. Hon. Member after hon. Member arose to express that conviction; and he might mention that the hon. and learned Gentleman the present Attorney General, who spoke strongly in favour of his innocence, stated in the course of his speech that out of the 114 members of his own Circuit he believed that there was scarcely one who was not of the same opinion. He (Sir Eardley "Wilmot) recollected that the speech of Sir Lawrence Palk—now Lord Haldon—
  1006
  made a great impression upon the House. As a young man, Sir Lawrence Palk had visited the scene of the murder, and the particular locality where the principal witness, the woman Harris, swore she saw the outrage committed; and Sir Lawrence Palk said, from the nature of the ground, and the circumstances of a thick copse closely bordering the road on each side, it was quite impossible that she could have seen the murder committed without being herself seen. He need scarcely call to their recollection the able and eloquent letter of the late lamented Lord Chief Justice, or the testimony of Sir Montague Smith, both of whom were present at the trial in 1836. In the debate in 1879, he had read a letter from the latter, saying he considered it a case of mistaken identity, an extract from which letter was to be found in Hansard, which he held in his hand. He should not have alluded to it now had he not heard that doubts still existed in some minds as to Galley's innocence, and had he not felt that there were some present upon whose minds the minute circumstances of the trial and conviction were not so deeply engraven as upon his own. He would proceed to what had taken place since 1879. Nothing, as far as he knew, had transpired either at the time of the debate, or since, on the subject of compensation. He certainly had never alluded to it himself. But it appeared that someone had held out a hope to Galley, or that he had got the idea into his head, that compensation would be made him by his country for the long and unmerited injuries he had sustained for a period of upwards of 40 years. At all events, Galley felt that he was entitled to it, for he had written early in the following year a letter to Mr. Latimer of Exeter, from which he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) would read an extract. But, before he did so, he could not help paying his warmest tribute of admiration and respect to the persevering exertions of that gentleman on behalf of Galley, for to those exertions Galley's pardon was mainly to be ascribed. Mr. Latimer had been present at the trial at Exeter, and had heard Oliver, who was really guilty, avow in open Court, after the verdict was given, the entire innocence of Galley. He afterwards stood by Oliver on the scaffold when he said—

  1007
  "I declare in the face of this congregation that I am guilty, and that the other man is innocent."
  From the moment when Mr. Latimer heard, in 1877, that Galley was still alive, and that the really guilty man, Longley, had confessed in the Colony, he most warmly and zealously took up Galley's case, and never slackened his exertions till, first by the letter of the late Lord Chief Justice to the Home Office, and afterwards by the debate in Parliament, he had the happiness of seeing those exertions crowned with success. The letter to him from Galley was as follows:—
  "Tkalong, Binilong, June 4, 1880.
  "For Thomas Latimer, Esq.
  "Dear Sir,
  "I hope you will excuse me for taking the liberty of writing to you once more concerning my unfortunate affair, having never heard from you for some months past, I may say never since I received Her Most Gracious Majesty's free pardon. I beg of you as a good friend and Christian to put some of the Home Authorities in mind, according to their promise, that something will he done for me in the way of compensation. I am beginning to think that the excitement in England caused by my unfortunate affair has all died out, and I begin to feel that it's a long time about. I feel that I must be drawing near to the grave, and I feel anxious for those I may leave behind."
  In May of the present year, he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had himself received a letter from Galley, which he would also read to the House—
  " Binilong, New South Wales,
  "March 1, 1881.
  "Sir J. E. Wilmot, bart., M.P.
  "for Warwickshire.
  "Dear and honored Sir,
  "i beg of you once more to try and do a most injured man a kind favour by laying my case once more before the house of commons, interceding on my behalf for some compensation for the sufferings that i have undergone during my Life as a Prisoner.
  "Now i am freed from the awful crime for which i have sufered over 40 years wrongfully, i consider as a most injured man, that i am entitled to some compensation from the english government.
  "Through your own kind benevolence and other good gentlemen of England, i received the royal free pardon for which I can never be too thankful.
  "i beg to say that the good gentlemen of eng-land that have done so much for me apear to have forgotten me and my troubles.
  "i hope you, as a good Christian and a gentleman, seeing, that I am an old man now, will try and do something for me in the way of recompense for my troubles. Thanking you for all the kindnesses you have done for me, i beg
  1008
  to remain your most humble Servant Edmund Galley.
  "Binilong, N.S.W.
  "Care of A. B. Paterson, esq.
  "Sir, i forgot to add that I wrote to you some years ago, but never received any answer."
  He (Sir Eardley Wilmot) was under the impression that he did reply to Galley's former letter; but, at all events, the best answer that could be sent was Her Majesty's free pardon. ["Hear, hear!"] Soon after he received the above letter, he heard from Mr. Latimer that the people of Devon were preparing a Petition to the House of Commons, and also a Memorial to the Home Secretary, to ask for compensation to Galley, and after Whitsuntide both documents were sent to him (Sir Eardley Wilmot) for presentation. The Petition was signed by upwards of 5,000 of the inhabitants of Exeter and Devon (5,230), and comprised most influential signatures, headed by the Dean, the Mayor and ex-Mayor of Exeter, the Mayors of Plymouth, Tiverton, and Totnes, and many Aldermen and Town Councillors of the various boroughs in Devonshire. There were the names of 34 magistrates, 43 clergymen of all denominations, 306 professional and independent men, 18 journalists, and 2,115 merchants, tradesmen, and farmers, besides 2,714 miscellaneous signatures. There were also the names of Mr. Sanders, J.P., Mr. Latimer, J.P., and Mr. Rose, late Governor of Exeter County Gaol, all three having been present at the trial of Galley in 1836, and throughout convinced of his innocence. The Memorial,]which he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) took himself to the Home Office for presentation, was, he understood, as numerously signed, though he did not examine the signatures as he did those to the Petition. Having left an interval of time, in order that the Home Secretary might consider the Prayer of the Memorial, he proceeded to put a Question in the House as to the course the Government intended to pursue, and the reply of the Home Secretary was that, in the opinion of the Government, enough had been done for Galley by the grant of a free pardon. This, however, did not satisfy the people of Devon, who not only had all along felt and expressed a deep sympathy with Galley, but also considered that a certain discredit attached to their county by the fact that an entirely innocent man had been con-

  1009
  victed and sentenced to death in it. They, therefore, urged him (Sir Eardley Wilmot) to proceed further in the matter, which he not unwillingly undertook, for he always had considered that a pardon bestowed on an innocent man was an anomaly, and that the laws which had inflicted the injury should provide amends and compensation. Sir Samuel Romilly, as far back as 1808, brought in a Bill with that object; and he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) intended to bring in a Bill next Session for the institution of a Court of Criminal Appeal, one of the provisions of which would be to empower the Court to award compensation where it was proved satisfactorily that injustice had been done and unmerited suffering had been sustained. Returning, however, to the case of Galley, before he gave Notice of his Motion asking for compensation to him he went to the Home Office in order to seek an interview with the Home Secretary, or Mr. Liddell, the Under Secretary of State, to see if they would not re-consider their decision, and thus avoid the necessity of bringing the matter forward in the House. He was not fortunate enough to see either of the Secretaries; but he saw one of the Assistant Secretaries of the Criminal Department, and also the Private Secretary to the Secretary of State, and, to his surprise and astonishment, he learnt that a belief still existed at the Home Office that Galley was guilty. He thought that that idea had long since been banished from the Home Office; and, bearing upon that, he might mention that, accidentally meeting abroad one of Her Majesty's Judges—one most distinguished in his knowledge of Criminal Law—that dignitary had informed him that at the period when Galley's case was about to be brought before Parliament, in 1879, a late Home Secretary had sent him the Papers connected with the case, and asked his opinion on it. His reply had been—"Galley no more committed that murder than I did myself." At all events, the inquiry by him (Sir Eardley Wilmot) not being what he hoped for, he put down his Motion on the Notice Paper the same afternoon, and to-day they had come to its consideration. It might be said that such a case would afford a precedent for others if the Government consented to give compensation; but he would ask, had not the precedent been already
  1010
  established on more than one occasion? He would refer hon. Members first to the well-known case of Barber, a solicitor, of London, who was convicted, in 1844, of forgery at the Central Criminal Court, along with one Fletcher. Both were sentenced to transportation for life, and sent to Norfolk Island in the autumn of that year. A near relative of his (Sir Eardley Wilmot's) own—in fact, his father—was Lieutenant Governor of Van Dieman's Land at that time. Norfolk Island was under the charge of an official subordinate to the Lieutenant Governor's jurisdiction, and at some distance from Hobart Town; and he was sorry to say, as they all well knew, that dreadful enormities were committed there. Barber was placed, on his arrival, in a most menial occupation, and underwent great and cruel indignities, which injured his health, and he was' afterwards removed to Van Dieman's Land, where he obtained a free pardon in 1848. For, in the meantime, the humane and excellent chaplains, Messrs. Rogers and Naylor, who did their best for the convicts on Norfolk Island, had convinced themselves of Barber's innocence,; and Fletcher himself, his alleged partner in the forgery, had entirely exonerated him from any participation in it. Well, Barber returned to England, and endeavoured to resume his practice in London as a solicitor, in 1855, but in vain. Though a free pardon had been given him, his clerk gave evidence before the Select Committee afterwards appointed by the House of Commons, that he was avoided by clients, as having had the stain of a conviction, though wrongfully, upon him. In his misery, Barber petitioned this House for inquiry; and, through the exertions of Dr. Brady, a respected Member of it, a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the circumstances of his case, Lord Hotham being its Chairman. After several sittings of the Committee, before whom Barber himself, Major General Childs, and other witnesses were examined, the Committee came to the unanimous opinion that Barber was entirely innocent of the crime for which he had been punished, and "they recommended him to the favourable recommendation of the Government." He (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had the Report of the Committee in his hand (Vol. xii., 1857–

  1011
  1858, page 617), but he would not trouble the House with it. But the Report stated "that the allegations in Barber's Petition had been substantially proved." He would, however, read to them what occurred in the House afterwards. Dr. Brady, on 19th March, 1859, asked the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Stafford Northcote) what the Government intended to do in reference to the Report of the Select Committee on the Petition of William Henry Barber? Sir Stafford Northcote said—
  "The case of Mr. Barber had been under the careful consideration of the Government for some time, and no little difficulty had been experienced in deciding how to deal with it. On the one hand, a precedent ought not to be laid down which might operate injuriously in other cases of an analogous nature; and, on the other hand, this particular case was taken out of the ordinary category by the fact that it had been investigated by a Select Committee, who had unanimously recommended it to the special consideration of the Government. The various propositions that had been brought forward had received the attention of the Government, which had felt that the only unobjectionable mode of proceeding would be to give some recognition of the sufferings which Mr. Barber had certainly undergone. This would be attained by a grant of public money to Mr. Barber; and, accordingly, in the Estimates for the coming year such a sum would be included as, without pretending to compensate him for what he had endured, would still be an acknowledgment on the part of Parliament and the country that he had suffered considerably, and was therefore entitled to some consideration of this nature."
  The other case he would mention was that of Habron, convicted not long since of murder committed by a man named Peace. Through the confession of Peace, entirely exonerating Habron, the latter had received a free pardon. The circumstances of his innocence being established were not unlike, in some respects, to those attending Galley's case, and compensation was awarded to him by the Government. In Barber's case the sum granted was, he believed, £5,000; in Habron's it was £1,000. And now, he would ask, was not Galley entitled to similar amends? For 45 years he had been an exile from his country—at first, a slave condemned to hard and severe labour in a penal Colony; then, as Lord Chief Justice Cockburn had eloquently pointed out, equally a slave on the public roads; and at length assigned, as was the custom with our transported felons at that time, to a landowner, like a beast of burden, in New South Wales, where he had been ever
  1012
  since, with the stigma of a crime which he never committed branded upon him. But, latterly, he had experienced kind treatment, especially from his master, Mr. Friend, now dead. So acutely did he feel his position, that he would not enter the state of marriage till the publication of Lord Chief Justice Cockburn's letter reached him, for he said he would not wish, innocent as he felt and knew himself to be, any woman to take the name of one who had been convicted of murder. He (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had now finished his task. He thanked the House for the kind indulgence with which they had listened to him: and it only remained for him to appeal once more to the Home Secretary and the Government. He asked them favourably to consider, as the House of Commons had done in Barber's and Habron's cases, the unhappy case of this poor old man. They had heard his own appeal in the letter which he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had read, and in which he besought his fellow-countrymen to do him justice. He (Sir Eardley Wilmot) asked for that justice for him. He asked it in the name of the county of Devon, where Galley had been unjustly convicted; he asked, in the name of all England, that this unhappy man, after 45 years of unmerited suffering, might be enabled, through the generous act of his fellow-countrymen, to return to his native land, and there pass the short remainder of his life in peace and comfort.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that the hon. Member had spent a considerable portion of time in proving the innocence of Galley, and he was surprised to hear it stated that at the Home Office a doubt as to his innocence prevailed. That opinion he understood to be founded on private conversations with his Private Secretary. He was only too glad to afford hon. Members all possible facilities for making inquiries at the Home Office; but he must say that if mistaken opinions gathered from private conversations held there were to be brought before the House, he would be compelled to take steps to prevent such conversations taking place. But the hon. Gentleman's opinion was altogether unfounded. No one at the Home Office, and least of all his Private Secretary or himself, entertained a doubt as to the innocence of Galley. At the beginning of the present year he went carefully

  1013
  through all the Papers, and he held the opinion that the view taken by the late Lord Chief Justice and by Sir Montague Smith was the correct view, and that the case was one of those lamentable miscarriages which sometimes occurred in the administration of justice, and which showed the fallibility of human testimony and of human judgment. Having disposed of that matter, he started with the assumption of the innocence of Galley, as to whom the House had voted that he was entitled to a free pardon. It should not be supposed that he was opposed to compensation being given; but he had a public duty to perform, and would state the considerations which had influenced their decision. The hon. Member said that in all cases of unjust conviction compensation should be given. That was a very large proposition, pregnant with very important consequences, and it was one which had never yet been adopted. There was the case of Mr. Barber, which the hon. Gentleman had referred to, where the Government, from the peculiar circumstances, had decided to award him compensation; but they expressly stated that it was not to be considered as a precedent. But the first thing the hon. Gentleman did was to make it a precedent for another case. They could not do these things without establishing a precedent. It was, of course, entirely for the House to consider in what way they would dispose of the money of the country, and if they were of opinion that compensation should be given in the present case they would say so. He was sorry the House was not in a position to give a vote on this matter, for it was for the House and not for him to decide that point. He had, however, to observe that the hon. Member had given no hint in his speech as to what he considered should be the measure of the compensation, while in his Resolution he suggested that Galley should be allowed a free passage home. If that were all he meant, then he was sure the hon. Member—as he himself would, or many hon. Members present—would find the necessary funds for that purpose.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, he had purposely refrained from naming a sum, being desirous of leaving that matter to the Government.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he supposed he was to assume that the
  1014
  hon. Gentleman asked for some substantial compensation. Well, there was no evidence before them that Galley himself desired to be compensated, or even that he desired to return home; and what was the use of furnishing a man with the requisite means to enable him to return home if he did not desire to do so? The principle which was laid down by the hon. Baronet was not confined, as he understood it, to the case of Galley, but was intended to apply to all cases in which innocent persons had been convicted of crime. It was scarcely for the Government to accept this principle, but it might be done by the House, in which case great care ought to be taken in fixing the bases on which compensation to be paid out of the public purse ought to be fixed.
  MR. NORTHCOTEsaid, he thanked the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the generous and candid manner in which he had admitted the abstract justice of Galley's right to reasonable compensation. He (Mr. Northcote) was not in the least disposed to make raids upon the Treasury in the interest of individuals upon any except the most serious grounds; but he did think that the exceptional hardship of Galley's case entitled him to reasonable compensation, and he trusted the matter would be dealt with as soon as possible. He would suggest that a sum equal to that paid to the Irishman Habron, who had also been unjustly convicted, and suffered two and a-half years' penal servitude, should be given to Galley.
  MR. J. COWENsaid, he had listened with great satisfaction to the speech of the Home Secretary. Under the circumstances, it was all that the House could expect. He had admitted in the most unqualified way that Galley was innocent, and he did this after having perused the whole of the documents in the case—both the letter of the late Lord Chief Justice and the information exclusively in possession of the Home Office. Such a declaration made by the Home Secretary would be a source of unfeigned pleasure to the unhappy man himself, to the number of gentlemen who had taken an interest in him, and, he believed, to the House at large. He did not wish to mix the case up with any general argument as to the wisdom or necessity of establishing a Court of Appeal and granting compensation in

  1015
  all cases where justice miscarried. That was a very wide subject, and one upon which there might be great difference of opinion. It was not desirable to encumber the present inquiry with broad debates on such a very complicated question. What they wanted the Government to do was to judge the matter upon its merits and to deal with it. He did not believe there had ever been a harder case, in recent years, submitted to the consideration of the Legislature. It was very simple, but it appealed to the sympathies of every generous person. This unfortunate man had, after the lapse of nearly half-a-century, been declared guiltless of the crime of which he had been accused. Apart from the agony of mind that he must have endured over his trial and conviction, the personal hardships he had been subjected to were such as few Gentlemen present could realize. They should remember that transportation to Botany Bay, at the time Galley was sent there, was one of the most severe punishments that could be inflicted. It was a pandemonium of vice and cruelty. He had the acquaintance of Mr. John Frost, the Chartist, who was also transported to New South Wales; and he remembered hearing from him a recital of the misery and suffering that the unfortunate convicts were subjected to. With a knowledge of these facts—seeing that Galley himself was now 80 years of age, and that he could not long live to enjoy any compensation the Government could give him—the necessity for action, and for prompt action, was urgent. No private Member could make a proposal for a sum of money to be granted; but if the Home Secretary would undertake to say that the Government would favourably consider the question—and if they could promise to give such a sum as had been given to Habron, who was convicted of murder, but afterwards found to be innocent, by the confession of the man Peace—he was sure it would give satisfaction, not only to Members of that House on both sides, but to the country. He recollected the discussion that took place there last Parliament. He never in his experience had seen the House of Commons so unanimous as it was on that occasion. It would not only be an act of justice, but it would be an act of generosity, if the Ministry could lighten the load of misery that had
  1016
  accumulated round this unfortunate man during the 45 years that he had struggled under the stigma of murder, and been subjected to the punishment of penal servitude.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to express his general satisfaction with the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary. He was sure the ratepayers would cheerfully provide for a grant of £1,000.
  SIR H. DERMMOND WOLFFadmitted the prudence of not establishing a precedent for such cases, but hoped the Government would accede to the appeal.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid, he had derived much pleasure from the way in which this proposal had been received by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Government of the day, by consenting to commute the punishment to which Mr. Galley was sentenced, had admitted that they were in the wrong, because if they believed that he was guilty they should have allowed justice to take its course, or if they believed that he was innocent they should have liberated him at once. As it was, the poor man had been kept in penal servitude for 44 years; and now, when he was past 80, he had been thrown upon the world without any provision for himself or for his family. It would be a mere farce to give this man an annuity, looking at his age. What should be done was to give him such a sum as would enable him to make some small provision for his family.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYobserved, that this was eminently one of those cases in which the Government required to be pressed from both sides of the House. It was a case in which justice should be done. Nothing in the form of private subscription would meet the case, or would satisfy the feeling of the House of Commons, as reflecting that of the country. He hoped that the Home Secretary would not forget the old adage, that "Bis dat qui cito dat" The case of this unfortunate man had frequently been debated in that House, and at length, after great difficulty, and mainly owing to the efforts of the hon. Member opposite (Sir Eardley Wilmot),he had received a free pardon. It was, however, very little use giving a man who never was guilty a free pardon, if he was to be deprived of the opportunity of getting his

  1017
  livelihood at his extreme age; and therefore he trusted that the Government would show no more official coyness in the matter, but that the Home Secretary would take a course with regard to it which would reflect honour upon himself and would be appreciated by the country.
  SIR HENRY TYLERagreed that the provision for the old age of this poor man should not be left to private subscription, but should be voted by Parliament. The mere fact of his receiving a free pardon after enduring 44 years' penal servitude, might leave it open to be supposed that he had only received the benefit of a doubt; whereas if Parliament made provision for him, it would be clearly understood that he was entirely innocent of the offence of which he had been convicted. He trusted that without any further debate the Home Secretary would yield to the universal feeling of the House, and would consent that a grant should be made from the public purse to this old man. The occasion was one for the exercise, not of mercy, but of justice.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that, speaking on behalf of the Home Secretary, who was precluded by the Rules of the House from again addressing the House on this subject, he would state the course which the Government intended to pursue in reference to this case. His right hon. Friend had not been an inattentive listener to the discussion that had taken place; and as he now understood that it was the opinion of every Member of the House apparently that some money payment should be made to this man, he was not disposed to put himself in antagonism to that view. At the same time, he (the Attorney General) was sure hon. Members would feel that it was impossible that the Home Secretary could propose that compensation should be given in every case where a man who had been convicted was afterwards proved to be innocent. If, however, in the present case Parliament should by a strong expression of opinion be disposed to take upon itself all responsibility in the matter, and if it were universally understood that this was an exceptional case, and that it was not to be drawn into a precedent, the Home Secretary was not disposed to do other than give full consideration to what had fallen
  1018
  from hon. Members on both sides of the House, and would make inquiry into the circumstances and position of this man, and hoped to be able to give effect in a short time to the wish of the House in the matter.

  ISLANDS OF THE PACIFIC—JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER OF POLYNESIA.—OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR JOHN HAY,who had given Notice of his intention to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the safety of Her Majesty's subjects engaged in commerce in the Pacific, as well as the well-being of the Native races, would be more completely attained, now that the seat of the Lord High Commissioner has been removed from Fiji to New Zealand if the duties of the Lord High Commissioner were performed by the Naval Commander in Chief in those seas, assisted by Naval Officers holding the requisite commission for this purpose;"
  said, he did not propose to stand for any long time between the House and the Business before it in Committee of Supply; but the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty agreed with him that it was desirable that a few words should be said on the subject, even at this late period of the Session. In the numerous archipelagoes of the Pacific, none of the islanders, with the exception of those who resided in the Sandwich Islands, were in the slightest degree civilized. No fewer than 40 murders of British subjects had taken place in those islands during the past 12 months without any punishment being inflicted upon the guilty; and he had brought forward this subject in the hope that to try offences of this character some Court different from that which now sat at Fiji might be constituted. The three great Powers who had the most influence among the islanders were France, Great Britain, and the United States. France had a naval force in those seas consisting of 73 ships, manned by a force of 11,000 men, while we ourselves had a naval force in that quarter of the world consisting of 39 vessels, manned by 7,000 men, only a small proportion of which force, however, was available for service in that particular locality. The great Powers also exercized considerable influence in the islands through their missionaries and their traders. The process of obtaining the free labour of the Natives was one which had been liable to very considerable

  1019
  abuse. Persons whom he would call scoundrels proceeded in vessels under the pretence of hiring honest labour for the purpose of employment in French Colonies or in our own Colonies. These scoundrels were the worst description of persons who ever conducted the slave trade. Much had been done by this country to stop them; but the Native races who were so betrayed by these persons resorted to outrages, not, unfortunately, upon the guilty persons, but upon honest traders, missionaries, and other persons who were pursuing their lawful occupations and who were doing their best for civilization. The House would remember the murder of Bishop Patteson, in 1871, and, at a more recent period, of Commodore Good-enough, who, to the end of his life, did his utmost to benefit the Native races. The Pacific Islanders' Protection Act of 1872 was in a right direction. It was amended in 1875 by an Act after the Fiji Islands had become part of the territory of Great Britain. No doubt, a very eminent person, Sir Arthur Gordon, did his very best to remedy the evils that were complained of; but Sir Arthur Gordon was translated from the Government of Fiji to the Government of New Zealand, and was, therefore, at a very considerable distance from the place where the Court sat. If a trader were murdered in some outlying island in the Pacific, some naval officer at Fiji or New Zealand was ordered to go to the place where the outrage was said to have been committed, and he had to do that which he was ordered to do. Great loss of time occurred through that process. The naval officer was sent to exact retribution at some unfortunate village where, perhaps, the inhabitants hardly knew the person who committed the outrage. The Natives' means of livelihood were cut down; fruit trees were destroyed. If you were absolutely certain that persons in that village had committed a murder, and would not give up the murderer, he thought it might be a legitimate and proper punishment. The arrangement for the protection of life ought to be in the hands of the Naval Commander-in-Chief, who was on the spot, who was, no doubt, selected for his ability and discretion, and who, he thought, would carry out this duty with more satisfaction to the country than Sir Arthur
  1020
  Gordon, who was at so considerable a distance, could. Some legal officer would, of course, require to be associated with the Naval Commander in carrying out sentences. Commodore Erskine, the present Commodore in those seas, was well qualified to do what was necessary. On one point that officer differed from the views now put forward, but only because he thought that the performance of additional duties might interfere with his usefulness in discharging the duties already devolving upon him; and to meet that objection it might be necessary to increase the naval force under his command. France, for the maintenance of order at Tahiti, New Caledonia, and the Marquesas Islands, had 73 vessels and 11,000 men; whereas we had in Australia, in China, and on the West Coast of Africa no more than 39 vessels and 7,000 men. He made no charge against the Government; he only called on them to express some opinion with regard to this very difficult subject, and, perhaps, show that the present arrangement was better than that which he had suggested for the consideration of the House. He thanked the House for their kind reception of him, and hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would give good reasons for the course the Government had taken.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that he heartily concurred in the Resolution moved by the right hon. and gallant Admiral. He observed that reference was made in the Resolution to the safety of Her Majesty's subjects engaged in commerce, and the well-being of the Native races. He believed that the safety of Her Majesty's subjects depended mainly upon the well-being of the Native races. There was no doubt that cruelties of an abominable character had been committed upon the Natives of these islands by kidnappers, and that these cruelties had naturally irritated and excited the Natives, and endangered the lives of those who devoted themselves to Missionary work among the islands as well as of those who benefited the Natives by introducing among them an honest and profitable trade. It was for the purpose of checking this kidnapping that the Pacific Islanders' Protection Act was passed in 1872. He (Sir Henry Holland) was then in the Colonial Office, and necessarily took an active part in preparing and working

  1021
  out the details of that measure; and there was no part of his work in the Colonial Office to which he looked back with more satisfaction. That Act empowered certain officers and consuls to seize and detain suspected vessels, and provided for the trial of the offenders in the Australasian Courts of Law and in the Vice Admiralty Courts. The Act worked well and greatly checked these kidnapping outrages. But it was found desirable to have, if possible, a more direct and constant and local check upon these offences, and hence, when we had obtained Fiji, the Amending Act of 1875 was passed and the Queen was empowered to appoint a High Commissioner. This was a wise step in the right direction. Large powers were vested in the High Commissioner, and Sir Arthur Gordon, then Governor of Fiji—to whose merits as a zealous and able Governor he desired, in passing, to add his tribute to that given by the right hon. and gallant Admiral—was appointed High Commissioner. Sir Arthur Gordon exercised those powers satisfactorily so long as he was Governor of Fiji; but the question was whether he could continue to do so as Governor of New Zealand? This he (Sir Henry Holland) ventured to doubt. He thought it would be necessary, if the Acts were to be efficiently carried out, that the High Commissioner should be either the Governor for the time being of Fiji or the Naval Commander-in-Chief for the time being on that Station. If, however, it was decided to retain Sir Arthur Gordon as High Commissioner, he (Sir Henry Holland) would urge upon Her Majesty's Government to take steps for the appointment of one or more Deputy High Commissioners. He was disposed to think that legislation would be necessary for this purpose, but it would be of a very simple character. He doubted whether Her Majesty could now appoint a Deputy High Commissioner. The Act of 1875, 38 & 39 Vict. c. 51, only empowered her to appoint a High Commissioner; and though reference was made in the last paragraph of the 6th section to Deputy Commissioners, those Commissioners were only members of the Court of Justice established under the same section, and were not Deputy High Commissioners with the full powers attached to the office of High Commissioner. The powers of the existing Deputy Commissioners, as members of the
  1022
  Court, did not extend as far as the powers vested in the High Commissioner, which he (Sir Henry Holland) thought ought to be vested in some officer, whether the Governor of Fiji or naval officer, nearer to the scene of action than New Zealand was. He trusted the subject would receive the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had touched a great and complicated question, with regard to which he had made a very definite proposal—a proposal with which the Government found themselves unable to agree, but which they were very glad to discuss. Recent events had drawn public attention to the islands of the Pacific. Those events had excited strong feelings—feelings of indignation at barbarous outrages, of sympathy with fellow-countrymen who had been cruelly murdered, and of grave uneasiness and dissatisfaction at the necessary imperfections in the methods by which those outrages had been visited and punished. It was under the influence of those events that the right hon. and gallant Member had brought forward the Motion which stood in his name; but he could not but think that the impression which they had produced had given him a somewhat one sided view of a question which had many sides, though none, perhaps, as striking as that. For when he proposed to intrust a naval officer, and that officer our Commander-in-Chief in those seas, with the office and duties of High Commissioner, he could not but think he lost sight of the fact that the punishment of outrages by Natives was at present no part, and the prevention of conduct of Europeans which might tempt Natives to those outrages was only a part, of the duties of the High Commissioner. On that point Sir Arthur Gordon spoke positively. It was by no means "to see that Whites were protected from outrages by Natives "(p. 47), and but in a secondary sense "to protect Natives from outrages by Whites" (p. 47), that that Court was formed. He said—
  "It was principally designed to provide means for the settlement of disputes between White men themselves and to prevent Her Majesty's subjects from breaking Her Majesty's laws. It was found that in Samoa, in Tonga, in the New Hebrides, and in other places small communities of British subjects were springing

  1023
  up over which no Court had jurisdiction and no law had force. Debts were incurred, and the debtor could at pleasure evade his creditor's claim; contracts were entered into the performance of which could not be enforced; wills were made which could not be proved; disputes arose as to successions which could not be settled; crimes were committed which either escaped punishment altogether or wore dealt with by a lynch law demoralizing to those engaged in it. It was primarily to remedy this state of things that the Deputy Commissioners' Courts, under the High Commissioner, were established at Apia and Nukualofa. It was, no doubt, also an object that the letter and spirit of the Western Pacific Acts should be carried out by Her Majesty's subjects and that the Court should enforce their strict observance; but no one who looked carefully at the Orders in Council can fail to perceive what was their primary object—the establishment of a Court to which British subjects who had no locus standi before any other judicial tribunal might resort."
  If hon. Members would study the very voluminous Order in Council of the 13th of August, 1877, and the still more voluminous Schedule, they would find that the functions of the High Commissioner embraced the powers of every species of tribunal, civil and criminal, judicial and administrative, legal and equitable. It was impossible that a naval officer, with a naval officer's training, should face such a grange of duties, so special and, at the same time, so multifarious in their nature. A Commodore who, in the intervals of inspecting quarters and putting his men through gun-drill, could deal with questions of partnership, questions of probate, questions of bankruptcy, questions of intestacy, would be a sea-lawyer with a vengeance. And if it was impossible, it was at the same time most unadvisable. He could hardly imagine anything more certain to distract an officer's mind from the very important cares which the safety of his ships and the security of his station demanded. And if, by some happy chance, the Admiralty secured an officer who had the legal knowledge which qualified him for the post, the mere fact of his being tied down to the head-quarters of his Court would be an immense disadvantage to the Service. Litigants who had business before the Court at Sydney would be hardly used if the exigencies of the Service required the High Commissioner to go on a four months' cruise to Western Australia. The main principle of naval administration was that our ships and our squadrons should be able to sail whenever and wherever they were ordered. The elasticity of
  1024
  our Navy depended upon our vessels being always, as they were now, ready for war on a moment's notice in any quarter where need might arise; and to fetter the commander of four vessels on an important station with judicial duties which would cramp his movements as much as they would absorb his energies, would be contrary to the whole spirit on which our Service was conducted. And then there was another consideration which weighed with the Admiralty greatly, and that was that to appoint our Commodore High Commissioner would place him in a position with regard to the Colonial public in which, for every reason, it was inexpedient that a naval officer should be placed. Colonial opinion on some important matters was not English opinion. Nor did it always express itself after the fashion which was observed in English politics. He had seen something in India of the mode in which non-official British residents attacked an official, be he Judge or Administrator, who was supposed to deal tenderly with the darker races when their interests clashed with those of the White man; and it was a species of attack to which he did not desire to see our naval officers exposed. And as it was in India, so it had a tendency to be in other quarters of the globe. In January of this year there met an Intercolonial Congress at Sydney, composed of leading gentlemen from the different Governments of Australasia. There was no one under the rank of Colonial Secretary, Colonial Treasurer, Attorney General; and yet these gentlemen were pervaded with the feeling with regard to questions between the Native races and the British race, which never failed to prevail where those races came freely into contact. The Intercolonial Conference printed in the appendix to its Report a certain number of letters and articles from newspapers, and so gave those letters and articles, to speak very moderately, a certain stamp of authority. Now, it was well known to the House that Sir Arthur Gordon was High Commissioner, and Chief Justice Gorrie was Judicial Commissioner; and how were those high functionaries treated in those letters and articles which, after being printed in that Report, had become, as it were, the semi-official expression of Colonial opinion? The first letter was

  1025
  from a Mr. Julian Thomas to the Secretary of the Intercolonial Conference. He said—
  "Having lately returned from Fiji, I have seen the pernicious results of the Exeter Hall policy of Sir Arthur Gordon and Judge Gorrie, the High and Judicial Commissioners of Polynesia. I was witness of the supineness and indifference of the High Commissioner to the outrages committed. Native policemen have power to arrest White men on the moat frivolous charges; and the insolence of the whole aboriginal race of the South Seas proves Sir Arthur Gordon's public statement that these are not the countries for White men."
  And the next extract was from an article—
  "Both these officials (Sir Arthur Gordon and Chief Justice Gorrie) have been for years playing to the gallery of Exeter Hall, and, no doubt, have acquired in Great Britain a great reputation for philanthropy, earned, as results show, at the cost of the blood of their countrymen. To try cases before Judge Gorrie is a mockery. The Colonies should join together to protest that the property and lives of their citizens shall no longer be at the mercy of the High Commissioner or his judicial assistant."
  Now, he asked the House, and he asked the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, whether that was the sort of language which we should wish to see applied to the officer who commanded Her Majesty's squadron in those seas? Sir Arthur Gordon took these attacks in that spirit in which a high-minded man took all attacks which it was part of duty, and he might say a condition of his calling, to face. When a civilian administrator undertook such a post as that of Sir Arthur Gordon, he regarded that sort of criticism as all in the day's work. But it would be in the highest degree calamitous if the chief representative of the fighting power of England was to be abused twice a-week by two out of the three Colonial newspapers as a partial magistrate and a maudlin humanitarian. It was an ordeal which naval officers could not be called upon to face, and which they should not face either for their own sake or for the sake of the country. That was not the way to maintain the popularity of our Navy. But, without taking the strong step of making the Commodore a High Commissioner, there was still something to be done. The Intercolonial Conference, among other recommendations, made two that were specially worthy of notice. They resolved that—
  1026
  "Extended powers should be conferred upon the High Commissioners for the punishment of Natives of the said islands for any crimes or offences committed by them against British subjects."
  And Sir Arthur Gordon supported their view in his very powerful Memorandum of the 26th of February, which was a sort of comment on their Report. He said—
  "Unless a jurisdiction were created competent to take cognizance of offences committed against British subjects in the Pacific beyond Her Majesty's possessions, the infliction of punishment on British subjects for outrages against Natives in the same regions was sure to excite on their part not unnatural irritation and a sense of being treated with injustice."
  Well, that great question—for a very great question it was—was beyond the scope and power of the Board of Admiralty, though they took the strongest view in favour of a change of system. But there was another suggestion of the Intercolonial Conference to which they had directed their earnest attention—
  "That the more frequent visits of Her Majesty's ships among the islands would have a beneficial effect upon the Natives, and tend to lessen in a great degree the crimes now so prevalent."
  That suggestion was enforced in an excellent and moderate series of articles in The Sydney Morning Herald; and the Admiralty had despatched two vessels—the Cormorant and the Beagle—to cruise in and about the islands, visiting every mission and commercial station, with a civilian Deputy Commissioner, Mr. Romilly, on board. The Admiralty had likewise taken the same view as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, to the effect that a naval officer should be appointed Deputy Commissioner, and that charge had been conferred on Captain Maxwell, who would now have, among other important powers, the all-important power of removing by deportation any British subject whose conduct was of a nature to produce or excite a breach of the public peace, from the neighbourhood where his presence was oppressive or dangerous. It was one thing for a naval officer to be High Commissioner himself, exposed to the fierce light which beat upon that post at Sydney or Wellington, and quite another to be a Deputy Commissioner on the high seas, with the redoubtable presence of Sir Arthur Gordon to stand between himself and public

  1027
  criticism. In the words of Lord North-brook's letter to the Colonial Office—
  "My Lords were convinced that the influence of a sensible naval officer, whose duty is not confined to the distasteful task of punishment, but who can investigate and decide differences on the spot, will be more likely than any other measure gradually to produce a cessation of the serious outrages which seem to threaten the extinction of the valuable trade with the islanders."
  That was what the Admiralty had done; for that lay within their own power. And Lord Northbrook's strong recommendation to the Colonial Office to obtain, if legally possible, authority to check outrages on the part of Natives by the course of law, instead of by acts of hostility, which too often confounded the innocent with the guilty, represented what the Admiralty, and he believed Her Majesty's Government, as a whole, regarded as at least a partial remedy for evils which could not be altogether remedied except by that policy of annexation to which hon. Gentlemen who most deprecated the severities and irregularities of the present system of retribution would, he imagined, be the last to urge them.
  In reply to Mr. HOPWOOD,
  MR. TREVELYANpromised to lay the despatches on the Table of the House.

  ARMY (RECRUITING)—IRISH SOLDIERS.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had given Notice that he would move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, recruiting for the Army should be suspended in Ireland pending the restoration of the constitutional liberties of the people of that Country;"
  but he was mainly anxious, at present, to ascertain the number of Irish soldiers recruited into the British Army from time to time, their length of service, and the proportion sent to foreign countries. The Motion would be deferred until next Session. When his hon. Friend had raised the question on a former occasion, the Secretary for War promised him information in relation to it.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, what the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had been promised was a Return showing the number of Irish soldiers as compared with English and
  1028
  Scotch soldiers sent on foreign service for a period of five years; also the number on foreign service at present. He had not had time to complete the latter Return; but he could supply the former. It was very curious that the proportion of Irish soldiers to the whole Army was exactly the proportion of Irish soldiers sent abroad—22 and 23 in 100.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought the answer would be satisfactory to his hon. Friend.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £758,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Superintending Establishment of, and Expenditure for, Work, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882."
  COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he wished to point out that while certain works in connection with the battery at Dover Pier had been estimated at £111,310, £136,210 had already been granted. Would the right hon. Gentleman give him an explanation of the excess?
  MR. CHILDERSexplained, that in general terms the excess was due to the great storm at Dover a year or two ago.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, it was a just ground of complaint that a very much larger sum was spent on fortifications in England and Scotland than in Ireland. He did not say that money should be spent simply for the sake of spending it; but he thought the amounts should be apportioned more equally. A very large sum was spent in protecting English seaports, and it was only reasonable that similar consideration should be shown for the Irish seaports. For that reason he should move to reduce the Vote by £50,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £738,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Superintending Establishment of, and Expenditure for, Works, Buildings, and Re-

  1029
  pairs, at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, a very large sum had been spent on the fortification of Irish ports, and he did not think the amount had been inadequate.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, there was an enormous sum of money scattered over the English coast, and if money was to be thrown away, he did not see why Ireland should not have a share of it. He should not consider that an argument for giving money to Ireland; but it was an argument for curtailing expenses in England.
  MR. CHILDERSreplied, that Ireland should get its share of any money that was thrown away; but he did not intend to throw away any money. This Vote was merely for finishing off works which, were nearly completed.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (2.) £164,100, Military Education.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTwished to know how the examination of Militia officers had answered? He also observed that fewer commissions were now given both to those who passed through Sandhurst and also to those who entered through the Militia. One of the most difficult things the Secretary of State for War had to decide was whether the examinations were a fair and reasonable test of candidates' capabilities for the Service. He had known many men who had passed extraordinary examinations, and had got commissions, and were certainly not first-class officers, while many others who had not passed would have made far better officers. In that way many men who would have made first-class soldiers had failed to obtain commissions.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he agreed with the hon. and gallant Baronet on the last point, for what he had to do was to see that the examination was the best possible test, not merely of literary powers, but of fitness for the Service; but that was a most difficult matter. He had not been able to go thoroughly into the matter yet; and all he had been able to do was to lay down certain questions to be put, and to throw out suggestions, such as that about modern languages, in regard to which he had laid Papers on
  1030
  the Table. He hoped, however, during the autumn and winter, to go thoroughly into the question of the best examination both for the Line and the Militia; and he would rather not speak more definitely now, because it was a very large question. With regard to officers passing from the Line to the Militia, his own impression was that the present system was within limits not unsatisfactory.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman intended to consider the examination question, and hoped he would also consider the doing away with such requirements as poetry. He knew of many young gentlemen eminently qualified for the Army, who had been rejected because they were not strong in the Faerie Queen and other poems. He wished to know whether there was to be any further change with regard to the number of candidates for commissions?
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, there would not be any reduction in the number beyond the extent already notified.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERinquired whether candidates for commissions in the Infantry received any instruction in the use of the sword, in single-stick, and fencing? That was a most important matter, for our officers generally were the worst swordsmen in Europe. Scarcely one of them knew how to use his sword. The men were the worst shots, and the officers were the worst swordsmen; and he did not know how they could be otherwise when they received no instruction.
  MR. CHILDERSobserved, that when he was at school fencing and single-stick and drill were commonly taught to boys of his own rank of life; but he was afraid that no progress in this direction had been made lately. He should like to see this instruction more common, and he would make a note of the matter.
  SIR HENRY TYLERthought the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Alexander) should not go uncontradicted. Having been in the Army himself, and having constantly engaged in single-stick exercise, he was able to contradict that statement so far as a great number of the officers were concerned; but he thought riding and swimming ought to be more generally required.
  MR. ARTHTUR O'CONNORmentioned that this Vote included the Royal Military Academy and the Staff College, and drew attention to the fact that in the former metaphysics were taught, and in the latter French, drawing, fortifications, mathematics, and half-a-dozen other subjects; but there did not appear to be any instruction in military administration. If they compared what was done at the British Staff College with what was done in the German Army, or in the Military Schools of France, they would see that there was a good deal that was entirely left out in the programme of this country. The science of military administration was absolutely neglected, so far as the appointment of a Professor was concerned.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, there was a Professor of Military Administration at the Staff College. There was none at Woolwich or Sandhurst. He quite agreed with the hon. Member that the question of military administration was of considerable importance.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked if it would be possible to obtain a programme of the studies showing the curriculum for particular years at the Staff College?
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had no objection to show the hon. Member the Report on the College if he wished to see it.
  MR. BYRNEwished to say a few words in regard to the manner in which the Royal Hibernian Academy was conducted. He thought that some of the officers of the School were overpaid, while the pay of others was not fairly or properly adjusted. In the first place, he found that the Commandant had altogether failed to give satisfaction either to the people of Ireland or to Her Majesty's Government. Questions had been asked in the House of Commons in reference to that gentleman; and he thought he was correct in saying that the answers given by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War were not only not satisfactory to the House, but that they were not satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman himself. He believed the reason was that the right hon. Gentleman had not as much or as complete control over the Institution as he would like. The conduct of the Commandant in connection with the discipline of the School had
  1032
  several times been called in question; not that the officer in question was not a good commandant or a good governor, but because his treatment of the children was alleged to have been very brutal indeed. In some instances he had had the children stripped from head to foot, and flogged with some instrument he had brought from abroad. In one case, this species—this inhuman instrument—of torture was stolen by the Commandant's daughter, in order to prevent it from being used. The Commandant, however, charged the boys with stealing it, and beat them with such barbarity that the daughter, in order to save the boys, had to confess that she had taken it away. He believed that the Commandant had failed to give satisfaction to anyone in Ireland, and his conduct ought not to be passed over by Parliament. He received half-pay and 9s. 6d. a-day, and for such an amount of remuneration they ought to be able to secure the services of a humane officer who had not lost all his humanity, and who would render proper services. The Commandant also received half-pay as an Adjutant; and he (Mr. Byrne) was of opinion that the multiplication of offices in this way in the same individual was unsatisfactory. Then, again, he found, in reference to the chaplains, that while the Protestant chaplain received £200 a-year, the Roman Catholic chaplain only got £150, and the Presbyterian £60. He thought that such a disproportion was highly improper. He would venture to say that the number of Protestant children was not larger than that of the Roman Catholic children; and, at any rate, so long as they employed chaplains of different denominations, they ought to provide that their remuneration was the same. All the chaplains who administered to the spiritual wants of the children ought to be equally paid, and a sum of £60 a-year to the Presbyterian chaplain was certainly not sufficient to pay him for his time and trouble. If there was a sufficient number of children to require the attendance of a Protestant chaplain, the Government should provide that the chaplain was remunerated at the same rate as the Protestant chaplain—£200 a-year. Having regard to the want of humanity displayed by the Commandant, and the unsatisfactory manner in which that officer performed his

  1033
  duties, he would move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £216 18 s. 8d.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £163,883 1s. 4d., be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary" to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for Military Education."—(Mr. Byrne.)
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member in some of the remarks he had made as to the different rate of remuneration awarded to the chaplains of different denominations; and he had already stated, in reply to an hon. and gallant Member opposite, that, in regard to responsibility for these appointments, he thought a better arrangement might be made than that which now existed. But, at the same time, it was not possible to dispose of such a matter as the government of Kilmainham School at a moment's notice; and he could not undertake to say, on the spur of the moment, that he should be prepared to make an entire revision of the arrangements under which the Institution referred to was conducted. Passing from the general principle to the particular case the hon. Gentleman referred to, he believed that the state of the discipline of the Royal Hibernian School was not considered satisfactory by the military authorities last year; and Sir Thomas Steele, who was Vice-Chairman of the Governors, had in November appointed a Committee of Governors, presided over by that most admirable public servant, Sir Patrick Keenan, to examine into the state of the School, with reference particularly to the discipline administered by the Commandant. He had received their Report in the course of the spring, and, after careful consideration, he had come to the conclusion that it was not satisfactory—in fact, that it disclosed circumstances which were most unsatisfactory. It was accordingly sent back to the whole body of Governors for their consideration with reference to the facts disclosed in it. The Governors took great pains in going thoroughly into the whole question contained in the Report, and the end of the matter was that they—including the members of the Committee who made the first inquiry—unanimously reported that, although, in some respects, the Commandant had not been successful in carrying out the discipline
  1034
  of the School, yet, on the whole, he had made great improvement in the state of things which existed before he became Commandant. The Governors, therefore, recommended that he should be retained as Commandant until they had further experience of his efficiency. That was the unanimous recommendation of the whole body of Governors, including the three gentlemen who made the original inquiry. Upon that recommendation he (Mr. Childers) had felt it his duty to act, and the Commandant had been provisionally continued in his office. He (Mr. Childers) had taken very great pains in the matter, having read the whole of the Report and Evidence, and he had not come to this conclusion without being supported by those who generally advised him in such matters. He therefore hoped, under the circumstances, that the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Byrne) would not press his Motion for the rejection of this item. If, after further experience, the conduct of the Governor was still found to be unsatisfactory, he would be removed. In regard to the emoluments of this officer, he thought the hon. Member was mistaken. As a rule, the gentlemen selected for these appointments were not old officers who had been retired; but they were paid in the same way as officers in the Army holding Staff appointments. As to the chaplains, the hon. Member stated that the Protestant chaplain received £200, and the Roman Catholic chaplain £150 a-year. The salary of the Protestant chaplain was originally £231, and it was now, in the present year, £200. The Government considered that that was a very fair salary, having regard to the duties performed. He believed, but he was not quite sure, that the Presbyterian chaplain was a gentleman who was engaged in the performance of other duties, and that the number of boys under his charge was very few.
  MR. BYRNEsaid, he was much obliged for the courteous and full explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that in future he would make himself responsible for watching the conduct of the Commandant, and seeing that he did not commit any of the barbarous acts he had been charged with persistently committing. After the explanation of the right hon. Gentle-

  1035
  man, he would withdraw the Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. OTWAYthought the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Byrne) could take no other course than that which he had taken, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. But, at the same time, he wished that his right hon. Friend had been able to say a little more. He thought the right hon. Gentleman should insist on the entire abolition of punishments of this kind. It was a mistake to suppose that the boys of a British soldier could not be managed as other boys were. Nor was this sort of punishment given in all cases to English boys. They had, side by side, two Schools, in which the system pursued was entirely different. In one of them—and the boys educated in it were not inferior to those of any other school—no boy was allowed to be struck by anybody. The instruction given to a Sandhurst boy was that if he was ever struck he was to strike again, and no sergeant dare lay a hand upon him. It was absurd to tell the House that an English boy could not be managed without the use of the stick. He, therefore, hoped that his right hon. Friend would go a little beyond the statement he had made, and would see that in future the education in the Military Schools was conducted without corporal punishment, so that a stop might be put to this barbarous system of flogging.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the general use of corporal punishment in the School was the special subject of complaint.
  MR. BYRNEsaid, he had never in the past, and would never in the future, make a statement which he did not believe to be entirely capable of proof. If the right hon. Gentleman would direct an inquiry to be made, he would undertake on behalf of his hon. Friend the Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan) to bring evidence forward in substantiation of all the charges which had been made, and to show the brutal conduct of this gentleman.
  MR. CHILDERSstated that the case had already been thoroughly investigated, and the result was the censure upon the Commandant, which he had already explained.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORremarked, that there was something which
  1036
  sank deeper into the mind of a boy than a blow, and that was words of opprobrium and insult. There was no doubt that in this case the Commandant had flagrantly offended, and the accusations against him had been repeated in every quarter of Ireland, until an amount of feeling had been excited against him which it was impossible to over-estimate.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that if any further serious complaint of the kind was made, and it could be proved, he could only say that the Commandant would not be allowed to retain his position.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £40,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882."
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Secretary of State for War, if he could explain the reason why the expenditure on this Vote for 1879–80 was nearly double the amount of the expenditure in the three preceding years? In 1878, it was £27,000; in 1879, £28,000; and in 1880, £23,000; and they were now asked to vote more than £40,000.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had not got with him an account of the expenditure for the last two or three years; but the increase this year had reference to services in South Africa.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, there was a sum of £5,000 for extra batta, which had nothing whatever to do with the war.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwished to take up as little of the time of the Committee as he possibly could; but having last night given a silent vote when the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) moved the reduction of the Vote, he did not wish to repeat that step upon the present Vote. At the same time, he had no desire to do more than satisfy his own conscience; and he would, therefore, content himself by moving the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £6,360, as a protest again the Contagious Diseases Acts.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £33,740, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will

  1037
  come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he must oppose the reduction of the Vote; and in regard to the question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon), said he had ascertained that the reason for the increase of the Vote was as he had stated—namely, that there had been a large expenditure in connection with the war in South Africa.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 53: Majority 42.—(Div. List, No. 355.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (4.) £222,200, Administration of the Army.
  (5.) £34,000, Rewards, &c.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTwished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War in regard to colonels who were retired when in receipt of distinguished Service pay. Would they be allowed to retain that pay? He had also understood the right hon. Gentleman to say the other day that a colonel who was retired, and who had a prospective claim to a regiment, would receive the actuarial calculation of his chance of obtaining such regiment.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he would answer the hon. and gallant Member on a later Vote.
  Vote agreed to.
  (6.) £129,700, Half Pay.
  (7.) £1,054,700, Retired Pay.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTthought he would now be in Order in raising the important question he had referred to a few moments previously. It was a question in which a large number of officers were interested, and many of them were looking forward with anxiety for the statement which the right hon. Gentleman might make as to the amount it was intended to award, and the way in which the New Warrant was to be carried out. He would first take the case of the colonels; and he wished to know whether the case of those who had a claim to become prospective colonels of regiments would be taken
  1038
  into consideration? Would an actuarial calculation be made as to the sum they would in that case have become entitled to? The next question he wished to put had reference to the case of generals who were compulsorily retired, not on account of age, but on account of not having been employed for five years. He knew of one or two instances in which generals so retired were quite young men, and they found themselves mulcted of £10 per annum for every year they were under 62 years of age, so long as the amount did not exceed £100 in the whole. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would consider the point with the view of providing that when such officers reached 62 years of age they should receive the same amount as if they had been retired at that age—namely, £700 per annum. Many of these officers, as the right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well, would be rather hardly dealt with under the New Warrant. They would be hardly dealt with in this way—that, being young, they had not been employed as they might have been, older officers having been selected in preference to them, simply because they were older officers. Therefore, some consideration ought to be given to their case. Then there was the case of officers who were retired at the age of 70 by the Warrant which was passed in 1877. There were not many of them—he believed not more than 12—but the officers who had been so retired had been looking forward with hope to the arrival of the time when they might get regiments. But regiments were scarce, and they had been retired on an allowance of only £450 a-year. Those who were fortunate enough to obtain a distinguished service pension had £100 a-year extra, or a pension of £550 a-year; but there were generals who had only £450. And he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in fairness to these men, he did not think the case was one which ought to receive serious consideration? He knew one officer who, after 50 years' service had been compulsorily retired on £450 a-year, with a distinguished service allowance in addition of £100 a-year. And this officer had always been on full pay, and repeatedly on active service. Where there was the prospective chance of obtaining a regiment, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to

  1039
  consider whether some allowance should not be given beyond the compulsorily retired pay of £450 a-year. Some of the more fortunate brethren of these officers, retired now under the New Warrant, would receive £700 per annum.
  MR. CHILDERS: My hon. and gallant Friend has stated the two cases quite clearly. In the first case, that of the senior colonels whose case is specially provided for by the Warrant of 1877, but who will not be promoted under this New Warrant, they will be allowed such a rate of retired pay as will represent the full actuarial value of their prospect to obtain an honorary colonelcy of a regiment. Each case will be referred for calculation to the Purchase Commission. Therefore, I answer that question in the affirmative. The second question which my hon. and gallant Friend has asked me has reference to the case of general officers who have retired at less than the fixed age of retirement under the clause which relates to non-service, and who have a certain deduction made from the amount of their fixed retired pay. He asks me if it is true that since that scheme was laid down we propose that they may receive the full amount of retired pay when they reach the maximum age? Yes, Sir, we have determined that that shall be so, and I believe that the change will remove a great deal of heartburning on the part of general officers subject to retirement. Thus, major-generals will get their full rate of retired pay when they reach the age of 62. I believe that that is a fair and equitable arrangement. The third question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend is this, whether an officer retired under the Warrant of 1877, and who receives the present rates of unattached pay, will have a prospective chance of the value of a regiment? Certainly; he will have not only the prospect, but the £1,000 a-year in his turn, precisely as now. But I could not go back as to such officers and give them the choice of the new rates of retirement.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he did not think that his right hon. Friend had quite understood the question. What he had put was the case of those who chose to accept the scheme of retirement; and he had simply asked whether they would have any chance of getting an actuarial calculation of their pros-
  1040
  pects of getting a regiment. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider that point, and by allowing them an actuarial calculation give them a chance of getting the £1,000 a-year, or such addition to their pay as such a calculation would entitle them to.
  MR. CHILDERS: I am not sure that I quite understood the exact proposal, but I will consider it.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, that some time ago he had asked a question as to the pensions of officers who had been placed on half-pay. The reply of the right hon. Gentleman was that, legally speaking, the officer was not entitled to a pension. He wished to know whether the Government would reserve to themselves the right of conferring upon these officers the rights they were entitled to if they had not been placed on half-pay?
  MR. CHILDERS: The case has been most carefully considered, and, as I have already stated, it was treated in a purely judicial manner.
  MR. BIGGARexpressed a hope that no reflection was cast upon the half-pay officers of their having displayed any want of zeal in the Service.
  MR. CHILDERS: Certainly; I did not look upon the question in that light. I did not understand that anything underlay the bare fact that they had been placed on half-pay.
  Vote agreed to.
  (8.) £124,200, Widows' Pensions.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERasked whether the widow of a quartermaster who died with the rank of a captain would receive the pension of a captain's widow, and whether the widow of a quartermaster who died with the rank of a major would receive the pension of a major's widow?
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, the widow of a quartermaster who held the rank of a major while serving would receive the pension of a major's widow.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERremarked, that it was an important point, and many officers were anxious about it. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give a definite answer before the close of the Session.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he would make inquiry, and take an opportunity of answering the question on the Report.
  Vote agreed to.
  (9.) £17,000, Pensions for Wounds.
  (10.) £33,900, Chelsea, &c. Hospitals.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he was now able to answer the question which had been asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander). In the case of a quartermaster, riding-master, &c, the pension of the widow would be according to the relative rank of the officer while serving.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that upon the present Vote for Hospitals the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), two years ago, drew the attention of the Committee and of the then Secretary of State for War to the disparity between the remuneration paid to the Roman Catholic chaplain of the Chelsea Hospital and that paid to the Protestant chaplain at Kilmainham. In the first case the salary was £400 a-year, the principal inmates being Protestants, the Catholic chaplain only receiving a 16th part of that sum; but in the case of Kilmainham, where the great proportion of the inmates were Catholics, the Catholic clergyman only received £60 a-year, as compared with £400, notwithstanding the fact that the Catholic inmates of the latter hospital were four times as many as those which the chaplain of the majority had to deal with in the Chelsea Hospital. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State had promised to make an inquiry as to the number of Catholics and Protestants in the two Institutions, and to see whether in future some arrangement might not be carried out by which something like an equitable proportion should be maintained between the salary and the number of inmates attended religiously.
  MR. CHILDERS: The stipend of the Roman Catholic chaplain in Chelsea Hospital was brought under my notice, and the allowance has lately been increased. Some questions were raised at the same time as to the facilities for attending Mass, especially in the case of children; and I believe the requests that were made have been acceded to. We are endeavouring, as far as possible, to act impartially towards the chaplains of different religious creeds.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORstated that a representation was made to the War Office some time ago as to the inadequacy of the allowance made, not to
  1042
  the priest personally, but on account of the fact that the priest was compelled to keep a curate owing to the existence of the hospital in his parish. If it were not for the existence of the hospital in the parish a single priest would be sufficient to perform all the duties; but because the hospital did exist there, the duty was imposed upon the authorities of the Catholic Church of seeing that the Chelsea priest had a curate. He thought it was hard upon the Catholics of London that they should be saddled with the extra expense of providing a curate for a particular parish to do work for which the small remuneration of only £25 a-year was allowed by the State. [Mr. CHILDERS: The allowance has been increased.] That was not all. His main objection to this Vote was that while in London, where the majority of the inmates of the hospital belonged to the Established Church, the Protestant chaplain was allowed £400 a-year, and the chaplain of the minority only £25, in Ireland, in a similar hospital, where the majority of the inmates were Roman Catholics and the minority Protestants, the chaplain of the minority got four times as much as the chaplain of the majority. That was considered in Ireland to be a great grievance. The mere amount of money was not of very much consequence; but it was the feeling of religious ascendency which was involved, and which, until every trace of it was removed, would continue to work like a canker in the minds of the Irish people.
  MR. CHILDERS: The present allowance to the chaplain at the hospital has been £250 per annum, but it is intended to reduce it. The allowance has only been provisional. The question of appointing chaplains to attend small numbers of men where a regular military chaplain is not necessary has always been one of considerable difficulty. This very day, it so happened that I had before me the question of chaplains in the Mauritius, where very few men required the attendance of clergymen, and I have been careful not to disturb vested interests, which happen here to be Roman Catholic. The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that the whole matter will be fully and fairly considered.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was sure the right hon. Gentleman was the last man in that House to allow his own religious views to affect the distri-

  1043
  bution of the allowances of the State. He hoped, when the opportunity served, that the right hon. Gentleman would revise the present scale of allowances and render them more equitable. It was manifestly unjust that a Protestant chaplain should receive a larger rate of remuneration than a Roman Catholic chaplain, when the latter was attending to the spiritual wants of a much larger number of persons.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that where allowances were made to ministers, not regular Army chaplains, the rates were the same for all denominations.
  Vote agreed to.
  (11.) £1,386,500, Out-Pensions.
  (12.) £202,200, Army Superannuation Allowances.
  (13.) £37,400, Militia, Yeomanry Cavalry, and Volunteer Corps.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, the people of Ireland considered it very unreasonable that a sum of money should be annually voted for a Volunteer corps in England and none in Ireland. Some hon. Members were decidedly of opinion that there ought to be a Volunteer force in Ireland. At the same time, in the absence of such a force, it was a substantial injustice that the Irish people should be called on to bear a large proportion of the taxation for Volunteers. He did not see why a grant of this nature should be given to Volunteers in England when there was no corresponding force existing in Ireland. Then, in regard to the Yeomanry Cavalry, he thought they were all agreed that the money voted for that service was not required. The Yeomanry Cavalry were mostly farmers, who met together once a year for some seven days' drill. They were not soldiers at all, and would never make soldiers. He would, therefore, move the reduction of the Vote, unless he received a satisfactory explanation from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, the Vote was for pensions, not for services rendered by existing officers and men, and he trusted the hon. Member would not move the rejection of any part of it. A farmer, or even a provision merchant, might be a useful member of a Yeomanry corps.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he could only look upon the member of a Yeomanry Cavalry corps as a tailor on horseback. Most of them when out for drill got thrown from their horses. But, as the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out, these persons were not responsible for the weakness of their organization, and therefore he would not divide against the Vote.
  MR. BYRNEwished to ask a question in regard to the Militia in Ireland. He understood that it was owing to the Militia not having been called out—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I must remind the hon. Member that this Vote is simply for pensions for the Militia, and has nothing to do with the organization of that force.
  MR. BIGGARasked if no question could be put in regard to the Militia?
  THE CHAIRMAN: It would not be regular upon this Vote; but if it were only a simple question, not likely to lead to discussion, perhaps the Committee would allow it to be put.
  MR. BYRNEsaid, he was desirous of asking the question, because the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had hitherto been so courteous in giving information, and it might prevent the question being asked at another period. The Militia in Ireland had not been called out this year, and the consequence had been that a number of gentlemen had been deprived of the opportunity of serving for a sufficient period to qualify themselves for becoming officers of the Line. He wished to know whether any steps would be taken to place them in the same position they would have occupied if the Militia in Ireland had been called out this year, and whether provision would be made that they would not suffer?
  MR. CHILDERS: I have done my best to meet the case referred to by the hon. Member. In some instances the officers have been excused from undergoing the full period of training, and in other instances they have been allowed to train with other regiments, so that practically we have met the case.
  Vote agreed to.
  MR. CHILDERS: I propose now to take two items in the Supplementary Vote which I explained last night, and which has reference to the expenditure in South Africa to the end of the year.
  (14.) £1,100,000, Army (Indian Home Charges).
  (15.) £30,000, Supplementary Estimate, Pay, Allowances, &c.
  (16.) £290,000, Supplementary Estimate, Provisions, &c.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked whether this was a liberal Estimate, and would cover the whole of the expenditure to the close of the year? He also wished to know what number of troops it was proposed to withdraw from South Africa on the 1st of November, or about that time?
  MR. CHILDERS: The Estimate is framed—I do not know whether "liberally "is the right word—on such accurate information as the Department can obtain; but, of course, these things are often merely conjectural. I am not quite sure that I can state at present the number of troops that will come home.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he did not propose to move the reduction of the Vote, or to oppose it in any way; but this was the last opportunity he would have this Session of protesting against the manner in which Vote 10 of the Army Estimates had been passed this year—absolutely without any discussion at all upon the merits of the items which went to make it up. It was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War at 10 minutes past 1 o'clock in the morning in an attenuated House, when not more than five Members were conscious that it involved the voting of millions of money. He had strongly protested, in general terms, against the propriety of introducing such a Vote on such a miscellaneous collection of subjects at such an hour and in such a state of the House. The money was at last voted, but without anything in the nature of criticism of the component parts of the Vote. The services which the Vote covered were never properly canvassed this year any more than they had been in previous years. He mentioned the matter only for the purpose of entering a further protest against the system upon which the Estimates were voted.
  MR. CHILDERS: I regret that there was not a full discussion; but the circumstances of the present year have been such that I hope some allowance will be made.
  Vote agreed to

  CIVIL SERVICES.

    CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
    (17.) £36,281, to complete the sum for Law Charges.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that before the Vote was passed he wished to put a question, but he did not see anybody present to whom he could put it. The noble Lord the Financial Secretary was an efficient and exemplary public officer; but it would be scarcely fair to question him upon a purely Legal Vote. He would, however, ask the noble Lord one or two questions. First of all, in regard to the Note on page 173, in regard to the alteration of the system of accounting for the expenditure. He wanted to know if the noble Lord could explain why the regular practice had in this case been departed from? The second question was, why the allowance of the War Office Agent at Malta of £75 had been considerably increased; whether the increase had anything to do with the purchase of land at Malta; and, if so, whether he had been officially concerned in a question of the purchase of land at Malta, which for two years or more had kept a number of persons very busily engaged in an extensive correspondence, and whose want of business habits was brought more than once before the Public Accounts Committee? The first question came under sub-head J, in connection with the revision of the Statute Law, and as the consolidation of the statutes had been undertaken, he would like to know from the noble Lord what was the state of the work. The allowance for that purpose had, he perceived, been increased from £150 to £250. If he were not mistaken, he was under the impression that the work was to have been completed before the present date, and for a less sum than had been already voted.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the first question related to the expenditure for criminal prosecutions and quasi- criminal proceedings. It was now the practice to give the net charge in criminal cases, and it had been found desirable to apply the same rule to legal proceedings other than criminal. With regard to Malta, he did not know whether the item referred to had any connection with the purchase of land in that island; but he would ascertain before

    1047
    bringing up the Report. He believed that the Statute Law Commissioners were doing useful work. Every year a Bill was brought in for the repeal of obsolete statutes. There was one on the Paper now, which he hoped hon. Members would allow to become law during the present Session. Thanks to the labours of the Commission, it was hoped before long that we should have all our statutes in an accessible form. The work was proceeding rapidly, and there could be no doubt that it was being done most usefully.
    MR. WARTONsaid, they all knew that the work of revising the statutes had been going on for several years, and he would not say that what had been done had not been done fairly. But the Bills that were introduced in successive years were really Bills to enable the rules of Court to override the rules that already existed in the Statute Law.
    MR. BIGGARasked for an explanation of a material increase in one of the salaries mentioned on page 175. The increase appeared to be from £100 to £260 per annum.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the hon. Member would see in the Votes for the Legal Departments many similar instances. They arose from the fact that these various Legal Departments had undergone extensive reorganization, and the salaries had been put upon a more satisfactory footing. It had been thought right to introduce a new scale of salaries altogether.
    Vote agreed to.
    (18.) £2,021, to complete the sum for the Public Prosecutor's Office.
    MR. BYRNEasked for an explanation in regard to the item for a Messenger on page 176. This year the sum appeared to be £75; but last year it was £450. Was that a saving? Was the salary really reduced to £75?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the office was newly established last year. The allowance of £450 was found to be more than was necessary, and therefore it had been reduced.
    MR. WARTONdesired to call the attention of the Committee to the broader topic of the appointment of a Public Prosecutor. He wished to know whether the Government really did believe in a Public Prosecutor or not; be-
    1048
    cause, if they did believe in him, why did they not carry out the Act of 1879, which required that six assistants should be appointed to assist the Public Prosecutor? If, on the other hand, they did not believe in a Public Prosecutor, why not abolish the office at once? The present Public Prosecutor had one assistant instead of six; but owing to the inaction of the Government, and the difficulty they experienced in making up their minds, he had nothing to do. But for the personal weight and influence of the late Recorder of London, Mr. Russell Gurney, and the feeling of respect entertained for him, no Public Prosecutor would ever have been appointed, and up to the present time the Public Prosecutor had, practically, done nothing. He had nothing to say against the gentleman who held that office, personally. He was known to be a very able man indeed; but he wanted to know from the Government if it was intended to continue the office, and, if so, when they intended to give real and thorough effect to it? At present, there were a number of Societies which took upon themselves the duty of instituting prosecutions—a most improper principle, and one which he strongly doubted ought to be allowed to exist. They owed their existence to the absence of a Public Prosecutor; and now that there was a Public Prosecutor, they still existed, and were flourishing, while the office of Public Prosecutor was in practical abeyance. He asked the Government if they intended to continue the office to make it a reality, and not a sham.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, his hon. and learned Friend was under a misapprehension in regard to one fact, and that was in supposing that the staff of the office was less than it was intended to be when the Act of 1879 was passed. The Act of 1879 was passed at the instance of the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross), and the staff which now existed was the staff appointed by the right hon. Gentleman, which he considered, at the outset, to be sufficient, and which he appointed in that belief. Therefore, if anyone was to blame for there not being a larger staff, it was the right hon. Gentleman who dealt with the matter when the office was created, and whose Bill it was that created it. He (the Solicitor

    1049
    General) was prepared to say at once that he did not consider that this office of Public Prosecutor was in a satisfactory condition. He did not think it did all the good it might do, although it could not be denied that it had done some good. He would at once say that he thought it not only needed looking into and being thoroughly investigated in order to render it efficient, but, he might add, that it was the intention of the Government to make such an investigation. The matter had not escaped notice, and was seriously engaging the attention of the Government. As regarded the appointment of a Public Prosecutor, it was a matter upon which considerable difference of opinion had existed, and there were many people who considered that it was desirable to have a person filling that office who, nevertheless, did not believe that it was desirable that the whole of the prosecutions of the country should be taken from the hands in which they now were, and be turned over to a single department which should have entire control over the whole of them. That was a scheme which had often been advocated; but it was a scheme which would lead to very great expense without largely increasing the efficiency of the work. It was found impracticable to deal with the large number of persons who had a vested interest in opposing such a scheme, and he was not prepared to say that it would be of very much use if it were carried out. But it was found, under the old system of prosecutions, that in many cases which were brought into Court, there was a grievous failure of justice, because it was the business of no one to see that the prosecution was instituted, or, when instituted, that it was fully carried out. Many cases were dropped or compromised, and it was to remedy that evil that the Act of 1879 was passed, and the office of; Public Prosecutor created. It was to provide that prosecutions should be proceeded with, and not compromised. In that respect, he believed the creation of the office had unquestionably been of some use. He admitted that it had not been of as much use as was originally anticipated; but he believed that it might be rendered still more useful, and it would be the endeavour of the Government to see that it was made fully effective. It was essential that some officer
    1050
    of the kind should exist, whose duty it should be to see that offences did not go unpunished, and who should insist, as the Public Prosecutor had insisted, on a prosecution going on where it would otherwise have been abandoned by persons who cared only for their own interests, and who would willingly have dropped it for the sake of gain to themselves. He did not believe that the office had been as efficient as it might have been, or that it had done all the work that might have been expected from it; but he could assure the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) that the matter would not escape the attention of the Government.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. BROADHURSTasked for a Return showing the number of prosecutions conducted by the office of Public Prosecutor. The office had been in existence for two years; and, so far as he was aware, no information whatever had been given as to the work performed there. If the office was to be retained, he thought it was not too much to ask for the Return he had alluded to.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he was exceedingly obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) and the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) for raising this question. There was a Public Prosecutor, but no public prosecutions; in other words, they were paying £4,000 and getting nothing for it. He did not wish to say that the office was a sinecure; but it was something very much like it. The Solicitor General having expressed great dissatisfaction at the present state of affairs, he trusted he would follow the matter up and institute a thorough reform.
    MR. WARTONthought that the statement of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, as indicating the intention, of the Government, was, to a great extent, satisfactory; but it did not in one respect quite meet the objection he had raised. He had pointed out that there was only one assistant at the office at the time it was started; and that, although two years had elapsed, there was no increase in this respect. That was one of those little things which showed how matters were going on. Hon. Members

    1051
    would see that the expenses this year had dwindled to one-third of the former amount, which was quite enough to show that the office itself was dwindling away. He thanked the hon. Member for Stoke for his very practical suggestion that a Return should be given of the number of prosecutions.
    MR. COURTNEYwished to point out that, after all, something more had been done in the office than hon. Members supposed. Since it came into operation in January, 1879, to Midsummer last year, 436 cases had passed through it, and the number of prosecutions had been 101; while from Midsummer, 1880, to Midsummer, 1881, the Public Prosecutor was authorized to prosecute in 267 cases. Besides that, advice had been given in 464 cases. This showed a very considerable increase of work over the previous year. Of course, the charge brought by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport required his attention; but the answer was that so far the working of the office had been experimental, and assistants had only been appointed sufficient for the work required to be done.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, it was quite a matter of chance whether the Public Prosecutor would take any notice of cases laid before him, or rather, when he had examined into them, whether he would institute a prosecution. Considering the number of serious offences which were committed in England, it seemed very strange that so small a number of cases passed through the office. Of course, he did not know to what extent the office of Public Prosecutor was desirable; but it seemed to him that there must be some person, or class of persons, whose interest it was to do away with the office. He thought that the Law Officers of the Crown, with whom the matter appeared to rest rather than the Home Department, should give the office a fair chance. As it was, according to the Estimates, the whole thing had proved to be a fallacy.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was glad that the Solicitor General had expressed the feelings which he himself entertained with respect to this office. He did not wish to cast blame upon anyone; on the contrary, he was sure the Public Prosecutor had done his utmost in the cause of justice. But he felt the Government
    1052
    were under responsibility in this matter, and was quite sure that if his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary were present he would join in saying that it was their duty to endeavour to obtain a more certain administration of criminal justice in the country than they had at the present time; and he could assure the Committee that everything that lay in his power should be done to attain that end.
    Vote agreed to.
    (19.) £116,022, to complete the sum for Criminal Prosecutions.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, before this Vote was put to the Committee, he should like to have some explanation as to the position of the Clerks of Assize. He understood that this office was to be gradually discontinued, and he believed it would be generally recognized that the duties might be performed by other officials. There was a Clerk of Assize, a Clerk of Indictments, and an Associate; and, according to his experience, all those offices were not necessary for the purpose of Circuit work. He remembered raising the question some years ago as to the discontinuance of the office of Clerks of Assize, when there was a general agreement with his opinion that these officers were ornamental rather than useful; and it was then understood that, as the offices became vacant, they should not again be filled up. Under these circumstances, he should like to know whether that understanding would be carried out, and what was the present position of the officers in question?
    MR. WARTONasked whether, seeing that the Home Circuit had been altered, one Associate was not quite sufficient to do what was really one's work?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHpointed out that in 1868 a Committee had been appointed to consider the duties and salaries of the officers referred to by hon. Members opposite, and they had recommended that, as vacancies occurred, the salaries should be re-considered, and, if possible, reduced. In accordance with that recommendation, many new arrangements had been made.
    MR. WARTONsaid, the noble Lord had advanced a good general argument; but it did not meet the point of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory). With regard to the question he himself

    1053
    had raised, he had pointed out that as there was practically but one Circuit, two sets of officers were no longer necessary, and his object was to ascertain whether it was contemplated that there should be but one officer when either of the offices became vacant?
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he wished to explain that his question related rather to the continuance of the offices than to the amount of salaries. Was it necessary to continue them, having regard to the requirements of the Circuit, or was it intended to consolidate them and put the work into the hands of one person?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, the subject had been carefully inquired into by a Committee appointed by the late Lord Chancellor, presided over by the Master of the Rolls, and of which Lord Justice Lush, Mr. Pemberton, himself, and other gentlemen were members. His own idea had been that the work might be done at considerably less expense than it was at the time, and many other members of the Committee took the same view. But the result of the investigation had been to satisfy the Committee that it was not possible to effect much saving, having regard to the number of Courts sitting at the same time, each of which required the attendance of an officer. He believed that the Report of the Committee had suggested all that could usefully be done; but the subject was one which he had no doubt would receive full consideration.
    MR. GOURLEYthought that the question ought to be considered as to whether the office of Sheriff should not be abolished. He should be glad to know the meaning of the charge for Extraordinary Expenditure in furtherance of Justice which appeared in the Vote?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the item referred to by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) provided not only for lodging the Judges, but for fitting up the Court, summoning jurymen, and other matters. He believed that the suggestion, of the hon. Member would result in a considerably increased charge.
    MR. WARTONbegged to remind the Solicitor General that his question with regard to the necessity of retaining a double set of officers to do the work of one had not been replied to,
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he was not aware that it was intended to make a change of the kind indicated by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport. When, however, the offices became vacant, he had no doubt that the question would be fully considered.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not regard the answer of the noble Lord as very satisfactory. He should not ask the Committee to divide against the Vote; but to his mind four clerks engaged upon one Circuit were rather too many, and it seemed strange that in some way or other the superfluous officers could not be dispensed with. The same remarks applied to the office of Judge's Registrar in Ireland. The Registrar ship was in the patronage of the Judge for the time being, who appointed some friend or relation of his own, and this person, it might be said, did literally nothing. The office was a perfect sinecure, inasmuch as the Judge himself took notes of the proceedings, and the Registrar, during the whole time the Court was engaged, did not require to put pen to paper. But why a Judge should require two gentlemen on Circuit to assist in doing nothing really passed his comprehension.
    Vote agreed, to.
    (20.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £97,115, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, of the Court of Appeal, and of the Supreme Court of Judicature (exclusive of the Central Office), as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he must confess that he always looked upon this Vote with a certain amount of partiality, because he had last year made a representation to the effect that a charge of £1,500, now struck out of the Estimates, could not be needed, inasmuch as the officer for whom it was asked did not exist. The Government admitted the non-existence of the officer in question, but it took 25 minutes to convince them that it was unnecessary to take the £1,500. He succeeded in getting the amount struck out, and he was afterwards told by an old Member

    1055
    of the House that he had never before known a case in which the Government had submitted to the reduction of a Vote. For that reason he had a partiality towards the Vote before the Committee. On the present occasion he had to bring forward an important representation made by an officer specially appointed by the House to report upon these Estimates, with regard to a particular officer of the Court of Chancery. The Comptroller and Auditor General, in his Report upon the Accounts presented by the Paymaster General of the Court of Chancery, recently placed in the hands of hon. Members, drew attention to certain points of great consequence, and which, although they would take a few minutes to go through, he believed the Committee would agree ought not to be passed over without comment. He said in a letter addressed to the office of the Court of Chancery—
    "(7.) My attention has been called to a practice which appears to me to be unsatisfactory and to involve some risk of misapplication of dividends. It not unfrequently happens that when an Order directs the transfer into Court of railway or other stock or shares, and when a certificate is given by a Secretary of a Company that the securities in question have been transferred to the account of the Paymaster General on certain days (which certificate is attached to the Paymaster's directions and sent to this Department as a voucher for the transaction), they nevertheless do not appear as brought to credit in the Paymaster's accounts until some months afterwards. In one case during the past year, five months elapsed between the date of the certificate and the date on which the security was brought to credit. I have thought it right to ask for some explanation of these delays, and also to inquire in the case specially adverted to, whether any dividend accrued in the interval, and whether, in that event, the amount should not have been paid into Court. The Chancery Paymaster has, however, stated in reply that the securities had been brought to account as soon as practicable after the receipt of the evidence of the completion of the transfers, and that he did not consider it any part of his duty to inquire into the matter of the dividends."
    The Committee would see from this that there were sums of money accruing as dividends on property, which the Chancery Paymaster chose to allow to go into some unknown regions, and which the owners had little chance of recovering.
    "(8.) A question has arisen as to the obligation of the Paymaster under the General Order in Lunacy of the 7th November, 1853. The Order directs, in Section 16, that when money has been paid into Court and invested pursuant to the Master's certificates, the dividends in such
    1056
    investments shall, failing other direction, 'be laid out by the Accountant General (Paymaster) in like manner without any request for the purpose.' It is held by the Paymaster that if an order is made dealing with a portion of the securities, the obligation of investing dividends does not remain when the request from the Solicitor ceases. I think it my duty to point out that the probable result of this interpretation of the rules will be the accumulation of cash upon the accounts of lunatic suitors. As an instance in point, I may mention a case in which a balance of £896 17 s. 7d. had accumulated on one account before the investment took place in August 1879."
    Hon. Members, he thought, would not allow their own private affairs to be conducted in this way. The Comptroller and Auditor General proceeded—
    "(9.) It was discovered in the course of examination that a sum of £415 had been invested under the authority of an old order, while a later order had directed its distribution among five claimants. The mistake was admitted and the stock sold; but as the price of Consols had risen in the interval, there was a profit of £21 2s. 1d. on the transaction; and the question was raised by this Department in what manner this profit should be disposed of. The Lords of the Treasury decided that the sum of £21 2s. 1d. should be transferred to the Exchequer."
    He should like the noble Lord to give some explanation of the grounds on which the interest on funds lying in the Court of Chancery in this way were transferred to the Public Exchequer. Then there was another case detailed in the Report, which continued as follows:—
    "(10.) A Report of Master Barlow, confirmed by flat on the 21st August, 1876,acopy of which was sent to this Department, was found to contain a direction for the transfer into Court to the account of a person of unsound mind of £322 9s. 1d. New Three Per Cent Annuities, and also for the payment into Court by the Bank of England to the sum credit of any dividends which might accrue on such Annuities previously to the transfer thereof. The stock in question was not transferred into Court until the 16th November, 1876, and consequently a dividend accrued in the interval; but as no such dividend was paid into Court, a letter was addressed to the Bank of England, making inquiry upon the subject."
    The Comptroller and Auditor General concluded by saying—
    "(12.) I regret to say that the representations which I have repeatedly addressed to the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury upon the incompleteness of the audit and the inadequacy of my staff for the work which is now undertaken, and which is constantly falling still more into arrear, have not yet elicited any response; and I have accordingly addressed a further communication to their Lordships, a copy of which will be found in the Appendix."

    1057
    The Committee would see what good reason the Comptroller and Auditor General had for complaining of the treatment he received from the Commissioners of the Treasury when it was stated that this letter was dated 31st December, 1880, and that the letters he had addressed to the Treasury on the 12th January and 7th of December, 1879—more than a year before—were yet unanswered. The letter referred to contained the following passage:—
    "I am to add that while it is far from the desire of the Comptroller and Auditor General unduly to press the matter upon the consideration of their Lordships, he would submit that without an adequate staff to overtake the requisite duties, he cannot be held responsible for the possible consequences which might result from the insufficient supervision of pecuniary transactions of such exceptional magnitude."
    These were the first points he had to submit to the consideration of the noble Lord, and the next charge which struck him in this Vote was, on page 83, under the head of Master of the Rolls Office, for Preacher at the Rolls Church £180, and Preacher at the Rolls Chapel £45. He was quite unable to understand the necessity for continuing two such items as these, and if any grounds for their continuance did exist, he had not been able to ascertain them. Therefore, he would be glad if the noble Lord would state what was the reason for the continuance of these charges upon the Estimates. There was also a subject upon which he should be glad to hear some explanation from the Attorney General. Some years ago, when that hon. and learned Gentleman was in Opposition, he attacked this Vote, and moved its reduction by the sum charged for the Official Referees. Last year, having taken Office, he spoke in favour of retaining this item, which, when in Opposition, he most strenuously opposed; and on that occasion, although he advanced some rather weak arguments, they were sufficient for the time being. He said that the Official Referees had had a great increase of work thrown upon them; that complaints were not so strong as they had been, and that the work had been much better done. But a short time ago, when he (Mr. O'Connor) was at the office of a gentleman in Gray's Inn, the question of the Referees became the subject of conversation; and it was stated that the position of the Referees was simply indefensible; that they had
    1058
    nothing like an adequate amount of work to do for the money paid to them; that the suitors did not get satisfaction; that they did not go before the Referees willingly, and that when they did the almost invariable result was that the Official Referees, after hearing both sides of the case, proposed a compromise. These were the three points he wished to submit to the Government, and upon which he should be glad to receive some satisfactory explanation.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he was perfectly sure the present Master of the Rolls did not require the services of a Preacher at the Rolls Chapel, and the charge under this head appeared altogether superfluous. He requested the Committee to compare the cost of the retinue of the Master of the Rolls with that of the Chancery Judges. The former had two Secretaries at £600 and £1,000 a-year respectively, a Gentleman of the Chamber at £400 a-year, and, besides other officials, a Train Bearer at £200, and a Clerk of the Chamber at £400 a-year; the whole charge being for the Master of the Rolls' establishment about £3,000 a-year, as against £3,700, the charge for the six Chancery Judges. He trusted the noble Lord would explain the necessity for retaining this excessive charge in the case of the Master of the Rolls.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the salary of the Secretary to the Master of the Rolls was formerly £1,200; but it had since been reduced, and at the next vacancy it would be fixed at £500. The Secretary of Causes attended in Court every morning and took the directions of the Master of the Rolls, his chief work being to read petitions, which numbered about 4,000 in the course of the year. He believed that one Departmental Commission had recommended the abolition of this office; but another Commission had subsequently recommended its continuance for some time longer. When, however, a vacancy occurred the subject would, no doubt, receive further consideration. With respect to the Preacher at the Rolls Chapel, this gentleman performed Divine Service every Sunday, and his salary was one over which the Treasury had no control, inasmuch as it was fixed by Act of Parliament—Sec. 4, 3 Vict. c. 46. Although the present Master of the Rolls did not attend the chapel, he

    1059
    presumed that Divine Service was necessary there for the benefit of others. The hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had called attention to a point in connection with the office of Paymaster General of the Court of Chancery, giving details upon which he would not enter. The hon. Member asked why the Treasury had paid into the Exchequer the profit on a certain transfer of stock. He presumed that the answer was that, inasmuch as it would not have been thought right to charge the suit with interest had a loss resulted from a fall in the funds, there was no reason why he should be credited with profit which resulted from a mistake of an unfortunate character. With regard to the Comptroller and Auditor General, the question was not at all free from difficulty; but he was happy to say that a Committee would shortly be appointed to consider the duties of that officer and the number of clerks required.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, that, having regard to the needs of the district in which the Rolls Chapel was situated, he was very glad to see that there was a preacher there.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he had not been originally favourable to the institution of the office of Official Referees and the appointments made. But he had since found that the duties of the office, which were more onerous than he at first supposed, were, on the whole, satisfactorily performed. There was this great advantage in connection with the office—that the Official Referees could go down to any place and investigate cases on the spot. For instance, they could inspect works which were the subject of a contract, see how things were going on, and form their own conclusions. With regard to the office of Paymaster of the Court of Chancery, he would wish to remind the Committee of the immense amount of work that was in hand; and looking at the complicated nature of the accounts, the orders that had to be worked out, and other things, it was a matter of surprise to him that more mistakes did not occur in that office. Those and several other matters required some attention.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)thought the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was entitled to some sym-
    1060
    pathy, for he himself, when the Referees were appointed, took exception to the appointment, especially of one of them, for he thought a Referee should not be appointed who had not shown his fitness for the office. But after the lapse of five years, he had now nothing unfavourable to say as to that gentleman. He had nothing but favourable criticism to offer, for that gentleman had performed his duties with satisfaction, and with benefit to, the public service. Subsequently to that, there was an extension of the duties thrown upon the Referees. For a time there was some doubt as to the desirability of submitting cases to the judgment of the Referees; but now, instead of few cases being submitted to them, there were very many, and their time was fully occupied.
    MR. HOPWOODthought it would be in the memory of some hon. Members that when the Official Referees were appointed, and for some time afterwards, there was an item for travelling expenses, and that in favour of the appointments it was argued that the Referees would be ambulatory, and so could decide questions at a much less cost to the parties. It was intended that the expenses should be paid from the public funds and not by the individuals; but he did not see this item in the Estimates, and he knew that the law was being disregarded in that respect. It seemed as if the Treasury were determined to override the Act of Parliament; and at present, when the Referees had to go from London, they had to apply to the parties for security for their travelling expenses.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)observed that the suitor, of course, must in one sense bear the expenses of a travelling Referee if he took the Referee a long distance from London; but, of course, the Treasury must allow some of the expenses.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, that the complaint of the Referees was that they were obliged to enter into cash transactions with the parties, instead of receiving an advance from the Treasury.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he thought the Referees were placed in a humiliating position.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he wished to draw attention to the case of the Registrars in the Courts of Chancery. He should be obliged to divide the Committee upon this item unless he re-

    1061
    ceived a satisfactory explanation. The Registrars were simply officers of the Courts to carry out the decrees of the Judges, and did not partake in a judicial character at all. The Chief Clerks of the Master of the Rolls and the Vice Chancellors discharged most important judicial duties, by which large sums of money were sometimes disposed of. A County Court Judge's maximum salary was £1,500, and that of the Chief Clerks of the Master of the Rolls and the Vice Chancellors was also £1,500; but the first of these gentlemen, who discharged the duties of Registrars, received £2,000; three received £1,800; four received £1,500; and four others received £1,250. Then there were two clerks at £800, four at £600, five at £400, four at £300, together with 12 assistant clerks, and two clerks of entry, making altogether 42 clerks to carry out the decisions of six Courts—four Vice Chancellors' Courts, the Rolls Court, and the Court of Appeal. It might surely be supposed that that staff was sufficient to deal with the most extensive operations of the Court; but, beyond these, there was a charge of £3,100 for copying, the 42 clerks being unable to do any copying at all. There was no Department which cost so much as this in proportion to the work done; and unless the Government could give some explanation of this, he should be obliged to take the sense of the Committee upon it.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, that, having had long experience of the work of the Courts of Chancery, he could not agree with the hon. Member. The efficiency of those Courts largely depended on the Registrars, and he thought the hon. Member had altogether under-estimated their duties. They had to sit in Court, take notes of each judgment and of the order to be drawn up in consequence of the judgment, and to work out the details of the judgment, which was necessarily pronounced in short and concise terms. Then they had to advise the Judges on all points of practice, and were always ready with references upon any point that might arise. On leaving the Courts they had to draw up the decrees, which sometimes extended to 200 or 300 folios, and involved the most minute directions as to taking accounts, ascertaining the liabilities and charges on estates, administration of the estates, and realization of the assets in order to meet
    1062
    the charges upon them. In addition to those duties they had to see that the orders were in accordance with the pleadings; and all these were a heavy responsibility, requiring great vigilance and knowledge of the practice of the Court. These gentlemen had been trained to this work, and they must be paid for such duties; and unless the Courts were furnished with such officers the administration of the Court would be very different from what it now was.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, these appointments were the richest mine the Courts of Chancery possessed, and it was always considered desirable to put young men into them early, because they were sure to get to the top of the tree if they lived long enough. But the work of these officials could not be compared with that of the County Court Judges or the Chief Clerks in Chancery, and it could not be argued that they were paying ability according to its merits. The reckless profusion of emoluments went down from them to the care-taker and cleaner, who received £250 a-year, and there was also an item of £3 for washing towels. This was a matter that ought to be seriously considered.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)explained that although the sum paid was large, it had been settled by statute, and assured the Committee that the duties of the Registrars were most onerous and responsible duties. It was necessary to have men in that position in whom there was perfect confidence. If the same duties were performed by private agency the cost would probably be greater; and he did not think any further legislation on this matter was necessary.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he must protest against the notion that the Registrars discharged duties of equal importance to those of the Chief Clerks. As a matter of fact, important decrees in the Court of Chancery were settled by the counsel, and the duty of the Registrar was mainly mechanical. He did not deny that the Registrars were men of great ability, and that men of great ability ought to be employed for this work; but if £1,500 was a sufficient salary for a County Court Judge or a Chief Clerk, it was enough for a Registrar; and as the Government had defended this Vote he should take the opinion of the Committee upon it. He

    1063
    would, however, not do so as to the salaries of the Registrars, as they were fixed by statute; but the country ought not to pay £3,100 for copying in the Registrars' offices, and he should move to reduce the Vote by £2,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £695,115, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, of the Court of Appeal, and of the Supreme Court of Judicature (exclusive of the Central Office), as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."—(Mr. Henry Fowler.)
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he considered the duties of the Registrars as responsible as those of the Chief Clerks in their way; but he thought the Chief Clerks were underpaid.
    MR. HEALYwished to take the opinion of the Committee with regard to the Chaplain of the Rolls Court. He thought it was time to teach the Master of the Rolls that there was no royal road to Paradise, and if he wanted prayers said for him he should pay for them himself. He was opposed to Votes for getting men to Heaven, and should move to reduce the Vote by £250, the salary of the Preacher in the Rolls Chapel.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he hoped the hon. Member (Mr. H. H. Fowler) would not insist on going to a division. There was some profit on the scrivener's work.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided;—Ayes 32; Noes 76: Majority 44.—(Div. List, No. 356.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he would move to reduce the Vote by £225, the salary and expenses of the Chaplain attached to the Rolls Chapel. He had already explained the reasons which induced him to take this step; and if the salaries and expenses of this gentleman were secured to him by an Act of Parliament the sooner it was repealed the better. They could hardly disturb the present chaplain; therefore, if the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) would give an undertaking to bring in a Bill, as soon as the present chaplain's administrations ceased, to abolish the office,
    1064
    he would not press his Motion to a division. As long as these absurd charges for preaching and praying were put in the Votes he should protest against them.
    Motion made, and Question put,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £96,890, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, of the Court of Appeal, and of the Supreme Court of Judicature (exclusive of the Central Office), as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."—(Mr. Healy.)
    The Committee divided—Ayes 23; Noes 90: Majority 67.—(Div. List, No. 357.)
    MR. RYLANDSasked the Secretary to the Treasury for some information as to the charge made for a stockbroker. Did the gentleman who acted in this capacity get any commission?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the stockbroker received the sum mentioned in the Estimates instead of fees. The fees received in his Department amounted to £12,000 odd a-year.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORwas at a loss to know how any charge at all was made for a stockbroker. The duty of this gentleman, as he understood it, was to dispose of stock belonging to suitors in Chancery. If that was so, surely the expense of employing the stockbroker should be paid out of the costs of the cases.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the suitors were charged fees which were paid into the Exchequer, and the stockbroker who did the work received a salary.
    MR. HEALYwished to have some explanation of the item of £330 for the bag-bearer. It seemed to him that the sum was more than enough for a stout colporteur, to say nothing of a mere bag-bearer. There was a sum of £1,820 for bag - bearers, some being called "petty bag-bearers." What were these offices?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, they were very ancient offices. The old names that they still retained did not at all describe the duties of those who held the appointments. The bag-bearers were really clerks.
    Original Question, put, and agreed to.
    (21.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £68,427, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Central Office of the Supreme Court of Judicature; the Salaries and Expenses of the Judges' Clerks and other Officers of the District Registrars of the High Court; the remuneration of the Judges' Marshals; and certain Circuit Expenses."
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he was not going to oppose the Vote; but there was a matter in connection with it on which he wished to make an observation—namely, the matter of expenses of Judges on Circuit. A certain allowance, he believed, was made to Judges of Appeal for expenses; but there was no allowance to the ordinary Judges on account of Circuit expenses. It seemed to him to be a hard and shabby thing to require the Judges on all occasions to pay their own expenses out of the salaries they received. The Judges' salaries were assessed 50 years ago, when money bore a very different value to that which attached to it now, and expenses were much less than at present. The system adopted long ago of making a reduction of £500 per annum in the Judges' salaries on account of Circuit expenses continued up to the present day. The result was that the Judges' salaries, instead of being £5,000 a-year, only amounted to £4,500. They could not expect to get good men to fulfil the functions of Judges in the Courts of First Instance now-a-days unless they paid them adequate salaries. The present system was unworthy of the country; and, in many instances, the best men for the Bench were prevented from accepting a seat upon it in consequence. He did not advocate extravagance in the administration of justice. He had never advocated it; he had always endeavoured to check it; but, in the interests of justice generally, and in the interests of the suitors, it was necessary that there should be strong Judges on the Bench. It could not be expected, however, that they would be obtained as long as they were subjected to this petty deduction. He sincerely hoped that this matter would receive some attention.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, there was an item for Registry of Deeds
    1066
    and Bills for Middlesex, for two Registrars, and Lord Truro, and the Queen' Remembrancer. An hon. and learned Member opposite some time ago had moved for a Return on this subject; and he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had almost expected the hon. and learned Gentleman to say something about it this evening. The Return, which was granted, was a very interesting one. It was for the year 1878–9, and it showed the fees received by the Registrars, the expenses of the office, and the net amount paid to the account of the Queen's Remembrancer. Moreover, it gave the names of the Registrars and the number of days each of them attended at the Registry. It was shown that the fees amounted to some £14,000, £15,000, or £16,000 a-year, and the expenses amounted to £4,000, or £5,000, or £6,000 a-year. There was a balance from year to year of about £10,000. Well, half of this—or £5,000—was paid, as the share of the Queen's Remembrancer, into the public account at Messrs. Hoare's and Co's. Bank; but all the rest went to Lord Truro—namely, £5,000 a-year. When they turned to that part of the Return which showed what it was that Lord Truro did for his £5,000 a-year—when they came to inquire the number of days on which the Registrars attended the Registry—they found that that portion of the inquiry of the hon. and learned Member was dishonoured. There was no answer given to the inquiry. The only thing they gathered was that Lord Truro superintended the office and staff, and attended "whenever his Lordship's services were required." No doubt, his Lordship would come down to the office to sign the Return, and that would be one of the few things he would have to do in the year. The Queen's Remembrancer never attended at all; but then he did not receive any emolument. Lord Truro received his £5,000 a-year for doing nothing. It certainly appeared to him (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) that instead of only half the whole of the £ 10,000 ought to be paid into Messrs. Hoare's and Co's. bank to the public account, or, at any rate, such portion of it as would leave Lord. Truro a fair amount for the trouble and inconvenience he was put to in having occasionally to attend the Registry to sign such a Return as that he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had referred to. He

    1067
    would move that the Vote be reduced by £4,500, which would leave Lord Truro £500 a-year for his work. That would be handsome remuneration.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £63,927 be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Central Office of the Supreme Court of Judicature; the Salaries and Expenses of the Judges' Clerks and other Officers of the District Registrars of the High Court; the remuneration of the Judges' Marshals; and certain Circuit Expenses."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the hon. Member was under a strong misapprehension on this matter. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) proposed to reduce the Vote by a sum which was not an expenditure, but a receipt. It was much to be regretted that the hon. Member was not present when the matter came under discussion early in the Session. The hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood)had brought in a Bill to re-constitute the Office, and that was opposed by the Government for the reason that it was not intended to fill up the appointments again as vacancies occurred. There would be no successor to Lord Truro.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORthought it rather a pity that the time of the Committee should be wasted by the hon. Member (Mr. Courtney), who evidently failed to apprehend what he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) meant. He was as well aware as the hon. Member that the £10,000 was a receipt; but what he complained of was that half of it should be given to Lord Truro for nothing. The Queen's Remembrancer did nothing, and received nothing for it; but Lord Truro did nothing, or next to nothing, and was paid £5,000 a-year for it. It was incumbent on the Committee to refuse to allow Lord Truro to be paid this £5,000 a-year, and it was perfectly competent for them to insist upon its being paid into the Public Exchequer. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members might say "No!" but he, evidently, had a clearer idea of the power of Parliament than they had. The House of Commons would have no difficulty in withholding this money from Lord Truro. He contended that if he moved to reduce the Vote by £4,500, and if Lord Truro was obliged to pay into the Exchequer the amount
    1068
    of the extra receipts, there would be the same sum available.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he thought that the answer of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) did not meet the question raised by the hon. Member for Queen's County, which was perfectly clear.
    MR. HOPWOODpointed out that Lord Truro's interest was guarded by Act of Parliament, and that the Treasury were, in consequence, powerless in the matter. Certain fees were leviable from the owners of property, upon whom the onus of registering a memorial was imposed. There had been originally three Registrars; but endeavours had been made to effect economy in this respect, and when the offices became vacant one had been discontinued, and one of the Masters of the Courts had been appointed to another as trustee to receive the fees on behalf of the Treasury.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, his contention was that Lord Truro had not a right to the £5,000 he was receiving, but only to the share of the fees which he was entitled to when there were four Registrars.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he protested against the charge for Judges' Train Bearers on the ground of economy.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (22.) £57,124, to complete the sum for Probate, &c. Registries of the High Court of Justice.
    (23.) £6,797, to complete the sum for the Admiralty Registry of the High Court of Justice.
    (24.) £8,118, to complete the sum for the Wreck Commission.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he thought that the number of folios paid for to the shorthand writers in this Department ought to be stated.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, it was impossible to ascertain the amount of work until the end of the year.
    Vote agreed to.
    (25.) £19,424, to complete the sum for the London Bankruptcy Court.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORpointed out that whereas the amount of arrears in this Court were steadily increasing,

    1069
    there had been a decrease in the last three years of the number of hours of sitting by the Chief Judge and the Registrars. As this was hardly the way to get rid of arrears of work, he should be glad to receive an explanation on the subject before the money was voted.
    MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, that as he had moved for the Return on which the hon. Member rested his statement, he would point out that the total represented the number of days on which the Registrar sat as representing the Chief Judge. It would be misleading to say that it represented the total number of days on which the Court was engaged.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he did not wish to draw any conclusion from the Return that was not warranted; but he dwelt most strongly on the fact that there had been a steady diminution in the number of days on which the Registrars sat, concurrently with an increase of arrears of work.
    Vote agreed to.
    (26.) £382,936, to complete the sum for the County Courts.
    (27.) £2,442, to complete the sum for the Land Registry.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he was glad to see his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General in his place, because he had something to say with regard to this Vote. The Land Registry, he believed, was established in 1864, and was brought into existence for the purpose of carrying out the views of Lord Cairns and Lord Westbury with regard to the registration of titles. Since then a Committee had sat to inquire into the working of the office. Year by year promises had been made that something should be done to make the Court of use; and he remembered that when the present occupants of the Treasury Bench were in Opposition they made a strong onslaught upon this Vote. If he was not mistaken, the Home Secretary was a very strenuous opponent of the Vote, as he stated distinctly that nothing was done either by the Registrar or the Assistant Registrar. Both of these gentlemen were able and excellent men, and promises had been made that some work should be found for them to do; and he would, therefore, ask whether any arrangement had been made in that direction, and what steps had been taken, if
    1070
    any, to make the Land Registry an efficient Court for the transaction of business?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he agreed with the hon. and gallant Baronet in the observations which he had made. There was no doubt that one of two things ought to be done—either the office should be abolished or rendered effective. He admitted that the state of the office was not satisfactory, while it constituted a charge upon the Revenue which the amount of good done by it did not justify. But the Committee should bear in mind that upon the question of whether it was expedient to abolish this office hon. Members were not agreed. On the contrary, there were some who thought that an extension of the system was desirable. Under the circumstances, he did not think that the Government could deal with the matter until their minds had been made up as to whether the office should be abolished or continued, because hardly anything could be worse than to find, after abolishing it, that a new office must be created, and that the services of those persons who were the most effective instruments in administering it were no longer available. The present Registrar was a gentleman of great professional eminence, and who had resigned a lucrative practice in the Courts to take this office at a considerably less income than he formerly received. And he regretted nothing more than that he should be in the unsatisfactory position of occupying the post without being able to do more service to the public. It had been announced, last year, that the Government intended to deal with this matter without delay; but he thought the Committee would see that there had been exceptional circumstances, during the present Session, which prevented them carrying out their good intentions. The Government, however, were still anxious to see the matter placed upon a satisfactory footing. It would not be lost sight of, and he could assure the Committee that it would be dealt with at the earliest possible moment.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he supposed the Committee would be obliged to accept the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman; but it was a twice-told tale. He had heard it when he sat opposite, and he had heard it again

    1071
    since he sat on that side of the House. Whenever the Vote was criticized, some occupant of the Treasury Bench gave promises, explanations, and justifications; but, notwithstanding these, the money continued to be charged on the public purse. For nearly 20 years the country had been paying for the office, and had expended upon it in that time something like £100,000, getting, in return, scarcely any advantage. He observed that the amount of fees paid during the year ending on the 31st December, 1880, was £818 15 s.; and it was, therefore, clear that the officers, who received large salaries, had little or nothing to do. But he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Chief Clerk of the office, who received £400 a-year for doing nothing, was allowed by the Attorney General to take another appointment in the Land Securities Company (Limited), from which Society he received £100 per annum. It seemed to him that this was not the kind of arrangement by which the office of the Land Registry could be made serviceable, and that it ought no longer to be allowed. For his own part, he should be content to see the whole thing swept away, in order that a start might be made de novo; and in view of the large amount that would have been saved in salaries it was to be regretted that this had not been done before. He was glad to receive the assurance of the Solicitor General that no new appointments were made, and trusted that next year the whole case would be dealt with in a more satisfactory manner than it had been hitherto.
    Vote agreed to.
    (28.) £18,690, to complete the sum for Revising Barristers, England.
    (29.) £8,021, Police Courts, London and Sheerness.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he wished to know whether the Government had not had many urgent representations made to them as to the inconvenience experienced by the public, owing to the fact that the Police Court at Hammersmith closed at 2 o'clock in the afternoon?
    MR. COURTNEYwas understood to say that there were certain suburban courts, where the business was light, which only sat during what were called
    1072
    half-court days, and that Hammersmith was one of them.
    Vote agreed to.
    (30.) £250,402, to complete the sum for Metropolitan Police.
    (31.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £911,298, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for certain Expenses connected with the Police in Counties and Boroughs in England and Wales, and with the Police in Scotland."
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he had seen, from the Local Taxation Returns which had recently been issued to Members, that the town of Southampton had an allowance from Her Majesty's Treasury of £4,841 for police alone. But during the same period the cost of the police in Southampton was only £4,425; so that the allowance obtained from the Treasury towards the pay and clothing of the police of Southampton was actually more than the total cost of the police of the town. It struck him that there was something anomalous about this; but, possibly, the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would be able to explain it.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the statement made by the hon. Gentleman had given him considerable surprise; but he would look into the matter. The allowance made from the Treasury for the county and borough police was founded upon the principle of giving one-half of the pay and allowances, not including other portions of the expenditure for the police. He could not understand the matter mentioned by the hon. Gentleman at present, but he would look into it.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he did not at all wonder at the noble Lord's being surprised, and the document he referred to was the Local Taxation Returns for the year 1878–9, pages 58 and 59, where the facts would be found fully set forth.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHcould only assure the hon. Gentleman that if there had been any over-payment last year it should be rectified next Session.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, there was another point which he should like

    1073
    to mention, and which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had made peculiarly his own—he referred to the superannuation allowances for police. He recollected that the right hon. and learned Gentleman attended a meeting of the police a short time ago, and addressed them; and he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave them to understand in the course of that address that some arrangements had been made which would prove satisfactory with regard to superannuations. Whether those arrangements were to be confined to the Metropolitan Police, or whether they were to be extended to the police throughout the country, he was not very certain; but, unquestionably, the matter was one which excited a very great amount of interest in the Police Force, and a very large amount of sympathy throughout the great body of the people. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would now say something on this point. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had also noticed that this Vote was for the police of the counties and boroughs, not only of England, but of Scotland; and, that being so, this, perhaps, was the proper occasion for bringing under the notice of the House the very serious representations which were made in the 23rd Report of the Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland, with regard to the utter inefficiency of a large portion of the Police Force in that country. In the very first page the right hon. and learned Gentleman would find observations condemning the inefficiency of the police in the burghs of Wick and Banff, and other places. Then, with regard to another question of importance, the pay of the Superintendents of police in Scotland, the Inspector of Constabulary pointed out that while most of the counties and burghs, with some exceptions, paid the men liberally, the salary of the head officer was smaller than it ought to be, considering the onerous duties of his position; and in some places—more often in counties than in burghs—many additional duties had been placed upon the shoulders of the head of the police without any extra remuneration whatever. For instance, the Chief Constable in many counties had been made to undertake the duties of Procurator Fiscal to the Justices, and to perform those duties without salary, the county thus saving considerable ex-
    1074
    pense; and in order to get men willing to perform double duty, the Government grant practically paid half the difference. The local people thus managed to get their local work done at the expense of the Police Vote. There was still another question which was worthy of the attention of the Government, and that was the custom which prevailed in many of the counties, and in some of the burghs of Scotland—a custom which, as the Inspector said, was of a very questionable character—of liberating persons taken up for being drunk and incapable, or drunk and disorderly, when sober. Such persons in the districts he referred to were never taken before a magistrate, but were liberated without bail on the sole responsibility of the constable, and were not called upon to appear anywhere to answer the charge. The Inspector added in his Report that the question whether this practice was legal or not could only be answered by legal authority, though many looked upon it as illegal, and would allow no liberation except on bail, or by going before a magistrate. It would surely be better to legalize some plan whereby the obligation to appear before a magistrate might be suspended, with some provision to enable a prisoner to bring his case before a magistrate should he think himself aggrieved. This was a matter that well deserved the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The last point to which he desired to refer was that the Police Force in Scotland had to go to great trouble and expense in circulating information which it was necessary to have circulated, but which could not be circulated as in this country, for the simple reason that in Scotland there was no Police Gazette. The advantage of the circulation of this information was to the public very great indeed, and it was unfair that the cost of it should fall upon the police.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Some of the points which the hon. Gentleman has referred to ought to fall to my share to reply to. In regard to the question of the superannuation of police, I am entirely conscious of its great and urgent importance; and the statement which I made some weeks ago in addressing the Metropolitan Police would not have been made unless the Government at that time had actually had a Bill prepared upon the subject, which Bill would

    1075
    have been presented to Parliament if the time and season of the Session had permitted. This, I hope, will satisfy the hon. Member that the subject is one which we have not neglected. I do not think it would be advisable now to enter into all the details of that measure, for it is clear that we cannot deal with it this Session; but we shall occupy a part of the Recess in endeavouring to collect the opinion of those persons who are best able to assist us by their advice as to the provisions of the Bill. I will only, therefore, state that the measure embraces, not only the Metropolitan Police, but all the police throughout the country; and I may say that it is generally founded upon the lines of the Select Committee which sat for the purpose of dealing with this subject. Another matter which the hon. Member has referred to has been that in some cases the inefficiency of the local police has been complained of. Now, I wish to state to the Committee my view of the relations in which the Central Government and the Home Office stand to this question. As the hon. Member is aware, the general government of the local police belongs to the local authorities, and I think it is very desirable that that principle should be strictly maintained, and that we should not attempt by centralization to take away the power of the local authorities over their own police. The borough police is even more completely under the authority of their own watch committee than is the county police. The Home Office has more power to interfere with the pay and regulation of the county police than it has under the Municipal Corporations Act to interfere with the borough police, which is really and entirely under the control of the watch committee; and I have found this difficulty arises—that constant complaint is made of any interference on the part of the Government with their police. But, as the Government contribute one-half of the expense, they must have some power of seeing that they get an equivalent for the money spent. But, subject to this principle, I am extremely averse to taking out of the hands of the local authorities their right to deal with their own police. I will not mention the name, but there is one of the largest counties in England concerning which the Inspector made a strong Report as to the inefficiency of the police, and their ob-
    1076
    jection to any alteration. The authorities came before me, and I said—"Well, gentlemen, if you think your police are fit to protect the lives and property of the people in your own county, it is your affair, and I leave you to settle it as you like; but I call your attention to the fact that the Inspector reports your police as inefficient." I think they were satisfied with that answer, and a few weeks afterwards I received a Report that they had increased the strength of their force. I think it much better to deal with these cases in this way than to endeavour to bring them all under a central authority; and I think that if we are to expect local self-government we must be careful, and not assume too much control over what particular counties may consider necessary in regard to pay, &c. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the police in Scotland. Now, I must say that one of the pleasures which I have always found in Scotland is the gratifying absence of police. You never see one in Scotland. At one of the islands of the Outer Hebrides where I have visited—an island of considerable size—I found that the total police force on the island consists of one Inspector and two policemen. The habits there are regular, and everybody gets on extremely well. I do not think there is a doctor in the whole of the island; I believe disease is unknown, and crime is seldom heard of. This shows, then, that we cannot apply a strict rule as a general principle. We cannot do better than trust these local authorities, leaving the communities to look after their own interests, and to maintain what police they require. The other point which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, as to the release of persons charged with drunkenness without bringing any charge against them, or taking them before a magistrate, is a serious one, which deserves consideration, and I can only say that it shall be carefully considered.
    MR. MAGNIACsaid, he was glad the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made this statement, and hoped that before long some legislative measure would be introduced, for among the many questions of local interest which were pressing for consideration this was one of the most important. Another point worthy of consideration, as bearing on the finances of the country, was the unnecessary number and duplication of

    1077
    police staffs in the boroughs and counties of the country, and that might be remedied with very considerable advantage. In many small boroughs there were practically two staffs kept up to a point entirely out of proportion to the numbers of the community. It would be of great advantage for the repression of crime and the maintenance of order if those small boroughs could be amalgamated with the counties for police purposes. It would lead to a great saving of expense, and he hoped the point would be considered.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he wished to remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary that he (Colonel Alexander) had had the first Notice on the Paper to-day for his Resolution in reference to police superannuation, and this was the fourth time that he had procured a favourable position for it upon the Paper this Session. However, in consequence of the great pressure under which the Government had been placed in regard to the taking of Supply, and his unwillingness to interfere with the Government in that work at this late period of the Session, and also on account of the absence, through illness, of his hon. Friend the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), who presided over the Select Committee on Police Superannuation, and who was anxious to take part in any discussion that might be raised upon the subject, he (Colonel Alexander) had postponed his Resolution sine die. He had felt less reluctant to do so, because he had been extremely glad to read the remarks which the Home Secretary had made on a recent occasion in presenting prizes to the members of the Metropolitan Police Force; and now to-night they had obtained from the right hon. and learned Gentleman an undertaking that he would deal not only with the Metropolitan Force, but with all the rest of the police throughout the country. He was not certain whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman meant to include Scotland in his proposed measure; but he might point out that the need there was even greater than it was in England, for in Scotland they had no system of superannuation whatever. As matters stood now, a policeman in Scotland, on attaining the age of 60 years, and then not before being certified as incapable for the discharge of duty,
    1078
    might receive such a sum in gross as, in the circumstances, might to the Commissioners of Supply seem proper. The Select Committee which, in the year 1868, sat in the House of Lords, and was presided over by the Earl of Minto, examined several English witnesses upon the English system, and they reported that it was most desirable to introduce a system of superannuation into Scotland; but that the inquiries they had made of the English witnesses had brought out the fact that the English system was so imperfect that it would be well not to adopt any system at all until a more perfect one had been established in England. It was also shown that in consequence of the total absence of superannuation in Scotland a great number of the police were in the habit of crossing the Border and enlisting in the forces of Cumberland and Westmoreland. The Chief Constable of Westmoreland, who gave evidence before the Select Committee presided over by his hon. Friend the Member for West Essex, stated that he asked the men who came from Dumfriesshire, Wigtonshire, and Ayrshire what was their reason for leaving Scotland in order to join the Westmoreland force, and the answer almost invariably given was because there was no system of superannuation in Scotland. He (Colonel Alexander), therefore, hoped that in the measure which the Home Secretary promised to introduce Scotland would be included.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the promised measure would extend to Scotland as well as to England and Wales; and he hoped it would be found to be drawn upon lines which would leave it free from the disfavour which was shown towards the present system of police superannuation.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORwished to refer to a matter in which he took a deep interest some time ago, and which had reference to the conduct of the Glasgow police in regard to the disturbances that took place in that city. He was himself in Glasgow some time after the disturbances took place, and he saw the wives and relatives of some of the persons who were placed in prison. He took the opportunity of investigating the case as far as he could; and no doubt the Lord Advocate, whom he saw upon the Treasury Bench, was familiar with all the facts of the case. Perhaps he ought

    1079
    to preface his remarks by saying that his friend Mr. Fergusson, of Glasgow, acting in accordance with the precedent set by his fellow-members of the Land League, had made up his mind not to have a procession this year, in order that there should be no reason to keep up bitter memories. There would, he believed, be an open air demonstration, but not a procession of the usual nature; for there was no desire whatever to give any excuse for fresh disturbances. However, what he wanted to call attention to was the fact that there was a strong feeling at the time that these processions had not been treated fairly by the police. The procession which led to the disturbance was attacked by a number of Orangemen, for he was sorry to say that Irishmen easily transferred to a neutral country some of the animosities and bitternesses of their own land; and the police in this instance, instead of understanding the nature of the procession, and that the people who took part in it were simply engaged in the exercise of their Constitutional rights, attacked the processionists, and a disturbance took place. But, whatever the cause of the disturbance, some of the processionists were taken before the magistrates, and, in some cases, were sentenced to six months' imprisonment. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) saw the wife of one of these unfortunate men, and he believed she was in rather a bad way, and would have suffered severely, had it not been for the assistance that was rendered to her. He believed that the impression produced on the minds of the Irishmen was that the fact of their nationality and the fact of their creed exercised some influence against them. He made no charge against anyone; but they certainly did believe that these considerations exercised some influence over the treatment which these men received. The Lord Advocate and the Home Secretary knew as well as he did that between the religious sentiments of the Irish people and the general religious sentiment of the Scotch people there was a strong feeling of antagonism; and it would be most lamentable if the Bench gave any instructions whatever which would tend to spread a feeling of bigotry and intolerance between different classes of the community. He trusted that in future no suspicion of anything of the sort would be allowed to arise.
    MR. BUXTONpointed out that there was an increase this year in the expenditure for the police; and he wished to know how that increase compared with the increases which exhibited a gradual growth in previous years?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) concerning the Glasgow disturbances, said, that in November last he took a great deal of pains to investigate the facts of the case, and had Reports from the magistrates, from the Procurator Fiscal, and from all the persons who were thought likely to be able to throw any light upon the matter. No doubt, it was very unfortunate when two rival creeds, differing in political as well as in religious opinion, came into conflict in this way, and in this case there was a great deal of disorder. The ringleaders and some others were taken up for assaulting the police, and he knew the charge had been made that the magistrates had acted with partiality, and that they were more severe upon the Catholics than they were upon the Protestants. He could only say that he would do all that lay in his power to prevent the exhibition of any partiality on the part of the police, or of anyone else; and he was bound to say that, after a careful investigation of the whole of the facts, he could not find any evidence of partiality established in the present case. In reply to the question put by another hon. Member, as to the increase in the expenditure for police, he might point out that that increase was very nearly in the proportion of 2 per cent, and rested upon the increase in the numbers of police due to the natural growth of population.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not excoeding £245,844, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Superintendence of Convict Establishments, and for the Maintenance of Convicts in Convict Establishments in England and the Colonies."
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he did not intend to raise any question upon any of the items of this Vote; but he wished make an appeal to the Government. This Vote raised a question upon which the Irish Members felt very

    1081
    strongly, and that was the treatment of political prisoners, especially his friend, Mr. Michael Davitt. Upon this question he had the support, not only of his Irish Friends, but of one or two English Representatives; and it had been represented to him that the best course would be to appeal to the Home Secretary. As it was now midnight, he wished to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consent to postpone this Vote, and that would involve no waste of time, because there were other Votes which might be easily disposed of.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, that he was always ready to meet any proposals which facilitated the transaction of Business, and if the proposal of the hon. Member would have that effect, he should be very glad to fall in with it; but he did not exactly understand what it was the hon. Member proposed to postpone.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Vote 24.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTexpressed his willingness to accede to the suggestion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    (32.) £293,759, to complete the sum for Prisons, England.
    MR. RYLANDSreminded the Committee that the Home Secretary's Predecessor had induced the House to support the Prisons Bill, and that, in consequence, the management of the prisons was transferred from the local authorities to the State, with the expectation that there would be a great improvement in the administration and great economy in the expenses of the prisons. He himself had grave doubts at the time as to the wisdom of the course, and did what he could to oppose it; but, in consequence of the representations made by the late Home Secretary, which were, no doubt, made in good faith, the House was induced to assent to the measure, and the prisons were handed over to the central authorities. Amongst other arguments raised by the late Home Secretary was the expectation that, under good management, prison labour would produce £60,000 a-year. But in the Estimate now before the Committee there was no Return for prison labour, and experience had proved that the late Home Secretary was entirely misled in his anticipations on this point. The
    1082
    Prisons Commissioners, in their Report, stated that the Estimates of the produce of prison labour for 1878–9 and 1879–80 were worthless; and it was, in consequence, thought better not to make any Estimate for 1880–1. He had never anticipated that, under the management of the central authority, any advantage would be gained with respect to prison labour, or that the prisons would be more profitably employed than when under local authority. The average cost, under the old system, of Crown prisoners was £27 per head; but the new Prisons Act having been in operation for two years that average had only been reduced to £23 per head. That average was considerably higher than the average cost of prisons in Lancashire during the last year of local management. The average there was £17 per head. He was satisfied that the experience of the Act had not shown any very great advantage, and he regretted more and more every day that the Act should have been passed interfering with the local administration of prisons; but as the prisons were now under the control of the State, every effort should be made to reduce the cost of the prisons, and he would call attention to these facts with that object.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he had also opposed the Prisons Bill; but as it was now an Act of Parliament, the Committee had now the present state of things to deal with only. He wished at once to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the courtesy and consideration he had shown to the Visiting Justices, and the wish he had expressed to support them in their anxious endeavours to discharge to the best of their ability the important duties that had been intrusted to them. He would not enter into the question of cost, because he thought it was hardly fair when things were in a transition state, to make any comparison; but he had always contended that it would be difficult for the Government to manage the prisons at a less cost than the local authorities. There were two points of a totally different character which he desired to mention, and which were of great importance to the ratepayers. The first was as to the conveyance of prisoners to prisons before trial. A test case, which was decided in favour

    1083
    of the county of Surrey, had been appealed against by the Government. He hoped the decision would not be set aside by the High Court, for this was one of those questions which would help local taxation, and in the interests of all the country it was important that the prisoners should be conveyed at the public expense. He hoped that, whatever might happen, the Home Secretary would take that into consideration, in order that the localities might be relieved of that item of expense. The next question was that of criminal lunatics. The Committee upon that subject had not yet reported; but he hoped that criminal lunatics would in future be confined in State prisons, and not sent to the county asylums. Such persons ought to be maintained by the State, and he hoped the Home Secretary would see his way to effect that.
    MR. MAGNIACsaid; he must also complain of the hardship of throwing the maintenance of criminal lunatics upon the ratepayers. That practice should be done away with, whatever the Committee might report. With regard to the conveyance of prisoners, the spirit of the Bill which the Committee were considering certainly was that the cost should be borne by the country. These were not contentious matters, and he hoped the Bill would pass through the House as a matter of course; and, at all events, the counties had a right to expect the Government to pay some attention to these matters during the next Session. The expectations held out by the late Home Secretary respecting economy had not been realized; but how far the Act had failed in that respect it was impossible to say, because the gentlemen appointed to examine the accounts of the prisons had given up the task as hopeless owing to the way in which the accounts were kept. No attempt was made to value prison labour on any intelligent principle, and it was most important that this should not be allowed to continue any longer.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: With reference to the cost of the prisons, that is a very difficult and complicated matter. I desired to have as careful a comparison between the former and present state of things as could be got; but the old system was carried on upon such a totally different system of accounts from any we now have in operation that we cannot
    1084
    compare like with like, and I do not think that with the greatest care and trouble it is possible to state exactly what is the difference in cost between the one state of things and the other. I have a table here which gives a general result, and I have the total cost for all the local prisons under the old system. From 1871 to the time when the prisons were given up the cost ranged between £600,000 and £560,000. The Estimate this year gives the total cost as £463,000. Therefore, although I do not by any means pledge myself for the accuracy of these results, still I believe it is not unfair to state that the cost of the prisons as they are now worked is about £100,000 a-year less than it was before the change. Although I confess I am not very hopeful on the subject of prison labour, still there is a great deal to be done to improve the present system by doing away with the small prisons, and so reducing the total staff. Of course, we were obliged to keep the old staff, and in that way I do not think much economy has been gained; and if my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) succeeds in throwing upon the State the whole cost for the conveyance of prisoners, I am afraid we shall look more unfavourable in the future than we do now. The Committee will observe that the Estimates for the present year are, to a certain extent, less than those of last year. I am very grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for the way in which he spoke of my efforts respecting the Visiting Justices. It would be too much not to expect at the first a little friction between the new Governors of the prisons and the old machinery; but I hope that has disappeared, and it is extremely agreeable to find that what efforts I may have made have been appreciated. The Reports from the Visiting Committees have been most favourable as to the working of the present system; and I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that anything I can do to still further improve the system shall be done.
    MR. CALLANcomplained that, whereas numerous details were given as to the salaries of Governors of some of the convict establishments, very slight details were given as to others where the total cost was greater.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTexplained that an Appendix had been pub-

    1085
    listed giving all those details—No. 176, Parliamentary Papers.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that when he brought forward the case of Catholic chaplains last year the Home Secretary said the information which he had laid before him was as careful as it was new, and promised that the Government would endeavour to deal with the question in a satisfactory manner. In the absence of any information in the present Estimates upon that subject, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman for some explanation, and whether, if he moved for a Return in continuation of the Return moved for last year, it would be given?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: With regard to this matter, the Government gave a distinct pledge, and, in fulfilment of that pledge, a Departmental Committee was appointed to consider the matter, and that Committee reported on the 24th January this year. They gave a detailed statement with regard to Catholic chaplains, and only lately I saw a gentleman who is interested in the subject, and he assured me that he had been in communication with the Catholic bodies, and found that they were perfectly satisfied with what had been done in the direction of placing the salaries of the Catholic chaplains on a proper footing.
    Vote agreed, to.
    (33.) £132,626, to complete the sum for Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the manner in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had received all the suggestions made to him that evening encouraged him (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) to remind him that early this Session he addressed a question to him as to reformatories, and the treatment of the children in those institutions. He had obtained from the right hon. and learned Gentleman an intimation that it was the intention of the Government to consider whether it would not be possible to do away with compulsory preliminary imprisonment of the children who were sent to reformatory schools. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) might be mistaken as to the terms of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply, but it was something very like that. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman could see his way to abolishing the com-
    1086
    pulsory imprisonment of children to be sent to reformatory schools, it would be a great benefit to the community. Children were sent to these schools much too young; and in his last Report one of the Inspectors complained that he had found a hardened criminal of the age of 8, who had been sent to prison for no other crime than having been in the company of his two elder brothers when they committed an offence.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I need hardly tell the hon. Gentleman that this is a subject which occupies my mind a great deal. I suppose we have all of us—all the Members of the Government—in our Departments had a great many disappointments this Session, and have seen the failure of measures we were anxious to pass. No one has felt disappointment more keenly than I have in not having been able to introduce a measure dealing with juvenile offenders. At the same time, I am very glad to think that, public attention having been called to the difficulties of this case, the evil has been diminished to a very great extent. It has not altogether removed it. I have had inquiries made into particular cases that were complained of, and I must say the result has been to lead me to think that the imprisonment ought not to be compulsory or preliminary to sending a child to a reformatory. There is some difference of opinion upon this subject; but I think there is a preponderance of opinion amongst those who are most experienced on these subjects against the compulsory imprisonment. The much larger subject of the footing of industrial and reformatory schools should be, or is, a very serious financial question. The proposals made would entail a heavy charge upon the public funds. We ought not merely to attempt to put the law on a better footing, but to consider and revise the whole system of industrial and reformatory schools.
    MR. MAGNIACsaid, he should like to remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman of the desirability of some charge being imposed on parents for the maintenance of their children in these reformatory and industrial schools. The present system was a premium upon vice—it was a premium to parents to induce their children to commit crimes in order that they might be sent to industrial institutions free of charge. He

    1087
    (Mr. Magniac) thought this question was well worthy of the consideration of the Government.
    Vote agreed to.
    (34.) £18,019, to complete the sum for Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he should like to know whether, when criminal lunatics came from India and other places, as he happened to know they did sometimes, they were charged for in this Vote, or whether India contributed towards the expenses of their maintenance? He thought he was right in saying that wherever the criminal lunatics that were sent to Broadmoor Asylum came from they were charged to the revenues of this country.
    MR. MAGNIACsaid, there was a general feeling that Broadmoor Asylum was a most expensive establishment, and also that the discipline was singularly loose. A case occurred quite lately which was an indication of the unsatisfactory manner in which the establishment was carried on. Two persons whilst engaged in play nearly succeeded in making their escape. The whole of the establishment required reorganization. Its cost was enormous, the results were very unsatisfactory, and certainly the management of the establishment should be carefully considered by the Department over which the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) presided.
    MR. RYLANDStrusted that the Home Secretary would find time, in the midst of the various heavy duties that devolved upon him, to give some attention to this criminal lunatic asylum at Broadmoor. He (Mr. Rylands) had called attention to the enormous cost of the institution in 1877; and every year since, unless he was mistaken, he had had an opportunity of drawing the attention of the Government to the matter. He was glad to see that since 1876 there had been a little diminution in the charge per patient; but the average cost of the inmates in the present year was still excessive in comparison with various other institutions of the kind. The average cost during the present year, for each patient, would be £52. He found that in the Perth Asylum the average cost was £31, and at the Dundrum Asylum, £34. In the ordinary lunatic
    1088
    asylums throughout the country the average cost of the inmates per head was from £26 to £28. A convict prisoner cost on an average £33 per head; they, therefore, saw that the cost at Broadmoor was enormously above that at any other institution in the country. He trusted the Home Office would be able to bring their influence to bear upon the establishment to check the extravagant expenditure, and that in another year they would see a substantial reduction of this Vote. It ought to be reduced by several thousands of pounds.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he did not wish to stand up for the management of the Broadmoor Asylum; but he was sorry the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) was not in his place, because he had always offered a strong defence of this institution. The hon. Member had always pointed out that in this asylum there were many dangerous criminal lunatics who required a great deal more attention than other insane people. He had pointed out that the managers of the institution had endeavoured to cut down the expenses as much as possible. One day he was asking the hon. Member whether the expenditure at the asylum could not be cut down to a still greater extent; and the reply was that it would be impossible, and that he (Mr. Walter), as a Visitor, would be unable to continue in the office any longer if it were cut down, as he would not answer for the consequences. It certainly would appear that the expenses were excessively high, but the reason which was always given for it was that these criminals were of the most dangerous character; and, therefore, it was necessary that more money should be spent for their safe custody.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I think it will be satisfactory to my hon. and gallant Friend, and to the Committee generally, to know that some progress is being made with the reforms at Broadmoor Asylum. According to some statistical information I have here, it appears that the expenditure in 1870 upon the criminal lunatics was £60 18s. per head; in 1875 it was £59 13s.; and in the year ended March 31, 1881, it was only £47 4s. per head. The expenditure has been brought down from £60 to £47, which is a very remarkable reduction. Whether or not

    1089
    it is possible to deal with 500 criminal lunatics at a less cost than £47 per head is a thing I am not prepared at present to go into. It is plain that we must have an expensive staff of doctors and warders and persons of that description; and I should be inclined to think that if you can keep your expenditure to less than £1 per week per head you are doing an extraordinary thing. With regard to criminal lunatics sent from India, the Indian authorities do contribute towards their maintenance.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, although, no doubt, the criminal lunatics at Broad-moor were dangerous, so also were the criminal lunatics in the Perth and Dun-drum Asylums, and yet they did not cost anything like the same amount of money. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would look at the number of attendants in the Broadmoor Asylum, he would find that there was one for every four lunatics. Not only was it a numerous, but it was a most expensive staff—more so than the staff of any other asylum.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, there was one item in this Vote which was not found in the corresponding Vote for Ireland—that was not found in the Vote the hon. Gentleman opposite had just mentioned, for the Dundrum Asylum. On page 223 they would find, under sub-heads N and O "New Buildings and Alterations, £667," and "Alterations and Repairs to Buildings, Roads, &c. £1,800." From that it would be seen that the authorities at Broadmoor Lunatic Asylum were receiving between £2,000 and £3,000 a-year for buildings and repairs. Surely that seemed a very large sum; and, doubtless, during a long course of years Broadmoor had received a great deal more money than it could possibly have spent upon reasonable buildings and repairs, whereas Dundrum had all along been begging at the doors of the Treasury for some miserable pittance to carry out the necessary works for the benefit of the inmates—to get a dining-room where the patients could sit comfortably, for instance. Would the noble Lord explain how that exceptional item had been placed on the Establishment Vote?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, it had been thought advisable to gather together all matters connected with this subject under one head.
    Vote agreed to.
    (35.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £40,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department and others connected with Criminal Proceedings in Scotland, including certain Allowances under the Act 15 and 16 Vic. c. 83."
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that, with regard to this Vote, he wished to move to reduce the salary of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate of Scotland. The matter he wished to refer to arose out of a case about which some conversation had taken place a short time ago upon another Vote, and he would briefly state the facts on which he founded his Motion. It seemed that in August last year a procession of Irish Nationalists took place in Glasgow. The Irish Members had always contended that processions, whether of Orangemen or non-Orangemen, if the processions were peaceful, and did not annoy the residents of the localities, were legal; and they had always held that it was the duty of the civil authorities to protect such processions. On the occasion in question, a large procession went from Glasgow to some other district, and returned 'back to Glasgow. It became evident during the day that a large mob was collecting at a certain place for the purpose of making an attack upon the procession; but no effort was made, as far as he could gather, on the part of the police, to scatter that assemblage. The anticipated attack took place, and the result was a general fight. After the fight had commenced, the police seemed to have acted with pretty general impartiality, because they arrested members of both parties. In giving their evidence before the magistrates, the police also seemed to have acted with fairness, because they proved they had taken all these parties, red-handed, in the fight. The stipendiary magistrate happened to be absent from Glasgow at the time, and the case came before a Scotch bailie, named M'Onie, whose position in life he (Mr. Biggar) was not acquainted with. This Bailie M'Onie fined all the processionists very heavily; but allowed those who had attacked the procession to go free, though the case was proved principally on the evidence of the police who had taken all

    1091
    the prisoners into custody, red-handed. The prisoners, on both sides, attempted to show that they were entirely innocent, and it might be very reasonably supposed that there was not very much difference in the credibility of the witnesses in favour of the processionists, and those in favour of the parties who attacked the procession, and Bailie M'Onie gave the benefit of the doubt to some of the defendants. It was singular that he gave the benefit of the doubt to all the non-Catholic defendants, and punished heavily all the Catholic defendants. An appeal was made to the Lord Advocate to have the sentences remitted if possible; but it did not appear clear whether or not the Lord Advocate had recommended to the Home Secretary the remission of the imprisonment to which the prisoners were sentenced. The magistrate had acted in such a shamefully partial manner that he (Mr. Biggar) should have thought that the Home Secretary would have at once remitted the penalties if the facts had been brought before him. There was something very special in the case of one of the prisoners. His case was different to all the rest in this way—he had come to the police court to give evidence in favour of some of the prisoners, and whilst he was there someone said—"Oh! he was in the riot himself, and we will take him too." That man was taken up, although there was no clear evidence that he was connected with the riot. Everyone who had seen a riot knew that everything was in confusion, and that it was a very different thing to keep an eye upon a person, and fix him in the mind as having been one of the rioters, and to take a person red-handed on the spot. It was afterwards proved that the prisoner could not have been guilty of that which was attributed to him, because another man distinctly stated that he was the person who had committed the act which the other was accused of. So that in this case there was a clear miscarriage of justice. On all these grounds, he thought that some censure should be passed on the Lord Advocate, for not having given the benefit of the doubt to the Catholic defendants, when Bailie M'Onie had distinctly given the benefit of the doubt to the non-Catholics. He would move that half the Lord Advocate's salary be taken off.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £39,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department and others connected with Criminal Proceedings in Scotland, including certain Allowances under the Act 15 and 16 Vic. c. 83."—(Mr. Biggar.)
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN)said, this had been considered a reasonable subject for inquiry; and it had been already explained by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary that action had been taken by the Home Office, with his (the Lord Advocate's) assistance, for the purpose of investigating the matter. The prisoners were not prosecuted by the Procurator Fiscal, who was under his Department, but by the burgh magistrates of Glasgow. No record was kept of the proceedings in such cases; but he had obtained a Report on the subject from the legal gentleman who examined the witnesses, and the result of his perusal of that Report was to satisfy him that there was no partiality. A second appeal was made to the Home Secretary, and a further inquiry instituted, and in regard to the case of the man who set up an alibi, a very full and careful examination of the witnesses was instituted. The Report was submitted to his right hon. and learned Friend, and the subject received from him the most careful consideration.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, that, as far as he could make out, the charge against the Lord Advocate was that he had failed to find out that Bailie M'Onie had acted in an extremely partial manner. He (Mr. Anderson) happened to know Mr. Bailie M'Onie very well, and he knew him to be a man of high position in Glasgow, and a man of the highest character, utterly incapable of acting in the manner the hon. Member for Cavan had described. He (Mr. Anderson) felt bound to stand up for Bailie M'Onie and defend him when he was attacked in this way. As a magistrate he might have made a mistake, and not have judged the matter so well as the stipendiary would have done; but there could be no doubt that Bailie M'Onie was quite incapable of acting in the partial manner which had been attributed to him by the hon. Member. He (Mr. Anderson) did not suppose the hon. Member for Gavan

    1093
    seriously meant to take a division on this Vote; therefore, he did not think it was necessary to say anything further.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not happen to know Bailie M'Onie personally, and he was not even aware of his profession or position in life, nor anything at all about him; but he did know what he had read. He had read a report of the evidence in a Glasgow newspaper, and he must say that this person had acted either in the most stupid or in the most dishonest way imaginable. He had acted in perfect contradiction to the evidence in one set of cases. Having taken the evidence of the police, he let one set go scot free, while on similar statements he sent another set to prison. If the Lord Advocate had recommended the Home Office not to allow any commutation of the sentence, he should ask the Committee to divide upon his Motion; but, on the other hand, if the Lord Advocate had recommended a commutation of the sentence, and the Home Secretary had not acted on that advice, it was clear that the Home Secretary's salary ought to be reduced, and not the Lord Advocate's.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The hon. Member is quite right; it is my salary that ought to be reduced. The responsibility in this matter is entirely mine. The Lord Advocate was good enough to give me his advice, and thereby threw all the responsibility upon my shoulders; consequently, if any wrong has been done it has been done by me, and if anyone is to blame it is myself and not the Lord Advocate. All that I can say is that I thoroughly investigated the case, and came to the conclusion that there had been no partiality whatever exhibited by the magistrate. Mr. Ferguson, as has been already stated this evening, said most distinctly, in his second application, he would withdraw the charge of partiality. The question was whether or not the sentences ought to be interfered with, and upon a full view of the case I came to the conclusion that there ought to be no interference.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the Lord Advocate had stated that he would not entertain the idea of bringing about a remission of the sentence unless the charge of partiality which had been brought against Bailie M'Onie was withdrawn. The withdrawal was made, but it was couched in such ambiguous terms that
    1094
    it was doubtful whether it was a withdrawal or not. He (Mr. Biggar) having read the evidence, really did. believe that the conduct of Bailie M'Onie was thoroughly partial and thoroughly dishonest; but, seeing that no practical good could result from coming to a division on the question of reducing the Lord Advocate's salary, he begged leave to withdraw the proposal.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had an extraordinary method of defending his friends, because he said Mr. Ferguson made an ambiguous withdrawal for the purpose of gaining certain ends of his own, not because he thought it was just and right to do so.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the case looked very suspicious against the police, if not against the magistrate. There appeared to be every ground for the impression, which had spread very widely amongst the Irish people of Glasgow, that the Irishmen who formed the procession were treated with great harshness, and that the persons who attacked the processionists were defended by the police in an improper manner. The procession was arranged by the Irish people of Glasgow, and it was walking peacefully through the streets of the town when it was attacked. No fewer than 25 of the processionists were arrested and punished severely, whilst only five of those who attacked the procession were arrested, and they were all let off. They were all aware it was the duty of the police to interfere with processions that were prohibited by law; but he was not aware that this procession had been an illegal one. It had always been the practice to arrange beforehand with the police as to the route the procession should take; and that course, he believed, was adopted on this occasion. It certainly seemed to him very unfair that those who commenced the affray should be allowed to get off scot free; whereas 25 of the people who were set upon, and defended themselves whilst executing their rights as citizens, were sentenced to lengthy periods of imprisonment.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that if he were inclined to move the reduction of the salary of the Lord Advo-vate—which, indeed, he was not inclined to do—he should do it on very different grounds to those advanced by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr.

    1095
    Biggar). He should do it on the ground which had been declared by a Gentleman who was very popular in Scotland, the late Member for Edinburgh, Mr. M'Laren. That Gentleman declared that all the evils that existed in Scotland came from the fact that the country was ruled by a Lord Advocate; and he had expressed the hope that at some time or other they might have a Home Secretary for Scotland. These words were spoken in this House only two years age; and, no doubt, the statement was one with which the right hon. and learned Member (the Lord Advocate) would not agree. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar) had done wisely in withdrawing his Motion, because the Lord Advocate was to be acquitted from all blame, though he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) shared the feeling of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), that justice was not altogether done in this particular case to his fellow-countrymen in Glasgow. In page 235 there was an item for four clerks to Advocates Depute, the salaries being £80, and the total £320. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) did not believe these four clerks existed. There were not four clerks; there were four clerkships, but they were at present held by two persons, who divided the spoil between them. Whether all four appointments were held by one person or not at present he was not able to say; and he was obliged to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman how it was that these four clerkships were kept up, and whether there was not room here for the exercise of a little economy? Then, again, on another page there was the item for four Principal Clerks of Session, at £1,000 a-year each; but the amount only came to £2,000. There seemed to be a miscalculation of £2,000, and perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would explain it.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN)said, that the salaries last referred to came under another Vote. As to the four clerks, he could assure the hon. Member, whatever might have been the custom in past times, that Vote represented the salaries of four separate and distinct clerks. There were four Advocates Depute, and it was necessary that each should have a clerk in order to prepare indictments. As an illustration of the amount of work that had to be done,
    1096
    he might mention that all the indictments in Scotland were prepared by these persons under the direction of the Advocates Depute.
    MR. J. A. CAMPBELLsaid, that before the Motion of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) was formally withdrawn, he wished to say he had the pleasure of knowing Bailie M'Onie, and he was sure he was incapable of the conduct alleged against him. Moreover, it should be remembered that the magistrate had the assistance of a legal assessor, so that he did not act entirely without legal assistance. Even supposing a mistake had been made, which he did not admit was the case, it was out of the question to propose that the Lord Advocate should be punished for it.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he had here an extract from the last Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General with regard to the Clerks to the Advocates Depute. This official said that between 1879 and 1880, the last completed financial year, the four clerkships were held by two clerks, each of whom received £160 a-year. The salary of £80 was fixed on in lieu of fees. He thought that the Lord Advocate would see that he (Mr. O'Connor) had had some ground for putting his question.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (36.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £39,008, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Courts of Law and Justice in Scotland, and other Legal Charges."
    MR. FINDLATERsaid, he wished to move to reduce the Vote by £650, for the purpose of calling attention to the case of Mr. Johnstone, Sheriff Clerk of Cupar, in the Eastern District of Fife. Mr. Johnstone was the sheriff clerk at Cupar, and he also had a large business as an ordinary solicitor; but he had taken in a young practitioner, a man of two years' standing in the law in Edinburgh, and had given him a partnership, nominally excluding himself from all share in the ordinary profits of the business of solicitor. Mr. Johnstone was to act as sheriff's clerk, and all the other business was to be attended to

    1097
    by his partner. By the law of Scotland, a sheriff's clerk was precluded from practising as a solicitor. Well, the practitioners in the district felt very strongly on that case, and they sent a Memorial to the Lord Advocate; and the Lord Advocate, in his answer, admitted that the conduct of Mr. Johnstone was a violation of the spirit, if not of the letter, of the law, and offered the concurrence of his Office in having the question brought before the Court of Session. The Memorialists were not wealthy men, and they felt it was a great scandal affecting very largely the administration of justice; and they were of opinion that the Lord Advocate should have taken the case up himself, and not have left it to private individuals to take proceedings. There was a rule in the County Court Law of England, which placed the initiative in these matters in the hands of an official; and he (Mr. Findlater) did not see why the same rule should not apply to Scotland. The position of Mr. Johnstone was one of great importance, and it was a great scandal that he should be able to tax the costs of his own partner.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £38,358, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Courts of Law and Justice in Scotland and other Legal Charges."—(Mr. Findlater.)
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he thought the case indicated a wrong practice—it was a practice discreditable to a man who occupied a judicial capacity as sheriff clerk in a Sheriff's Court, and, at the same time, was, through his partner, a practitioner entitled to practice in that Court. It might become a settled conviction throughout the country that those who employed the sheriff's clerks partner would get a larger share of justice than those who did not. Such proceedings as that ought to be put a stop to. If it was permitted now under the sanction of the Lord Advocate and the authorities, the practice would spread all through Scotland. Already, he believed, there were two or three other cases of the same kind—cases where sheriff's clerks were enjoying a share of the remuneration obtained by their partners practising in their Courts. It was pre-
    1098
    tended that their partnership arrangements were such that they (the sheriff's clerks) had no share in the profits of the practising part of the businesses; but that was hardly a contention to which any weight was to be attached, because, when the partnership was arranged, the fact that the new partner was to get all the profit on the contentious business would be considered in the terms of the agreement. It was, therefore, a mere evasion of the spirit of the law to allow the thing to be done in any way whatever, and he did hope the Lord Advocate would put a stop to the practice.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN)said, he agreed with the hon. Members who had spoken as to the inexpediency of the practice of allowing the partners of sheriffs' clerks to practise in the Sheriff Courts. The sheriff clerk had no judicial duties to perform, however, and was merely an executive officer of the sheriff. By a rule of the Court no sheriff's clerk was allowed to practice in the Court to which he was attached, directly or indirectly; but it was a question whether that rule prevented his partner from practising in his own name. He thought the Committee would agree with him that the practice by which partners of sheriff's clerks undertook business in the Sheriff Courts was contrary to the spirit of the regulations; but whether a case of this kind could be made the subject of a public prosecution he would not undertake to affirm. The solicitors of the county of Fife had taken up this matter warmly, and had shown some animus towards their colleague, because they complained of his practising as a conveyancer, which was perfectly legal. If sheriffs' clerks were not allowed to practise as conveyancers, the Government would be unable to obtain the services of sheriffs' clerks for the salaries which were now paid. It seemed to him that the solicitors of Fife, having taken up the matter, were the proper persons to prosecute. He was willing to give his fiat for that prosecution when necessary, and the matter was now under the consideration of the solicitors. As to the question which had been put to him concerning the four Principal Clerks of Session, the explanation was that according to the statute there ought to be four of these Clerks, but for many years there had

    1099
    only been two; therefore, only two appeared on the Estimate.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he did not think the explanation of the Lord Advocate went quite far enough. The Lord Advocate was at the head of public justice in Scotland, and, therefore, was bound to take care that the law was obeyed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman ought not to leave it to private prosecutors to take up the case, but should himself see that the law was carried out.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 52: Majority 32.—(Div. List, No. 358.)
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN)said, that, in consequence of the expression of opinion in the Committee, he proposed that representations should be made to Mr. Johnstone on the subject.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, that, seeing the Committee would resume work again at mid-day, it was only reasonable that Progress should now be reported.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he was extremely obliged to the Committee for the amount of work got through, and he hoped it was not too much to ask them to make a good job of it and finish the Class, for there were only two Votes remaining.
    (37.) £25,422, to complete the sum for Register House Departments, Edinburgh.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEasked what determination had been arrived at in regard to the Memorial from the "Third-Class Clerks," and the re-arrangement of the Office?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, it had been made the subject of inquiry, and the Memorial was being carefully considered.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, this was not the opportunity to bring the subject forward, and it would not be just to the claims of the clerks to do so; but he would take an. early opportunity of referring to it next Session.
    Vote agreed to.
    (38.) £87,340, to complete the sum for Prisons (Scotland).
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, on page 255 in the statement of the officers of the prisons he found that there were 41 chaplains, and out of the whole sum for the expenses of these, the Roman Catholic priests only received £100; and considering that a third of the prisoners in Scotch prisons were Roman Catholics, it was rather an unfair proportion. But he did not wish to do more than refer to it just now.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether the assurance the Home Secretary had given to the hon. Member for Louth as to the proportion of chaplains in prisons might be taken as embracing Scotland?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, there was greater difficulty in dealing with the subject, because the prisons were smaller than those of England; but he would undertake to make it the subject of further examination.
    Vote agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  REGULATION OF THE FORCES BILL.
  (Mr. Secretary Childers, The Judge Advocate General, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  REGULATION OF THE FORCES BILL.

    [BILL 193.] CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to put a question to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), who had a Notice down which blocked the Bill. There was, he believed, no other opposition to the Bill, and it was a great object that the Bill should pass as soon as possible, so that the Consolidation Bill should pass in the interest of prisoners under courts martial. Would the hon. Member take off his opposition to this Bill, in order to leave the way clear for the Consolidation Bill?
    MR. BIGGARsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) who, as the House would recollect, took a great interest in the Army Regulation Bill of a few Sessions ago, had expressed a wish to suggest Amendments, and until he had had an opportunity of conferring with his hon. Friend he would rather not promise; but he

    1101
    would be prepared to decide by Monday.
    Consideration, as amended, deferred, till Monday next.

  CORRUPT PRACTICES (SUSPENSION OF ELECTIONS) BILL.— [BILL 238.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Solicitor General.)
  CORRUPT PRACTICES (SUSPENSION OF ELECTIONS) BILL.— [BILL 238.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Preamble be postponed."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    MR. WARTONdesired to know why should the Preamble be postponed?
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is the ordinary practice, and it is in order that the Preamble may be made to correspond with the Bill, should the Bill be amended.
    MR. WARTONsaid, it occurred to him that in this case there was much more in the Preamble than in the remainder of the Bill.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member will have an opportunity of proposing Amendments to the Preamble, if he desires to do so.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
    Schedule.
    MR. WARTONsaid, in deference to the ruling of the Chairman, he had not challenged the postponement of the Preamble; still, he did not quite understand why it should be postponed.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is the Schedule upon which the Committee is now engaged.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he was aware of that; and he had an Amendment to propose to the Schedule. But he wished to explain, in order that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General might understand his object. In this particular Bill there was much more in the Preamble than in the Schedule, and he had to show how the one re-acted on the other. It would have been much better to have taken the Preamble first, and the usual practice was absurd in
    1102
    this case. The exact Amendment he had now to propose was to omit the second column of the Schedule. He could not see that there was any necessity to provide an abstract of the cases against each particular borough. He did not wish to challenge the accuracy of the abstract; but on another occasion it might be the opportunity for statements unfair or unjust towards a constituency. In suspending elections for a time, it was not necessary to give an account of the delinquencies in each particular borough which might be complete or uncomplete. Fair or unfair, he could not see the reason for it; and the Amendment he had to propose, taken in connection with the Preamble, would involve the Amendment of the latter, so that the second and third paragraphs would read—
    "Whereas the said Commissioners have reported in each and all of the said cities and boroughs corrupt practices have prevailed in one or more elections."
    And then, again—
    "Whereas it is expedient, with a view to future consideration, to provide for the temporary suspension of elections therein."
    There was no occasion, as a matter of principle, for saying what this or that borough had done, and how far corrupt practices had prevailed. If the hon. and learned Attorney General could give a precise reason for it, and say it was founded on precedent, then, as a Conservative and a lawyer, he would acquiesce.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it seemed to him that in taking away the Constitutional right of a constituency to representation, the Act should set forth why this course was taken. Of course, if it were taken generally to the effect that in one or more elections corrupt practices have prevailed, then the whole might be unfairly classified as equally delinquent. But the hon. and learned Member was willing to be guided by precedent, and he would find such a precedent in Section 12 of the Representation of the People Act of 1867. That precedent had been followed, and therefore the Schedule had been provided. If there was anything that could be shown to be unfair in it, that unfairness could be remedied.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Preamble.
    MR. WARTONsaid, in consequence of the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General he had not pressed his objection; but he must take exception to the verbal construction of the third paragraph. In the 13th line were the words, "the cases by Parliament." That seemed but a poor weak way of expressing it. "The cases" did not indicate what cases, and did not even say the cases of the said cities and boroughs. He supposed the words emanated from the great Sir Henry Thring; but still he ventured to say his Amendment would improve the reading. His Amendment would be, first to strike out the words "of the cases," and then the words "by Parliament" would stand, and following these he proposed to add "in the cases of the said cities and boroughs," so that the whole should read—
    "Whereas it is expedient, with a view to the future consideration by Parliament of the cases of the said cities and boroughs, to provide temporarily for the suspension of elections therein,"
    and that, he thought, would be a much better reading.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "of the cases" in line 13.—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Preamble."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Amendment was really a question of the reversal of words, whether they should read "by Parliament of the cases" or "of the cases by Parliament;" and he really thought the hon. and learned Member would not think it worth while to press it.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that was not so; it was much more than the mere reversal of words. True, he proposed to strike out the words "of the cases;" but, as he had explained, it was for the purpose of afterwards inserting after the word "Parliament," "of the cases of the said cities and boroughs," certainly a clearer and more elegant form of expression.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that after "cases" he proposed to put in the words "of the said cities and boroughs," for
    1104
    really the words "of the cases" did not make sense of the paragraph.
    Amendment proposed, in line 13, after the word "cases" to insert "of the said cities and boroughs."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought the paragraph was properly drawn, and in grammatical English. It was hypercritical on the part of the hon. and learned Member to raise the objection, and to wish to send the Bill back to the Queen's printer for the sake of the alteration. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he must press the Amendment; and he would ask anybody to say, in reading the paragraph, what "the cases" could possibly mean. He would send the Bill back to the printer and to the draftsman too.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Preamble agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported, without Amendment.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would return good for evil, and not object to the Motion he (the Attorney General) was now about to make—namely, that the Bill be read the third time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    MR. WARTONsaid, he was quite ready to let the bad English go with all the sanction of the Attorney General.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

  WHITEBOY ACTS REPEAL BILL.
  (Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. Justin M'Carthy, Mr. Gray, Mr. A. M. Sullivan.)
  WHITEBOY ACTS REPEAL BILL.

    [BILL 134.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Second Reading of the Bill be deferred till Saturday."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
    MR. WARTONsaid, he must object to the Motion, for a solemn pledge had been given by the Prime Minister that nothing but Supply would be taken at the Saturday Sitting.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, this was a private Member's Bill; but he was quite willing to agree to its being postponed to a later day, if the Government would take charge of it. He did not hear the Prime Minister's pledge given, and, of course, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was not bound by it. He was quite willing to put off the Bill to a later day if the Government would withdraw their opposition. He was aware that he would be unable to proceed with the Bill this Session, but he only wanted to bring it to discussion; but that he was prevented from doing by the Notice of the hon. Baronet the Member for Bath (Sir Arthur Hayter), why put down he did not know. He had no wish to encumber the Saturday's Notice Paper if the Government would afford him another opportunity.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, Her Majesty's Government could not afford the hon. Member any such opportunity.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERasked Mr. Speaker if it was not open to a Member to move to amend the Motion for postponement by substituting Monday for Saturday?
    MR. SPEAKER: Such a course has never been taken to my knowledge without Notice; but if the hon. Member thinks proper to move an Amendment the House will deal with it.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, that he would beg to move that the Bill be postponed to Monday.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he would second that Motion, which, though it might be unusual, was justified by the unusual circumstances. The Prime Minister had given a solemn pledge that nothing but Supply should be taken on the Saturday; and. if any Bill were put down for that day he (Mr. Warton) should give it his decided opposition.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out "Saturday" and insert "Monday" in proposed Question.—(Mr. R. N. Fowler.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Saturday' stand part of the Question."
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he would not put the House to the trouble of a division, but would assent to the Bill being put down for Monday.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday.

  CONVEYANCING AND LAW OF PROPERTY (re-committed) BILL— [Lords.]
  (Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
  CONVEYANCING AND LAW OF PROPERTY (re-committed) BILL— [Lords.]

    [BILL 231.] COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 to 30, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 31 (Appointment of new trustees, vesting of property, &c).
    MR. WARTONsaid, this clause was a very important alteration of the law with regard to trustees appointing themselves sometimes. He objected to the principle of preserving the right to trustees to appoint a new trustee in the event of a trustee being discharged or dying; and he proposed to insert, in line 29, after "in writing," the words "with the consent of the cestuique trustee."
    Amendment proposed, in line 29, after "in writing," to insert "with the consent of the cestuique trustee."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the Bill had been referred to a Select Committee, by whom it was approved. The point raised by the hon. and learned Member was fully discussed by the Committee, and to guard against the possibility of doubt, sub-section 7 was introduced, which, in the opinion of the eminent counsel who drew the Bill, fully carried out, in legal phraseology, the provision as to trusts. He hoped the hon. and learned Member would not press the Amendment.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

    EAST INDIAN RAILWAY [REDEMPTION OF ANNUITIES].
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That it is expedient that the Secretary of State in Council of India be authorised to create and issue such Capital Stock bearing interest at the rate of three and a-half per centum per annum, or at any other rate not higher than four per centum per annum, as may be required for the purpose of purchasing the Annuities issued under "The East Indian Railway Company (Purchase) Act, 1879," or for the purpose of reducing other liabilities charged on the Revenues of India, and bearing interest at a rate not lower than the Stock so to be created.
    Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.
    House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.