Commons Sitting of 10 February 1881

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS— Committee— Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) [79] —R P.
Third Heading — Universities (Scotland) (Voting) * [69], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER — HOUSE OF COMMONS—THE TEMPERATURE.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the First Commissioner of Works, If he will consider the possibility of obviating the great variations in the heat of this House, and the excessive heat experienced on some comparatively mild days?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Sir, the Question of my hon. Friend appears to assume that there has recently been considerable variations in the temperature of this House. I am satisfied he is mistaken in this. The temperature is noted and recorded every hour in two parts of the House. The record for the past three weeks shows that a very uniform temperature has been maintained in the House, even during the inclement weather outside. It has never varied more than 4 degrees—namely, from 61 to 65. In the 41 hours' Sitting, on the 1st of February the temperature of the House at the Chair varied according to the record from 61 to 64, and at the Bar from 61 to 65, changing very slowly. This, I think, does very great credit to the officers responsible for the ventilation. An hon. Friend of mine, who closely watched the thermometers during that Sitting, fully confirms this. I believe it would be impossible by any other process to obtain a more equable temperature than this.

ARMY—UNIFORMS OF KILTED REGIMENTS.
MR. FRASER MACKINTOSHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether alterations in the Tartans worn by kilted and trews regiments are contemplated; and, if so, whether full time will be allowed for the consideration of a matter so interesting to many, before finally adopting any alterations?
MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I have to assure him that so delicate a matter as any alteration of the Tartan of Scotch regiments will not be decided upon without full consideration; but, probably, he is not aware of the facts which have led to this matter becoming urgent. Since 1870 all soldiers have enlisted, not for one, but for two regiments, and since 1873 all officers have been appointed, not to one, but to two regiments, and are liable to be transferred at the will of the authorities from one to another. For instance, the 42nd and 79th are two Scotch regiments, the men and officers of which belong to both. When the 42nd was abroad it was fed by drafts from the 79th to the extent of 452 men in four years, and now that the 79th is abroad vacancies in it have been filled by drafts from the 42nd to the extent of 157 men in one year. So as to officers, two have recently been promoted from the 42nd to the 79th, and the whole body of officers will, before long, be subject to this liability. It is evidently anomalous and unnecessarily costly that officers should be obliged to keep double sets of uniform, to say nothing of constantly changing the uniform of the men; and I think the time has come when this anomaly should be put an end to, and the two regiments have the same uniform. I understand that several of these cases are being satisfactorily arranged; and, as I have already said, we shall act with every consideration for the feelings of the officers and their friends in whatever changes maybe ultimately necessary.
MR. ONSLOWasked the right hon. Gentleman if any opportunity for discussing the question would be afforded to the House before any alteration were made?
MR. CHILDERS: I think I may inform the hon. Gentleman that I shall state, when moving Estimates, the details of the combinations of two regiments which have been in force for 10 years, and I shall lay Papers on the Table. But I hope that the explanations which I shall be able to make will not render any lengthened debate on Tartans necessary.

STATE OF IRELAND—THE COUNTY OF LOUTH.
MR. BELLINGHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-
486
land, If his attention has been drawn to the proceedings at the late Quarter Sessions at Dundalk, county Louth, where there were but two cases at the Crown side of the Court; and, whether he is prepared, under these circumstances, to except Dundalk from the effects of the protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Bill? The hon. Gentleman explained that by a misprint Dundalk was mentioned as being the place which he wished to have exempted from the operation of the Act, instead of the County Louth.
MR. CALLANasked the right hon. Gentleman, Whether, having regard to the fact that in the last Return of outrages no agrarian crime of any kind appeared to have been committed in the County Louth, he would exclude that county from the operation of the Act?
MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that his attention had not been drawn to the proceedings at the Quarter Sessions mentioned in the Question of the first hon. Member. With regard to the second portion of his Question, he was not pre-pared to exclude any county from the operation of the Act, as it was impossible to say what the condition of such counties as Louth would be hereafter. All he could say was, that the Irish Government would most carefully consider what counties or districts should be proclaimed, with the intention of proclaiming only those when it was absolutely necessary to do so. He intended to state, before the Question of the hon. Member for the County Louth (Mr. Callan) was put, that he found that only two counties in Ireland had a smaller Return of agrarian offences than Louth, and it was one of the three counties in which no one was under special police protection.
MR. GRAYasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could give the names of the three counties?
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had not got them then, but he knew he was right as to the number.

LAW AND JUSTICE—THE JUDICATURE ACTS (IRELAND).
MR. FINDLATERasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it be the intention of Government to cause inquiry to be made by the Lord Chancellor and Committee of Judges in Ire-

487
land into the working of the Judicature Acts in that Country in the same manner as has been promised with regard to the working of the Judicature Acts in England; and, if so, will the Lord Chancellor and the Committee of Judges he assisted by members of the Bar and solicitors as the Attorney General for England stated would be the case in the English inquiry?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Sir, I cannot say that it is the intention of the Government to cause such inquiry to be made as is indicated by the Question of my hon. Friend. The Government, I must point out to him, have no power of interfering in matters of this kind, which lie altogether within the control of the Judges.

SOUTH AFRICA — THE TRANSVAAL— POLITICAL NEGOTIATIONS.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government will now offer to the Boers of the Transvaal the terms which they consider to be just, instead of enforcing unconditional submission before their terms are announced; and, whether the Government still believe that the Supplementary Estimate presented to Parliament will cover all the expense to be actually incurred up to the end of the financial year, and will not allow the Colonial authorities to raise money on post-dated bills as they did in the former African War?
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I may answer first, perhaps, the latter part of this Question. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies informs me that the Supplementary Estimate which will be laid upon the Table will cover all the expenses to be incurred in connection with the rising in the Transvaal up to the end of the financial year. The last part of the Question refers to the powers of the Colonial authorities. Those powers are not under our control. The Colony enjoys responsible government, and the Home Government does not interfere in any case of this kind.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLexplained that he referred to the Transvaal and the instructions given to Sir George Colley.
MR. GLADSTONE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will send me a memorandum
488
of the circumstance to which he refers. I understood the Question referred to the Cape Colony. With regard to the most important part of the Question, I have nothing to add. It is—
"Whether Her Majesty's Government will now offer to the Boers of the Transvaal the terms which they consider to be just, instead of enforcing unconditional submission before their terms arc announced?"
We really have nothing to add to the communication already made, But I think it may be convenient that I should re-state to the House one of two important communications, and that I should make known to the House the substance of the other. On the 26th January, Lord Kimberley telegraphed to Sir Hercules Robinson as follows:—
"I have received the following telegram from President Brand:—' Is it not possible to offer to the people of the Transvaal, through the High Commissioner, Sir H. Robinson, who is now in Cape Town, certain terms and conditions provided they ceased from armed opposition, making it clear to them how this is to be understood?' I have to instruct you to inform President Brand that if armed opposition should at once cease, Her Majesty's Government would thereupon endeavour to frame such a scheme as, in their belief, would satisfy all enlightened friends of the Transvaal community."
Since that time, in answer to a telegram from Sir George Colley, stating that President Brand urged him to state the nature of the scheme mentioned in the previous telegram, and to guarantee that the Boers should not be treated as rebels if they submitted, Sir George Colley received an instruction of which I shall give the substance. On the 8th instant, from the Cape, he was instructed to inform President Brand that Her Majesty's Government will be ready to give all reasonable guarantees as to the treatment of the Boers after submission, if they desist from armed opposition, and that the scheme will be framed with a view to the permanently friendly settlement of the difficulty; to which he was to add that Her Majesty's Government-would be glad if President Brand would communicate to the leaders of the Boers this as well as the former message. It appears not to be quite certain whether President Brand had conveyed, in the regular and official manner, the communication previously made to him. These are the instructions issued by Lord Kimberley, and Her Majesty's Government do not think, in the present

489
condition of affairs, that they can make any addition to thorn.

PUBLIC BUSINESS — THE CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTION'S BILL.
CAPTAIN AYLMERasked Mr. Attorney General, If, considering the state of public business and the necessity for early legislation on the subject, he will consent to refer the Corrupt Practices Bill to a Select Committee, in order that the opinion of the Barristers engaged on Election Commissions maybe considered, and a decision arrived at this Session?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Sir, I am afraid it will be a considerable time before the Motion can be made for the second reading of the Corrupt Practices Bill; but when it is brought forward, the House will have an opportunity of considering any proposal for referring the Bill to a Select Committee. For my own part, I see no advantage to be derived from a Select Committee. The question is one on which I think it would be well for the Whole House to express an opinion.

POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT)—INCREASE OF SALARIES.
MR. NORTHCOTEasked the Postmaster General, If a decision has yet been come to with regard to the claims of officers in the Telegraph Service for an improvement in their official position; and, if so, when the decision of the Post Office will be made public?
MR. FAWCETT, in reply, said, he could only repeat the promise which he had given on a former occasion, that there would be no unnecessary delay in conducting the Inquiry referred to in the hon. Gentleman's Question. As soon as a decision should be arrived at it would be made known.

LAW AND JUSTICE —THE JUDICIAL BENCH (SCOTLAND AND IRELAND).
MR. BAXTERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been drawn to the disproportionately large number of Judges in Scotland and Ireland as compared with England and Wales; and whether any measures are in contemplation for reducing the number in the two first-named Countries?
MR. CALLANasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has
490
been drawn to the disproportionately large arrears of business in the Superior Courts of Law in England and Wales as compared with Ireland and Scotland, whereby great inconvenience is caused to suitors; and whether any measures are in contemplation for increasing the number of Judges in the two first-named Countries?
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I do not see any direct connection between these two Questions. The implied statement of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Baxter) is that there is an excessive and disproportionately large number of Judges in Scotland and Ireland. The other Question states that there is a considerable arrear of business in England. With regard to the disproportionately largo number of Judges in Ireland, that is a matter which was dealt with by the late Government in a measure which is now the law of the land. A certain number of reductions were provided for by that measure, and we are carefully watching its present and prospective operation. The Government are considering what measure should be taken for reducing the number of Judges in Scotland. As to the arrears of the business in the Courts in England, there is no doubt such arrears do exist; but it is quite another question as to whether they are due to any deficiency in the number of Judges. There is now a measure under consideration which, I hope, will have the effect of very considerably increasing the judicial power in England, and it is to the operation of that measure, and to the good arrangements made by the body of Judges, that we must look in the first instance for any diminution of the arrears.

THE COINAGE—FOURPENNY PIECES.
MR. MONKasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can state the reason why the Bank of England refuses to receive worn fourpenny pieces at their full value in the same manner as other worn silver is received; and, whether, considering the great inconvenience which bankers experience from the similarity of threepenny and fourpenny pieces, the Government will take steps to call in the fourpenny pieces now in circulation?
MR. GLADSTONE: My hon. Friend asks me the reason why the Bank of

491
England refuses to receive worn four-penny pieces in the same manner as ether worn silver is received. I believe my hon. Friend has been misinformed. I am assured that the Bank does receive fourpenny pieces in that manner. In 1878, £2,200 worth of these pieces were withdrawn from circulation; in 1879, £2,110 worth; and in 1880, £3,910 worth. Altogether, £1,500 worth are now in the Bank ready to be sent to the Mint. No new fourpenny pieces have been issued since 1856, and the number now in circulation is exceedingly small. Only 5 per cent are fit to re-issue, and none are re-issued by the Bank unless specially applied for. The coin is dying out, and it is best to let it die out in peace.

INDIA—EAST INDIA (ECCLESIASTICAL DEPARTMENT)—CHAPLAINS' SALARIES.
MR. BAXTERasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether, as promised last year, inquiry has been made as to funds supplied by the general taxation of India and spent in paying salaries of chaplains, not for officers in the service of the Queen only, but for planters and merchants and persons wholly unconnected with the Government; whether it is not true that more than half of the Church of England chaplains are at stations where there are no European troops, that of the forty-four chaplains in the cities of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay, only nine minister to European troops, that at Berhampore the chaplain gets £1,000 per annum, while the number of officers and men who attend is eight; whether, notwithstanding the promise of the Indian Government to revise and reduce this expenditure, fresh chaplains have recently been appointed to stations where there are few or no officials; and, whether he will send out instructions to the Governor General to take vigorous measures for removing all just cause of complaint in this matter?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, in reply to the Question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, I may say that a despatch was sent to the Government of India on the 17th of June last, asking for the information which I promised on the 31st of May last I would make an inquiry about. 1. The Government of India have called upon the Bishop of Calcutta to furnish
492
this information, but no reply has at present been received. 2. The number of Church of England chaplains in India is 160, reduced by absentees on furlough to 139. Of the 160 chaplains, it would appear from the Parliamentary Return, dated February 5, 1880, that not more than 30 chaplains are at stations where there are no European troops, or one-fifth of the whole number. The same Return shows 30 chaplains—not 44— in the cities of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay, and that at Berhampore, in the Madras Presidency, there is a retired chaplain, who receives, in addition to his pension, 1,200 rupees per annum, and a travelling allowance of 382 rupees per annum—not £1,000 per annum— from Government for ministering at that place and seven other stations. Chaplains are not provided for soldiers only; civil servants of the Crown, as well as military servants, are entitled to the services of chaplains. It appears from the Return already quoted that the military servants occupy four-fifths of the whole number of chaplains. The Government of India do not appear, so far as I can ascertain, to have paid sufficient attention to their promise to revise this expenditure, and I propose to call their attention again to this subject.

SOUTH AMERICA- GUATEMALA—EXECUTION OF A JESUIT.
MR. HERMONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to the following statement in the "Manchester Courier":—
"A Jesuit priest named Gillett has been arrested at Guatemala, and afterwards shot by order of the President of that Republic. By the laws of Guatemala, the largest State in South America, Jesuits are banished from the country, and all who are found within the territory are liable to execution. Father Gillett had returned on account of his health, and not in his capacity as priest;"
and, whether the Government has any information on the subject, or will endeavour to ascertain the facts of the ease?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir,. Her Majesty's Government have not received any confirmation of the intelligence to which the hon. Member refers; but Her Majesty's Charge d' Affaires has been instructed to furnish a full report of the circumstances of the case.

ARMY (INDIA) —THE EUROPEAN FORCE.
SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will state to the House which of the responsible Advisers of the Crown is responsible to Parliament for the efficiency and the discipline of the European portion of the British Army in India?
MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I have to state that it is difficult to describe accurately or exhaustively within the limits of a Reply to a Question the exact degree of responsibility which rests on the Secretaries of State for War and India, respectively, for the efficiency and discipline of the European troops serving in India. Practically, however, there is no difficulty in the matter. The Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, under the authority of the Secretary of State for War, is responsible for their regimental organization, and the Secretary of State for India takes them over on the implied understanding that such organization will be preserved. The Secretary of State for War is also responsible for their efficiency so far as it depends on a proper supply of drafts; and any offences against discipline on the part of a British regimental officer would be finally dealt with by him after the Commander-in-Chief in India and the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief here. But the Secretary of State for India is responsible for the efficiency of the British Force there so far as it depends on pay, equipment, barrack accommodation, and supply services generally.

ARMY—GENERAL PRIMROSE.
LOUD ELCHOasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether a statement has been forwarded to the authorities at the Horse Guards by General Primrose, in vindication of his conduct at Canda-har, and complaining of his removal from the command of the Poonah Division; whether that statement has been forwarded to the Indian Government; and, if so, whether he will lay upon the Table General Primrose's statement and the reply of the Indian Government when it is received?
MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to my noble Friend, I have to say that General Primrose has submitted a statement in vindication of his conduct at
494
Candahar, which has been forwarded to the Government of India, under whose orders his removal from his divisional command took place. Correspondence of this character is always regarded as confidential, and I regret that I cannot undertake to lay it on the Table of the House.

PUBLIC HEALTH—SMALL-POX (METROPOLIS).
MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he can inform the House as to the present condition of the epidemic of small-pox in the Metropolis, and as to the available accommodation for smallpox cases in the hospitals which are under the control of the Local Government Board; and, whether he will lay upon the Table any communications which he has received from the managers of the Metropolitan Asylums District on this subject?
MR. DODSON: Sir, I regret to say that there is a considerable prevalence of small-pox in the Metropolis, especially in the Eastern and Southern districts, and at present there are no signs of its abatement. The actual number of beds available for small-pox patients in the hospitals under the control of the Metropolitan Asylums District is 700, of which 641 are now occupied; but arrangements are being made by the managers—to whom great praise is due for their efforts to meet the epidemic— by which, in the course of a fortnight or three weeks, nearly 250 additional beds will be placed at their disposal. If it were not for the unfortunate proceedings pending in relation to the Hampstead Hospital, 300 beds would have been available for small-pox patients in that establishment. I can have no objection to lay upon the Table of the House the recent communications from the managers to the Local Government Board on this subject, with the replies of the Board; but, as the hon. Member is on the Board of Managers, he is, doubtless, fully aware of the nature of the correspondence which has taken place

INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT—THE UNITED STATES.
LORD JOHN MANNERSasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any negotiations are pending between Her Majesty's Government and

495
that of the United States on the subject of copyright; and, if so, whether, before their conclusion, the opinion of Parliament will be taken?
SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any negotiations are being carried on between this Country and the United States, with a view to secure to British authors copyright for their works in the United States; and, if they are, whether he can state to the House the nature of such negotiations, and the stage at which they have arrived; and, whether there are any Papers on the subject which can be laid upon the Table?
MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, it would be inaccurate to say that actual negotiations are in progress. On the 23rd of September we received from the Foreign Office a draft proposal communicated by Mr. Lowell, who was instructed to ascertain in conversation what Her Majesty's Government thought of the scheme. We learn from other sources that this proposal originated with Eastern publishers, who have suffered from the competition of the publishers in the Western and Southern States, who now reprint at lower rates the English books originally reprinted by Eastern publishers. We are also informed that there is great opposition to the proposals now submitted, and I am not sanguine that they will ever assume a formal shape. In dealing with the question, I was anxious to learn, in the first place, whether a Treaty on the basis of this proposal could be negotiated under the present Copyright Act, and I have been advised that if Her Majesty is advised that due protection is given by it to parties interested in books in this country a Treaty can be negotiated, including a condition that English books must be printed and published in the United States, but not including a condition that American books must be printed and published in England. The object is one which it is so desirable to secure in the interests of the English authors, that I thought it desirable to submit the proposal to the representatives of English authors and publishers, in order to have the advantage of their opinion. In doing so I asked their opinion, especially upon the length of term which should be allowed in America for the publication of an English book; upon the condition restricting the copyright of American
496
books to books printed and published in this country; and upon a condition which was in substance to the effect that the books of an English author publishing with copyright in America should be sold to his own fellow-citizens in this country at as cheap a rate as that at which they are sold to Americans. I am still waiting for answers, which shall receive my most careful consideration. In reference to the second Question of the noble Lord, any proposal to allow the sale of American reprints in this country, or to require American books to be printed and published in this country, would need the sanction of Parliament. When the Correspondence is complete I shall be glad to lay it on the Table.

CENTRAL ASIA — CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE AMEER OF CABUL—TRANSLATION OF THE CORRESPONDENCE.
MR. ONSLOWasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether the Government now intend to lay upon the Table of the House a translation of the documents found at Cabul; and, whether, before their production, the Government would take moans to have their translation verified?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, in accordance with the promise which has already been given, the Government do intend to lay on the Table of the House translations of the Russian documents which have been found at Cabul. Those documents were, I believe, carefully translated in India with the assistance of the most competent persons whose services the Indian Government were able to secure. To refer them back to India for verification would, in all probability, be to cause a delay of some weeks if not months, and we have no reason to think that such a step is necessary.

IRELAND—CLARE COUNTY CLUB.
MR. FINIGANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a violent scene which recently took place in the Clare County Club, in which a justice of the peace presented a loaded revolver at the head of another justice of the peace and assaulted him; and, whether he will inquire into this case in the interests of ustice and order?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I have no information on the subject; but if I am asked by a responsible person to make an inquiry into the circumstances, I shall have no objection to do so.

LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE CONNAUGHT CIRCUIT.
MR. TOTTENHAMasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is essential to the due administration of the Law that the assizes for the Con-naught circuit should always commence with the county of Leitrim; whether he is aware that the grand jury of that county have repeatedly, by resolution and otherwise, represented to the going judges of assize the great inconvenience caused to all county officials, grand jurors, constabulary, road contractors, and others, by the fiscal business having to be commenced on Friday, in order that it should be completed before the opening of the commission on Monday; and that the said grand jury have ineffectually requested that an arrangement should be made by which the assizes should commence in their county alternately with other counties on the circuit; whether some of the judges have proposed an alternate arrangement, which has been opposed by members of the circuit bar; and, whether he will endeavour to make such alter aterations in the present mode of procedure as will meet the convenience of those interested?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Sir, it is not essential to the due administration of the law that the Assizes for the Con-naught Circuit should always commence with the county of Leitrim; but it has, I believe been found convenient for the public that the Assizes for the several counties constituting each Circuit should be held in some fixed order. As to the next two Questions, I beg to say that beyond what is implied by those Questions themselves, I have no knowledge or information on the subjects thereby referred to. As to the last Question, I have only to say that I have no control or power of inter for foring in the matter.

DOMINION OF CANADA—GUARANTEED LOANS.
MR. ANDERSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If his attention
498
has been called to the fact that, in the Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom of March 1880, page 117, it appears that in 1867 we guaranteed a Canadian loan of £3,000,000"for making a Railway from Riviere du Loup Quebec, to Truro Nova Scotia," and that in 1873 we guaranteed another loan of £3,000,000"for the Pacific Railway and improvement of Canals, "and that both these amounts are stated to be outstanding at the 31st March 1880, though with a small amount of Canadian Bonds (£351,600 and £86,400 respectively) held as security; whether he has observed that Sir Alexander Gait, the Canadian Minister, has stated publicly that the first of these loans had been entirely paid off, he, himself, when Finance Minister, having partly carried it out; and, whether he will state how the matter really stands, and, in justice to Canada, have our Finance Accounts corrected if they are really wrong?
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the statement made in the Finance Accounts of this country which is quoted by my hon. Friend is perfectly correct. But the impression conveyed is not perfectly accurate, because certain amounts are spoken of as securities for the payment of large sums. Those limited amounts are not properly described as securities, but are the product of a sinking fund provided by Parliament. The Finance Accounts are. however, quite correct, and I hope no impression will go abroad owing to the Question of my hon. Friend unfavourable to the Dominion Government of Canada, which has always been most honourable and careful in the fulfilment of its obligations with regard to the amounts guaranteed by this country. I have not seen the speech referred to by my hon. Friend as having been made by Sir Alexander Galt, the Canadian Minister; but I have no doubt that the statement alluded to has not reference to the loans mentioned in the Question, but to a loan of a much earlier date—I think as early as 1843. If that be so, the statement is perfectly correct; but I have no means of verifying the reference.

THE INDIAN MAILS-NEW POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
MR. MACFARLANEasked the Secretary of State for India, If, in consequence of the serious inconvenience caused to the mercantile community of

499
the capital of British India by the now postal arrangements, he would be prepared to reconsider the case; and also how far the delivery of the Indian Mail in London on Tuesday is of such importance as to justify the inconvenience of which the merchants of Calcutta, supported by the Government of India, complain; if it is true that the Calcutta Mail is detained nine hours every week in Bombay; and, if he has received a petition from the Chamber of Commerce of Calcutta upon the subject?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the mercantile and banking community of the United Kingdom were very greatly dissatisfied with the delivery of the Indian mails under the now contract, and several memorials were received from the Chambers of Commerce on the subject; and a deputation came to the India Office in August last to urge that the arrangements should be so altered as to admit of the arrival of the mails in London on Monday. The Government of India were consulted as to the best mode of meeting the views of the mercantile community, both in this country and in India, subject to the condition that the mail should arrive in London not later than Tuesday. On the receipt of their Report, the Postmaster General was consulted; and, after a very careful consideration of all the interests involved, it was decided that, as it was impossible to meet the wishes of all parties, the greatest amount of convenience to the general mercantile community would be attained by directing that the mails should leave Bombay at 5 o'clock in the afternoon on Tuesday during the south-west monsoon, and on Thursday during the remainder of the year, so as to insure a uniform delivery in London on Tuesday morning. The new arrangement only begins with the mail leaving Bombay to-day (February 10); and it would be premature to re-consider the question till some experience has boon obtained of its working. The Calcutta mail is timed to arrive in Bombay at 8.15 in the morning, which is nearly nine hours before the steamer loaves Bombay. A petition has been received from the Chamber of Commerce at Calcutta, in which it is stated that a memorial adopted at a public meeting is about to be sent through the Government of India. That memorial has not yet been received.

CRIMINAL LAW—LIBERATED POLITICAL PRISONERS.
MR. GRAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether any of the other political prisoners, liberated under the same conditions as Mr. Davitt, are still at large in the United Kingdom; whether Government intend to arrest them; whether, for a long period during the late administration, as well as the entire period during which the present Government has held office, Mr. Davitt and the others liberated with him declined to comply with the condition on the ticket of leave requiring them to report themselves periodically to the police; whether the broach of this condition would not in the case of an ordinary ticket of leave man involve his immediate committal; whether, in the case of Davitt and the others, the authorities were fully aware of and tacitly acquiesced in this deviation from the rule; and, if so, why this exception was made in their eases?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I am not aware whether any persons are now at large in the United Kingdom who have been liberated on license on the same conditions as Michael Davitt. If there be any such persons and their conduct should give the same cause for revoking their license as in the case of Davitt, Her Majesty's Government would deal with them in the same manner. I believe that during the existence of the late Administration the ordinary condition by which a convict is called upon to report himself to the police was not enforced with regard to Davitt, and that the same course was followed by the present Government. I am not aware that Davitt refused to comply with the condition, and although the refusal to report himself would justify his re-committal, it is not to be understood that that was the ground of the revocation of his license. I am unable to state the reason why the rule was originally relaxed by the late Administration; but I presume it was in consequence of the belief that such a special indulgence would not be abused. I was asked the other day a Question as to the treatment of Davitt with respect to his health, and perhaps I may now state that, according to the medical report which we have received from Portland, I find that he is in general good health, and that the

501
bronchial catarrh from which he was said to be suffering at the time of his apprehension has almost entirely disappeared. It is further stated that he was feeling much better, and that he was perfectly satisfied with his treatment in hospital, and with the arrangements made for his comfort, and that his cough has quite gone.

SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS ACT— POISONING OF HORSES WITH ARSENIC IN LINCOLNSHIRE.
MR. CHAPLINasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to a case of horse poisoning at Ruskington, in Lincolnshire, which was tried before the magistrates at Sleaford on the 10th of January, when it was shown that two horses, the property of Mr. Grist, of Ruskington, had been poisoned with arsenic by George Olive, the person in charge of them, and that one of them had in consequence died; whether he is aware that it was stated in evidence that arsenic sufficient to poison fifty horses had been sold by Mr. Smith, chemist, at Sleaford, to George Olive, and that it was entered in the chemist's book "to be given to horses;" and, whether the Government will take steps to check the indiscriminate sale of poison by chemists for the purpose of being given to horses?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, with regard to this matter, I find that a person guilty of horse poisoning has been punished under the recent Act. As to the chemist who sold the arsenic, he might be punished, because the purchaser was under age. That, of course, would not entirely answer the Question, because the purchaser might be of full age, and the true remedy is in the amendment of the Arsenic Act, 1861, and if my hon. Friend would introduce a Bill for the purpose I should be happy to assist him.

CENTRAL ASIA — CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE AMEER OF CABUL—TRANSLATION OF THE CORRESPONDENCE.
BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he has seen the translation of the Despatches found at Cabul, which is published in the "Standard" of to-day; whether the Despatches so published will be included in the papers presented
502
to Parliament; and, whether the letter stated to have been written from Livadia by General Stolieteff on the 8th of October 1878, three months after the Treaty of Berlin, to the Afghan Minister at Cabul, stating—
"Make peace openly, and in secret prepare for war;"—"send an able emissary, possessing the tongue of a serpent and full of deceit, so that he may, with sweet words, perplex the enemy's mind, and induce him to give up the idea of fighting you,"
is authentic; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government, notwithstanding this evidence of persistent Russian intrigue, intend to persevere in their policy of withdrawing all British influence from Afghanistan?
CAPTAIN AYLMERasked the Secretary of State for India, If it is true, as stated in the daily papers, that His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding in Chief has reported strongly in favour of the retention of Kandahar? and if he will lay upon the Table any Report on this subject emanating from this distinguished officer?
MR. BRANDasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he can give any information to the House in explanation of the circumstances which have enabled the "Standard" and other newspapers to publish the Cabul correspondence prior to its presentation to Parliament?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, in reply to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry do Worms), I have to state that I have seen the despatches published in The Standard of yesterday. Those despatches will be included in the Papers to be presented to Parliament. The letter stated to have been written from Livadia by General Stolieteff on the 8th October is, I believe, accurately given in The Standard, and contains the phrases which are quoted by the hon. Member. In reply to his final Question, I need hardly remind the House that these Papers have long been in the possession of the Government, and their presentation will not make any difference in the intentions of the Government in respect to Afghanistan. I am glad to take this opportunity of correcting a misapprehension which has arisen with regard to a phrase in the letter the hon. Gentleman has quoted. Although it is not one to which the hon. Member has himself called attention, it has been the

503
subject of comment in several newspapers, and I think the misapprehension ought at once to be removed. I refer to the phrase in General Stolietetf's letter in which he says—
"Therefore you should look to your brothers who live on the other side of the river. If God stirs them up to put swords in their hands, then, in God's name, go on."
That expression has been commented on as referring to the Indians and the Mahometans living on the Indian side of the river Indus. I am, however, assured by a very high authority indeed, and there is no reason why I should not state his name—Sir Henry Rawlinson—that the expression "the other side of the river," is a technical, geographical one, well known as referring to the Oxus, and that the passage in General Stolietoff's letter refers not to the Indus, but to the Oxus, and not at all to the Indians, but to the Russians; the meaning of that passage in the letter being that if there is a war between Russia and England, then the Afghans would join with the former—that is, the Russians— or, as he expressed it, "Go on, in the name of God." In reply to the hon and gallant Gentleman opposite (Captain Aylmer), it is true His Royal Highness the Field Marshall Commanding - in - Chief has written a Minute on the subject of the retention of Candahar. As I stated be-fore, I am examining several Papers on this question, with the view of laying them on the Table of the House. Of course, being of a confidential character, that Minute could not be produced; but if His Royal Highness has no objection, it will be laid on the Table with the rest. In reply to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand), I am quite ready to give to the House all the information in my possession with reference to the premature publication of these despatches in some newspapers yesterday morning. It appeared that several newspapers had received a description of the Cabul Correspondence from some person evidently well acquainted with it, although I am not aware in what shape it was communicated to these papers. The Standard newspaper printed a copy of a considerable portion of a confidential official memorandum. The circumstances of the preparation of that memorandum were as follows:—In April last, the Tapers found at Cabul were collected together
504
in an official memorandum for the convenience of the Government, accompanied by comments for the purpose of explanation and of connecting them together. I need not say that these Papers when presented to Parliament will be given by themselves, and unaccompanied by these official comments and explanations. The Paper was one of an extremely confidential character, and was printed confidentially in the Indian Office. A correct account was kept of every copy of this Paper issued, to the number of 28 in all, of which 13 were sent to India. I have seen the list of persons to whom this Paper was communicated in England, and I may say that I feel as certain as I do of anything that the improper communication to the papers was not made by any person who received this Paper in this country. Of course, I am not aware what was the actual distribution in India of the 13 copies; but I cannot help thinking that one of those copies must have been, inadvertently and in ignorance of its extremely confidential character, communicated by someone to the Press. That is all the information on the subject which I have in my possession. I cannot avoid saying that the person, whoever he was, who has made this extremely indiscreet, and, I think, improper, use of an official document, ought in fairness —if, as I conceive probable, it was done inadvertently—to come forward and state the part he has taken in the transaction, in order to relieve a considerable number of persons from what is a very unmerited and a very disagreeable stigma upon their official conduct.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACTS — SIR WILLIAM BOREMAN'S CHAE1TY.
BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Vice President of the Council of Education, Whether any, and, if so, what steps are being taken to reconstitute Sir W. Boreman's Charity, formerly the Green Coat School, Greenwich, as a training school for merchant seamen?
MR. MUNDELLA: I am informed, Sir, that a draft scheme for Sir William Boreman's Charity, Greenwich, was published by the Charity Commissioners some time ago. It proposed to re-constitute the Charity as a school primarily for boys intended for sea service; but doubts were raised whether this would not create undue competition with exist-

505
ing schools of a similar character. The scheme was consequently kept back till the opinion of the parties interested could be ascertained. These doubts have now been set at rest, and the Commissioners have decided that the scheme shall be proceeded with on the lines already indicated.

COMMERCIAL NEGOTIATIONS WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
MR. MAC IVERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can give any information in regard to the present position of the Commercial Treaty Negotiations with France, Spain, and Portugal; and particularly to inquire whether all idea of a reduction in Wine Duties has been abandoned, unless accompanied by reduction in the Duties charged upon the manufactures of Great Britain and Ireland?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, in their commercial negotiations with France, Her Majesty's Government have lost no opportunity of bringing the representations of various industries and trades in this country to the knowledge of the French Government; but the latter wish to suspend all active negotiations until the settlement of the general tariff, which it is hoped will not be much longer delayed. As regards Spain, Her Majesty's Government have been inconstant communication with the Spanish Government, and have repeatedly urged the removal of the differential duties at present levied on British produce. Her Majesty's Government trust that the Government which has just come into Office in Spain will favourably entertain the friendly representations which have been made. The case of Portugal differs from that of Spain, for though the duties are high and prohibitory, British manufactures enjoy virtually most favoured nation treatment, and Her Majesty's Government are steadily urging the adoption of a more liberal tariff. The question of the possible reduction of the Wine Duties in this country, apart from any commercial negotiations, is a financial question on which it is not within my province to pronounce an opinion.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is
506
not the case that, though there is no cattle disease in Scotland, nevertheless there are regulations as to the importation of Cattle from Scotland into England which are injurious to the Scotch producer and the English consumer, and which are not necessary for the protection of the English producer; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to take any steps and remedy this state of things?
MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, there is no foot-and-mouth disease in Scotland, and animals can be removed from that country, or from any healthy part of the United Kingdom, without restriction, into any other part of Great Britain which is not declared an infected place or area. If the movement is into an infected area, the only licence required is that of the local authority into whose district the animals are moved. This licence is required by the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878, Schedule 4.
MR. W. N. NICHOLSONasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether any special instructions have been recently issued as to the disinfecting of the skins of animals suffering from foot and mouth disease that have died or have been slaughtered; and, if not, and if he finds it desirable, will he cause some such instructions to be published?
MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, Article 55 of the Animals Order provides that animals which have died of foot-and-mouth disease shall be buried in their skins in quicklime or other disinfectant, or shall be disinfected and then taken to be destroyed under the licence and regulation of the Privy Council. Local authorities have no power to order slaughter for foot-and-mouth disease, and, consequently, there are no provisions for dealing with the skins of the slaughtered animals.

ARMY—THE MARTINI-HENRY RIFLE.
COLONEL ALEXANDER (for Sir CHARLES RUSSELL)asked the Secretary of State for War, When it is intended to issue the Henry-Martini Rifle to the Militia and the Militia Reserve?
MR. CHILLERS: Not this year, Sir; but I am arranging to increase the stock of Martini-Henry rifles so as to be able to issue them gradually to the Militia, regiment by regiment, when the Snider

507
rifles are exhausted. No Snider rifles have been manufactured for some years past, and the reserve is now low.

PUBLIC HEALTH—SMALL-POX (METROPOLIS).
MR. W. M. TORRENSasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether experience has not shown that the aggregation of smallpox patients in the metropolitan asylums has frequently been attended with a serious outbreak of the disease in the surrounding houses; whether the number of deaths in the metropolis from small-pox since 1870 have not on the average been twice as numerous as in the previous eleven years; and, whether any steps are about to be taken to provide more effectually than under the present system for the prevention and cure of the disease?
MR. DODSON: Sir, it has been alleged that the aggregation of smallpox patients in the Metropolitan asylums has been attended with an outbreak of small-pox in the surrounding houses, and a careful inquiry has recently been directed by the Local Government Board to ascertain whether or not that allegation is well founded; but until the result of the investigation now pending has been ascertained, it would be premature on my part to express an opinion on the subject. There is no doubt that the average number of deaths from smallpox in the Metropolis since 1870 has been largely in excess of that in the previous 11 years; but that arises from including 1871, a most exceptional year, in the latter period. The deaths since 1870 amounted to 15,533, of which 7,878, or more than half, occurred in 1871. If, however, the 12 years 1860–71 are compared with the nine years 1872-80, it will be found that in the latter period the average number of deaths was only 850 as against 1,425 in the former period. As regards the steps taken to prevent the disease, I have recently caused circulars to be addressed to the various sanitary authorities and Boards of Guardians, pointing out the measures to be adopted with a view of insuring vaccination, and re-vaccination as far as practicable, and I am glad to be able to state that the local authorities generally have made a ready response to that appeal.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) BILL—ALIENS.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it will be possible in conformity with the law and comity of nations to apply the provisions of the Protection to Person and Property Bill (Ireland), when passed into law, to subjects or citizens of foreign States, that is to say, to arrest or detain them without trial when "reasonably suspected;" and whether, to avoid cases such as that of Bergen and Ryan in 1848, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to introduce clauses in Committee legalizing the expulsion of aliens suspected of contravening the law in the manner laid down in the Act 11 and 12 Vic. cap. 20?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, as far as I can ascertain, it will be consistent with the law and comity of nations to apply the Protection to Persons and Property (Ireland) Bill, if, unfortunately, it should be necessary, to subjects or citizens of foreign States. This view is confirmed by what happened in 1866, when aliens were arrested without any of the difficulties which the hon. Member seems to foresee. The case alluded to of Bergen and Ryan in 1848 does not now apply. The matter was put on a different footing by the Naturalization Act of 1870, and it had no bearing whatever on the present Bill.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (URGENCY)—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE.
MR. GRAY: Mr. Speaker, I am desirous of asking your advice and instruction as regards a point that will arise in connection with the Protection of Person and Property Bill under the new Rules. I was desirous to move, on the Motion that you do leave the Chair, that it be an Instruction to the Committee to extend the provisions of this Bill to the entire of the United Kingdom. Under the new Bales which provide that you, Sir, shall leave the Chair without Question or Motion, and that the Preamble of the Bill shall be postponed in a similar way, the Clerk of the Table has informed mo that he could not take such a Resolution as the one I propose to put, and I am apprehensive lest I should be told it was without the powers of the Committee to introduce such a provision

509
by way of Amendment, and I am, therefore, in great difficulty as to how I shall bring forward the proposal I wish to put.
MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member desires to move an Amendment which is beyond the competency of the Committee to entertain, such an Amendment may be moved on the Report, or in the event of there being no Report of the Bill, he may still move it on the third reading by re-committing the Bill, with an instruction to introduce the Amendment which the hon. Member desires to move.

MOTION.

  PRIVILEGE — THE"WORLD"NEWS-PAPER—REFLECTIONS ON MEMBERS OF THIS HOUSE.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Sir, I rise with great reluctance to call attention to a question of Privilege arising out of an article in The World newspaper, which contains, I believe, a gross violation of the Privileges of Parliament, and which I know to be a gross calumny on the character and independence of many Members of this House. The passages I complain of are contained in an article called "Squaring the Irish Members." I do not propose to read the whole of that article; but I will ask leave to bring the paper itself to the Table, in order that the passages to which I have referred, and which I have clearly marked, may be read by the Clerk, after which I will venture to offer some observations to the House, and will conclude with a Motion.
  The Cleric at the Table read the passages from the article as follows:—
  "The interesting little performance to which the select company of 36 Irish Members treated the House of Commons last week may, perhaps, he repeated before the end of the Session. It was part of a programme in which Mr. Parnell and His associates have consented to figure for a handsome pecuniary consideration. The Land League does not pay its delegates in the House of Commons 15 guineas a-week to sit still and do nothing. These gentry are for the moment cowed into decent behaviour; but their employers are likely soon to call upon them again for fresh exertions…So far as England is concerned, the Land League's reason of existence is to create disturbance, and to cause trouble in or out of Parliament. Its Representatives in the House of Commons are paid to do this, and if they cease to do it their salaries will be stopped."
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORconfined: The House will, I am sure, believe me when I say that, having regard to the fact that the principal Business which is now under the consideration of the House has already been declared urgent, I should naturally shrink from bringing a question of this kind before the House if I could possibly avoid it, because I know there may be those who are inclined to suspect that the Members upon these Benches will be only too glad to avail themselves of any excuse, or of any material, which could serve as a block to that measure, which we are desirous, but, I hope, only by fair fight, to oppose. Under these circumstances, I should have shrunk, if I could have thought it consistent with my duty, from bringing the Question before the House; but after the House has heard the assertions of that article read by the Clerk at the Table, I think it will justify me in bringing the matter forward without Notice. The character, Sir, of the publication in which these articles appear is probably pretty well known to most Members of this House. It is one of those journaux de societe which cater for the depraved taste of idlers, and I think it might fairly take for its motto that expression of a Roman poet,"Qua-libet in quemvis opprobria fingere savus." The character of that publication would as a rule induce most men to treat it with contempt. I know I have been told personally by Members of my own Party that this particular publication should be allowed to sink to the limbo of contemptible trivialities without being formally noticed by this House. Sir, I can understand the position of these Gentlemen, but I cannot assent to their request. There are Members for Irish constituencies who have such ample fortunes that any aspersions of this kind fall upon them without any danger of injuring them; but I, Sir, am not one of these men. I am a poor man, known to be a poor man, and I am afraid that if I allow such an insinuation as this to go unchallenged and unrefuted on the very first opportunity that presented itself, there might be in the minds of many hon. Members of this House, whose generosity would prompt them instinctively to abstain from believing evil unnecessarily of anyone, a lurking misgiving as to whether there was not, after all, some foundation for such a

  511
  charge. I cannot afford, for these reasons, to allow this article to pass unnoticed. For those who know me well I have no misgiving. They know what such charges are worth. For those to whom I am utterly unknown it is a matter of little importance, perhaps, whether the charges be true as regards myself individually, and upon their opinion I should not set much store. But there are Members of this House to whom personally I am almost unknown, who have had no particular means of judging of considerations of this kind, men with whom I am brought necessarily into certain relations, and whoso good opinion, though they may not think it, I do most highly value. If it was on no ground but this, I should avail myself of the first opportunity to expose the atrocious calumnies in this article. As I have said, I am a poor man, but, thank God, I am independent. I do not look, I never have looked, and I never will look to any man, or to any body of men, no matter who, for assistance of any kind or description, direct or indirect, in any way in regard to my position in this House or anything connected with it. The House will, perhaps, allow me in justice to myself to mention, what under other circumstances I could not have thought of mentioning, that I became a Member of this House against my will—refusing invitations from three constituencies before I consented to stand as a candidate, and only consenting to serve after urgent representations had been made to me that by becoming a Member of this House I might be of some service to my country. The consideration of what I owed to my country, and not any consideration of what I owed to myself, was the motive which induced mo to become a Member of this House. My being a Member of this House is matter of personal sacrifice, not only as regards means, but as regards time, which at my period of life is valuable to most men, and a sacrifice of social relations, because many old and dear friends whom I used often to see years gone by somewhere or other I now seldom meet; and in one particular quarter, where reparation can never be made to me, and from which I could naturally have looked for proud encouragement and guidance, I meet with just the reverse. God knows, Mr. Speaker, that the seat which I occupy in this House is
  512
  not a matter of advantage with me, past, present, or prospective. But, while I hold it, I trust I shall hold it with honour; and if I thought that any section of this House, English or Scotch, could for one single moment believe the calumnies which are contained in this article in The World, I would not consent to remain a Member of this Assembly for one single day. But, Sir, I am not speaking on my own account only. There are other Members of the Irish Party for whom I am empowered to speak, and who repudiate as emphatically as I do the allegations contained in that article. If my honour is aspersed, so also is theirs; and if my character for integrity would be endangered if I allowed this article to pass unnoticed, so also would theirs. But not only as an individual do I bring this matter before the House, not only as representing a considerable section in this House, but also as a Member of this House I think I have a right to complain of these calumnies, and to ask the House to express its opinion upon their character. Sir, on April 24, 1844, in similar circumstances, Sir James Graham used the following words:—
  "Whatever concerns the. character and honour of any hon. Member in this House is intimately and indissolubly connected with the House itself."
  I wish, before concluding with my Motion, to draw the attention of the House to one or two precedents on which I found the course I mean to adopt. On February 27th, 1699, on a complaint made to the House of certain printed papers, one of which, presented and read at the Table, was subscribed Edward Stevens, and contained reflections on the conduct of the House in general, and in particular of Mr. John How, it was resolved that the said paper was a false and scandalous libel. Again, on February 26th, 1701, it was resolved—
  "That to print or publish any books or libels reflecting upon the proceedings of the House of Commons, or any Member thereof, for or relating to his service therein, is a high violation of the rights and privileges of the House."
  And again, on April 20, 1844, on a complaint made of certain expressions made use of by Mr. Ferrand, and reported in The Times, with regard to Sir James Graham and Mr, Hogg, the

  513
  Chairmen of Committees, the House re-solved—
  "That Sir James Graham and Mr. Hogg having denied the imputations east upon them, and Mr. Ferrand having declined to substantiate the truth of them, this House is of opinion that the imputations contained in the said expressions are wholly unfounded and calumnious, and that they do not affect in the slightest degree the honour and character of the Members at whom they were aimed."
  The last precedent I will mention is that of May 21, 1858, when complaint was made by Mr. George Clive, the Member for Hereford, of an article in The Carlisle Examiner, imputing to him corrupt conduct as Chairman of a Committee on a Railway Bill. The article in question was read, and it was ordered—
  "That Hudson Scott and Washington Wilkes, the printer and the proprietor of the paper, do attend the House on Friday next."
  They were called in on that day and examined, and the House resolved—
  "That the said article is a false and scandalous libel on the Chairman of a Committee; secondly, that Washington Wilkes, in publishing the said article, has been guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House; and, thirdly, that Washington Wilkes, having been guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House, be, for the said offence, committed to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending the House, and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant accordingly."
  Now, Sir, whatever may be the position of hon. Members who sit upon these Benches in respect of recent proceedings, whatever may be the amount of indignation or of acrimony in the minds of some hon. Members, in consequence of their recent attitude, I do trust, and I believe that there is sufficient sense of fairness in the minds of English and Scotch Members to afford to us the same protection which they did not hesitate to give to Sir James Graham and other Members of this House in times gone by. I, for one, Sir, am perfectly prepared to place my good name in the keeping of my English and Scotch Colleagues in this House, and at their hands I will await my vindication. I, Sir, on the precedents I have referred to, beg to move—
  "That complaint having been made of an article in The World newspaper of the 9th February, entitled 'Squaring the Irish Members,' the House will take the said complaint into consideration on Thursday next; and that Mr. Fob-son, of 20, Pancras Road, printer, and Mr.
  514
  Frederick Evans, the publisher of the said newspaper, do attend at this House on that day."
  MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member and the House that, in point of form, there is an objection to the Motion. It proposes to take what the hon. Member deems to be a Breach of Privilege into consideration on a future day. Now, the uniform practice of the House is always to deal with questions of Privilege at once; and I must point out to the hon. Member that it is quite out of the question to postpone to a future day the consideration of that which he deems to be Breach of Privilege. I would, therefore, submit to the House that the hon. Member should be allowed to revise his Motion, for the purpose of meeting the objection raised.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: With your permission, Sir, and that of the House, I will revise the Motion so as to make it declare that the publication of the article in The World newspaper is a Breach of the Privileges of this House.
  MR. M'COAN: I beg, Sir, to second the Motion of my hon. Friend. When I, yesterday, read the article in question my first impulse was to take the course which has since been taken by my hon. Friend. To my mind the gravity of the offence is greater than seems to be the impression on the mind of my hon. Friend. I do not share his estimate of the character of The World, or of the amount of mischief it does in a case like this. The World is a paper conducted with great ability, and it circulates largely among the middle and upper classes of society. Besides, the scraps of gossip news which it collects are systematically reproduced in the Provincial newspapers. All this combines to give a peculiar gravity to the offence. In the present state of public feeling, both inside and outside the House, the Irish Members have, in all conscience, sufficient odium to contend against without having articles like this written about them. I am one of the most obscure Members of this House, I am hardly known in this House, and known still less out of it; but I feel as jealous of my own reputation, as an honourable and upright man, as the highest and most important Member. In regard to the finances of the Land League, I know, and care to know, nothing of them. I know nothing about the relation of my hon. Friends with the

  515
  Land League, I am sure they are quite able to defend themselves; but I complain of the wrong done to myself as one of the 36 Members mentioned in that article; and with all the vehemence, and earnestness, and indignation I can command I second the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the article in the 'World 'newspaper of the 9th day of February, entitled 'Squaring the Irish Members,' is a breach of the Privileges of this House."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think, Sir, that Members of this House generally, and, indeed, without exception, will sympathize with the honourable sensitiveness of feeling which has led the hon. Member for Queen's County and the hon. Member who has seconded the Motion to take indignant notice of the article which has boon quoted, and parts of which have been read by the Clerk at the Table. The conduct of Members of this House is presumed and believed by all of us to be dictated on every occasion by honourable motives; and all Members of this House, whether they be younger or older, or from whatever part of the country—whatever Party divisions there may be—stand upon a footing of precise equality in this respect. Hon. Members have a fair claim to that avowal; and if it be the object they have in view to obtain from the House, at any rate from the mouths of individual speakers, are petition of the words which the hon. Member for Queen's County quoted on the occasion that happened in 1844, I am quite sure they will have now difficulty in obtaining that satisfaction. Those words were—
  "That the charges which have been made do not affect in the slightest degree the honour and character of the Members at whom they are aimed."
  Not only do I utter those words myself —if I did it on my own part it would be a matter of small consequence—but I am quite certain in giving utterance to these words I give utterance to the general sentiments of the House, and that neither the two hon. Members who have spoken, nor any of those who sit near them and who believe themselves to be aimed at by this article, will stand one whit the worse, will suffer anything in character and reputation in the eyes of
  516
  the House or the public in consequence of this publication. The hon. Members have not stated in precise terms what it is that they conceive constitutes the gravamen of the charge. I do not suppose that they treat, as involving the essence of the charge, the allegation that they have received emoluments from any given source for their Parliamentary services. I do not enter into the question whether such emoluments were received by any hon. Gentlemen in that part of the House—[Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: And improper behaviour in consequence.] Quite so. I was going to say that I hoped it would not be understood that the charge upon Members of this House of receiving emoluments for Parliamentary services apart from any other duties involves anything that is dishonourable. Gentlemen enjoying the respect of Parliament and belonging to both of the great Parties in this House have received such emoluments. It is the opinion of many Gentlemen—and it is founded upon principle and the example of other countries, supported by argument—that it would be well if all Members did receive, or were entitled to receive, such emoluments. Most certainly it would not rest with myself or other Gentlemen who sit upon this Bench, and who are liberally paid by the State for such services as they render, to consent, for one moment, to consider as a charge against any Member of this House that he has received emoluments for public services, although I am aware that the salaries paid to officers of State are not paid directly in respect of the services they render in Parliament. I am quite sure, if I make a personal appeal to the hon. Member, I may refer to the times of Mr. O'Connell, who never was ashamed to confess in this House and out of it— and I think his ingenuousness in this House was admirable—that he was the paid servant of the people of Ireland. With regard to the Motion which has been made, I earnestly hope, if we can render all just satisfaction to the honourable sentiments of the Members who have spoken, that they will not invite us to enter upon the disputable and uncertain ground that is open by the Motion itself. Motions of this class always involve us in considerable difficulties, and I may be permitted to say that the Motion now made and supported by the two hon. Members would involve

  517
  us in greater difficulties than Motions that heretofore have been submitted. I will explain what I mean by reference to the precedents which have been quoted. The precedent of 1699 was an offence directed against a particular individual, but still declaring, undoubtedly, that certain comments made upon proceedings in this House constituted a Breach of Privilege. But when hon. Members carry us back to 1699 they must bear in mind, or allow us to bear in mind, that all comments whatever, of the most legitimate character—those comments which we now look upon as an essential condition to the working of our institutions in the daily Press—were then, and for a long time afterwards, treated as Breaches of Privilege, and as really punishable matter. Therefore, we should not go back to precedents of that date. But if we look to the precedents of 1844 and 1858, I am quite sure the candour of the hon. Member will induce him to allow that those matters were of quite a different character from the proceeding to which he now invites our attention. In 1844 the whole of the parties concerned were Members of the House; and it was an adjudication of the House on a charge of a gross nature made by a Member of the House against other Members of the House, and the concern of the newspaper Press in that charge was wholly secondary and incidental. The House was pronouncing upon matters of character of the highest importance between Members of the House, and the House could not possibly avoid giving judgment in the case. There is no such case now before us. In 1858, so far as I recollect, there was some doubt in the minds of many Members whether the matter need have been taken up; but the hon. Gentleman will observe this vital difference—first of all, that the charge was a charge against an individual; it was not against a body of Members. The hon. Member has gallantly taken upon himself the brunt of this charge; but that which belongs to him is but a small fraction of the broad allegation which involves some 40 or 50 Members of this House. Again, Sir, in 1858, the charge made against Mr. Clive was a charge of direct corruption in the exercise of an Office of trust committed to him by this House—namely, the Chairmanship of Committee. It is, therefore, certain that, whether the article
  518
  be technically a Breach of Privilege or not, to discuss it would lead us very much further upon ground which it is not desirable for us to tread than we have ever yet been induced to go. Still, I would not too rigidly urge this consideration if I did not believe that what is desired is rather the sympathy of the House in rebutting these highly injurious and offensive imputations. I again say that I am quite convinced that the hon. Member and all those who sit near him do possess that sympathy entire and unbroken; and, under these circumstances, I feel warranted in appealing to them on every ground, both of prudence and good feeling, and respectfully submitting that this matter may not be further proceeded with.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I will not detain the House more than a minute; but I wish to say that I feel sure that the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister are such as the great body of the House will accept. I think the general feeling will be that it would be unwise and unnecessary, on the present occasion, to bring us into one of those disagreeable and highly inconvenient Privilege discussions; and I hope, after what has fallen from the Prime Minister, and the general expression of sympathy which I think would be given by the whole House with regard to the language which has been used of hon. Members, that they will not consider their personal honour is in danger from the imputations which have been made, or that there is any occasion for pressing the matter further.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYhoped that the House would come to an arrangement that would give satisfaction to the hon. Members who had been insulted. He disliked the raising of this question of Breach of Privilege, especially when it concerned the newspaper Press. He was willing to give liberty, and even something approaching to licence, in the criticisms of the newspaper Press. He was conscious himself of having sometimes written thoughtlessly, inaccurately, in newspapers—[Mr. NEWDEGATE: Hear, hear!] —and he was induced to make the utmost allowance for criticism that might even be unjust. But this was not merely a question of criticism or insinuation; it was a very distinct charge, put in the rudest and most offensive terms, against Members of the House. The charge was

  519
  not merely that Members had accepted remuneration from some organized body of persons. That, of course, would not necessarily, in itself, be a discredit to those who gave or who received. On the contrary, it might be a very high honour, alike to the organization who paid the Members and to Members who received it. He could quite imagine the Land League sending a tenant farmer to Parliament to express the sentiments of tenant farmers generally; and nothing would be more proper than that they should enable him to live in London without suffering personal loss. But this was a different transaction. It was suggested that it was something secret, underhand, and disgraceful. It was suggested that Members were paid secretly by the Land League to disturb the proceedings of the House, and were, or would be again, compelled to obey the dictate of their employers and be disorderly. Nothing was more natural and more proper than that hon. Members should feel that to be an intolerable accusation, and should seek the most direct means to give the most fiat denial to it. At the same time, he thought if a formal Resolution could be adopted in some such words as had been used by the Prime Minister, it would satisfy his hon. Friend and the Members of the Party with which he was associated. He only spoke fairly in their names when he said that they denied altogether the existence of any fact whatever on which to base the monstrous accusation, and the still more outrageous inference drawn from it by the author of the article in The World.
  DR. COMMINSconsidered that Irish Members had been subjected to a very gross slander. He could not agree that it was less because it was not against an individual. If he had been individually attacked, he could have challenged the writer to the proof; but the cowardly writer sheltered himself behind the contemptible and miserable plea—"It is not you I meant, but some other Member of your Party." The allegation was not that they openly received payment for services openly rendered; but that they secretly received payment for service supposed to be rendered gratuitously. Such libels reflected not only on the Members directly affected, but upon the House itself. He had seen a statement in a newspaper, that, on a certain night,
  520
  three Members were armed with revolvers. People in the country, unacquainted with the House, might be led to think it was becoming a sort of Alabama Convention. It was time the House took steps to prevent the occurrence of such offences by the Press.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that he perfectly remembered O'Connell in that House speak of his receiving payment for the services which he rendered in that House to his country. Why should the hon. Members who had been attacked shrink from following O'Connell's example? Suppose the charge should hereafter become true. If hon. Gentlemen had been charged with having been suborned by persons for personal and selfish ends, they would have commanded his entire sympathy. He could not but be reminded of the French proverb, Qui s' excuse s' accuse. He looked upon the Motion with something of suspicion, because he had himself been the object of the most severe comments by portions of the Press conducted in the interests of those hon. Members. He had never shrunk from such criticisms, and he would never be a party to crush attempts to restrain the Press, as was desired by those hon. Members.
  MR. GRAYsaid, if there had been anything to induce hon. Members who had been the subject of attack not to adopt the suggestion of the Prime Minister it would have been the speech just made by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate). The hon. Member was in error in assuming that the epidermis of every hon. Member ought to be as pachydermatous as his. He confessed he was not accustomed to square his conduct by the opinion of the hon. Gentleman, and he did not intend to do so upon the present occasion. He would make the suggestion to the hon. Member for the Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) that he ought to adopt the suggestion of the Prime Minister, and be content with an expression of an opinion, which was only emphasized by the single dissent of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. He, at the same time, thought the Prime Minister was in error when he stated that this was not an individual accusation. In terms it was an accusation against 3G individuals that each was subsidised by a weekly salary, paid by the Land League, for the purpose of dis-

  521
  turbing the proceedings of the House. That was an accusation under which they could not possibly consent to remain. Hon. Gentlemen who knew him, and any of his Colleagues, would not believe the accusation; but it must be remembered that it was made and circulated in England, and copied very widely, and was read by persons who knew nothing of them beyond their names, and it was really necessary they should take steps to vindicate themselves from this definite and precise charge. Insinuations had been made in a general way within the House; but they could afford to treat them with contempt. Here, however, was a specific charge, and it was impossible for them to pass it over. He agreed with what the Prime Minister had said—that there was nothing dishonourable in hon. Members being paid for public services rendered within the House. There were hon. Members, he believed, in that position, and they wore certainly as much respected as any other hon. Members in the House. The difference between the case of those Gentlemen and that of the hon. Member for the Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was this—that whereas theirs was open and aboveboard, with nothing secret or underhand about it, the allegation in the present instance was that the Irish Members at that side of the House were doing work there for no public purpose, but because they were paid a special salary and were subsidised to do a certain thing. He (Mr. Gray) was confident that there was no Member in that House, with the exception, perhaps, of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, who believed there was the slightest ground for that allegation. He was not a member of the Land League himself, nor had he ever received any subsidy from that body. Neither did he believe that any of the 36 Irish Members who sat on that side of the House ever received'a subsidy from the Land League; but certainly he thought that if the journal referred to did not think fit to withdraw the accusation, which possibly by inadvertence it had made, there were other remedies open to those against whom it was levelled; and, as Irish Members had received such an assurance as they had from the House, he trusted that the matter would be permitted to rest. As a journalist himself, he believed in the old maxim, "Hog not eating dog." He did not like to see
  522
  members of the Press too severely handled for acts which were possibly completely beyond the control of those who would ultimately be held responsible. Many times articles were written that possibly never had attracted the attention of the proprietors; but still those matters should be treated with some consideration; and he thought, in the present case, they might be well content with the expression of opinion they had already had upon the subject.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he regarded the position of Members who received support from the self-imposed taxation of their constituents as a position of singular dignity and honour, and he had not a word to say against assistance so rendered. But in the charge brought against them, the distinct allegation, not to be shirked or blinked, was that they were there for an improper purpose, and were receiving from certain employers monies which would be withhold if they ceased to misconduct themselves. He could not rest for a single day under that stigma. However, he was prepared to accept the expression which had been so generously made in the House. He sincerely, and from his heart, thanked the Prime Minister for the kindly way in which he had alluded to him; and he thanked also the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition for the way in which he had spoken. After that expression of opinion, he was con-tent, with the leave of the House, to withdraw the Motion he had made.
  MR. O'DONNELL, while concurring in the suggestion that the matter should proceed no further, could not share in some of the reasons given for that course. He considered that a distinct Breach of Privilege had been committed, and that an apology ought to be exacted. He was as desirous as anyone to defend the privileges of the Press; but privilege and licence were very distinct things. At the same time, he could fully understand the position in which the head of the Government had placed himself, in throwing cold water upon the proposal made upon behalf of the Irish Members. ["Oh!"] In a question of that kind it would be very inconvenient for the right hon. Gentleman to reprimand any newspaper on the score of imperfect Irish information. He considered that the charge made against the Irish Members by that newspaper wore neither more or less important, nor more

  523
  or loss true, than the general charges made against Ireland by Her Majesty's Government. He could fully understand accordingly that, although some cynically disposed persons might like to see the Premier rebuking Mr. Yates for the character of his Irish information, that, notwithstanding, Her Majesty's Government might very reasonably object to affording that House an amusing variation of the ancient controversy between the kettle and the pot.
  MR. T. P. SULLIVANsaid, as a Member of the Land League and of the House of Commons, he wished to say a very few words. He considered that the charge which had been made was a very offensive one under existing circumstances; and he assured hon. Members inside the House, and the public out-of-doors, that he believed the very last purpose to which the Land League would desire to devote any of its funds would be the sustenance of Irish Representatives in the House, because it was of opinion that money could not be more utterly and completely wasted than in sending Members to the House of Commons, in the hope that they would be able to influence its action.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) PILL— [BILL 79.]
  (Mr. W. E. Forster, Mr. Gladstone, Sir William Harcourt.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee road.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Power of Lord Lieutenant to arrest and detain).
  MR. PUGHsaid, he had to propose an Amendment in this clause, in page 1 line 5—after the word "who" to insert "upon the evidence by affidavit of not loss than two witnesses." The clause, as it now stood, would enact that—
  "Any person who is declared by warrant of the Lord lieutenant to he reasonably suspected of having "done so and so" may he arrested in any part of Ireland, &c."
  The alteration which he proposed to make in the clause was to the effect that
  524
  the Lord Lieutenant should have no power to declare a man to be suspected unless he had the evidence on affidavit of not less than two witnesses. He believed he should be able to satisfy the Committee and Her Majesty's Government that the Amendment was a most reasonable one. In fact, it was the smallest measure of protection which they could give; and unless they were prepared to give it there would be no security whatever against the arrest of the most innocent persons. Before defining further the effect of the words he proposed to insert he wished to point out that they involved two propositions; the first was, that sworn evidence upon affidavit should be required, and the second was that the evidence of two witnesses should be necessary. Although he regarded both of these propositions as of great importance, he confessed that he attached the greatest weight to the first of the two. The first thing he would ask the Committee to consider was this—According to the scope of the Bill as it stood at present, it was not proposed or intended to give the Lord Lieutenant the power of arresting any person whom he might think in his discretion ought to be arrested. It was not proposed to confer upon the Lord Lieutenant so wide a power; but they intended to introduce such principles as were considered proper for the protection of the people, and it was competent for the Committee to insert such limitations as they might deem necessary. One limitation already provided by the Bill was that the person to be arrested should be reasonably suspected; and he would ask if it was not also a proper limitation that there should be some evidence on oath or affirmation that there were reasonable grounds for suspicion? How otherwise was the Lord Lieutenant to arrive at a conclusion that there was a case of reasonable suspicion? It could only be by the sending of a letter or report to Dublin Castle; and if such letter or report were not given on oath, what ground of reasonable suspicion could be deduced from it? He hoped he should be able to satisfy the Committee that the introduction of the words which he proposed would not impair the efficiency of the Bill; but, on the contrary, it would increase its efficiency, and give, as far as possible, some real protection to the persons upon whom the Bill would operate. It was not only within the

  525
  competency of the House to make an alteration of this sort, and throw protection around the people; but it was absolutely the duty of the House to fence in the powers conferred by the Bill in every way in which it was possible, so long as they did not impair the efficiency of the measure. It was only right that he should say, on his own part, that under no circumstances would he propose any Amendment whatever that would be likely to impair the working of the measure. He had no desire to do so; but in asking the Committee to support the Amendment he did so because he believed that its adoption would improve the Bill. If the evidence which induced the Lord Lieutenant to declare a man to be reasonably suspected was not to be upon oath or affidavit, on what was it to be? He should have preferred to place the Amendment before the Committee, contenting himself with hearing what might be said against it, and the objections which might be raised by those who were of opinion that the Bill was bettor as it was at present framed. But under the new Rules he would have no right of reply; and, therefore, it was necessary that in moving the Amendment he should consider what objections might be urged to it, and reply to them at once. In considering what the possible objections might be, the only one of importance that he could see was that it might be desirable to give the Lord Lieutenant power to arrest persons who were suspected without requiring any sworn or affirmed information to be before him. He ventured to think, on the contrary, that that would be most undesirable. It was only fair and right that where a man was to be arrested under the Act, the person who laid the information against him should do it at the risk of a prosecution for perjury. He failed to see how such a provision would in any way impair the operation of the Act. No delay was involved in the matter, because it would take no further time to send up information sworn or affirmed than it would be to write them and send them up to Dublin without being sworn. No doubt, it might be said that it would be difficult to get persons to swear to such informations. He was quite aware of that, and they could not always expect to have direct evidence in these cases. It would often happen that persons who were willing to make statements to the police would decline to put
  526
  anything clown in writing. But that would not be the case in regard to the constables; and certainly in their case it was most desirable that, in furnishing information of this kind, they should, at least, be required to swear that they believed the truth of the reports that reached them. He did not see how the satisfactory working of the measure would be imperilled by requiring that every report sent up through the police to Dublin Castle upon which the Lord Lieutenant might act should be sworn to be true to the best of their knowledge, information and belief of the person making it. What would then be the position of affairs? It would be admitted that the Lord Lieutenant could have no personal knowledge of the cases submitted to him. Then how was he to act? The information must be conveyed to him by somebody. He presumed the course adopted would be for the chief police officer of the county to send up a representation to the Lord Lieutenant stating that he had been informed by some members of his force that such and such a person came within the terms of the Act. It might be that the magistrates would send up similar representations. What would the Lord Lieutenant do? Under the Bill, as it stood at present, his course would be either to take the responsibility upon himself of delaying the arrest until he could make inquiries, or to act at once upon the representation made to him. In the case he was putting now, where the constable was the informer, how could it be said that there was any hardship to require him to swear that he verily believed the reports he had heard to be true. With the permission of the Committee, he would put before them one or two cases in which he thought this provision would be most valuable. He was not acquainted with the parts of Ireland which would come under the operation of the Act; but he did not imagine that they would differ materially from parts of England. If his supposition was correct, then there would exist in them a good deal of enmity and ill-feeling between individuals; and neither in Ireland nor in any part of the United Kingdom would any person have a chance if he were to be denounced behind his back upon unsworn information. Whatever the cause of the enmity or ill-feeling might be, this would be done in but too many instances; and if any man

  527
  was bent upon taking such a step against a neighbour, surely it would not be contended for a moment that he ought not to be held liable to the consequences of perjury, provided the representation he made was proved to be false. As regarded the police, he would not say a word against the Irish police, or against the police of this country. So far as his own observation and judgment went, they gave their evidence, as a rule, in a very excellent manner, and they were perfectly reliable. But there was this qualification—it must never be forgotten that they were men whose business it was to deal with criminals of every kind; and not only to detect crime, but to secure the conviction of the criminal. It was the same not only with regard to a policeman, but in every other trade or profession. The man who followed a particular business had every desire to carry it out to its most complete end, and the business of a policeman was to bring home every crime or charge of a crime to somebody. He was, therefore, only too prone to arrive at the conclusion that when a charge was made against an individual that individual must be guilty. Whenever an outrage happened there were always plenty of people ready to say who had done it; and, so far as the magistrate was concerned, it was only in human nature that he should be anxious to see the criminal detected. He, therefore, sometimes gave too ready credence to the stories which were laid before him. Thus, again, he (Mr. Pugh) asked the Committee to consider what the effect was upon the persons who made the charge. If they were required to put their information into writing and swear to it they would be induced to pause before they wilfully sent up a false representation. Take the case of a man who did not intend to do anything wilfully wrong. He thought the charge he made was probable; he believed that a particular man had been concerned in a certain outrage; and he gave information accordingly representing that the man he specified was the man. But if they told such a man to write down the charge and mention the various facts on which he relied for entertaining his suspicion, what would he do then? He (Mr. Pugh) ventured to say that in many cases a man, under such circumstances, instead of writing down an information, when he came to consider the
  528
  case and the effect of his words, and what grounds he had for making the accusation, together with all he had seen himself and heard from other people, would come to the conclusion that he had no sufficient grounds for bringing a charge. It therefore amounted to this —that as regarded the magistrate, and as regarded the police constable, they would lend only too willing credence to such things as they wished to believe. Such a belief would accord with the Apostle's description of faith as "the substance of the evidence of things not seen;" but it would not be right or safe to imprison people upon such a belief without trial or appeal. Without desiring to delay the Committee he hoped he might be allowed to quote words of the greatest importance in such a matter as this which proceeded many years ago from the Duke of Wellington. It was the only authority he intended to cite in support of his position. The Duke of Wellington, speaking in reference to a proposal to bring troops into Ireland at a time when it was considered that the committal of certain outrages justified recourse being had to exceptional measures, said—
  "On these occasions letter after letter is written to the Government. The same fact is reported through many different channels. The result of inquiry is that the outrages complained of are found to be by no means of the nature or extent complained of."
  In order to apply these words to the case the Committee were now dealing with, he would say that the result of inquiry into the complaint made in reference to the conduct of a particular individual was to show that there was no reasonable ground for suspicion. The Duke of Wellington went on to say—
  "The obvious remedy for this evil, and that which is most generally resorted to is to call for information on oath as to the transactions complained of; but this remedy is not certain, be-cause it frequently happens that the information on oath is equally false with the original statement."
  With regard to the latter part of the quotation, all that he (Mr. Pugh) could say was that the warrant should be on the best evidence they could get; and in reference to the other part of the quotation he wished to press this upon the Committee and upon the Government— that "the obvious remedy for the evil, and that which should be generally resorted to," as he hoped it was now

  529
  resorted to, and would be generally resorted to, was "to call for information on oath in regard to the complaint." If so, he did not see what reasonable objection there could be to including such a requirement in the Bill. The Duke of Wellington stated that letter after letter was sent, and the facts were represented from different channels. The same might be said in this case—Report after Report was sent, and the facts were represented from different channels. No doubt what was true at the time the Duke of Wellington wrote was true now, and would be true after the present Bill passed. No doubt after the Bill became law letter after letter would be sent, report after Report would be made, and representations would be made through one channel and another for the purpose of inducing the Lord Lieutenant to put the Act in force against individuals; but he appealed to the Committee whether, without sworn evidence, it was either reasonable, or fair, or safe to act upon such representations? He appealed to Her Majesty's Government to meet him on the point, and to make the concession he asked to those who felt that the Bill, as it was now framed, was capable of being unjustly brought into operation against particular individuals. It was only a moderate and very small concession that was asked for; but he was sure that it would give very great satisfaction. It would, to a certain extent, give a sense of security to a large number of people in Ireland; and he was satisfied that it would not, in any way, interfere with the working of the Act. He had based his argument upon the desirability of having sworn information, because he was convinced that when a man was required to put down deliberately in writing the nature of a charge he desired to bring, he would soon give up the task when he found that the facts failed to afford sufficient grounds for so serious an accusation. And it must not be forgotten that what a man put down in writing was liable to be contradicted, and this of itself would operate as a check, for we have it that—
  "When we risk no contradiction
  It prompts the tongue to deal in fiction."
  Again, if it was false, the man who wilfully made a false accusation was liable, on conviction, to the penalty of perjury.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 5, after the word "who," to insert the words "upon the evidence by affidavit of not less than two witnesses."—(Mr. Pugh.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he rose to a point of Order. They were now acting under the new Regulations. The hon. Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Pugh) had called the attention of the Chairman to the fact that he would be unable again to speak to the Motion. That was not the way in which he (Sir John Hay) read the instructions. He took it that any hon. Member who had made a Motion, or moved an Amendment, if he de-sired to offer explanations, could do so. As this was the first occasion upon which they had gone into Committee after the introduction of the new Rules, he thought it would be well if Mr. Play-fair would make the matter perfectly clear so as to prevent any mistake.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that, as he understood the new Regulations, the Rule which allowed an explanation to be made only referred to such an explanation as might be necessary in order to prevent any misunderstanding in regard to a Motion or Amendment.
  MR. WARTONwished to put one point to the hon. and learned Member who had moved the Amendment (Mr. Pugh). He would suggest that the word "less," in the Amendment should be changed into "fewer." He objected to the word "less," which could only be used as the antithesis of greater. It would be bettor to say "fewer" and "more." It was not necessary, however, that he should explain why the word "fewer" would be more correct in the present instance than the word "less."
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Pugh). Although I am in charge of the Bill I believe I shall not be allowed to do more than make an explanation hereafter; and, therefore, although I intend only to say a few words, it is necessary, in rising thus early, that I should say all I have to say. My hon. and learned Friend gave two grounds for the Amendment. One of them was that if an information is necessary in order to enable the Lord Lieutenant to act, it should not be made by individuals in the employment of the

  531
  police alone, or by the magistrates, but that it should be given on the sworn information of two witnesses. Certainly, the Government would not have brought this Bill before Parliament if they could always rely upon getting two sworn affidavits as to the facts from persons who were really concerned in the matter. Our great reason for introducing the Bill is the impossibility of obtaining such evidence. It is upon that ground that we mainly base the necessity for it; and, therefore, to demand sworn evidence would, it seems to mo, entirely stultify us before the country in regard to the measure. I think it might be fairly stated that if, alter bringing in a Bill to empower the Lord Lieutenant to make arrests on reasonable suspicion of treasonable practices, and basing that Bill upon the ground that it is impossible at present to get evidence on account of intimidation, we were then immediately afterwards to say, "We must have a sworn information," we should be merely wasting our time. I understand my hon. and learned Friend to go on to say that in case the information is given by the magistrates or the police it ought to be upon oath. Now, with regard to that proposition, I must really be allowed to say this— What we now propose is that for a limited time, and under special circumstances, the Irish Executive should be intrusted with exceptional powers. I imagine that we have already convinced the House of the necessity of conceding these powers. We have shown the necessity for the detention of certain prisoners in the position of untried prisoners, instead of being obliged to bring them up for judicial investigation and trial. We are well aware that that will place a serious and a heavy responsibility upon the Executive Government; but it is a responsibility which they will have to undertake, and I do not think that any security would be gained by an attempt to bring in the ordinary forms of trial, when the Executive are merely detaining a man upon reasonable suspicion. The hon. and learned Member says that sworn information should be required. But suppose that, in certain cases, they succeeded in getting two policemen or magistrates to send up a sworn information, I doubt whether much additional advantage would be thereby derived. Every case will have to be specially inquired into, and
  532
  the responsibility of the decision will be imposed upon the Lord Lieutenant and his advisers; and, as men of honour, they will consider it their duty to ascertain that there are reasonable grounds of suspicion. I do not think that anything will be gained, either in the shape of security or liberty, if, when such powers are obliged to be given, we try to intermingle with it the general forms which are adopted in other instances where a ease is coming on for trial. I have ventured to give my opinion thus early in the discussion, because I think it would be quite contrary to the principle and scope of a Bill of this kind to adopt the Amendment which has been proposed. I need not repeat that every exertion will be made to insure that no injustice is done. If I thought that in endeavouring to prevent injustice being done this sworn information would help us, I should not be disinclined to look with favour upon my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment; but I think, on the contrary, that it would rather tend to release us than otherwise from the trouble which we ought to take. I say, with regard to this Amendment, what I dare say I shall have to say in regard to other Amendments, that it is a most serious matter having to give this power to the Executive Government at all; but it would be of no advantage to give it and then to fetter its use. It would be of no use to give it under conditions which would interfere with its being properly employed. And while I think that this proposal would give no real security, I can well understand that it might lead to the prevention of the arrest of some persons who ought, specially, to be arrested. We might get information, quite independent of the police, from persons who would not swear to it—who were absolutely afraid to swear to it, and yet it might relate to the very persons whom of all others we ought to arrest. The provision of my hon. and learned Friend would, in such cases, prevent the Act from being brought into operation. No doubt, it is a very unpleasant duty for Parliament to place such powers in the hands of any Administrators. It is not necessary to appeal to hon. Members opposite, who have, over and over again, declared their disbelief in the necessity of the Bill, and their opposition to repressive measures under any conditions. But I do appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the

  533
  House, who consider it necessary that such a Bill as this should be passed, that, having agreed to read it a second time, they should accept the conditions upon which we propose to confer these powers upon the Government. The Executive Government will act with the highest sense of the responsibility which attaches to them; but they feel that it would be of no use giving them the power they ask for if, at the same time, you fetter their discretion in the exercise of it.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORwished to call attention to the last observation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He hoped the Committee would not misunderstand the position of himself and of the Irish Members generally. While their hostility to the Bill still remained exactly what it was before, that did not prevent them from seeking so to amend the Bill as to decrease what they considered to be its cruelty; and, therefore, he hoped that their general hostility to the measure would not be confounded with their desire to amend its provisions, but that any Amendment they suggested would be considered on its merits. On the particular point now under consideration, he thought that to continue to discuss the clauses of the Bill was nothing loss than a scandal at the present moment, and he would toll the Committee why.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Question before the Committee is simply the Amendment which has been submitted by the hon. and learned Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Pugh), and not the general consideration of the clauses of the Bill.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was just coming to that point. His ignorance of the new Rules must account for his wandering a little astray; and the fact that the Chairman had been compelled so early to recall him to those Rules was a convincing proof why he should not he required, at the present moment, to discuss the clauses of the Government Bill. He altogether travered the arguments which had been used by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He had entirely changed the ground of his opposition to the Amendment and his advocacy of the Bill. The grounds of the right hon. Gentleman's opposition to the Amendment, and of his advocacy of the Bill, were entirely antagonistic. The right hon. Gentleman said the reason for introducing the Bill was that it was impossible to get evidence. But the
  534
  reason formerly assigned was not that he could not get evidence, but that he could not get witnesses to give the evidence in open Court. The right hon. Gentleman know very well that in a large number of cases persons had gone to him and had complained of the pressure put upon them by the Land League or some other organization; but that he could not get those persons to get upon the table in the Court House and repeat in open Court what they had stated privately. Therefore, the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill was altogether different from the basis of his objection to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, which said that it was necessary to have the evidence of two witnesses. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would put it to the Committee whether there was not often a wide difference between the statement which was rashly made by word of mouth and the statement that had legality with it. If they required information from an informer, they should require him to descend to specification and details. There was frequently a very material difference between a statement made by word of mouth and one put in writing. He would put it in this way. Suppose any number of Members of that House came to an understanding which was to form the basis of an agreement. It was often found necessary that hon. Gentlemen should come to some agreement with each other—for instance, in regard to the closing of a debate on a certain day. If any distrust was felt, and the question was one on which there was likely to be any misapprehension, the course always adopted was to put the agreement into writing in place of trusting to the vagueness and uncertainty of a statement made by word of mouth. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said the Bill would only be in force for a limited time; but it was, nevertheless, to give the right of imprisoning men for 18 months, which would amount in many cases, not only to loss of liberty, but to loss of life. Eighteen months of imprisonment under certain conditions, to persons reared under certain circumstances, was as much a sentence of death as if they sentenced a man to the gallows. Therefore, he thought the limitation of time was not a sufficient reason why hon. Members should not scrutinize every line that went into the Bill. The right hon. Gen-

  535
  tleman said the responsibility of the Government was so serious that they had a right to repose the greatest confidence in them. Now, he confessed that his confidence in the right hon. Gentleman and Her Majesty's Government was not so strong that he was willing to leave to them the power of arranging and settling what the nature of the information should he. For anything they knew, it might he very little different from the lettres de cachet by which at one time a Frenchman could be confined in that Bastile, the destruction of which had been spoken of upon the Liberal Benches as the dawn of a new era of liberty. There was one point upon which he was anxious to make a suggestion to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment—namely, that he should add to his proposal a proviso that the two witnesses should not be landlords. He made this suggestion in order to test whether or not it was intended that the Bill should place the unfortunate Irish tenantry at the mercy of the Irish landlords; and he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would insist upon adding some such proviso.
  MR. RYLANDSentirely sympathized with the object his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Pugh) had in view; and if it were possible, by any ingenuity, to put words into the clause which would prevent his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary from committing any grave mistake in the exercise of the difficult duties imposed on him by the Bill, he should be much relieved. But he did not believe there was, in the means they had in their power, any possibility of surrounding the exorcise of the very important official duties which the right hon. Gentleman would have to perform in such a way as to prevent the liability to commit a mistake. Of course, that was one great reason why all of them disliked so much to see a Bill of this kind. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cardiganshire proposed that certain words should be put into the clause. He (Mr. Rylands) was not quite sure, however, whether, if those words were inserted in the Bill, they might not have exactly the opposite effect to that which his hon. and learned Friend anticipated. What was the meaning of the words proposed to be inserted? The meaning of those words was that the Lord Lieutenant should only act upon the evi-
  536
  dence or affidavit of not less than two witnesses, who might be two policemen, or two magistrates. No doubt, affidavits of that kind could be procured plentifully. There would be no difficulty in getting affidavits of the character his hon. and learned Friend seemed to think ought to be required. But what would then happen? Why, Dublin Castle would say—"We have an affidavit from two witnesses, and, therefore, we are satisfied." He, for one, as a Member of that House, would certainly not feel that such an affidavit would absolve the Executive Government at Dublin Castle from the personal responsibility which the Bill would devolve upon them. He knew that it was a serious responsibility which the House was consenting to confer upon them; but the Government had asked for it, and they would have to fulfil that responsibility in the eyes of the House and of the country. He wanted to be able to feel assured that the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary would in every instance, whatever might be the surroundings of the case, have the evidence fully laid before them, and give to it the most minute and careful investigation. [Mr. A. M. SULLIVAN: It would be onesided.] Under these circumstances, he was not prepared to support the Amendment, although he entirely sympathized with the object of his hon. and learned Friend who moved it.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANwas afraid that the hon. and learned Member who had moved the Amendment, and hon. Gentlemen opposite who supported it, would find they had deluded themselves with a vain hope if they imagined that if they once allowed the Bill to get into Committee they would be able to satisfy their honourable and honest scruples and appease their consciences by any Amendment in the direction of diminishing the harsh and arbitrary powers of the Bill. The Committee would reject the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and it would reject any Amendment which any honest and honourable man in that House might propose with such an object. He confessed that he was unable to understand the pretext upon which the Government declined to accept this most moderate and reasonable Amendment. It would not lighten the responsibility of the Government at Dublin Castle to provide that the information on which they should act should be sworn information in the first in-

  537
  stance. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary told the House that every man who was arrested under the Bill would be subjected to a most painful, a most painstaking, honest, and conscientious trial by him in Dublin Castle. But it would be a trial of one side of the story. It reminded him of the story of the Kerry magistrate, who once said that he decided all the cases that came before him immediately he heard one side, and it was only when he heard both sides that it bothered him. The Chief Secretary for Ireland was not to have those statements. It would bother him to hear the two sides of the story— nay, it would embarrass him to hear one upon oath. Then, upon what would he act—upon the affidavit of two witnesses, or upon the whispers of an irresponsible creature earning the wages of guilt by perjury or falsehood? Hon. Members might think this had never happened. But it had already happened in Ireland; and Her Majesty's Government knew it. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had said it was of no use to give the Government this power and to fetter them in their application of it. What was the fetter? That they should not send a man to gaol for 18 months unless upon the affidavit of two witnesses. He could understand the Government saying they knew the village tyrants who committed outrages, but that they could not get evidence. He acknowledged it was upon a story of that kind that the right hon. Gentleman would act, and upon such a story had the Coercion Bill been brought to its present stage, while there was almost an insinuation that the Ministerial eye was upon some hon. Members of the House. Well, if the Government did know these village tyrants alluded to, an English Member asked them that the minimum of legal procedure upon which he (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) might say the liberty of a child could not be taken away in England should be the maximum of protection given to an Irishman. The Government were driven by the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cardiganshire to confess that they would be afraid to put the Bill in operation if they were to be called upon to act upon the affidavits of only two witnesses. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had spoken in answer to that Amendment, as if any investigation that he could make in Dublin Castle of one side of the story
  538
  only could protect the liberty of anyone in Ireland. What did the right hon. Gentleman propose to do? "Do not relieve me," said he, with an air of noble heroism, "of responsibility." What responsibility? To whom was the right hon. Gentleman responsible? He (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) asked the Committee to imagine a magistrate on the bench sentencing a man to even a week's imprisonment, and saying he would hear no witnesses; that he would act on his own responsibility, and not upon evidence, in sending the prisoner to gaol. So said the right hon. Gentleman; but urged the hon. Members opposite that it would be very injurious. He had never known the ingenuousness of the hon. Member's nature until he thought he could put upon the Chief Secretary for Ireland such a terrible responsibility. That was nothing to him. The right hon. Gentleman was going to keep the information locked up in his breast. He might be pressed for explanation; but he would shake his head, and say—"You don't know on what suspicion we have incarcerated this wretch"—the wretched victim who would not be allowed to stand face to face with his accusers. And that, forsooth, would be the responsibility of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The responsibility of Mr. Chichester Fortescue, who was as honourable and conscientious a man as the right hon. Gentleman, failed to shield wretched men from tortures the narrative of which would make Englishmen blush with shame. The Committee should remember the adage—"Over shoes, over boots." They were in for it, so to speak, and must pass the bitter and cruel measure in the shape put forward by the Government. There were in the House liberty-loving men, who, once committed to this fatal error, would find, like the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment before the Committee, that there was no cruelty or tyranny too great for the Treasury Bench. The hon. Member asked them to preserve this miserable remnant, not of liberty, but of the decencies of judicial procedure. It was known that, under the last Coercion Bill, a man's house was broken into in order to search for papers, the warrant of search having been issued by a Liberal Government, and five years hence they would be again looking upon scandals of the same kind as occurred under the last coercive legislation. The hon. Mem-

  539
  ber was, therefore, vainly appealing to Her Majesty's Government, whose only reply was—"Leave us to our responsibility"—the responsibility not of gentlemen, or statesmen in Dublin Castle, not even of the village policeman; but upon the whisper of the spy and the information or grudge of a despotic landlord, which, under the Bill, would be sufficient, without evidence, to incarcerate Irishmen.
  MR. A. MOOREfully approved the objection of his hon. Friends opposite in their advocacy of the Amendment. At the same time, he thought that nothing in the world would be so likely to place men in the power of spies and of the village policeman as the system of affidavits. He had seen many of these documents produced. A man came forward and said certain things were true; the magistrate said—"Then you are prepared to swear that you believe them to be true," and the process was complete. Now, the simple result of the Amendment would be that any two affidavits would relieve Ministers of all responsibility. There had been numerous cases of informers living upon blood-money; for instance, that of Delahunty, who was watched by witnesses and found in the act of selling his tale to the authorities. For these reasons, he thought that the only protection the Irish people could got in this matter was that which resulted from enforcing responsibility on the Minister of the Crown. That responsibility, under the Bill, was secured by the fact that the names of persons arrested should be laid on the Table of the House within the first seven days of every month while Parliament was sitting. Parliament would, therefore, have the opportunity of calling Ministers to account, and give their reasons for making arrests, when he was sure the House would require more substantial evidence than that of two policemen.
  MR. LEAMYfailed to see what objection there could be to proceeding upon affidavit. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had said that one of the chief grounds upon which the Bill rested was the difficulty of obtaining evidence. He admitted that there was evidence in existence, but that the injured persons would not come forward owing to fear and intimidation. There must be some grounds upon which suspicion would rest; and, supposing an
  540
  outrage to be committed, the first thing the policeman did would be to go to the person whose property was injured, and ask whether he suspected anyone of the act. If then any reason existed for suspecting anyone of injuring the property, what harm could there be in asking that the suspicion should be stated on oath? Someone must send up the case to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who would be bound to question somebody as to the reasons for suspecting a man, otherwise how could he know whether there was any truth in the story or not? The right hon. Gentleman would certainly have to take upon himself the responsibility of ascertaining the character of the persons giving evidence. The effect of requiring an affidavit would be to deter men from stating that which was not true, because they would see that their words were written down, and that the penalty of perjury would be sure to follow if they did. For that reason, he should support the Amendment before the Committee.
  MR. DALYpointed out that it was not contended by the hon. Member opposite that the affidavit should be made public. It was only asked that the information should be of that nature which would entail responsibility on the person making the statement. A case bearing upon this had occurred in his own county. A letter had appeared in The Daily Express stating that a valuable hunter, belonging to a gentleman, had been injured; that its off fore leg was bruised so much that the animal had to be destroyed, and that the injury was wilfully done. That letter was signed by the rector, who called for the protection of the police. But he (Mr. Daly), five days later, had seen in the same paper another letter signed by the gentleman who owned the animal in question, which stated that the injury was the result of accident, that as two of his servants were exercising his horses some boys suddenly cried out, and one of the horses becoming restive cannoned against the other and broke its leg. Here was a gentleman making a statement in the columns of a public journal, and who undoubtedly believed every tittle he had subscribed to was true. Now, he urged in support of the Amendment that if this gentleman had been required to make an affidavit he would have inquired into the facts and details, and would not have made the statement

  541
  which he had irresponsibly published in a newspaper. That was one reason, therefore, why the Amendment should be accepted. Again, he was very much in accord with the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Meath, and thought that the Government had been seized with a desire to reject any Amendment that would give to men in Ireland liberty or fair play. It was an offence against common sense and every doctrine of fair play that they should refuse to act on sworn evidence.
  MR. J. COWENsympathized with the object of the Amendment, although he believed the Motion would not be of any good effect. Hon. Members who had voted for the second reading of the Bill with some qualms of conscience had, no doubt, hoped they would be able to amend it in Committee. But they had never been under a greater delusion. The Bill would be carried as it stood. The Chief Secretary for Ireland under its operation would be as absolutely despotic in the power which he would possess as was Loris Melikoff at St. Petersburg or Louis Napoleon at Paris. To illustrate the justice of his statement he would mention the case of his hon. Friend the Member for the County of Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan), who, when the Habeas Corpus Act was before suspended, had been most unjustly arrested, put in irons, and carried to Dublin; while on the journey the removal of the handcuffs was refused even for the purposes of nature. His hon. Friend was imprisoned for 15 months, and yet when his case was brought before the House of Commons, Lord Carling ford, at that time Chief Secretary for Ireland, and who was one of the most humane of men, made some excuses, but no redress was obtained. Such would be the appeal hon. Members would have under the present Bill. He should vote for the Amendment, with the confident belief that nothing would result from it.
  MR. ERRINGTONthought the Chief Secretary for Ireland had taken an extreme view of the effect of the Amendment. One of the most important preservatives of justice were the forms of law; and he considered it was a great matter that these should be preserved without damaging the Bill. The question was whether the insisting on some sworn evidence would render the measure inoperative. That could not be the
  542
  case, for the information would not be a sworn statement as to the actual facts, but only as to the bond fide belief of the person making the statement. That certainly would not be drawing the teeth of the measure; and the right hon. Gentleman, by accepting the Amendment, would show his desire to maintain such forms of legality as could be retained without interfering with its efficiency. He thought the affidavit should not be made a public document.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, he should vote for the Amendment with the intention of amending it thereafter if it passed, because he believed that as it now stood it would cause serious harm. If the affidavits were simply filed, handed to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and then kept private, it would lead to great additional abuse of the Bill, which in its nature was liable to abuse. He approved of the responsibility thrown upon the right hon. Gentleman of acting on the information of two credible witnesses; although it was to be feared that two untrustworthy individuals might put their heads together, and through spite against a man put this law in motion. The Bill, he felt, was bad and tyrannical; and he wished to place the responsibility of putting it in action upon the right shoulders. For this reason he would rather it should rest on the Chief Secretary for Ireland than upon the Irish magistrates, who were partizans. He should vote for the Amendment only with the intention of afterwards adding a further Amendment, to the effect that the affidavits should be filed and placed within reach of the public, in order to prevent the Bill I being used for the purpose of shutting up persons disagreeable to their neighbours.
  MAJOR NOLANagreed that the proposed Amendment would afford some protection, especially in country places, where it would be much required. In such districts people were already very anxious with regard to the effect of the Bill; and only yesterday he had received an inquiry from a substantial farmer, who had done no more than attend some meetings, as to whether he would be obliged to leave the country when the Bill came into operation. The class in Ireland to which that farmer belonged had been thrown into a state of terror. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had said he intended to strike terror into the minds of men who com-

  543
  mitted outrages; but he was really striking terror into a class of men who, in his opinion, were as good as many country gentlemen. These persons would feel they were in some degree protected, if they knew that some amount of sworn information was required before they could be imprisoned. A man who, perhaps, had not paid his rent, or who had a dispute about it, although he might be entirely in the wrong, ought not to be at the mercy of a private letter or interview with the magistrates. No doubt, many magistrates in Ireland had suffered from the agitation, and could hardly be expected to act reasonably in this matter. Take the instance to which he had first referred. The magistrate would probably go to the Chief Secretary and declare that this man was agitating the neighbourhood, and that he was suspected of being accessory to the firing of some man's house—with which, probably, he had nothing to do. The right hon. Gentleman would write to the police officer or magistrate in the district, which latter would possibly have been dining with some country gentleman, and they would all arrange to make a Report that this farmer was a dangerous man. At the same time, none of them would like to perjure his conscience by swearing to the truth of his belief. The Bill could only be worked on information supplied by three classes—country gentlemen, resident magistrates, and police officers. The Government, therefore, should seriously consider whether they could accept one of the Amendments on the Paper, obliging them to have the sworn information of two persons that they believed the suspected person had committed a crime under the Bill. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland could possibly judge the truth of every case that could come before him. He would be, after all, obliged to go upon legal evidence; and Her Majesty's Government would be only acting wisely in giving a further amount of comparative security to the classes interested. In the hope of obtaining this he should vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cardiganshire.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYfailed to understand how the Amendment, if adopted, could in any way diminish the responsibility of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The Bill would not then say that a man must be arrested, but that he might be arrested. It was
  544
  as much the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to examine into the truth of statements of fact brought before him on the affidavit of two persons, as it would be to examine into the truth of whispered accusations. If the Government had to act on the evidence of spies and informers they would, at least, afford some protection to the freedom of individuals by exacting a sworn statement, which could be kept and afterwards referred to; but otherwise there would be no record of the information on which a man might be arrested and consigned to prison for 18 months. "Unless that were done, a perfectly innocent man might be thrown into prison, and there would be no way of finding out who laid the information against him, or what was the excuse for his arrest. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was, no doubt, a man of boundless intelligence and humanity, and he had said he would examine every case, and that he would expend all his energies in doing so. But how could he do that? Could he go into every village, and, calling the people around him, question them as to the truth or falsehood of each story? Hon. Members knew he could do nothing of the kind. They know he would have to depend on the evidence of the spy and the informer. Besides, the right hon. Gentleman might not have a perpetuity of Office, and there might come some Chief Secretary for Ireland not so highly endowed and not so highly sympathetic, who would not take the same amount of trouble as the right hon. Gentleman in investigating the cases brought before him. He thought that some check should be imposed upon the overflow of information which would be given by the class of informers who would arise under the operation of the Bill, and should, therefore, vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, that when such largo powers were intrusted to the Government they should be surrounded with such safeguards as would, as far as possible, prevent their abuse. He did not mean abuse on the part of the Executive in Ireland, because he was sure they would exercise their powers as became the eminent men now filling those high and responsible offices. He referred to the abuse of those upon whose information and evidence they would have to act—the information of spies and others, who came forward on all

  545
  occasions of this kind, not for the good of their country, but, in some cases, perhaps, for the purpose of indulging in personal spite. Those were abuses inherent in measures of this character, and for that reason he gave the Amendment his support. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said if the Amendment were agreed to, and sworn evidence were required, the Lord Lieutenant and he would be left, to a considerable extent, to their own responsibility. How that could be he did not see. So far from their responsibility being lessened by having sworn testimony before them, he thought it would be increased; because when they saw sworn affidavits they would be bound to read them with care, and consider whether the statements they contained were satisfactory and were well founded. He could not see any weight in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. The Chief Secretary said that an Amendment of this hind would defeat the object of the Bill, which was to enable the Executive to get at a guilty person who, at the present moment, they were unable to touch, in consequence of the difficulty of getting people to come forward to give evidence against him. The persons who were afraid to come forward now and give evidence in open Court would not be afraid to come forward and give information secretly on affidavit, any more than they would be afraid to give information not on affidavit. It was not the police who were afraid to give evidence, nor their myrmidons, nor any of the officials, but strangers, who were in fear of bodily injury and for the safety of their property. But why should these people be afraid to come forward and make an affidavit in private, any more than they would fear to come forward and lay the necessary information before the Chief Secretary, or the Lord Lieutenant? He placed the utmost confidence in Her Majesty's Government, especially when he cousidered its constitution and the character of some, especially, of the right hon. Gentlemen who belonged to it, and he took on trust their statements on this subject. He was sure that if they had not a sufficient amount of evidence before them to satisfy their minds that a measure of this kind was necessary they would not press it forward; but he was not at all satisfied with the arguments
  546
  he had heard in answer to the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Pugh), and he certainly should support that Amendment. The Amendment lower clown requiring—
  "The sworn information of not less than two credible persons, not being in Government pay or employment, and resident in the barony within which the act for which the warrant may be issued is alleged to have taken place,"
  to be given, appeared to him equally acceptable and equally good for the purpose; but, whichever was accepted, it appeared to him that they should not be without some safeguard in a measure of this kind. He did not distrust the detective police in Ireland, or those authorities who would have to exercise the powers contained in the Bill; but he thought Parliament ought to adopt all possible safeguards against abuse, especially by spies, who cropped up whenever measures of this kind were in force. He himself recollected many of those cases referred to by hon. Gentlemen opposite —cases of cruel hardship and wrong, inflicted on persons under the last Coercion Bill. He—when sitting on the other side of the House, in Opposition—had heard accounts of suffering endured by men of respectability and character who were put in prison for purely political offences; and, with that experience before him, and with this recollection, he should be bound to do all he could to give security against the improper application of these powers against persons of honour and respectability, whose feelings he respected, however much he might differ from them in the course they were adopting for redressing the grievances of their country.
  MR. CALLANvery much regretted that the Attorney General for Ireland had not thought fit to get up in his place and reply to some of the arguments which had been used in support of the Amendment. Possibly he had not yet recovered from his great failure in the matter of the State Trials. He (Mr. Callan) was not in the House when the Chief Secretary spoke; but, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman would correct him if he misstated what he had said. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to have objected to being relieved of responsibility in this matter, and, at the

  547
  same time, to have contended that the adoption of the Amendment would fetter his discretion. This he would take as the sense of the two arguments in support of the right hon. Gentleman's opposition to the Amendment. The first three Amendments on the Paper substantially amounted to the same thing, and the Committee could come to a decision on all three in the one division. The Chief Secretary objected to the Amendment because it would relieve him of responsibility; but he (Mr. Callan) should prefer to see the right hon. Gentleman relieved of responsibility. It would be a great gratification to him, and to many others who, like him, had hailed the advent of a Liberal Government as a new era in Irish politics, to relieve the Government of the greatest failure which would characterize their Administration. They were told that the Chief Secretary had accepted his post, and had gone to Ireland with the best intentions; but it was said that a certain place was paved with good intentions, and they knew with what result. With reference to the right hon. Gentleman's objection to being relieved of his responsibility, he (Mr. Callan) was anxious that there should be sworn information to justify the Chief Secretary in his action, because he expected when they were relieved of the right hon. Gentleman's presence and he was back again in Dublin Castle, and the House was in a cooler temper—within a year or two years, or, at all events, before the Dissolution of the present Parliament—that they would be reviewing the right hon. Gentleman's acts or the acts of the Executive in regard to this Bill; and when they did review those acts, it was desirable, in order that they might be enabled to do it properly, that they should have some records to refer to. Suppose one of his (Mr. Callan's) hon. Friends were arrested, on inquiry being at once made, it would probably be said that the Chief Secretary—either he or his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant-—had acted on reliable information, or that they had investigated the case, and had satisfied themselves with regard to its justice. It would be desirable in such a case to have some tangible record upon which, hereafter, if new circumstances came to light they might test the right hon. Gentleman's judgment, and, if necessary, impeach
  548
  him for his conduct as Chief Secretary-The right hon. Gentleman's subordinates would, it was quite certain, in the operation of this Bill throw dust in his eyes, to use a very common phrase. What possible objection could there be to those subordinates from whom came the information upon which arrests were made—were they sub-inspectors, resident magistrates, or policemen—being required to make affidavits, and give the grounds on which they claimed that warrants should issue? Did the Chief Secretary wish to lead the House to believe that no warrant would issue for the arrest of a person under the Act until he had first investigated the circumstances of the case? If that was so the House would be relieved of the presence of the right hon. Gentleman for a considerable time. The right hon. Gentleman objected to have his discretion fettered—he came before them and said—"I wish, under this Act, to arrest anyone I think fit, and my discretion is not to be fettered." He (Mr. Callan) maintained that the right hon. Gentleman's discretion should be fettered, and he would give his reason for maintaining it—he was sorry, by the way, that the Chief Secretary had left his seat, as he should have liked to have had his attention to a case he was about to quote. Under the last Coercion Bill the resident magistrate—Captain Keogh— and the sub-inspector of Dundalk did certain things. He (Mr. Callan) made a complaint to the Chief Secretary, and followed the matter up, as he usually did whatever he took in hand, to the bitter end; and what was the result? The noble Lord the present Secretary of State for India—who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland—compensated the injured person. For the acts of the resident magistrate and the sub-inspector the noble Lord paid as compensation a sum of £15, though whether that sum was paid out of the funds of the Executive or those of the resident magistrate and sub-inspector he did not know. However, this was a case in point—a case in which the Chief Secretary was compelled, by the fairness and reasonableness of the case, to fine the Government or the resident magistrate and the sub-inspector a sum of £15 for their unlawful acts. But this happened because there was a record to appeal to. The magistrate and the sub-inspector denied

  549
  the facts alleged against them but; there was a record in existence, and he (Mr. Callan) knew where it was. By perseverance he obtained the record, put to shame their denials, and they were fined. Now, the Chief Secretary for Ireland had what no one else amongst them had, the power of making a reply. Would he, when he came to reply, tell the Committee that he would not issue a warrant, or allow one to issue, for the arrest of any person, unless on information—ho would not say sworn, but detailed information—of the grounds on which some splenetic sub-inspector, partizan resident magistrate, or untrustworthy sectarian bench of magistrates had made their representations to the head officials not on oath, not on their honour, but simply, perhaps, in a letter or a whisper, declaring that it was desirable, in their opinion, that a certain person, who was at the bottom of the disturbance going on, should be arrested. If such information was not to be given he was very glad that he lived out of Ireland. He should be very sorry for his liberty to depend upon the "discretion" of either the Chief Secretary for Ireland or the Attorney General. Remembering the antecedents of these two right hon. Gentlemen, he should say that very few persons of any independence of character would be safe in Ireland. He should be sorry to trust his liberty to the right hon. Gentlemen, or to any Member who, ever since he (Mr. Callan) first came into the House 13 years ago, had never lost an opportunity of voting for the most offensive clauses in every Coercion and Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act that had ever passed. He had gone over the Division Lists to see if his memory—which was usually accurate— was correct, and he found that it was. The right hon. Gentleman, ever since he came into Office in 1866, had voted for these offensive clauses; and he was the only Minister whose record was clear as a most determined opponent of the liberties of the Irish people. In late hours, when the Chief Secretary was in bed, or when—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order! The hon. Member is travelling beyond the Amendment before the Committee.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he only wished to show how necessary it was to fetter the discretion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. The personnel
  550
  of the Chief Secretary ship, and other offices in the Government, with all duo deference, was a material matter for their consideration. In the course of these debates they had been told, over and over again, of the benevolence of the Chief Secretary, and his high character, and they had been assured that they might without fear trust their liberties in his hands. Well, he would show the great difference that existed between the right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster— whom he was sorry not to see in his place. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had never voted for a Coercion Bill; but the Chief Secretary had shown and proved his tyrannical and arbitrary disposition towards Ireland by being the only Minister of the Crown who, for a period of 16 years, had never lost an opportunity of voting for the coercion of Ireland. This, he thought, sufficiently exposed the hollowness and falseness of the benevolence of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. D. DAVIESthought that the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Pugh) was, perhaps, going a little too far. He could imagine a case where three men were together, one of whom murdered another, leaving only one witness of the crime. This witness should be allowed to give information. Therefore, he would suggest that instead of its being necessary for "two persons" to make affidavit, "one person" should be inserted. This would be a reasonable alteration for the Government to accept. He failed to see the objection to a man who gave information privately making an affidavit. It would not come before the public, as the Chief Secretary would be the tribunal to consider it, not a jury; and, as he understood it, the great difficulty in the way of the carrying out of the present law was not only the difficulty of obtaining evidence, but that of getting juries to convict. For his own part, he would rather that 50 guilty men should be let at large than one innocent man should be imprisoned. No doubt there was a difficulty in this case, and a serious risk that innocent people would be made to suffer; therefore, he should go with the hon. Member for Cardiganshire, trusting that the Chief Secretary would see his way to the acceptance of the Amendment altered as he had proposed. It would

  551
  be most arbitrary to allow a man to be taken up on suspicion without requiring any formal information at all to be laid against him.
  MR. P. MARTINtrusted that the Chief Secretary would listen to the suggestion now made. He could not believe the Government intended that these warrants were, in fact, to be issued, unless they had some positive sworn information to prove the grounds of suspicion. Why, then, ask for such arbitrary powers, which would excite just indignation in Ireland? Under the provisions of the Bill the Chief Secretary was now entitled to act of his own free will—or possibly caprice—to put the monstrous powers conferred by this Bill in motion on a more hint or suggestion, without having anything in the nature of an information, record, or even statement to show the grounds or reasonableness of the suspicions he had formed. As a check and control on the unjust issue of those warrants some official record should be made at the time. To come to a sound opinion upon the Amendment, the Committee must look at the character of the Bill. Since the Habeas Corpus Act was first suspended, in respect to Ireland this was the first Bill which had ever been introduced into the House in which the power of issuing these warrants was proposed to be given to a single man. An inspection of the Acts of Parliament would show this—that up to the introduction by a Liberal Government of the present Bill, in the case of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, power had never been given to one person to issue warrants; but it had been necessary for them to be signed by six Members of Her Majesty's Privy Council in Ireland. For reasons best known to the Government, the power was now solely invested in the will and discretion of the Chief Secretary; therefore, if that right hon. Gentleman was anxious to carry out the measure in a fair and proper and generous spirit he would desire, oven for his own protection, to have this provision made with regard to sworn information. Were they going to permit this to take place—a man to rush into the Castle and say in a hurried manner that someone had written to him declaring that so-and-so was a suspicious character, and on such information the Chief Secretary to issue his
  552
  warrant? Was there to be no opportunity given to the accused for refutation or explanation; but was a warrant to be hurriedly issued after five minutes' conversation with the Chief Secretary? and was the person who told the hurried tale to the right hon. Gentleman to submit to no verification on oath, and was there to be no regard hereafter as to what had been done? He did not think anyone who understood anything about the principles of evidence, would say that there was any matter on which it was more difficult to arrive at an accurate judgment than a mere ex parte statement. Anyone who had been accustomed to practise as a counsel would know that when he heard the mere ex parte statement of his own client without having been made acquainted with the views and contentions of the other side, it was most difficult to arrive at a just conclusion. Knowing, therefore, how, in working an Act of this description the Chief Secretary would have to rely on information coming through most suspicious channels, for his own protection and for his own sake the right hon. Gentleman ought to be most anxious to obtain the benefit of sworn information. But whether that were so or not, for the sake of the public whom the House represented, he hoped they would not subject a whole people to a cruel and oppressive and tyrannical law without acknowledging their right to have the benefit of a record of the facts and circumstances which came under the Chief Secretary's notice upon the strength of which he issued his warrant.
  MR. W. CORBETsupported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cardiganshire- He was not at all surprised at the support that Amendment was receiving from Members on the Ministerial side of the House for a proposition to take away the liberty of the subject on "reasonable suspicion" must strike the mind of Englishmen in a very remarkable manner. They had not yet hoard what "reasonable suspicion" was defined to be. The Chief Secretary thought of having this "reasonable suspicion" unverified by an affidavit; but the hon. Member for Cardiganshire questioned the kind of information that would be supplied to the right hon. Gentleman even on sworn information. He wished to call attention to a case which had come within his knowledge

  553
  very shortly before he came over from Ireland—a case in which processes of eviction were about to be served upon a whole family. It unfortunately happened that there was sometimes in such districts a mauvais sujet or dissolute ruffian, to use a favourite phrase of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who was, unfortunately, too often in accord with the police. It was so in this instance, the individual being, as was often the case, the person to whom was confided the serving of processes of ejectment. Well, on a certain evening, the evening before the processes were to be served, this man, as he alleged, was fired at. On his way to his home he passed by the police barracks, but made no report of the circumstance. He passed by the barracks again on the next morning-, coming down to serve the processes of ejectment; but still made no report. He went into the house of a most respectable family—he (Mr. Corbet) knew them all very well —and served his processes of ejectment, and did this without seeking any protection whatever against the man whom he was going to charge with having fired at him. He then went to the police barracks and made an accusation against Patrick Kelly, a young man of high intelligence and good character. Upon the information of this wretched creature the magistrate issued a warrant, and this young man was dragged out of his house and sent to the gaol at Wick-low. Hearing the farts, he (Mr. Corbet) himself, accompanied by the parish priest, went up to the committing magistrate and requested that bail—substantial bail—might be accepted. The magistrate declined. Sometimes, unfortunately, in Ireland, these gentlemen were only imperfectly acquainted with the law they had to administer. It was so in this instance. The magistrate did not seem to understand the application, and he put them off. He (Mr. Corbet) applied, however, to the Bench of Magistrates at Newtown, Mount Kennedy, informing them that he knew the character of the young man, and that he also happened to be acquainted with the character of this wretched creature the process server. The accused, however, who was put in gaol before Christmas, was kept there until the last Quarter Sessions, when he was brought up before the Grand Jury, who threw out the bill against him. If this case had happened under the
  554
  present Bill, the accused might be kept in custody for 18 months on a false charge, without an opportunity of defending himself. He did trust that the Chief Secretary would accept the proposition which had been made to him—the very reasonable proposition, that in every case where a warrant was granted evidence must have been given on affidavit by not less than two witnesses.
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he had very substantial reasons for supporting the Amendment. The Bill, as it at present stood, would put most tremendous power into the hands of the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary, unless some such safeguard as this were adopted. He could give a very strong case of the abuse of the Coercion Act of 1867. Under that Act he himself was arrested without any cause whatever being assigned. Four officers came out from Limerick, a distance of 20 miles, to arrest him, and the only ground they could allege for it was, that a servant of his had been in conversation with an officer that day, and the fact had become known that he had 70 or 80 sovereigns about him. It was stated that this money was to pay the Fenians in that district; but he had denied the truth of this statement, informing the police that, in accordance with custom, he had sent his servant to the bank with a quantity of notes to get changed for gold. He asked to be informed of any further charge they had to bring against him; but they had nothing else to allege, and he was committed to prison without any warrant from the Lord Lieutenant. The officers did not wait for the warrant, but took him to gaol without making any charge against him beyond what he had mentioned; and it was not until he had been in prison eight days that the Governor came into him and informed him that he was then in possession of the warrant. The Committee were told that under the present Bill no one would be arrested except upon the warrant of the Lord Lieutenant; but he (Mr. O'Sullivan) had been arrested without cause and without warrant, which did not come down until he had been eight days in gaol. This showed the Committee that under a Coercion Act a man could be thrown into prison, and the warrant for his arrest could be afterwards procured at the leisure and pleasure of the police. Although no charge was brought against

  555
  him, and he was accused of no offence, he was kept for 121 days in prison, the only offence alleged being that his servant had been taken at Limerick with a certain amount of money in his posession. He was arrested in the middle of the night and taken on an outside car to Limerick, and for 121 days he was not allowed to see any of his family, or to give any instructions to his family with regard to the conduct of his business. A burglar, or a robber, or a murderer, would not be treated in that way. Those in prison did not suffer bodily torture like Italian prisoners; but they suffered in mine and were surrounded by demons who continually harassed them. The very day when he went into the prison the Governor and warder went to see him, and asked if he was all right. He stated that he was; but immediately they left, the warder went back and told him he was to take his hat off every day when he was taken down to see the Governor, while he walked round him and examined him. He asked if that was the rule of the prison, and being told that it was, he said he should, of course, obey it; and every day he was made to stand up like a recruit while the Governor was walking round him and calling "attention," or making any other remark to degrade him. With the exception of an hour and a-half, he had to spend 24 hours every day in a miserable cell 15 feet by 7.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am sure the Committee bear a good deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman in his explanation of his case; but I think that, by going into all the details, he is going beyond the subject of the Amendment altogether.
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, that, with all respect to the Chairman, he thought he had a right to show what the treatment was that they had to expect under that Bill.
  MR. J. COWEN, rising on a question of Order, said, the Government were going to pass a Bill to confiscate the liberties of the Irish people; and he wished to ask whether the hon. Member was not fairly in Order in describing the experience he had himself undergone?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Committee sympathize with the hon. Member when he explains how he was arrested without proper warrant; but, in entering into all the details, he is going beyond the
  556
  Question before the Committee, for he has not as yet brought any application of his case to the subject-matter of the Amendment.
  MR. O'SULLIVAN, continuing, said, that he did not state his case in order to obtain the sympathy of the Committee, but simply to show what prisoners under that Bill, if it was brought into operation, had to expect from a Liberal Government as well as from a Tory Government. He had suffered under a Tory Government; but the Liberal Government had the same officials at Dublin Castle, and they must expect the same treatment. He did not wish to go beyond his province; but he had held a licence for an hotel for 21 years in his town, and during that time not a single charge had been made against him; but, notwithstanding that, the officials had deprived him of his licence simply because he was not at homo to mind his business. That reminded him of the story of a farmer who tied up his mare at the door of a public-house while he went in to drink, and when he came out and remounted he beat the animal in order to make it go, but forgot that he had himself tied it up to the door. He had been punished because he was not at home to look after his business, although the very gentlemen who punished him were those who had kept him away from his business. If he had chosen to go under compliment or favour to the Government he need not have been kept in prison a second month; but when he found himself wronged he never would go under compliment to the Government, and would rather remain in prison for a century. He was removed to Dublin. From the moment when he left Limerick he was kept tightly handcuffed, although there was no charge whatever against him; and he did not think such treatment as that would be used towards the commonest robber in Ireland. He hoped that, on re-consideration, the Chairman would find that what he stated as to the treatment prisoners had received in 1868 was not out of Order. The Chief Secretary had promised guarantees that the Bill should not be abused; but the right hon. Gentleman must know that he was not giving this power to himself or to the Lord Lieutenant alone, but he was giving power to every police officer and every policeman in Ireland, and it would often be used for vindictive purposes more

  557
  than for political or agrarian outrages; and unless some close watch was kept on the working of the Act many men against whom no charge could be brought would be thrown into prison.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, he had listened to the arguments advanced by the two or three speakers who had spoken in support of the Amendment under discussion; and he thought that if it were at all necessary to show the impolicy of the Bill those hon. Members had conclusively proved it, and that the Amendment was much better than the original clause. Even at that hour he hoped that some feeling of veneration for the ancient liberties of his country, and some feeling of respect for the long-tried and proved judicial procedure in this country, might be awakened in the minds of those who had hastily voted for the second reading of the Bill. It was said that this was a Bill for protection, and that it could not he worked except by working it without evidence. The Chief Secretary thought that he must proceed without evidence; and he objected to any evidence, by affidavit or otherwise, any record of the facts upon which he formed his judgment. That was the most monstrous proposal he had ever heard in the course of his life. It was a well-known principle of law that no person should be condemned except on evidence; but the Chief Secretary declared that he must proceed without evidence, and that the very principle of his Bill was that he must discard evidence, He must proceed in the dark, with stealthy paces, concealing his steps, and leaving no trace behind him to show whether he had proceeded justly or with the slightest regard to the recognized principles of law or not. That was what he said was necessary, in order that the Bill might be of any use. He said, further, that to ask him to proceed upon evidence was contrary to the scope of the Bill. The scope of the Bill was not then under discussion; but, no matter what the scope of the Bill was, he objected to the Chief Secretary being allowed to act in that secret and stealthy way, when he owed responsibility only to himself, and where the responsibility was such that it might happen that the Government would discharge him. He said still further that there was no use in fettering him. He (Dr. Commins) was astonished to hear a Minister object to
  558
  being fettered against arbitrary power. Arbitrary power was foreign to ordinary justice and to the ordinary Government of this country. The law had to be exercised according to prescribed rules, and arbitrary power was contrary to the spirit of all English institutions. Where anything like judicial power had to be exorcised, the principle was that the person who exercised it must exercise it openly, and subject to some safeguard to show that he exercised it rightly. He must exercise it in such a way that his action might be open to question. What safeguard was there that this power would be exercised properly, judicially, or justly? There was nothing, unless this and other Amendments of a similar kind were introduced into the measure. Now, even supposing that it might be necessary to commit a man on suspicion —that was done in England every day —but the judicial experience of centuries had proved it to be necessary to fetter those who commit people to prison. The charge of crime was sufficient to imprison; hut the magistrate must do it on a warrant, and that warrant was subject to revision afterwards; and in every case where it was required that the liberty of the subject should be abridged in the slightest degree, it was required that a sworn information should be taken by the magistrate, and any imprisonment without sworn information was illegal and improper. Why was that necessary? Because long experience had shown that magistrates were liable to be deceived; that people, actuated by private motives or over-zeal, as policemen might, or persons having some sinister end to achieve if they could by a whisper, or, as it was in Venice, drop some secret information, as it were, into the "Lion's mouth," and so cause the arrest of a person—that process would be largely used, and magistrates would be weak-kneed enough, or ignorant enough, to play into the hands of malicious or ignorant or over-zealous people. Wherever there was to be an arrest under a warrant there must be sworn information. What was the objection to having sworn informations in this case? It was said that they were no use; but that argument was more monstrous than the original proposition. Was that the character the Chief Secretary gave to those whom he described as the supporters of law and order? Was that the charac-

  559
  ter of the supporters that he was to rely upon? Were they all perjurors; were they all men who would take away without ground or reasons the liberty of their fellow-subjects; who would try to deceive him upon sworn information? Was that the character of the men by whom law and order were to be maintained? That was the character given by the Chief Secretary to the sort of evidence he would get upon sworn information. That was not all. It was said that, although the Chief Secretary had not said so on that occasion, he would, no doubt, have an opportunity of speaking again on the question, and then he would undertake to be responsible on the floor of the House. If there was ever anything less than the shadow of the shade of responsibility, it was the responsibility to which the Chief Secretary offered to subject himself. He should like to know how the Chief Secretary could answer for the 500 or 600, or 1,000 or 2,000 arrests he proposed to make in the course of the next month without sworn information to answer from; without a witness to whom he could appeal; without a single person who could come forward and support his suspicions in a particular case? Those things were not likely to be confined to the place where the disease first broke out; and he warned hon. Members that if they introduced this gangrene into Ireland they had better beware that it did not reach the centre and the heart of England. With suspicion upon which nobody appeared to offer himself as a witness; suspicion not guaranteed even by ordinary sanction; suspicion by such people as the Chief Secretary depended upon for the maintenance of law and order, the Chief Secretary would not give even that slight hold upon such people as fear of penalties for perjury might constitute. What was the use of the guarantee of the right hon. Gentleman there upon the commitment about which he had no record, and dared not disclose the person who had given the information upon which it was effected? Sic volo, sic Jules; stet pro rations voluntas. That was not a proposal to which he could give his adhesion, and therefore he should support the Amendment. They had been told of the indignity and the grave in justice to which the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) had been subjected;
  560
  but they need not go into that particular case to know what the exercise of despotic power meant. They need not go into or appeal to the descriptions given by the Prime Minister of the sufferings of people in Naples; they need not refer to the hundreds of cases there were to show that despotic power was unjust, and must be so. The hearts of English people were alive to what arbitrary imprisonment was; thanks to the long battle fought by Englishmen, they knew it well, and could send out their sympathy to the prisoner in his cell; and when they knew not the realities of a dungeon, they could enjoy the imaginative pleasure of contemplating what it had been in these climes. He asked those who felt that sympathy to interfere at the last moment to lessen the dangers threatening their fellow-subjects; to prevent the attempt to weaken all respect for Constitutional authority in Ireland, and all respect for that trust in their governors that they would be just. He admitted that there were hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen in the Government of Ireland to whom he could trust all he had, even his life; but they were not infallible. They were at the mercy of men to whom he would trust nothing—men who had their own objects to effect, who had to defend what they considered their rights and privileges, and who would defend them at any cost. He asked hon. Members not to place the people of Ireland at the mercy of—to use the language of the Treasury Bench—miscreants; he begged the Government not to make themselves the tools of miscreants, without the dread of any moral or legal consequences unpleasant to themselves for taking away the liberties of their fellow-subjects. It might not yet be too late to so amend the Bill as to make it not intolerable; to soften its asperities, so as to make the Irish Members and the Irish people to forget its injustice. He imploded hon. Gentlemen opposite to assist the Irish Members in introducing something into the Bill which would be at least partially successful in preventing such disorder as there might be, and not make themselves responsible for far greater disorder.
  MR. BYRNEsaw the Amendment did not go as far as he should wish, nor as far as it ought to go, inasmuch as it provided that two witnesses should, on their

  561
  affidavit, be sufficient to take away the liberty of any individual. The case of the hon. Member for Limerick was, he thought, the strongest case that could be put to show what could he clone, and what had been successfully done upon evidence something like that provided for by the Bill—reasanable suspicion. He did not know what reasonable suspicion was; but he had some idea what proof was. He had heard suspicion discussed in the Courts in England, and had hoard a learned stipendiary magistrate speak upon the subject. Mr. Raffles had stated that a case brought before him was one of very strong suspicion; but such a case must not only be on sworn information of suspicion, but must be proved. He should not be satisfied to commit the man on suspicion only; the case must be proved up to the hilt, and without any possibility of dispute. He would put another case. Suppose any gentleman, or any other person in England, or anywhere where his liberty could be taken away—he would suppose for a moment that some hon. Gentleman in that House had the misfortune to lose his reason and become a lunatic. What was the procedure required by the law? The law was not satisfied with suspicion; it must have proof. The manager of the asylum, whether private or public, must produce written proof of the man's lunacy; he must produce certificates under the hands of two qualified physicians before the man's liberty could be taken from him, although it was admitted that a person in a condition of lunacy was dangerous to himself and to the community. In a case of high treason surely there should be proof at least as strong as in the case of a man out of his mind. He thought the Chief Secretary would see that it would be an advantage to himself to have some evidence, because it could not be assumed that he would go into all the cases himself. He was not in Ireland for some months of the year; but even if he were there for six months he would not always be on the spot, and must dispose of cases by deputy in some way or other. Although they had implicit faith—he would put it to illustrate the case—in the Chief Secretary and the Lord Lieutenant—Gentlemen whose character and position he would also admit, for argument's sake, were beyond question— what guarantee was there that they
  562
  would be in Ireland a week hence? They might be in kingdom-come, or out of Office; and they might be succeeded by Gentlemen in whom he could not have so much confidence. Although the Chief Secretary said he would see that the Act was not abused, there was no evidence that he would be in Office during the 18 months the Act was to run. The least evidence that ought to be acted upon in a case of taking away a man's liberty should be as strong as that upon which a lunatic was committed to an asylum. In regard to asylums, inspectors were provided to see that no one was detained against his will, or otherwise wrongly detained; but there was no evidence that anyone would be appointed to go round the prisons to see that men were imprisoned improperly. He took it that the object of the Government was to have ample power to lock up those persons who were dangerous to what was called law and order. It might be that the Government wanted to get rid of the village tyrant; but there was another person equally dangerous, and that was the village informer; and it was not a reasonable proposition to put to the House that the evidence of such a man was reasonable suspicion. It appeared to him that if he were to go to a bank or any institution in England to borrow money—
  THE CHAIRMAN: There are several Amendments on the words "reasonable suspicion" to be discussed afterwards. At present we can only keep in Order by attending strictly to the Amendment before the Committee, which is that there shall be the sworn information of two persons.
  MR. BYRNE, continuing, said, he should support the Amendment, not only because he approved of it, for he thought it was scarcely sufficient, but because he held that no man's liberty should be taken away on suspicion, but only on strong evidence, such as was furnished in the case of a lunatic. As the English stipendiary had said, the case must be proved up to the hilt.
  MR. GRAYsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would not accept the Amendment, it would be satisfactory to him and to other Members if the right hon. Gentleman would guarantee that he would provide against false evidence causing a man to be committed to prison, and would say what

  563
  mode of punishment he intended to provide for any perjurer who succeeded in having an innocent man sent to prison for 18 months. The right hon. Gentleman would be in his place in Parliament for a considerable part of the year, and therefore his guarantee of his individual investigation of the cases would not suffice; and he must confess that he would not he in Ireland, even if individual investigation of all the cases wore possible. He presumed the Chief Secretary would scarcely contend that in his absence the Lord Lieutenant would examine into every case. It was only a pretext, and the matter must rest in the hands of subordinates; and the right hon. Gentleman could not deny that it was probable that under this Act innocent men would be arrested on information supplied by malicious persons having private and personal motives. Was it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to provide any machinery for punishing persons who gave false evidence, so as to secure persons from being maliciously imprisoned? If it was the intention of the Government, would the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House what that machinery was. Or did he intend to secure immunity for any person who made a false accusation, and who ought to be punished for making it? He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to tell them the exact position of the Government in that respect. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) that those who expected the Bill to be permissive counted very much without their host. There would be men who would be ready to give false information, acting upon which innocent men might be deprived of their liberty. Were the Government determined to provide no machinery to punish such individuals? If they were going to make such provision, it was the duty of the Government to state what it was, so that the House might be prepared to accept it if they could. Even if they intended that the innocent only should be punished, the time had now arrived when it was desirable that they should say so.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsupported the Amendment, which simply required that, before any man was committed to prison under the provisions of the Act, there should be an affidavit from two
  564
  witnesses charging him with some offence. If this were not done, what would happen. They had heard much about the sending of threatening letters in Ireland, and the commission of cowardly and dastardly outrages. The men who sent these threatening letters and committed these mean, dastardly, and cowardly outrages were the very men who would be the informers—the very men who were capable of sending innocent men to prison under the terms of this Coercion Act — the very men capable of going to their "masters," as they called them—the magistrates and the landlords with lying stories concerning other men against whom they had a personal grudge and a personal spite, and, by that means, depriving them of their liberty. He considered that without some protection such as that proposed in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Pugh) there would be a fearful risk and a fearful peril for the people of Ireland. He asked every hon. Member whoso mind was open to conviction to consider the point which he had placed before them. He alleged with the utmost confidence that the perpetrators of these mean and dastardly outrages—outrages committed against the wish and the express directions of the Land League—these dastards, cowards, and criminals who had been doing these detestable acts—were the very men capable of depriving honest men of their liberty under the provisions of this Act. They would go to the magistrates and make themselves "good men" with them by conveying to their ears stories which they knew these gentlemen wished to hear; stories they knew they were ready to listen to; stories they knew these gentlemen would convey to Dublin Castle. He knew that this would constitute a real peril to honest men in Ireland if no provision were made against it. Was it too much to ask that these informers should, at least, commit their consciences to the truth of their statements by being required to make an affidavit? The point just raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) was whether there was to be any provision inserted in the Bill for the punishment of men who gave false information, so as to deter men of the class he (Mr. Sullivan; had been speaking of from seeking to

  565
  deprive honest men of their liberties, or swearing them away. There used to he so much, at all events, placed in the way of the informer. It used always to be required of the man seeking to obtain blood-money that he should make an oath as to the truth of his allegations. But now, in the present Bill, it was proposed to dispense with this little difficulty, and make it easy for the informer—for the rogue and the criminal to deprive honest men of their liberties by providing that it should not be necessary for them to make either an affidavit or an oath. If it happened that honest men were deprived of their freedom and liberty by such criminal proceedings on the part of these low creatures, was there to be no remedy for those who were innocent, but were unjustly accused? Would Her Majesty's Government put no barrier in the way of such men? Would they place no deterrent in their way? but would they leave them free to deal as they liked with any of their neighbours against whom they might have reasons—low, perhaps, and mean and spiteful—for desiring to see them placed in a prison in Ireland for 18 months? These points he wished to urge respectfully upon the attention of the House. Hon. Members had voted in an immense majority for the second reading of a measure of coercion of some kind; but it was still open for them to modify any provision that might be exceedingly cruel, impolitic, hurtful, and injurious in the measure. The point towards which the Amendment was directed was one of them; and he asked the House to consider seriously whether some barrier ought not to be placed in the way of these informers, so as to remove them from the temptation of giving false evidence. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland must necessarily act upon information and advice given to him by other people. He was to act on what was called "reasonable suspicion;" but who was to judge of the reasonableness of it? The right hon. Gentleman himself could not judge. He understood that it had been ruled that hon. Members could not at this moment enter into that question at any length; but even at this stage of the Committee the reflections arising out of a fair consideration of the clause and of the Amendment proposed to it were of
  566
  some importance. The simple proposition was that, in order to prevent an innocent man from becoming the easy victim of a rogue and a criminal, an affidavit should be required from the informer in support of his allegations. He sincerely hoped that the Committee would be prepared to accept the proposal made by the hon. and learned Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Pugh).
  MR. GILLsaid, that, in conjunction with all the other Irish Members sitting around him, he felt bound to put in his protest against the extreme unfairness of the proposition before the Committee as contained in the Bill. He thought that the Amendment submitted by the hon. and learned Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Pugh) was one which certainly all reasonable men could without difficulty accept. When the people remembered the way in which this class of common informers had already acted in Ireland, and when they knew that under the Bill they would become the supreme arbiters of the fate of hundreds and thousands of innocent men, the}' would undoubtedly, remembering the past, look with something like terror at the way in which it was probable they would act in the future when the country was under a Coercion Act instead of being under the ordinary laws of the country. He hoped that hon. Members would bear in mind the way in which the magistrates had acted hundreds of times in the North of Ireland when the ordinary law of the country was in operation. In many of the afflicting scenes which had occurred in Ulster, and which were a disgrace to the country, and which some hon. Members on that side of the House who had been subject to terrorism in the past had been sent into Parliament to prevent, if possible, in future, the most terrible forms of terrorism 'were exercised. It must not be forgotten that in the bloody scenes which had been of frequent occurrence in the North of Ireland men had been frequently arrested on both sides—both Orangemen and Roman Catholics—and that, in many cases, while the Orangemen were allowed to go free the Roman Catholics were all sent to prison. Nor must they forget the infamous character of the common informer in Ireland. They must not forget that there existed men who would go to the Roman Catholic Church and receive the sacrament for

  567
  the sole purpose of being able to come forward afterwards and give evidence against those who administered it and whom they met in the church. He thought the proposition contained in the Amendment was a fair and reasonable one—namely, that if they were to be sent to prison without having the right to be brought before a Judge and jury for many months, they should, at least, be sent to prison only on some kind of sworn evidence that would commend itself to the common sense of the majority of the people. He feared very much, if Her Majesty's Government declined to accept the very fair and reasonable Amendment which was now before the Committee, or, at any rate, to accept something equivalent to it, that they were resolved to carry out the Bill on the same harsh lines that had already been predicted, and that it would be almost useless to make any futher appeal to them to modify the extreme rigour of the measure. He trusted that this would not be so; but that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House would see the fairness of the proposal, and that, at least, as hishon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) had pointed out, they would prescribe some kind of deterring punishment for the man who made a false accusation. It was highly necessary that some means should be devised by Her Majesty's Government by which to insure that the autocratic power it was sought to place in the hands of the police officers, magistrates, and others in authority in Ireland would not be abused.
  MR. BIGGARwished to say a few words on the Amendment now before the Committee before a division was taken. ["Divide !"] He would promise that he would only say a very few words. What they were asked by Her Majesty's Government to do, as he understood the matter, was to sanction the imprisonment of certain persons in Ireland without any evidence being forthcoming to prove their guilt. That was what the proposition of the Government amounted to. In Ireland, in the ordinary course of law, a decree for 5s. would not be given even in an undefended case without requiring two affidavits to be sworn in favour of the decree—first, that of the process-server, to prove that he had served the process; and, next, that of the person claiming the debt, who would have to swear that the debt was due.
  568
  Her Majesty's Government now proposed to consign persons to prison in Ireland without requiring any sworn evidence at all. He did not think that their position was at all tenable. In fact, no punishment should be imposed upon any person, however slight, without requiring some sworn evidence to be given in substantiation of the guilt of the accused. In all of these cases the information must come from somebody, and it would not increase the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to require that the information and evidence should be upon oath. If the evidence were required to be on oath the Executive must use some discretion and judgment in the charge he preferred, and they would see at once whether the information was of such a nature as to justify the issue of the Lord Lieutenant's warrant. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government would feel their responsibility, and would make careful inquiry; but he (Mr. Biggar) really did not see what there would be to prevent them from being imposed upon by false information. Her Majesty's Government could scarcely appreciate the class of persons who would be the witnesses, and the class of persons who would have to hear their statements and report to Dublin Castle. He would read a short note which he had just received from a friend in the county of Derry, in the North of Ireland. It had relation to the conduct of a gentleman who was a magistrate for two counties; and he (Mr. Biggar) thought it showed the desirability of having sworn evidence, or an affidavit, so that every person making a charge would be liable to the penalties which attached to the bringing forward of false accusations. He who simply preferred a false charge on unsworn evidence was not legally liable to any punishment; but if, on the other hand, he swore untruly, and the Government found that the charge he made was false, could afterwards put the law in motion, and bring the informers to trial for perjury. He would road the short note he had received, because he thought it furnished an illustration of the way in which the Bill, when it came into operation, was likely to act. It also showed the desirability of having all the safeguards that could possibly be included in the Bill in order to secure that the

  569
  measure should not be used for revengeful or tyrannical purposes. The writer of the letter in question said he wished to draw attention to the fact that a gentleman, who was a justice of the peace for two counties, had used threats against an officer of the Irish Land League. His name was Marcus Gage, and he was a tenant of the Hon. Robert O'Neill, who was Member for the County of Antrim in the last Parliament. Mr. O'Neill returned a portion of the rent last year, and offered to make the same remission this year; but the offer was refused, and the tenants went away without paying. The interview took place at Mr. O'Neill's house, and after a considerable number of the tenants had gone away, Mr. Gage was heard making use of the following words, addressed to an officer of the Land League:—
  "There is a conspiracy here; but we shall soon hang a few of the Land Leaguers as an example to the rest, and then we shall be able to have the rents collected."
  This was a sample of the spirit in which some of the magistrates would be prepared to put the Act into operation. He had given the name of the magistrate, and he was prepared also to give the name of his informant. At any rate, it showed the desirability of the sanction of an oath to evidence of this nature, so that it would be less possible for any imposition to be passed off upon the Government. Personally, he had no bond fide substantial belief in the right hon. Gentleman's capacity or ability in a matter of this kind, or in the honour of any Member of the Government; but, at the same time, he thought it was desirable, if the Executive were to have the powers they asked for under the Act should have something like evidence before them to establish the guilt of the accused. It was such gentlemen as Mr. Marcus Gage into whose hands the Government were now playing, and it was from the tyranny of such men that he was anxious, if possible, to save the people of Ireland. If the Government were really anxious that justice should be done they would agree to the Amendment; but if, on the other hand, they desired to play into the hands of the honest landlords and become their confederates, rendering themselves equally guilty with those they supported they would retain the Bill in its present shape.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: —Ayes 60; Noes 149: Majority 89.—(Div. List, No. 30)
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANrose to move, in page 1, line 6, after "Lord Lieutenant," the insertion of the words—
  "Acting upon the sworn information of not less than two credible persons, not being in Government pay or employment, and resident in the barony within which the act for which the warrant may he issued is alleged to have taken place."
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member cannot be put, because it really raises the same question as that which has already been decided.
  MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, he wished to move an Amendment to provide that the person arrested, instead of being "suspected of having" been guilty of treasonable practices, should be "believed to have" been guilty of them. ["Progress, Progress !"]
  MR. GLADSTONEthought this was a convenient point for reporting Progress; and he would, therefore, make a Motion to that effect.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. DILLONwished, before Progress was reported, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he would give an opportunity, on some early day, for a discussion of the War in the Transvaal?
  THE CHAIRMAN: That question has no relation to the subject before the Committee, and cannot be put.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he had intended to explain the relation. He was going to explain that as he understood the matter—["Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have already ruled that the subject upon which the hon. Member desires to put a question is not within the Motion before the Committee.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he should like to ask on the question of reporting Progress whether the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government intended to take the Bill to-morrow. The right hon. Gentleman nodded his head. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to proceed with it until Mon-

  571
  day, and if he was in Order he would give his reasons for making that appeal. Up to the present moment they had never had any discussion upon the merits of the Bill. '["Order:"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is quite out of Order.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he had been unable, in consequence of the noise that prevailed, to hear the ruling of the right hon. Gentleman.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman will observe that one of the new Rule3 is, that on the Motion for reporting Progress all hon. Members should address themselves strictly to that point; and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman, in asking for a renewed discussion upon the merits of the Bill, is in Order.
  MR. CALLANhoped the remarks he was about to make would be in Order. Up to the present moment hon. Members had scarcely had time to read, let alone inwardly to digest, these new Rules. ["Order !"] If he was offending against the Rules of Order it was through inadvertence and not intentionally. He believed that hon. Gentlemen had made an arrangement with the Irish Members to take a division early, in order to facilitate the bringing on of a discussion in regard to the proposed abolition of certain judicial offices. He had himself assented to the arrangement, but only on the understanding that no further attempt would be made to proceed with the Bill at present; and any attempt to go on with it would, he thought, be a breach of faith.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair has not been informed of any such arrangement as that referred to by the hon. Member; and even if it were, its discussion does not come within the Motion before the Committee.
  Motion agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he would again appeal to the Prime Minister not to proceed with the Committee on the Bill to-morrow. Up to the present they had no discussion on the provisions of the Bill. They had a long discussion on the merits of the ease made in support of the Motion to introduce the Bill; but they had no discussion on the general principles which the Bill involved. Several of those principles were of the
  572
  most important character. Some of the questions raised would refer to the treatment of prisoners, and other matters which were difficult and complex; and upon those questions he and his hon. Friends were now endeavouring to obtain information in order to lay their case before the House. He had a circular in his hand which bore very much on the subject; and he questioned whether that circular should not be sent to the right hon. Gentleman and others in order that the views of the Irish Members might be laid before the House. If they went on at the present rate the principles of the Bill could not be discussed; and he thought in the interests of fair discussion a little more time should he given.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I cannot think that the appeal of the hon. Gentleman is in earnest. We are now in the 26th night I think of debates connected with this subject, and the hon. Member complains that he has not had an opportunity of discussing the provisions of the Bill. If he means the provisions of the Bill in detail, that is precise by what we are going to discuss. If he means the general aspects of the Bill, these we have discussed, I will venture to say, at greater length than the character of any Bill has been discussed in this House in my recollection. I am very sorry, Sir, that I must ask the House not to accede to the appeal of the hon. Member.

MOTION.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT, 1873—THE ORDER IN COUNCIL —OFFICES OF THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE COMMON FLEAS AND LORD CHIEF BARON.

    MOTION FOR AN ADDEE8S.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER, in rising to move—
    "That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying that so much of the Order in Council, dated the 16th day of December 1880, made in pursuance of section 32 of 'The Judicature Act, 1873,' as relates to the abolition of the offices of Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer may not come into operation,"
    said, he greatly regretted that the subject involved in the Order in Council

    573
    should be discussed on the Motion he now submitted to the House. If the course the Government proposed to adopt was a beneficial and desirable one, it would only be a partial dealing with the grave condition of affairs, which an imperfect, not to say hostile, administration of the Judicature Acts had entailed upon the suitors and the public. A Bill grappling with the acknowledged evils of our system of Judicature, and providing suitable remedies, would have been a proposal as well meriting the attention of the House as any Bill promised in the Speech from the Throne affecting England; but as the Government had thought otherwise, as they offered as a panacea for the breakdown of the Judicature Acts a symmetrical improvement in the external organization of the Common Law Divisions, accompanied by the abolition of two of the most venerable, most illustrious, and, as he ventured to think, most useful of our Judicial Offices, they were debarred from the consideration of those remedies which would remove the grievances, of which there was such loud, general, and just complaint, and were confined to a consideration of the question whether the alterations embodied in the Order in Council would aggravate or alleviate those grievances. It was necessary, in order that the House might consider the probable operation of the Order in Council on the working of the Judicature Acts, to call attention to the reforms those Acts were intended to accomplish, and to point out how far those reforms had been attained. The Judicature Act of 1873, amended by the Act of 1875, proposed to consolidate the Court of Chancery and the Superior Courts of Common Law into one Supreme Court— administering justice upon the same principles, adopting the same forms of procedure, and applying and enforcing the same remedies—in other words, the abolition of the double system of Judicature, the conflict and confusion of rival jurisdictions, and of that absurd and costly variety of pleadings, evidence, and trials, which disfigured, not to say disgraced, our administration of justice. It further contemplated a speedy, efficient, and economical administration of justice by simplifying pleadings, by continuous sittings of the Courts for the trial of causes, by attempting to obviate the evils of unnecessary and protracted Va-
    574
    cations, and by a re-distribution of judicial time and power. To carry out this great object the Legislature constituted one Supreme Court of Judicature, consisting of two Divisions — the primary one called the High Court of Justice, and the appellate one called the Court of Appeal. The High Court consisted of five Divisions—Chancery, with the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, and the Vice Chancellors; the Queen's Bench, with the Lord Chief Justice and the Puisne Judges; the Common Pleas, with the Lord Chief Justice and the Puisne Judges; the Exchequer, with the Lord Chief Baron and his Puisne Judges; and the Probate, Admiralty, and Divorce Courts. The present Order in Council proposed that the three Common Law Divisions should be consolidated into one, to be called the Queen's Bench Division. The constitution of the High Court of Appeal had undergone a variety of changes during the last few years. It began in 1873 with five ex-officio and three ordinary Judges. In 1875 three Puisne Judges were added, one being taken from each Court; and in 1876 it was constituted as now, with five ex-officio Judges and six ordinary Judges, called Lords Justices of Appeal. The change to be made by the Order in Council would be of a retrograde character, and would affect the strength and efficiency of the Court of Appeal. In all the changes affecting the High Court of Appeal the five ex-officio Judges were always retained— namely, the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Polls, and the three Chiefs. The advantage of that retention was this— they had in the Court of Appeal four Judges, who also sat as Judges in the Primary Court, trying causes and conducting the ordinary business. Constituted in the manner described, the Supreme Court of Judicature was intended to combine the advantages of the rival systems of law and equity. Each was to absorb the best features of the other. Special pleading was to be abolished, viva voce evidence was to be made compulsory, there were to be continuous sittings in London and Westminster, and there was to be a special machinery for dealing with intricate cases not suited for trial by Judge and jury. These proposed changes constituted a wise and statesmanlike reform worthy of the high reputation of the two Lord Chancellors and the

    575
    respective Law Officers of the Liberal and Conservative Administrations who co-operated in carrying the Acts. But Parliament did not complete its work; it left an unusual and unwise discretion to a majority of Judges and to Orders in Council. Perhaps Parliament saved itself a fortnight of unattractive labour; but the result had been vexation, disappointment, and failure. The machinery, the rules, and the regulations by which the great changes introduced by the Act were to be effected were delegated to men who had been trained in, and who wore attached to, the system and the practice which Parliament intended to abolish. Professional experience and success had been gained in the old paths, and ago, as well as inclination, dissuaded those representatives of the past from carrying out the reforms which the Legislature had sanctioned, so that the intentions, of Parliament had been thwarted, and the best provisions of the Judicature Act had been maimed or neutralized. Litigation was never so costly; arrears were never so numerous; delays were never so intolerable and unjustifiable; and the whole judicial machinery was never so completely blocked as at this moment. The Profession, the suitors, and the public united in deploring a condition of things which those who were in authority would not remedy—he said advisedly "would not"—and the continuance of which was a grave scandal on the administration of justice. The fusion had completely broken down. In Equity they clung with such characteristic tenacity to their old-fashioned mode of taking written evidence, which meant evidence drawn by one man, sworn to by another, and read by a third, that viva voce evidence was the exception and not the rule. Trial by jury had been cleverly and successfully driven out, "bag and baggage," by the Judges of the Chancery Division. In the Courts of Common Law the one reform which was the great advantage of the Equity system as the reform which lay at the basis of all other reforms, and without which all other reforms would be useless—he meant one Judge sitting by himself to dispose completely of the cause before him—had been so minimized, hampered, and restricted as to be of little practical value. The clause which the present Attorney General induced the late Attorney Gene-
    576
    ral to accept in 1870, which was intended to make the one-Judge system compulsory, was, unfortunately, made subject to Rules of Court, by which the clause had been nullified to such an extent as to be virtually repealed. Lord Westbury once said of an eminent Judge, who was fond of sitting with his colleagues, that "he was afraid of sitting alone in the dark." He should be very sorry to make such a disrespectful remark concerning the Common Law Judges. But knowing, as he did, that so far as learning, experience, and judicial ability were concerned, they wore on perfectly equal terms with the Judges of the Chancery Division, he was at a loss to understand why they should shrink from exercising the sole judicial responsibility at Westminster which was undertaken at Lincoln's Inn. The reform in procedure had not been a success; the advantages of the old system had been lost, and the disadvantages of the now one gained. Special pleading, with all its faults, was at least logical; it did define the issue the Court had to try; but the new pleadings, restrained by no requirement of support by evidence, were vague, verbose, and misleading. Interlocutory applications were multidlied indefinitely, and appeals had enormously increased, and costs preliminary to trial had reached a point hitherto unknown. There was in The Times of Wednesday the report of an appeal, in which the claim was £21, and £17 10s. had been paid into Court, so that the sum in dispute was £3 10s. The greatest grievance of all, and that which he thought this Order in Council would tend to increase, was the delay and confusion in the trial of causes, and in the regular sittings of the Courts. The state of things described by the present Attorney General shortly before the Dissolution still existed. It had never entered into the brain of the able and costly staff of officials attached to the Common Law Division to publish a sittings paper, stating the days on which causes would be tried, Divisional Courts holden, and appeals heard. It was all higgledy piggeldy, and a state of confusion which the organizing experience of a railway traffic manager would reduce to regularity in a single week, had been allowed to go on for years, alternately exciting the contempt and arousing the indignation of the suitors, who had to pay heavily for

    577
    this stupid miscarriage of justice. At the commencement of the present sittings 1,000 cases were waiting for trial in London, and 200 in the Court of Appeal. Last year produced 4,238 causes, of which only 1,983 were tried, and 1,104 wore struck out, the rest being postponed. In about 25 per cent of the causes tried in London and the country, the amount at stake was under £50; and the extension of the jurisdiction of the County Courts to this amount, which the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) was so anxious to carry, would practically place the services of two Judges at the disposal of suitors in the causes involving higher amounts. The Legislature directed that continuous sittings for the trial of causes should be held in London and Middlesex; but the Judges had practically changed the word "and" into "or," for sittings had never been held in Middlesex simultaneously with those in London, and continuous sittings had been held in neither. The sittings at Guildhall for the trial of commercial cases had practically come to an end. In addition to the want of continuous sittings, the delays had been greatly increased by the inordinate length of modern trials. Judicial days were abbreviated on the principle adopted by Charles Lamb, who, when remonstrated with fur coming to the India House late in the morning, said he made up for it by leaving early in the afternoon. Mr. Justice Williams had alluded to the rapid despatch of Judges in bygone times, and said they rushed through the Cause List like an elephant through a rice-field. He could not help thinking that justice delayed and justice deferred was too often justice denied, and suitors would prefer the more rough and rapid mode of trying their causes than the more polished, the more dilatory, and certainly more costly system of the present day. By the enormous and increasing cost of litigation the poor man was heavily handicapped, while the rich man or the powerful Corporation had an unfair advantage They had been talking of a country where the Queen's Writ did not run; but in England the Queen's Courts might be said in some respects to be closed. The cost of obtaining justice was so enormous, that they might be said to sell justice. What was the remedy which the Government proposed? If the Government had said to the Attorney
    578
    General that no professional interest or prejudice should interfere with the carrying out of a wise and efficient judicial reform, the same hand that drew the drastic Corrupt Practices Bill would be able to draw an equally successful Judicial Reform Bill. But until the Government applied pressure in this matter, lawyers never would, for they were all members of a great trade union. The remedy now proposed was to abolish two of the sub-Divisions—the Common Pleas and Exchequer Division—and to consolidate the Queen's Bench Division under what Lord Chief Justice Cockburn called the nominal presidency of one Lord Chief Justice. He admitted frankly that there was no necessity for three Divisions, and he thought that the consolidation would be a great improvement. But the practical value of this alteration depended entirely upon whether it was accompanied by a stringent and regular working of the one-Judge system, and by continuous sitting, according to the ordinary use of the word, de die in diem, in London and Westminster. To merge three Divisions into one, and to keep up that waste of judicial time and judicial power called a Divisional Court, would be an alteration of the idlest character, and would only afford further facilities for nullifying the effect of the Judicature Acts. The Attorney General had so recently explained his views on this subject, that he did not believe he would be a party to such a fiasco as that. Relying on the conviction he entertained that the Attorney General would do his utmost to increase the regular sittings of the Judges on the single-Judge system, he did not propose to dissent from that part of the Order in Council; but the other part of the change from which he asked the House to dissent was a change recommended by no practical advantage, while it tended to detract from the dignity of the Judicial Bench, and to deprive the public of one of its safest and securest guarantees for an efficient Primary Court and a Court of Appeal. The Order in Council proposed to abolish the Lord Chief Justiceship of the Common Pleas and the Chief Baron of the Exchequer, and to substitute for them two ordinary Puisne Judges. It was not proposed to do away with two useless and unnecessary Judges, and to reduce the number of the Judges—no-

    579
    hing of the kind; they were taking away two Judges of the first rank, and substituting two Judges of the second rank. What did those offices and titles represent? They represented two Judges of the highest rank, chosen from the leaders of the Bar, not only pre-eminent as advocates, but men who had associated with their professional distinction the statesmanlike and legislative experience which attached to Law Officers of the Crown. They represented two Judges of the highest rank presiding over trials of the greatest importance— two Judges strengthening the Court of Appeal, of which they were ex officio members, by that tact, experience, knowledge of men and of affairs so essential to the constitution of a strong Appeal Court. Upon what principle of Law Reform were the public to be deprived of the enormous advantage they had derived during a long succession of years from the efficient discharge of the duties of those eminent Judges? It might be said that the Judges themselves had come to the opinion that these Offices should be abolished. But the opinions of the Judges should be weighed as well as numbered. He did not mean to imply the slightest disrespect or reflection; but they wore entitled to see how far their official character was involved in the alteration. He did not think that Judges of Courts of Equity had any special knowledge of this question beyond that possessed by any Member of the House. With regard to the Chief Justiceships, great weight would attach to the opinion of Lord Coleridge; but when he spoke in this House on the question he opposed the abolition, and the other two Chiefs were absent. Where were the men who would have represented those Offices? They knew that the late Lord Chief Justice was determinedly opposed to these alterations. The 12 Common Law Judges were 7 to 5 in favour of the Order in Council—no such strong, he would not say consensus, but agreement, as to justify the change. Throe Judges had written their opinions for the benefit of the public—Mr. Justice Williams, in a short, terse letter, and Mr. Justice Stephen, in a long, elaborate, and unanswerable article, had opposed the change; and a third Judge had written a letter to The Times, signed "B;" but as several of the Judges' names began
    580
    with that letter, everything depended on the position, experience, and prepossessions of the author. If that letter was written by a Judge who had been an eminent Member of that House, of considerable legislative experience, a Law Law Officer of the Crown, it would be a strong argument in favour of the change. But if the letter was written by a Judge who never had been a Member of that House, or served the Crown as one of its Law Officers; if it was written by one whose eminence rested exclusively upon his profound knowledge of Commercial Law, but who sometimes took the trouble to show that it was possible to be a very wise Judge but not a very wise politician, he did not think that it would carry weight in this matter. The chief feature of that letter was a reflection upon the late Sir Alexander Cockburn. He was not going to criticize the good taste of a Judge, who must have boon a Colleague, publicly disparaging the judicial career of that great Magistrate; but he accepted the illustration which that letter gave him. Sir Alexander Cockburn was one of the most brilliant advocates that ever distinguished the English Bar, one of the foremost orators of that House, and for nearly a quarter of a century he dignified and adorned the seat of the Chief Justice of England with all the qualities which the Attorney General had so eloquently described. He was a scholar as well as an advocate—a legislator as well as a lawyer—a statesman as well as a magistrate—and, notwithstanding failings which judicial jealousy might remember, he ventured to express the opinion that Sir Alexander Cockburn would rank among those great Judges whoso conduct and career had maintained that high standard of judicial ability which the people of this country greatly cherished. It was because he believed that men like Sir Alexander Cockburn, men who were more than mere Nisi Prius lawyers, were essential to the constitution of a strong Court of Appeal, that he protested against a change which was intended, as that letter frankly admitted, if not to exclude, at least to limit, the chance of men of that character ascending the Bench. This was not the first time the House had discussed the point upon which he was speaking. The Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Attorney General had been

    581
    consistent; they tad always advocated this change, and had taken a Vote of the House upon it. They sat below the Gangway then; they were Members of the Government now. People sometimes thought that when men joined the Government they subordinated the minor to the major; but in this case the major had been subordinated to the minor. They had conquered the Government; but that was no reason why they should conquer the House of Commons. There were 12 men sitting on the Treasury Bench who, the last time the question was before the House, voted against the abolition of the Offices of Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and Chief Baron of the Exchequer. The Judge Advocate General (Mr. Osborne Morgan), a strong law reformer, spoke and voted against it. Another strong law reformer, the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), voted against it. A great commercial man, the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education (Mr. Mundella), voted against it. And, ascending to the highest grades of the official hierarchy, among those who voted against it were the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster), the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers), the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington), and, above all and beyond all, the Prime Minister himself. Then of Conservative Members who voted against it were that great lawyer and Judge, Lord Justice Amphlett; that incarnation of common sense, Mr. Henley; and that experienced lawyer and statesman, Mr. Spencer Walpole, whose absence that night they all deplored. The Attorney General (Sir John Coleridge) and the Solicitor General (Sir George Jessel) strongly opposed the abolition of these Offices. Sir John Coleridge said that it was of greater importance than people generally supposed that there should be places which should tempt the more eminent men in the Legal Profession to leave the Bar and go to the Bench. And Sir George Jessel said that it was of the utmost importance that the seats on the Bench should be placed in such a position as to attract the very best legal talent. The Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Polls, having now attained the fitting rewards of their great abilities, seemed to forget that there might be other Coleridgos and Jessels hereafter who might
    582
    justly aspire to judicial dignities, which it was the interest of the public they should fill. Any alteration which would indispose the most eminent men at the Bar to ascend the Bench was a dangerous one. A Bar stronger than the Bench very soon came to look down upon the Bench. Anyone familiar with the administration of justice would deprecate the creation of a class of advocates who had no desire to become Judges and no sympathy with the Bench. He agreed with Mr. Justice Stephen, that the inevitable effect of abolishing those ancient and dignified Offices would be to deprive the Bench of its most eminent members and lower it in the estimation of the Bar and the public. They would be told that the dignity and position of an ordinary Judge would attract the most eminent men of the Bar. Let them test that by the facts of history. Taking the last 50 years, who had been Chief Barons of the Exchequer? Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Abinger, Sir Frederick Pollock, and Sir Fitzroy Kelly. Who had been Lord Chief Justices of the Common Pleas? Chief Justices Tindal, Truro, Jervis, Cockburn, Erle, Bovill, and Coleridge. With the exception of Sir William Erle, would anyone assert that any of these men would have taken a Puisne Judgeship, or that it would not have been a great public calamity if they had not taken their seats on the Bench? How many Attorney Generals and Solicitor Generals during that period had accepted Puisne Judgeships? Not one Attorney General. And in the case of the Solicitor Generals, the exceptions were so few as to prove the rule. With the sad exception of that distinguished man, Sir William Follett, whose premature death arrested his brilliant career, every eminent advocate at the English Bar had found the reward of his highest ambition in one or other of the greater Judicial Offices which were the most coveted prizes of the Profession. A Lord Justiceship of Appeal, standing on the same level, so far as salary was concerned, and differing slightly in status with the ordinary Judgeships, could not be an equivalent in rank, public estimation, and historic dignity to any of the three great Chief-ships. It might be said that, the Courts having been done away with, it was the logical consequence of the change that the Presidents of those Courts should follow them, that titles severed from the duties with which they had been associ-

    583
    ated should be abolished, and that common sense required it. The foremost Member in that House was the Chancellor of the Exchequer—of that very Exchequer of which the late Sir Fitzroy Kelly was the Chief Baron. Did the title and duties of the right hon. Gentleman correspond? No. They associated the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with Budgets, the Income Tax, and the Malt Tax, rather than with any judicial duties. Yet the title was a judicial one; but the judicial duties were gone. Sir Robert Walpole was the last Chancellor of the Exchequer who sat judicially. Take the instance of the title and office of Lord Privy Seal, where not a shadow of duty was attached, and yet Leaders on both sides had defended its retention. Where was the Board of Trade? Where was the Local Government Board—the Presidents of which had seats in the Cabinet? The Boards were gone—the Presidents remained. Talce the case of his hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney General). His hon. and learned Friend was neither an attorney nor a general; but he would hardly give up the time-honoured title for some modern one more accurately describing the position and powers of the Office. Talce the Cabinet itself. Why did they not propose to level down the Cabinet? Why did they not propose to have uniform titles with no difference in dignity? If they ran through the whole of our public official life, they found obsolete titles and offices whose present duties had no existence when they were created; and, therefore, the proposal to abolish the titles of the heads of the Courts, because of a change in their duties, was not in harmony with English precedent. He might be asked what special duties did those two dignitaries discharge which could not be discharged by two ordinary Judges to be appointed in their place. He answered that they would bridge the gulf which the Order in Council intended to create between the Judges of Appeal and the Judges of the Primary Courts; they would ward off the danger of two grades of Judges—one superior and one inferior. They would preside over those great trials which attracted the principal share of public interest, and which, so far as popular estimate was concerned, were of far greater importance than the duties in the Court of Appeal. They would in London and Middlesex con-
    584
    tinuously try those great commercial causes which for generations had been tried at Guildhall and Westminster by the Chiefs. They would strengthen the Court of Appeal by adding to the profound legal knowledge of the ordinary Judges the statesmanlike qualities of men who were lawyers and something more. They would maintain the due relationship between Bench and Bar; they would offer to the best men at the Bar the prizes for which alone they would relinquish their lucrative practices; and they would preserve the Bench from a Bar having no sympathy with it—rivalling it, and possibly surpassing it. Lastly, the retention of these two great Offices would preserve that historic continuity of their Judicial Staff, which every advanced reformer must value, and which every Conservative reformer would gratefully cherish. It would be said that this was sentiment; but sentiment played no small part in every department of our national affairs. It was not always wise to disregard or despise sentiment, especially in the administration of justice. He had no doubt that in some new country or Colony justice might be impartially administered and law correctly expounded by some strong-minded Judge divested of all official costume—probably sitting in his shirtsleeves, with his heels on the table, smoking a cigar or whittling a stick. But would that produce the same effect on the uneducated—nay, on the educated —masses of English society, inspire the same respect for and obedience to the law, as the stately solemnities, the pomp and pageantry, the scarlet and ermine of Her Majesty's Judges, as they went through the length and breadth of the land? Sentiment was an influence and a power with a people proud of a great history, of an ancient Monarchy, and of an old and free Constitution. It was not necessary to go outside the four walls of that Palace for illustrations. The daily ceremonial of that House, the quaint ritual with which the Royal Assent stamped the legislative resolutions of both Houses with the supreme authority of an Act of Parliament—these and a score other of the picturesque peculiarities which characterized our happy union of modern utility with a noble antiquity might be sneered at as sentiment; but they were the symbols, eloquent and enduring, of a national life, whose most glorious

    585
    privileges had grown with its growth and strengthened with its strength. For six centuries the four Chief Judges of England had borne the titles of Lord High Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice of England, the Lord Chief Justice of the the Common Pleas, and the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer. Those titles, forming a Peerage of their own, worthy to rank side by side with the Peerage of the territorial aristocracy, for 20 generations had taught the people of England that the noblest duty which a citizen could discharge, the highest honour a citizen could attain, was the administration of justice; and when they recalled the long roll of eminent men by whom those posts had been held, they learnt the further lesson that in this country no class, no caste, no prejudice, no favour could bar the path by which men could climb from the humblest walks of life to the highest dignities of the State. They were asked to sweep away two of these high judicial posts at the bidding of a doctrinaire utilitarianism, which would sacrifice a substantial and permanent advantage to secure the dreary regularity of its own monotonous level. He asked the House, on behalf of the suitors, whose interest it was that justice should be promptly and efficiently administered; he asked it on behalf of the public, whoso interest it was that the most marked ability and highest rank should be in the future, as they had been in the past, the characteristics of the Chief Judicial Offices, not to sanction a change for which no one had asked, which was as useless as it was unnecessary, and which would impair the efficiency and diminish the dignity of Her Majesty's Supreme Court of Judicature.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying that so much of the Order in Council, dated the 16th day of December 1880, made in pursuance of section 32 of 'The Judicature Act, 1873,' as relates to the abolition of the offices of Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer may not come into operation."— (Mr. Henry S. Fowler.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he should not attempt to answer the whole of the eloquent speech to which the House had just listened. He should reply to only one portion of it, because one part answered the other. The House was not
    586
    so full when the hon. Member began his address as when he closed it. The first part of his speech commonded itself to every Member who sat on that side of the House; but it found no echo from hon. Gentlemen opposite, except from the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), who gave his customary cheer. What did the hon. Gentleman say? He said that the result of his great practical experience was that their present system of administration of justice had broken down; that it was impossible either to continue things as they were or to return to the old system; that the existence of Divisional Courts was no longer possible, and that the one-Judge system must prevail. But what was the conclusion of his speech? He wanted the Divisional Courts abolished, but he desired that the Heads of the Divisional Courts should be maintained; and then he used phraseology more worthy of the time of Lord Eldon than of the present day, and, of course, the hon. Gentleman received loud cheers from hon. Gentlemen opposite. He could not help referring to one phrase. The hon. Gentleman said it was necessary, in order to maintain the pomp of the Judicial Bench, that ex-Law Officers of the Crown should sit upon it. He must protest against the statement that ex-Law Officers of the Crown wore more pompous than anyone else. He left the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) to deal with the hon. Gentleman as to that statement. He hoped his hon. Friend would forgive him for saying that his speech was rather discursive. It was a practical question with which they had to deal—with which business men had to deal. In a question of that kind he would rather appeal to business men than to lawyers, who regarded it very much from a sentimental point of view. He asked, how was the administration of law to be maintained with credit to the country? If those alterations in the law which must be in the direction of advance were to be effected, how could the Offices be maintained which were the subject of discussion? Though formerly there were three Courts, they formed but one means for the administration of justice. Indeed, in their origin those three Courts were only one Court; but when the object of that division had en-

    587
    tirely ceased, men began to ask themselves why they should continue. An example might suggest itself to the minds of men not lawyers. Suppose one were asked, "Which would you prefer—one estate of 1,500 acres, or three of 500 acres each?" What would be the answer? But if you had an estate of 1,500 acres, you certainly would not cut it up voluntarily into three, or make hindrances to a man passing from one part to another. The old system, with three divided Courts, and suitors waiting in vain in one Court when in another there were Judges having nothing to do, was a great waste of judicial power. Hence had arisen the necessity of bringing three Courts of five Judges each into one Court of 15 Judges. Those wore the feelings which showed themselves in the Judicature Act of 1873. The hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had spoken against the Divisional Court system, and insisted on the necessity of amalgamating all the three Divisions. It was no secret why that process had not been fully carried out. He, of all men, was least likely to speak in terms other than those of the highest respect of the late Lord Chief Justice. But it was well known that that great Judge was hostile to the system established by the Judicature Acts. He wished to maintain the old system in its integrity. He had declared himself hostile to any alteration in the ancient system. The Lord Chief Justice's opinion was a great power, and most deservedly so, on that question. There was a great body of opinion at first on the part of the Judges, to which concessions had been made. It was only right to do so, in order to obtain their concurrence in working out the changes which had been made by the Legislature. But it was in the first instance admitted that the maintenance of the old system was only to be temporary. His hon. Friend must recollect that the Prime Minister had said, in 1873, that the Offices which it was now proposed to abolish were not to exist for all time. At the time of the Act of 1873 it was distinctly placed upon record that both the Divisional Courts and those who sat at their head must some time come to an end. In the 32nd section of that Act it was enacted that if the Council of Judges should recommend that those Offices should be
    588
    abolished, they should pass away. In fact, the maintenance of those Offices was only tentative until a convenient opportunity should arrive for their abolition, and the Council of Judges should come to the conclusion that they should be done away with, and the Legislature should express its opinion that that change should be carried into effect. In fact, a compromise had been come to. Thus, step by step, consistent advance had been made. In 1876, when a Conservative Government was in Office, another blow was aimed at the existence of Divisional Courts. The Act of 1876 enabled the business of the Court to be carried on before one Judge, who should exorcise the jurisdiction formerly exercised by two or more Judges. Then, in 1879, by a Statute passed for the convenience of the public and for economy's sake, all distinction between the Divisional Courts and their respective Offices was done away. In 1879 one Office only was constituted for the issue of Writs. Now, also, there was only one list of actions to be tried. They had now the abolition of all distinction between the Offices and of the old names for the Judges; so that if anyone was appointed to the Court of Exchequer, he sat as Justice and not as Baron. There was, therefore, nothing left but the remnant of the distinction which was only maintained for sentimental reasons. His hon. Friend admitted that he wished the Divisional Courts to go; he had acknowledged that they prevented the full administration of justice; that they caused delays, and almost an impossibility of getting to trial; and yet he eloquently pleaded for the retention of the Headships of those Divisions. He had asked that there should be one Judge in the place of a Divisional Court, and had pointed out how absurd it was that they could not, in the Common Law Courts, obtain that sense of responsibility which every Vice Chancellor in the Equity Courts was always ready to bear. Had the hon. Member never heard of two Judges determining a question in which a sum of £3 10.s. was involved? He might mention that the late Lord Chief Justice carried his views so far as to insist upon having two Judges to sit with him. Thus, day after day, three Judges used to sit to hear cases which Vice Chancellors would not hear, but delegated to their chief clerks. Granting

    589
    that each Judge should have the courage of his opinions in judicial matters, how could they support the maintenance of the two Chief Justices in question? His hon. Friend said that they were to be maintained to regulate their Courts. [Mr. H. II. FOWLER said, he did not say that.] He (the Attorney General) would assume that he was in error, and would ask what these Heads of Divisional Courts were to do? The Senior Judges had never had any more power than the Puisne Judges; as Baron Parke once reminded Lord Abinger, then Chief Baron, when he said that he was only primus inter pares. In fact, the House was asked to maintain the Crown when there were no subjects. In deference to the memory of the past, they were asked to interfere with the administration of justice in the present. Some might say that this was a matter with regard to which great weight ought to be given to opinion emanating from legal sources. He differed from this view, thinking that hon. Members ought to judge the question for themselves. The administration of justice was a practical matter; but practical men wore too apt to leave to lawyers such matters as the one under discussion. His hon. Friend had appealed in support of his case to the weight of judicial authority. He would assume that the Judges wore perfectly independent in this matter. At any rate, the course which they had taken could not have been dictated by any selfish view. Well, when the Judges divided upon the Question now before the House, 20 voted for the abolition of the Offices of Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and Chief Baron of the Exchequer, and only five against it, and every one of those five also voted for the maintenance of Divisional Courts. The hon. Member disagreed with them on this point, though he joined them in wishing for the preservation of two Offices which must become useless if Divisional Courts were done away with. Among those by whom this subject had been considered was the body represented by the Incorporated Law Society of this country; and the Council of that Institution, consisting of men who had long experience in their Profession, had petitioned the House, through his hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory), to effect the contemplated change. Were these interested persons? Were they not
    590
    likely to be conservative enough to be governed by sentiment in this matter? Yet they had been compelled, by the practical interests of the position in which they were placed, to petition the House in favour of the change. This step was the result of the unanimously expressed opinion of the members of the Council representing the attorneys of this country, and the men who had published that opinion were the best who could be consulted in this matter. There was one body remaining whose views demanded attention—namely, the Bar of England. That body had given utterance to their views, and he had himself presented a Petition from the Members of the Bar praying that the abolition of these Offices should not take place. But he wished to say a word on the subject of that Petition. It proceeded from a largo meeting of the Bar, an open meeting, but one which was promoted by those who wished to oppose the abolition, of the Offices under discussion. He asserted that it was well known that the meeting was convened for the purpose of protesting against the proposed abolition. Well, what took place at that meeting? It was numerously enough attended; but, with all deference to those of his learned friends who took a leading part in the discussion, the active life of the Bar was not conspicuously represented at it. As to the votes given on that occasion, he was certain that out of every 10 persons present five did not vote at all, and he believed that not more than three out of those five voted against the abolition. He did not think that such an expression of opinion from a body of men essentially conservative in everything connected with their Profession was of sufficient weight to cause the House to accept their judgment as conclusive in this matter. He, for one, protested against the view that the interests of the Bar were to interfere with the interests of the public. The interests of that Profession and the interests of the public were really identical; and it was a foolish idea to suppose that any good could result to the Bar if, in order to maintain what were called the prizes of the Profession, justice were, even for one hour, denied to any member of the community. They would be forfeiting the interests of the future by looking merely at the bare considerations of the present. If, however, he had to con-

    591
    sider the subject of the prizes open to the Profession, he must point out that of late years those prizes had been greatly multiplied, and that, therefore, it might be said that the Bar had received full consideration in advance for the abolition of these Offices. Within the memory of man there had been 12 Judges; that number was increased to 15, and at length to 18. Three Vice Chancellorships had also been created; and instead of two Lord Justiceships there were now six, holding positions which any man at the Bar might be proud to occupy. Then four paid Officers were appointed to sit on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and two Lords of Appeal had been added to the House of Lords, who took their rank with other Peers. Surely these were prizes which were of considerable value, and which amply compensated the Profession for the abolition of the two posts in question? It had been urged that it was necessary in the interests of the public that these two Offices should be preserved, so that Judges of high position should preside over the Civil and the Criminal Courts. But the Judges who were brought the most in contact with the public on Circuit and in the Central Criminal Court were not all Chief Justices, and the argument, if worth anything, would go the extent that they should have, not two, but 18 Chief Justices. But it was not to the House only that the power had been given to reject this proposal to abolish these Offices. That same power had been conferred upon another House far more conservative in its views than that House was, and numbering among its Members men of great experience in the legal world, such as Lord Blackburn, Lord Penzance, and, perhaps, one of the greatest Judges that had ever sat on the Judicial Bench, Lord Cairns. Had Lord Cairns chosen to oppose this proposal, and called upon the Conservative majority of the other House to support him, the proposal would have been easily rejected. A voice had been raised "elsewhere" that evening in opposition to the proposal; but where was Lord Cairns?—he was not present to oppose it. ["Order!"] He was breaking through no Rule, for he was referring, not to what had, but to what had not occurred in the other House. They had heard no word from the late Lord
    592
    Chancellor, nor from any of the Conservative Peers against this proposal; and why, therefore, should this appeal be made to that House, in which were men who most know the wants of the public? The hon. Member had referred to the miserable utility of the present time. If that were a convertible term with Law Reform, he must give the hon. Member the benefit of it. He was not now uttering the opinions he had formed in the course of official life, but those which he had held eight years ago, when he was sitting below the Gangway, and had contended that more utility should be extracted from the Judicial Bench to the greater advantage of the public. He warned the House not to be led away by the eloquent peroration of his hon. Friend, be-cause they would not be doing their duty in the interest of the public, who had for so long had justice denied them, unless they gave the greatest weight to the opinion of the Judges in Council and carried that opinion into effect.
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDentirely agreed with what the Attorney General had said—namely, that the interest which had to be consulted in this matter was that of the public. That was a sentiment the utterance of which was tolerably certain to elicit cheers; and the Attorney General must have been perfectly well aware that nobody who was speaking in favour of the Motion would have contended for a moment that the interests of the Bar were comparable with those of the public. The question, however, was whether the proposed changes would really be for the interest of the public, and whether they would not weaken the dignity, the authority, and the attractiveness of the Judicial Bench. It was idle to assume that the changes would be in the interest of the public, and then to argue in opposition to their being carried into effect. What were the changes which were effected in 1873, and what were those which it was now proposed to effect? He was glad that the evils of the new system had been admitted; but they were certainly not traceable to the fact that there were three Chiefs of Divisions. Under the old system there were not three Divisions, but three Courts, the Judges of which were independent of each other; and a man frequently found that, under the then existing system of a separation

    593
    of Law and Equity, he had come to the wrong Court. The distinction between Law and Equity, in one sense, was an intolerable nuisance, which the Judicature Act most justly abolished. As one of the Judges remarked, a man was ticked out of the Palace of Justice because he got in at the wrong door. But it produced evils of another kind. The Common Law Division was but weakly represented in "another place" when the Judicature Act was passed, and, naturally enough, the Chancery system, with its multiplicity of appeals, prevailed. Under the old system, on the Common Law, once they had a question of fact decided, it was extremely difficult to get it tried again unless the Judge was dissatisfied with the case. Now, every trifling matter from Chambers, every trial of fact went, as a matter of course, to the Divisional Court, and then to the Court of Appeal. The result was, that there was no finality in the administration of justice; and he had been informed by one of the most experienced "Masters" that the amount of costs since the passing of the Judicature Act had increased by 20 or 30 per cent. The multiplicity of appeals, moreover, tended to glut the Courts with business, and the evil was increased by the ludicrous arrangement under which the Judges at the beginning of term, on the 11th of January, were scattered over the country on Circuit—a contingency which was certainly never contemplated by his right hon. Friend (Sir E. Assheton Cross) when the Winter Circuit was established. Now, that condition of things had nothing whatever to do with the question of the retention or non-retention of the Offices of the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer. That being so, was it quite fair of the Attorney General to continually speak of the "present system," as if the evils he had mentioned were in any way connected with the Offices under consideration? The question for practical men was how the 15 Judges were to be distributed; and he had heard nothing to prove that the best management was not the "three fives," each presided over by its proper Chief. He could not help thinking that there was great practical advantage in having Courts familiar with the administration of particular branches of the Law —such as the Exchequer Division, the
    594
    Common Pleas, and the Court of Queen's Bench. What, then, was the mischief which the Chiefs in question inflicted on the administration of justice? He entirely dissented from what the Attorney General said concerning the preservation of these Offices at the time of the passing of the Act of 1873. Lord Cairns and the then Lord Chancellor spoke of the Divisional Courts and their Chiefs as the most convenient and appropriate form into which the business could be divided. When it was suggested that the preservation of the Chiefships was owing to an entirely provisional arrangement, they ought to look at the public utterances of those who were in official charge of the Bill. Both the present Master of the Polls and the present Lord Chief Justice of England expressed themselves in favour of retaining the Chiefs of the Courts. The section of the Statute was plainly against the contention of the Attorney General. It was provided that the Council of the Judges was to meet every year; and if hon. Members would look at the section of the Statute they would find that the Legislature intended that the Council should make a recommendation when it was assembled in the ordinary course. The Council was not to wait until both these great Offices were vacant. Considering the arguments by which the present proposal was supported, it seemed as if Parliament was to be induced to take a particular course with an object not revealed on the surface of the Statute. The language of the Statute to which his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General referred was against him. All that was properly derivable from the language of the Statute was that it was considered that the Judges themselves would be the best persons to make recommendations which Her Majesty in Council might carry into effect. He regarded with considerable apprehension the notion that influence was to be exercised by the Lord Chancellor making a proposition to the Judges which they must either accept or reject. It was no secret that at that moment a non-official Committee was sitting with reference to the proposal. He fancied that it was intended to be of one colour, and practically unanimous; but who appointed that Committee? He was told that the hon. Member for Hereford was a member of

    595
    it, and, no doubt, his assistance was valuable; but the fact was that some new system was being devised which would be introduced for the acceptance of the House. That being the case, with a new system cut and dried behind the backs of the public and the House, and with an Order laid on the Table, the House would not be permitted to exercise its judgment on the matter. Everyone know what that meant. It was one thing to dissent from a new proposal, and another to reverse an accomplished fact. For that reason it seemed to him very undesirable that the change should be made without protest, and without knowing how far the House was expected to go. As to the argument of the Attorney General that because there were now no Barons of the Exchequer there was no necessity for a Chief Baron, such a contention from other lips would have been childish, and it might just as well be maintained that there was no necessity for the maintenance of the Lord Chancellor because the latticework beyond which he used to sit had been abolished. There was a clear working majority of the Common Law Judges against the change; but the question had never been fairly discussed by them, and they had been overwhelmed by the Chancery Judges. The Common Law Judges had, in fact, never been properly consulted as to the matter, and would have boon against the change if their full complement had been present; but it was so arranged that, with the opinion of a diminished Judicial Body, the subject came before the House. He could only say, by way of protest, that he believed the change would be decidedly contrary to the interests of the public. The Attorney General had said that he would not rely on the opinion of the Bar, but upon that of the solicitors. He should have thought more of his hon. and learned Friend's candour if he had stated that the Bar had decided against him, while the solicitors were in his favour. There was no body of men like the Judges, who surrendered so much in taking a judicial position. It was all very well to talk of their salaries; but, probably, no Judge ever reached the Bench without surrendering a larger income than that drawn from the public. The Prime Minister appeared to deny that statement, and he did not know what means of information the right
    596
    hon. Gentleman might have had; but men in the active practice of their Profession knew the fact, and he challenged —not the Prime Minister—but those who were acquainted with the subject, to produce an instance to the contrary. At any rate, the point was, to use the fashionable phrase, a factor in the problem. He begged the House to remember that factor, and, mindful of the importance of retaining, he would not say prizes, but attractions, to the best men, not to lower the dignity and the emoluments of the Judicial Bench. Did anyone suppose that the Master of the Rolls, or the present Lord Chief Justice of England, would have accepted Judicial Offices except for the attractions they offered? And who, in such a case, would become a Puisne Judge? Those were two illustrations of his argument that came ready to hand. In short, it could not be suggested that men in the front rank at the Bar would be attracted to the Bench, when half its dignity and its emoluments had been destroyed. He would heartily vote in favour of the Motion.
    MR. MARRIOTTsaid, the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) had protested with considerable warmth against the interests of the Bar being set up against the interests of the general public. He thought it would have been more becoming if the hon. and learned Gentleman had waited until such a charge had been made. He (Mr. Marriott) was not aware that a single Member of the House had referred to the subject, and he hoped the House would agree with him that they all had the same regard for the public interests as the Attorney General himself. It would be a matter of great congratulation if the public generally would take more interest in these legal discussions. At present, when any legal discussion was being carried on, the public seemed to have a child-like faith in the law reformers, and especially in the Lord Chancellors. The whole of the consideration and discussion of law reforms was left to the lawyers and to the Lord Chancellors. In regard to the Motion now before the House, the reason why he objected to the abolition of these two high Offices was simply this—that it was a step in the wrong-direction. It was another step in the direction they had now been travelling

    597
    for some seven or eight years, by which, the power of the Lord Chancellor had been increased and the dignity of the Bench had been lowered. This was no idle saying; but he would attempt to prove it. It would be agreed that up to the time of the Judicature Reform Act of 1873 there did not exist a Bench of Judges in the whole of Europe—he might even go further, and say in the whole of the world, either in ancient or in modern times—which commanded more general respect than the English Bench of Judges. Every writer—either in France, Germany, or America—-who had come over to this country, and studied its institutions, although he might find some things to which he would object, the one thing that received universal approval had always been the manner in which justice was administered in this country. The impartiality, the courtesy, and the firmness of the Bench, had always been a subject of praise by foreign observers. Many had tried to trace and find out what were the reasons why the Bench of this country was so distinguished and so respected, as compared with the Judicial Bench in foreign countries. He believed the reason to be this. In most foreign countries dependence was had upon a class of persons who were trained up for the exercise of these judicial functions as a portion of the Executive Government of the country; whereas, in this country, the Bench and the Bar had always been closely connected. The Bar had always been the feeding-ground for the Bench, and when a man was raised from the Bar to the Bench it was not customary for him to assume the airs which a similar class had assumed in a foreign country; but there had always been the best of feeling between the Bench and the Bar. Then, again, the Bench had always been in such a condition that it had had the pick of the Bar, and if it was asked why it had always had the pick of the Bar, he thought the reason was plain. The pay was good; the position was dignified; and a Judge, when once appointed, had nothing to fear; and, what was of the same importance, he bad nothing to hope for. Once a Judge, meant always a Judge. They talked of Puisne Judges—and the word "puisne" was supposed to mean something inferior; but a Puisne Judge, sit-
    598
    ting with his Chief, was in no inferior position at all. The Chief was, of course, primus in his own Court, but the Puisne Judge occupied the same position, and had precisely the same powers of administering justice. The Chief simply had precedence in his own Court. It often came round to the turn of the Puisne Judge to go Circuit as one of the seniors, and he had then the patronage of a Chief Justice himself. All these little incidents added to the dignity of the Puisne Judge, and he had no hope of promotion. All of this had been changed by the Judicature Acts of 1873 and 1875, and by the Appellate Jurisdiction Act of 1870. From the moment a Judge got upon the Bench he had the thought forced upon him—"What will be my next step in promotion?" The Judicature Act had created two classes of Judges, one of which was called the Common Law Puisne Judges, and the other the Judges of the Court of Appeal; and, strange to say, although the Puisne Judges performed the most important functions, the Judges of Appeal were the Superior Court. As a matter of fact, it was the Puisne Judges who had to appear constantly before the public to adjudicate upon great causes. The great criminal and commercial causes were those which interested the public of this country, and it required Judges of no mean order to preside over these great trials. To make a man a good Puisne Judge it was not only necessary that he should be a good lawyer, but it was also necessary that he should be a man of the world—a man of tact, a man who was able to deal with facts, and who could deal with the counsel before him and the 12 men in the jury-box. No doubt, the duties a Puisne Judge was required to discharge required the possession of far more diverse qualities and talents than those required from a Judge who had merely to sit in an Appellant Court to consider and determine points of law that were generally of very little interest to the public at large. As he had said, there were now two distinct classes of Judges, and the real evil was this—that whereas the Lord Chancellor possessed great power before, he would have much greater power now, because upon the Lord Chancellor would depend the promotion of the whole of the Judges. The Puisne Judge could now be pro-

    599
    moted to be a Judge of Appeal, and the Judge of Appeal could be promoted to be a Lord of Appeal, and sent to the House of Lords. He desired to cast no imputation upon the present occupants of the Bench; but Judges were only human beings, and if they were placed in a position in which they might expect promotion they would have a temptation to which he thought they ought not to have been exposed in this manner. No such temptation was placed in their way under the old system, and it was a great pity that they should be subjected to it now. The Office of Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, the Office of Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, and the Office of Lord Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer, were the great powers between the Chancellor and the Puisne Judges. They stood as a sort of breakwater—and, no doubt, in recent reforms the late Lord Chief Justice Cockburn did try to reduce the evils of some of the reforms proposed by the Lord Chancellors. Who was most likely to understand the working of the Common Law Courts—the two Lord Chancellors, who had never been in a Common Law Court in their lives, had never tried a jury case, and had never gone Circuit at an Assize, or the Puisne Judges? Were they likely to know more about the jurisdiction of the Common Law Courts than the late Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, who had passed the whole of his life in trying jury cases, with the greatest success and to the satisfaction of the whole nation? It stood to reason that the Judge who had had most experience of the Common Law Courts would best understand what was required for their reform. Yet the two Lord Chancellors, who were only accustomed to the Chancery Courts, brought in these great reforms, which affected so vitally trial by jury. He recollected when the suggestion was first made that the Common Law Judges should try Election Petitions. The one person who protested strongly against such an arrangement was the late Lord Chief Justice Cockburn; and the reasons which he laid down for his objection were very good. He said—what had almost come to pass now—that the Judges engaged to try these Election Petitions would lose part of their dignity, that they would be associated more or less with
    600
    Party politics, and the people would not think so well of them. He did not know what the experience of the House was now; but very recently, when Election Petitions were going to be tried, he had heard Members who were interested in them say—"Who is the Judge to try them? Is he a Liberal appointment? If he is a Conservative appointment he will be sure to go against us." He thought the Judges ought to be above such a suspicion. He knew that it was unjust to them; but he thought they ought not to be placed in a position which rendered them liable to it. The step now contemplated, by abolishing the Offices of Lord Chief Baron and Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, would certainly place more power in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, and for that reason he regarded it as an objectionable proceeding. With regard to the Bar, he agreed with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. II. II. Fowler), who moved the Resolution now before the House, that the only two consistent people were the present Attorney General and the Home Secretary, because they had always voted for the abolition of these two Offices. They would all agree with, him that among the most clever members of the Bar was the late Solicitor General of the Premier's last Government, the present Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt). The right hon. and learned Gentleman was, if he mistook not, the first person who had thrown up his Profession at the Bar and become a Cabinet Minister. There might be others who were similarly ambitious-—no doubt, in the prophetic mind of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he foresaw what was going to happen while he was at the Bar—but there might be others, now that what had been called the prizes of the Profession wore to be abolished, who would in future look, not to what had been considered the professional prizes of the Bar, but to other rewards in connection with the Government of the day. They would be of opinion that it would be bettor to become a Cabinet Minister than to be a Judge, now7 that they could not reach the position of Lord Chief Baron or Lord Chief Justice—that it would be bettor to occupy a position where they called magistrates over the coals, and even sometimes reversed the decision of

    601
    a Judge. That might be the new ambition; but it was going away from the old traditions of the Bar, and he thought that evil would follow when they got rid of those traditions. He should prefer to see the Bar kept within its own line. If they were successful they were rewarded, and the rewards they received were fully appreciated by the public generally. He was sorry to see the old customs broken through by right hon. and learned Gentlemen who sat on the Bench below; and for these reasons, and because he thought the abolition of these two Offices would only increase the power of the Lord Chancellor and decrease that of the Bench, he should vote in favour of the Resolution moved by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton.
    MR. GREGORYwould only, at that hour, say a very few words, and he would not have risen at all if it were not for the fact that allusion had been made to the part he had taken in connection with the provisions of the Act and the Order-in Council. As had been stated, he had had the pleasure of co-operating with his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General and another hon. Member of that House in attempting to carry out what they considered to be the scope of the Judicature Act, by including, in one great Division, the whole of the Common Law jurisdiction. He had also had the satisfaction of supporting a Motion to this effect in the Law Institution. No doubt, there was at that time considerable difficulty in getting the Act into operation, because, as the holders of the Offices were in existence, provision could only be made for the future; but he had always considered it desirable that some alteration should be made in the direction which had now been taken. A good deal had been said as to the failure of the Judicature Act, and of the evils which it had introduced. He had seconded a Motion made by the Attorney General in the last Parliament, which had for its object the remedying of those evils, as far as they could do so in that House. He admitted that there had been delay in the administration of justice; but he did not altogether admit that the Judicature Act had been such a failure as was alleged. On the contrary, he believed that many of its provisions had proved highly beneficial to the public. Many of the complaints which had been
    602
    made in regard to the administration of justice, had reference to matters which were beyond the operation of the Act. For instance, they had thrown more duties upon the Judges than was formerly the case by additional Circuits. And not only had they increased the labours of the Judges, but they had taken them out of the Courts just at the time their presence there was necessary for the due administration of justice. Although these were well-founded causes of complaint, they were not due to the operation of the Judicature Act; nor, in his opinion, did they bear upon the subject under discussion. The present question was not whether they were to diminish the existing number of the Judges, because they would have to appoint new Judges whether these particular Offices were continued or not, and, consequently, there would be no diminution in the number of Judges upon the Bench. The only question was whether they were to continue what he might call nominal Offices. That was really what the question came to, stripped of all extraneous matter. They had already gone to this extent; they had consolidated all the lower branches in the Courts; they had consolidated all the proceedings in the Courts; they had consolidated the Masters, the servants, and the Officers of the Courts. Every Judge they appointed was a Judge of the High Court of Justice, and not the Judge of a Division. Practically speaking, all difference had ceased to exist, and yet they were now asked to continue the Heads of Departments which had no real existence. For what reason should they do this? All the ground he had heard assigned was that, by discontinuing these Offices, they weakened the Court of Appeal, and by continuing these particular Offices they might get a better class of gentlemen to undertake the judicial functions of the country. As regarded the Courts of Appeal, he ventured to think that without these high Officers—the Lord Chief Baron and the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas—the Court of Appeal was sufficiently strong as it stood, and that there was no cause to complain of the operation or working of it. There were six Judges in the Court of Appeal, with the Master of the Rolls, the Lord Chief Justice, and the Lord Chancellor to assist if necessary. During the last 10 years

    603
    the Lord Chief Baron and the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas had sat but very seldom in the Court of Appeal. They had only sat in one or two cases, and had consequently not given to the Court any individual strength. Then, as regarded the effect of the arrangement upon the Bar and the opening it gave to men at the Bar, he was by no means prepared to say that the most successful advocate always made the best Judge. He had known, within his own experience, instances which tended to prove the contrary of that proposition. A forensic mind was not always a judicial mind, and, with great respect to the hon. and learned Gentlemen who had performed the functions of Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chief Baron during the last 10 years, he had no hesitation in saying that there many of the Puisne Judges who would have discharged the duties equally well. Indeed, he should have preferred, personally, to try a case before many of the Puisne Judges rather than some of the hon. and learned Gentlemen who, in a series of years, had filled the higher Offices in question. He could mention the names of Puisne Judges, not only within the last 10 years, but extending over the last 20, 30, and 40 years, who were equal to any men who over filled the superior Offices. It seemed to be supposed that the public would altogether lose the services of the higher class of the Bar if they abolished these Offices. He ventured to think that they would not; they would still have the appointments of Judges of Appeal as professional prizes, together with the Office of Lord Chief Justice, the Office of Master of the Polls, and the Office of Lord Chancellor. Surely, these were prizes sufficient to attract the highest intellect of the Bar. It was said, on the other hand, that they ought not to hold out the hope of promotion to the Judges. He certainly thought that was an argument which could have no weight in the present day. There was no Judge who would condescend to do anything unbecoming his position or his country for the sake of obtaining a higher position; but, at the same time, he did think that the holding out of a prospect of promotion was of advantage rather than otherwise to the Judicial Bench. For these reasons, he was of opinion that it was desirable to give
    604
    effect to the Order in Council and, in so doing, to carry out the spirit and intention of the Judicature Act. With respect to the opinion of those with whom he was professionally connected he might confirm the statement which had been made by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, He had had much pleasure in presenting a Petition in their behalf in favour of this Order in Council, and praying the House to adopt it. That Petition was unanimously agreed to by the Law Institute of which he was a member. The question was specially brought before the Council of the Institute after due notice had been given, and it was fully considered and discussed. As the Council were elected in order to watch over the interests of several thousands of persons, they might be taken to be a representative body upon questions of this kind. They regarded it not in the slightest degree as a Party question, but as a question affecting the administration of justice, and in that light they had considered it.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSdesired to say a very few words upon the question, and would promise that, at that hour of the night, they should be very few. He wished to speak in the first place as an earnest law reformer, not in any Conservative sense, but as one who heartily and sincerely desired to see the present system of law thoroughly reformed. But he wished also to speak altogether unconnected with the Profession to which he had the honour to be-long. He felt strongly on the point raised by the Resolution, and he would very shortly state to the House the reasons which had induced him, after very careful consideration, to come to the conclusion he had been forced to arrive at in the matter. He quite agreed that in matters of this kind they were not for a moment to take the Judges themselves as having any vested rights or interests that ought to interfere with the public welfare in a matter of this kind. He would say exactly the same of the Bar, that they had no vested interests in any of the appointments, and that it was not necessary, so far as the public interests 'were concerned, that their future prospects should be made a question of consideration. When he came to the meeting of the Bar to which his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General alluded

    605
    just now, he was quite sure that if the members of the Chancery Bar had been excluded because they did not know anything of the Common Law Bar in regard to the intricacies of the procedure in the Common Law Courts—
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)was understood to say that there were no members of the Chancery Bar present at the meeting in question.
    SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSdiffered from the Attorney General. He had been told that a large number of Chancery barristers were present, and that they took part in the proceedings. He believed he was right in making that assertion. He was sorry to feel compelled also to differ from his hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory). His hon. and learned Friend told the House that he had presented a Petition to the House on behalf of the attornies in favour of the Order in Council. The hon. and learned Gentleman explained the reason why the Petition was adopted; and if it was the reason on which the attornies determined to support the Order in Council, no doubt, any body of men simply acting upon the premises suggested by his hon. and learned Friend, must have come to the same conclusion. How was it that his hon. and learned Friend explained the Petition. He said that it was necessary that all the traditions of the Courts of Justice should be thrown over, in order to do away with the difficulty of arranging the business; and, therefore, he added, the question was whether the purely nominal Offices should be continued or not. If that was the question put before the Council of the Law Institute, he did not see how they could come to any other conclusion than they did. If these were purely nominal Offices, and there was nothing more to justify their being kept up, they ought to be abolished at once. That reason might explain the position taken up by the Council of the Law Institution; but, at the same time, it rendered the Petition presented by them absolutely valueless for all purposes connected with the present vote. It was satisfactory to know that the Re-solution was brought forward by an hon. and learned Member of the Profession, who would not have brought it forward if he did not think he was acting in the interests of the Profession at
    606
    large. His impression was, that the working of the Judicature Act, if the views advocated by the Attorney General on this particular question were carried into effect, would considerably lower the position of the Common Law Judges. He did not say that the Judges did not occupy the same position in the public estimation that they had occupied hitherto, but that it would be found that the men who accepted those appointments were not of the same status as had, up to the present time, been appointed. This was not a case in which the supply was always equal to the demand. It was necessary, in order to secure the thorough confidence of the public and the Bench, that it should be tilled by the best men of the Profession that could be found to fill it. Everyone knew that it was much easier in the time of the 12 Judges to find the best men to fill the station of Common Law Judge, than it was when they numbered 18. The more the number was increased the greater was the difficulty in getting them. Let it be considered whether the step about to be taken was likely to diminish the difficulty. At the present time Her Majesty's Government had not simply to pick out 18 men, but also to fill the appointments for six Judges in the Court of Appeal, superior in rank, dignity, and in the character of the work which they had to perform to the Common Law Judges. As this went on the result would be that the best men of the Profession would not take the Office of Common Law Judge; they would wait to see whether their chance would not be better by being made a Judge of the Court of Appeal. He would not say whether the Judges gave up their emoluments, or whether or not they sacrificed them; but he believed, in the vast majority of cases, that the Common Law Judges did sacrifice income when they accepted the Judicial Office. Under the old system the 12 Judges did everything; they formed the Court of Appeal, and were the only Judges to whom the public had to look. But a new order of Judges had now been created, and, that being so, in the interests of the public, the best Judges that could be obtained ought to be appointed; and associated with these Judges, who had, probably, been brought up to practice only, there should be some men who had seen more of the habits and business of the world,

    607
    He believed it was of immense advantage to the Common Law Courts that their Chiefs should be men who had been in Parliament, who had filled the Offices of Solicitor and Attorney General, who knew exactly what was the course of Business in that House, and who knew, besides, more generally than lawyers usually did, what was going on in the world. But one result of this measure would be that all those men would disappear, except the Lord Chief Justice of England. His hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would not deny that it was of importance that these Judges should be appointed at once, because there was so much business in the Courts that every day the appointments were delayed was so much loss to the country. This Order had now been before the House some 20 or 30 days. Her Majesty's Government had had this Order in their mind for the abolition of these Offices, and knew that they would have to bear what the House of Commons would say upon the subject. The reason why the appointments had not been made at once was that Her Majesty's Government knew, if these Offices were retained, they must appoint A and B, men who had been in that House, and who had experience of public affairs quite irrespective of their Profession, and who had not accepted the position because they knew that, after this Order came into force, they would be sunk to the level of the Puisne Judges. When the present Order came into force, not A and B, but Y and Z, would be appointed; and the loss would not be to the Profession, but to the suitors. Again, he believed it would be one of the worst things if the Judges of the Court of Appeal did not associate themselves on Circuit with the business of the other Courts. The Divisional Courts had been so much thrown into the shade, that the suitors were making more appeals to the Supreme Court than before. In 1876 there were 111 appeals; in 1877, 216; and during the last two years there had been, for each year, from. 240 to 250. The sittings of the Divisional Courts were, therefore, becoming less and less important. Suitors would go to the Court of Appeal; and the consequence would be that the number of appeals would be
    608
    so great that the Judges would not be able to get through them, and three more Judges would have to be appointed to the Appeal Courts. There would then be nine Superior Judges; and the inevitable result would be, as he had before pointed out, that the best men at the Bar would not sit on the Common Law Bench. He suggested that it would be a great advantage to the public if, at all events, the Lord Chief Justice of England should have two other Judges to assist him as the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and the Chief Baron to assist him as Vice President. No one had a higher respect than himself for the Lord Chief Justice; but he objected that all the patronage of the three Judgeships should, in future, be vested in him. He held there could not be the slightest reason for that being done. The respective Chiefs were absolutely irresponsible for the patronage of which they disposed, and there would be the same absence of responsibility if it were vested in one of them only. It would, he believed, be better for all the Judges that they should have, under the direction of the Lord Chief Justice, other Judges sitting in their Courts of greater experience. Whatever might happen to the Order in question, he trusted Her Majesty's Government would take into consideration the necessity of appointing some Assistant Judges of the same class as the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and Lord Chief Baron; and that they would not allow all the patronage hitherto disposed of by the Judges to be entirely in the hands of the Lord Chief Justice. He had endeavoured to show that, in course of time, the lines they were proceeding upon would necessitate the appointment of three more Judges. He believed our Commercial Code would never have been in its present state had it not been for such men as tried the the civil causes at Guildhall; and he trusted that some step would be taken to ensure that the Common Law Bench should continue to be reserved for the best men at the Bar. Indeed, he could conceive no greater danger to the public than that such men should refuse to sit upon that Bench; and, therefore, he believed if the Order was passed, a step would be taken in the wrong direction.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, if he could agree with the right hon. Gentleman as to the effect the Order would have upon the position of the Common Law Judges in the future, he should certainly not support it; for he could not conceive anything more necessary than to maintain the character and public esteem of the Common Law Judges. The right hon. Gentleman had, several times in the course of his speech, referred to the 12 Judges in the old days, and pointed out how much more difficult it was to find 18 suitable men than 12. It was impossible to go back to the condition of things which existed in the days of the 12 Judges. He could not agree that the fact of having two Judges, to be called Chiefs though they had no subjects, and of their having somewhat higher salaries, could raise the level of the whole of the Common Law Judges of England. The right hon. Gentleman argued that the ordinary Judges would be degraded in the opinion of the people of England if two Chief Justiceships were abolished. He had also, in other quarters, heard language of contempt for what were called Ordinary Judges as compared with the so-called Superior Judges; but that had surprised him less than the language of the right hon. Gentleman. When he was first a member of the Bar there were many Judges for whom he had the greatest veneration—he might say fear; but they were ordinary Common Law Judges—Park, Maule, and Blackburn —and certainly they did not derive their dignity or authority from the fact that Lord Donman presided in one Court and Chief Baron Pollock in another. Pollock and Denman were eminent men, and in their time had been Solicitors and Attorneys General; but Blackburn, Park, and the other ordinary Common Law Judges, did not derive their authority and weight with the people of England from the fact that these eminent men were Chiefs in their Courts. What was the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman? He (Sir William Harcourt) confessed it seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman entertained an empty and chimerical apprehension, and he believed that the authority of the ordinary Puisne Judges of England would be what it always had been, and would rest chiefly on their character, and greatly on their abilities. The more character and abilities they had,
    610
    the higher would they stand in the estimation of the people of England, and it was a mistake to suppose that they were going to shine with the borrowed light of their visionary Chiefs, who, although they bad a little additional salary, had nothing else, not even a finer robe, to add to their weight. He confessed he was astonished at the light hon. Gentleman's mode of dealing with that weighty and respectable Institution, the Incorporated Law Society. He thought his hon, and learned Friend opposite the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) must be surprised that the Judges of England, who were supposed to be rather a smart and intelligent body, were entirely deceived by the way in which the question was put. He (Sir William Harcourt) could not think that the Heads of the Profession of Solicitors and Attorneys of England were deceived. Did the House suppose that they did not understand this question as well as the House did, and a good deal better? They were the people most interested in the question, and certainly had no interest in degrading the character of the Ordinary Judges; and he did think their decision, and that of the Judges ought to weigh with the House more than that of anyone else. What an extraordinary thing it was that the Ordinary Judges had voted for a proceeding which was to degrade themselves— that a majority of 20 to 5 Judges should come forward to vote for a proceeding which, in the eyes of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, degraded them in the opinion of the people of England. The late Solicitor General (Sir Hardinge Giffard) seemed to think the method in which the matter had been brought before the Judges unfair, and he hinted at some means by which the Government might have brought some pressure to bear upon them; but he could not understand how, in any possible form, pressure could have been brought to bear upon them. Really, when the House was going to determine a particular question of this kind, when only a limited number of Members were able to form an opinion upon it from personal experience, if they did not take the overwhelming opinion of the Judges, and the opinion of such a Body as the Incorporated Law Society, upon it, he did not understand on what ground they were to proceed, unless, of course, they went on the sentimental

    611
    ground of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), and he had indulged in a lofty tone of sentiment that night, expressing his views in certainly more poetical language than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir B. Assheton Gross) as to those Superior Chiefs and those very Ordinary Judges. He invoked them with the eloquence they all recognized he possessed to continue the "picturesque peculiarities" of the Chief ships. That many of them were picturesque he (Sir William Harcourt) had no doubt, and that many of them might have peculiarities he did not deny; but the "picturesque peculiarities" wore to be maintained,"lest,"—as his hon. and learned Friend said, with that sentiment which always met with the response of the other side — he did not know whether the hon. and learned Member used the exact words; but it was in the spirit of—"we Americanize our institutions. "He said—"If you do not preserve these picturesque peculiarities you will be having Judges who will whittle away at the Bench. "That was the hon. and learned Member's view of the Ordinary Judges. He (Sir William Harcourt) did not think that either the "picturesque peculiarities" of the language of his hon. and learned Friend, or the somewhat sombre views of the right hon. Gentleman, were likely to relegate the 18 Common Law Judges of England to the position they apprehended. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, at the close of his speech, really did seem to feel that he could no longer fight for these shadowy Chief-ships; and he dropped the suggestion that, perhaps, after all, there was no use having three Chiefs when they had only one body of Judges, and that they might have one Chief with two Vice Presidents. He (Sir William Harcourt) did not know that two Vice Presidents would do any more than the Chiefs to lift the character of these Puisne Judges. But the right hon. Gentleman did make one suggestion in which he (Sir William Harcourt) did not differ from him altogether—namely, as to the enormous accumulation of patronage in the hands of one Judge. He would only speak for himself, and give his own individual opinion; but it certainly seemed to him that this matter, which
    612
    was not included in the Order in Council before the House, might very well be considered on some future occasion. He did not wish at all to enter a strong protest against the views of the right hon. Gentleman on this subject, and he would not any longer detain the House, as it seemed to him all had been said on the subject that could be said. It was some satisfaction to the Attorney General and himself to think that in voting for this Order in Council they would be maintaining principles on this Bench that they had always supported.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he felt very deeply on this subject—a subject which, in comparison with other matters that had lately occupied the attention of the Government, had had but a small fraction of time devoted to it; and, even if this were to be the last time he were to speak—not that he hoped it would be— he should still trespass on the indulgence of the House on a question which touched not only the independence of the Judicial Bench, but a far deeper and more important matter—the Monarchical principle. They had reached a time when they had even in the Cabinet cradle Republicanism. There was a disposition abroad which savoured of Republicanism, and it was to be witnessed in many things which had been brought forward by the Government. There were those terms "President," "Vice President," and so on. He was taking these things from the legal documents of the Judges, and he did not justify their use, from whatever quarter they came. The tendency was to disparage Monarchical principles, and one reason why he valued these ancient Offices under discussion was because they showed they had come from the fountain of honour, and that we were loyal and obedient subjects of the Crown. The titles of Lord Chief Baron and Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas should, from their very antiquity, if for no other reason, be retained. In the age in which they lived they must not lose sight of the practical, and the tone of the speech of the still learned Home Secretary was so severely practical that the right hon. Gentleman must have got up in pure wantonness of power to acknowledge a principle recognized by one of the great orators of antiquity—namely, always to meet seriousness with ridicule, and ridicule with

    613
    seriousness. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should have been directing a jury—he and the learned Attorney General ought to be filling those posts they now sought to destroy. An important argument which had been used in the course of the discussion had not been answered. He did not scruple to say that one reason why they had come to this pass was because they had had a succession of Lord Chancellors distinguished for their knowledge of Equity, their great piety, and their ignorance of the law. Standing up, as he did, for the honour of the old Common Law, he did not wish to see its dignity detracted from more than was absolutely necessary, and for this reason he disregarded all the votes of these Equity Judges. The late Lord Chief Justice had been referred to; and when reference was made to that great man most of them were touched— he himself was touched almost to tears; and he could not help remembering how, at the end of a great trial, which none but he could have tried, and which, should such a case arise in the future, there would be no Judge to do justice to, Chief Justice Cockburn had said he hoped to have some place in the affectionate remembrance of the Bar. This great man did live in the affectionate remembrance of the Bar. What was now taking place reminded him of the old fable of the dying lion. The meaner animals around the lion waited until his last gasp before they commenced to attack him. Had the great Judge lived until to-day, he would have protested as valiantly against the proposed change as, years gone by, he fought for and saved the fortunes of a Government—that of Lord Palmerston. This was another reason for preserving men of this class on the Bench. ["Question!"] This was the Question. He was about to illustrate the difference between two classes of men by what had occurred in the House. When the Government of Lord Palmerston was trembling in the balance, and there had already been an adverse vote given against it in the other House, the brief in the House of Commons was sent to a not very remarkable man, an ordinary Judge, a very respectable man in his way, the kind of man they would have filling all the posts on the Bench after this Order in Council had become law. He was not the man who should have been intrusted with
    614
    such a brief; but the defence was taken up by Cockburn, and the Government wore saved by one of that class which the House was just about to banish from the Bench.
    Question put.
    The House divided: —Ayes 110; Noes 178: Majority 68.

    AYES.

    Alexander, Colonel C.

    Leamy, E.

    Allen, W. S.

    Leighton, S.

    Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

    Levett, T. J.

    Aylmer, Capt. J. E. F,

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Bailey, Sir J. B.

    Loder, E.

    Balfour, A. J.

    Long, W. II.

    Barttelot, Sir W. B.

    Lopes, Sir M.

    Bateson, Sir T.

    Mac Iver, D.

    Bellingham, A. II.

    M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.

    Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

    M'Laren, C. B. B.

    Biddell, W.

    Makins, Colonel W. T.

    Birkbeck, E.

    Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.

    Blackburne, Col. J. I.

    Marriott, W. T.

    Bourke, right hon. R.

    Maxwell, Sir H. E.

    Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.

    Metge, R, H.

    Mills, Sir C. H.

    Bruce, Sir II. II.

    Morgan, hon. F.

    Bruce, hon. T.

    Moss, R,

    Camphell, J. A.

    Mowbray, rt. hn. Sir J. R.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Mulholland, J.

    Churchill, Lord B.

    Murray, C. J.

    Clarke, E.

    Newport, Viscount

    Coddington, W.

    Northcote, H. S.

    Compton, F.

    O' Donnell, F. H.

    Crichton, Viscount

    Parker, C. S.

    Cross, rt. hon. Sir E. A.

    Patrick, E. W. C.

    Davenport, H. T.

    Pemberton, E. L.

    Davenport, W. B.

    Powell, W.

    Dawnay, Col. hn. L. P,

    Power, E.

    De Worms, Baron H.

    Puleston, J. H.

    Dixon-Hartland, E. D.

    Rankin. J.

    Donaldson-Hudson, C.

    Ridley, Sir M. W.

    Douglas, A. Akers-

    Ritchie, C. T.

    Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.

    Round, J.

    Emlyn, Viscount

    Sandon, Viscount

    Feilden, Major-General R. J.

    Schreiber, C.

    Sclater-Booth, rt. hn. G.

    Fenwick-Bisset, M.

    Scott, M. D.

    Firmer, Sir E.

    Severne, J. E.

    Fletcher, Sir H.

    Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

    Fowler, R. N.

    Stanhope, hon. E.

    Gibson, rt. hon. E.

    Sykes, C.

    Gore-Langton, W. S.

    Talbot, J. G.

    Gorst, J. E.

    Taylor, rt. hn. Col. T. E.

    Grantham, W.

    Thornhill, T.

    Halsey, T. F.

    Tottenham, A. L.

    Hamilton, I. T.

    Walrond, Col. \V. II.

    Hamilton, right hon. Lord G.

    Warton, C. N.

    Watney, J.

    Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir J. C. D.

    Whitley, E.

    Wilmot, Sir II.

    Hicks, E.

    Winn, E.

    Hinchingbrook, Visc.

    Wortloy, C. B. Stuart-

    Holland, Sir H. T.

    Wroughton, P.

    Home, Captain D. M.

    Yorke, J. R.

    Hope, rt. hn. A. J. B. B.

    Kennard, Col. E. H.

    TELLERS.

    Kennaway, Sir J. H.

    Fowler, H. H.

    Knight, F. W.

    Giffard, Sir H. S,

    615

    NOES.

    Acland, Sir T. D.

    Ffolkes, Sir W. H. B.

    Agar - Robartes, hon. T. C.

    Findlater, W.

    Firth, J. F. B.

    Agnew, W.

    Fitzmaurice, Lord E.

    Ainsworth, D.

    Fitzwilliam, hon. C. W. W.

    Allen, H. G.

    Armitstead, G.

    Fitzwilliam, hn. H. W.

    Arnold, A.

    Foljambe, C. G. S.

    Ashley, hon. E. M.

    Forster, Sir C.

    Balfour, J. B.

    Fort, R.

    Balfour, J. S.

    Fowler, W.

    Barran, J.

    Fry, I,

    Bass, A.

    Fry, T.

    Bolton, J. O.

    Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

    Boord, T. W.

    Gladstone, H. J.

    Bradlaugh, C.

    Gladstone, W. H.

    Brand, H. R,

    Gordon, Sir A.

    Brassey, T.

    Gower, hon. E. F. L.

    Brett, R. B.

    Grant, A.

    Bright, rt. hon. J.

    Grant, Sir G. M.

    Brooks, M.

    Gray, E. D.

    Brown, A. IT.

    Gregory, G. B.

    Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C.

    Grenfell, W. H.

    Bryce, J.

    Grey, A. H. G.

    Burt, T.

    Guest, M. J.

    Buszard, M. C.

    Hamilton, J. G. C.

    Buxton, F. W.

    Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V.

    Campbell, R. F. F,

    Campbell- Bannerman, H.

    Hartington, Marq. of

    Hastings, G. W.

    Causton, R. K.

    Hayter, Sir A.D.

    Cavendish, Lord F. C.

    Henry, M.

    Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

    Herschell, Sir F.

    Cheetham, J. F.

    Hill, A. S.

    Childers, rt. hn. H. C. E.

    Hill, T. R.

    Chitty, J. W.

    Hollond, J. R.

    Clarke, J. C.

    Holms, J.

    Cohen, A.

    Holms, W.

    Collings, J.

    Hopwood, C. H.

    Collins, E.

    Illingworth, A.

    Colthurst, Col. D. la T.

    James, C.

    Commins, A.

    James, Sir H.

    Cotes, C. O.

    Jardine, R.

    Cowper, hon. H. F.

    Jenkins, D. J.

    Craig, W. Y.

    Johnson, E.

    Creyke, R.

    Johnson, W. M.

    Cropper, J.

    Kingscote, Col. R. N. F.

    Cross, J. K.

    Kinnear, J.

    Crum, A.

    Lawson, Sir W.

    Cunliffe, Sir R. A.

    Laycock, R.

    Davey, H.

    Lea, T.

    Davies, D.

    Leatham, W. H.

    Davies, R.

    Lee, H.

    Davies, W.

    Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S.

    Dickson, J.

    Dilke, A. W.

    Lewis, C. E.

    Dilke, Sir C. W.

    Mackie, R. B.

    Dillwyn, L. L.

    M 'Carthy, J.

    Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.

    M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

    Duff, rt. hon. M. E. G.

    M'Lagan, B.

    Dundas, hon. J. C.

    Marjoribanks, E.

    Earp, T.

    Martin, F.

    Edwards, H.

    Martin, R. B.

    Edwards, B.

    Mason, H.

    Egerton. Adm. hon. F.

    Molloy, B. C.

    Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

    Monk, C. J.

    Errington, G.

    Morgan, rt. hon. G. O.

    Evans, T. W.

    Morley, A.

    Fairbairn, Sir A.

    Morley, S.

    Farquharson, Dr. R.

    Mundella, rt. hon. A. J.

    Fawcett, rt. hon. H.

    Nolan, Major J. F.

    616

    O' Beirne, Major F.

    Simon, Serjeant J.

    O'Conor, D. M.

    Smithwick, J. F.

    O'Gorman Mahon, Col. The

    Stanley, hon. E. L.

    Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.

    O'Shea, W. H.

    Summers, W.

    Palmer, C. M.

    Thompson, T. C.

    Palmer, G.

    Tracy, hon. F. S. A. Hanbury-

    Palmer, J. H.

    Pease, A.

    Trevelyan, G. O.

    Peddie, J. D.

    Waugh, E.

    Philips, R. N.

    Wedderburn, Sir D.

    Pugh, L. P.

    Whitworth, B.

    Pulley, J.

    Williams, S. C. E.

    Ralli, P.

    Williamson, S.

    Ramsay, J.

    Willis, W.

    Ramsden, Sir J.

    Wilson, Sir M.

    Reed, Sir E. J.

    Wodehouse, E. R,

    Reid, R. T.

    Woodall, W.

    Rendel, S.

    Woolf, S.

    Richardson, T.

    Roberts, J.

    TELLERS.

    Rylands, B.

    Grosvenor, Lord R.

    Sexton, T.

    Kensington, Lord

    Shield, H.

    House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.