Commons Sitting of 10 March 1881

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Contagious Diseases Acts, Dr. Cameron and Dr. Farquharson added.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Arms [109]; Leases* [108]; Maintenance Law Amendment [110].
First Reading—Local Taxation Returns (Scotland)* [107].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—
Tramways (Ireland) Acts Amendment* [102]. Select Committee—Report—Married Women's Property* [No. 124].
Considered as amended—Re-committed—Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Peace Preservation (Ireland) [105],

QUESTIONS.

  NEW ZEALAND—ILLEGAL DETENTION OF NATIVES.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been drawn to the allegations in the "Wairapa Standard" of January 8th 1881, as to the detention and punishment in New Zealand of various natives in excess of their respective sentences; whether he will make inquiries as to the truth of such allegation; and, whether, in the event of the allegation being verified (as other cases of undue severity to natives have already been brought to the attention of the Government), Her Majesty's Government will make any representation to the Colonial Government in New Zealand on this subject?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, I have seen the article in question, thanks to the courtesy of the hon. Member, and it would be obviously impossible for us to base any representations upon it. Papers of an authoritative kind on the subject of recent Native difficulties in New Zealand will, however, very soon be laid upon the Table, and will, I hope, be satisfactory to those who are interested in this subject.

  VACCINATION—SMALL-POX.
  MR. DANIEL GRANTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, considering how constantly epidemics of small-pox recur, the large number of deaths which are annually returned, the wide differences of opinion that exist among fully qualified medical men as to the limits of the protective power of vaccination, and with respect to the genesis, distribution, and limitations of contagion, he will take into his consideration the advisability

  711
  of offering a series of substantial premiums, open to all the world, for obtaining concise, accurate, and fully tested information as to the origin, growth, and development of the disease; also such other practical knowledge as will tend to minimise its power of infection and indicate the means for its extinction; and, whether it may with propriety be assumed that, if any person can discover an absolute specific for the disease itself, a full pecuniary recognition would be awarded?
  MR. DODSON, in reply, said, he hoped the hon. Member would not think he was wanting in respect to him if he did not enter into the various points raised in the preamble to his Questions. In fact, he could not do so within the limits of a reply. He might, however, say that the Local Government Board had no funds at their disposal applicable to the purposes suggested by the hon. Member.

  PRINTING FOR THE HOUSE OF COMMONS—MESSRS. HANSARD'S CONTRACT.
  MR. BUXTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the statement in the Report of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, that
  "The rates allowed to Messrs. Hansard for printing for the House of Commons are 15 per cent. higher than the rates allowed for printing for the House of Lords, and are higher than your Lordships would probably have felt justified in granting, had not Messrs. Hansard claimed special consideration on the ground that they had for more than 100 years held the office of Printer to the House, and satisfied your Lordships and Mr. Speaker that it would be very difficult for them, without alterations in their staff which could not easily be made at once, to continue the business if required to do so at rates approaching those which might be obtained in the open market;"
  and, whether Messrs. Hansards' "exceptionally high rates" have yet been sufficiently lowered as to compare favourably with rates in the open market?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, the additional percentage paid to Messrs. Hansard was allowed in consideration of the difference in the nature of the work done for the two Houses, that for the House of Commons having to be executed to some extent under circumstances of greater pressure, and
  712
  therefore at greater expense. This difference has been recognized by Select Committees of the House, such as the Select Committee on Public Departments in 1874. The present arrangement effects a reduction of above 20 per cent upon the rates previously paid to Messrs. Hansard, besides simplifying their accounts and assimilating them to those of the House of Lords' printers. It will not expire until 1896, the year in which the contract for the House of Lords also expires; and we are not therefore in a position at present to consider the possibility of further economy.

  PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
  MR. BUXTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the following extract from the Report of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office:—
  "The distribution (of Parliamentary Papers) and the possibility of effecting improvements in the system now in force, either by the daily circulation to Members of a List of the Papers issued, with a note of their contents for selection or otherwise, are questions lying beyond the province of the Department; but that they are not altogether unimportant your Lordships may gather from a statement that every Member of the House of Commons who served through the last Parliament, and drew all his Papers, received according to a moderate calculation, about a ton of printed matter;"
  and, whether, considering the heavy expenditure incurred by the present system of distribution, and the impossibility of any Member being able properly to digest a ton of such literature, he will consider the advisability of introducing some such reform in the distribution to Members of Parliamentary Papers as is proposed by the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, the arrangements for the distribution of Parliamentary Papers are under the direction of Mr. Speaker, with the assistance of the Printing Committee, whom he consults when necessary. Formerly, all Papers ordered by the House were distributed; but some exceptions are now made. With regard to Papers presented by command, out of 281 such Papers presented last Session, more than 100 were not delivered except upon the application of Members. In a matter affecting so much the Members of the House, I do not think that it is advisable for the Government to make any pro-

  713
  posals; but that the general arrangements are best left in the hands of Mr. Speaker.

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS—LEGISLATION.
  COLONEL WALRONDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether there is any chance of the Government bringing in a Bill this Session to deal with certain Municipal Corporations, as recommended in the Report of the Royal Commission presented to Parliament last year?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Yes, Sir; the Bill is already drawn, and whenever I have an opportunity of introducing it I shall be very glad to do so.

  BOUNDARIES OF MUNICIPAL BOROUGHS—LEGISLATION.
  MR. B. SAMUELSONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is intended to introduce a measure substituting local inquiries, in place of costly private Acts, for the extension of the boundaries of Municipal Boroughs; and, whether, pending the introduction of such a measure, he would allow some officer of the Local Government Board to give advice and assistance to parties locally interested as to equitable terms of rating and other conditions attaching to such extensions, so as, if possible, to bring about arrangements and prevent expensive contests before Parliamentary Committees?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, in consequence of the large amount of Business before the House, the Local Government Board have no intention of introducing a measure on this subject during the present Session. At the same time, I quite admit that it is a matter well worthy of consideration whether these extensions could not be more conveniently made by Provisional Orders than by Private Bills. As regards the last portion of the Question, I must say I am afraid that, with the present staff of the Department, I could not detach an officer as suggested.

  CENTRAL AMERICA—THE INTER OCEANIC CANAL.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR (for Sir H. DRUMMOND WOLFF)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's
  714
  Government has been called to the following passage in President Garfield's Address on the subject of inter-oceanic communications:—
  "The subject, however, is one which will immediately engage the attention of the Government, with the view to the thorough protection of American interests. We will urge no narrow policy, nor seek peculiar or exclusive privileges in any commercial route; but, in the language of my predecessor, I believe it to be the right and duty of the United States to assert and maintain such supervision and authority over an inter-oceanic canal across the isthmus that connects North and South America as will protect our National interests."
  whether, by Article VIII. of the Treaty of April 19th 1850, between this Country and the United States, commonly called the "Clayton-Bulwer Treaty," it is not stipulated that the two countries agree, as "a general principle," to extend their protection by treaty stipulations to any "practical communications, whether by canal or railway, across the isthmus which connects North and South America," in granting which joint protection "it is always understood by Great Britain and the United States that the parties constructing or owning the same shall impose no other charges or conditions of traffic thereupon than the aforesaid Governments shall approve of as just and equitable;" whether Her Majesty's Government and that of the United States have or will come to an understanding as to the execution of this Treaty in respect of the canal now in contemplation; and, whether any correspondence on the subject can be laid upon the Table?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the Article of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty referred to must be read in connection with the Treaties concluded with Honduras on the 27th of August, 1856, and with Nicaragua on the 11th of February, 1860; and also the Treaties between the United States and those countries with Honduras of July 4, 1864, and with Nicaragua of June 21, 1867. The French Government have also Treaties with Nicaragua for the encouragement of inter-oceanic communication. Her Majesty's Government have not had any correspondence with the United States or any other country respecting the canal now in contemplation. The matter has occupied their careful attention; but they think it would be premature at this moment to take any action.

  INTERNATIONAL MONETARY CONFERENCE.
  MR. J. K. CROSSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can lay upon the Table of the House the terms of the invitation to the proposed International Monetary Conference, together with the reply of the Government thereto; and, whether, considering the very important bearing which the decisions of this Conference must have on Indian finance, and on all eastern commerce, Her Majesty's Government propose that the Government of India should be represented?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, there can be no objection whatever to lay these Papers on the Table; but it is possible that it would be more convenient to Members not to present them until the answer is sent, and this cannot be done for a short time. I may say generally that a difficulty has arisen on the terms of the invitation. They are such as appear to involve us in a predetermined conclusion to introduce bimetallism, and to reduce the subject of discussion to the form and manner of introducing it. We are not prepared to lay down any such predetermined conclusion, nor to hold out any expectation, as far as the currency of this country is concerned, of our acceding to this measure. We shall be glad, however, to join the Conference if it be possible to do so without giving rise to any misapprehension as to our intentions. In regard to India my noble Friend the Secretary of State has communicated with the parties on the subject, and the House may rest assured that that part of the matter will not be overlooked.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—LIGHTS ON GERMAN FISHING BOATS.
  MR. BIRKBECKasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any official intimation has been received from the German Government relative to an Imperial Ordinance, dated 16th February last, decreeing that fishing vessels should carry certain lights; and, if so, whether he will state what the now regulations are?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin has received from the German Government an Imperial Ordinance, promul
  716
  gated at Berlin on the 16th ultimo, for the purpose of repealing Article 10 of a previous Ordinance dated the 7th of February last, under which fishing boats carried red and green lights in common with other vessels. By the terms of a new Ordinance fishing vessels are only obliged to show a white light, but may also use a "flare."

  THE ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND —THE SCHEME OF TIIE SENATE.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When the Scheme framed by the Senate of the Royal University in Ireland will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I have learnt from the Secretary of the Royal University that the Committee for considering the scheme is to meet on the 15th instant. I hope and believe that the scheme will shortly be laid upon the Table of the House.

  ARMY—RETIRED ARMY CAPTAINS.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether captains who will be retired under existing regulations from the 1st January 1881 (as having completed 20 years' service), will be allowed the benefit of the changes proposed to come into operation on the 1st January 1881?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I have to state that under the new proposals on the 1st of July any non-purchase captain who may have been compulsorily retired under the present warrant will be allowed—subject to the approval of the Commander-in-Chief—an unattached majority, his pay being re-assessed accordingly, with the chance of re-employment up to the age of 43. But this will not be granted to officers who have commuted and left the Army.

  MINES ACTS—THE CLEVELAND DISTRICT—USE OF BLASTING POWDER.
  MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the Chief Inspector of Mines has furnished to the Government his Report on the use of blasting powder, open or in cartridges, in the Cleveland mining district; whether, considering that it will affect a large body of workmen, if

  717
  it is in favour of loose powder, what action, if any, does he propose to take on the subject; and, whether he will cause the Report to be laid upon the Table of the House and printed before taking any action?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Yes, Sir; the Report has been received, and will be laid upon the Table of the House. No action will be taken until that is done.

  COAL MINES REGULATION ACT—THE PEN-Y-GRAIG COLLIERY EXPLOSION.
  MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the Commissioner sent by the Government to watch over the interests of the State at the coroner's inquest into the cause of death of those who lost their lives in the Pen-y-Graig Explosion has yet made his Report; whether the Government contemplate taking any action against the proprietors or manager of the mine; and, further, if he will cause a Report to be laid upon the Table of the House?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, the Report has been received from the inspector, together with the evidence, and it will be presented to Parliament. I have directed that an inquiry should be held under the 32nd section of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, with the object of ascertaining whether the manager ought to be deprived of his certificate.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS—THE COST OF ELECTION COMMISSIONS.
  MR. J. R. YORKEasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether it has occurred to him to consider the hardship that will be inflicted upon female householders in those boroughs were Bribery Commissions have been and are still sitting, by the levying of a rate to defray the expenses of such Commissions; and, if so, whether he intends to take any steps with the view of exempting such persons from the pecuniary fine which will otherwise be imposed on them in consequence of the delinquencies of their male neighbours, who have abused the electoral privileges which they possess, but which are denied to women?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, he quite
  718
  admitted that a great hardship was inflicted upon female householders, and, he might add also, generally on persons who were not electors and those who had acted purely, in being compelled to contribute to the expense of the Bribery Commissions which had been sitting in some of the boroughs. In the case, for instance, of the comparatively pure borough of Knaresborough, every one of the electors would feel that he was bearing an expense that ought not to be forced upon him. In the Corrupt Practices Bill already before the House it was proposed to take power to cast the expenses consequent on corruption on those who were responsible for it; and, probably, when the Bill came on, he should have the hon. Gentleman's assistance in carrying it.

  FISHERIES—ENGLISH AND FRENCH FISHERMEN.
  MR. INDERWICKasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether his attention has lately been called to the incursions of French fishermen upon the English fishing grounds in and near Rye Bay; and, whether he has taken or proposes to take any steps to prevent such incursions for the future by ordering that such fishing grounds shall be duly protected by a suitable vessel?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, on a Report being made by a divisional officer of the Coastguard on the spot, to the effect that the French fishing fleet has appeared, a cruiser is always despatched, and the Frances cutter, of 70 tons, has been cruising between Dungeness and Hastings ever since February 27, and is on the spot now. Special Reports on the state of things have been called for from the divisional officers, and the Inspecting Commander at Folkestone has been instructed to wait on the commanding officer of the French man-of-war at Dover to inquire whether anything can be done to check the encroachments complained of.

  NAVY—NAVIGATING OFFICERS.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is a fact that, owing to the entry of 102 Lieutenants from the Main Executive Class for Navigating duties, 48 out of 206 of the old Navigating Offi-

  719
  cers, i.e., Staff Commanders and Navigating Lieutenants, are on half-pay; whether any compensation has been made to these Officers in accordance with the usual practice in such cases; and, whether the Admiralty will offer them optional amalgamation with the Navigating Officers, or optional retirement on the same scale as that allowed to Commanders and Lieutenants by Circular C. 13 of the 14th August, 1873?
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is the case that nearly one-third of the Navigating Officers (old system) of the Royal Navy are now unemployed; and, whether this state of things has not been brought about by a practical abolition of their office; and, if so, has any compensation been given to these officers in accordance with the usual custom in such cases?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, It is the case that 48 out of 219, not 206, of the old navigating officers are unemployed. The system of selecting executive officers for navigating duties began in the year 1873. In the year 1870, 122 navigating officers out of 354 were unemployed—that is to say, about 35 per cent. In 1851, 75 out of 267, or 30 per cent, were unemployed, and the same proportion continued till the year 1873, and for some years afterwards. At this present moment 22 per cent only are unemployed; so that it is quite clear that there is no change for the worse in this respect owing to the selection of executive officers for navigating duties.

  PATENT LAW REFORM—LEGISLATION.
  MR. MONKasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Government proposes to introduce any measure for the reform of the Patent Laws, in either House of Parliament, during the present Session?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, that the subject was engaging the attention of the Government; but the state of Public Business would probably preclude the introduction of a measure of reform during the present Session.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— THE REPORTED ARMISTICE.
  MR. LEWISasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, since the defeat
  720
  of Her Majesty's Troops by the Boers on the 27th February, Her Majesty's Government has taken any active steps whatever towards the making of an armistice with the Boers?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I was under the impression that this point had been disposed of by a former answer of mine. I have only to say that no steps whatever have been taken by Her Majesty's Government. The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government have approved what Sir Evelyn Wood has done, and have given him permission to prolong the armistice if he finds it necessary.
  MR. RITCHIEasked the right hon. Gentleman, Whether Her Majesty's Government is aware of any steps taken by the British Commander subsequent to the death of Sir George Colley for bringing about an Armistice, whether on his own initiative or on the initiative of Her Majesty's Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The question of the initiative of Her Majesty's Government I have disposed of. With regard to what has been done by the British Commander, we have already informed the House of all we know on the subject.

  POST OFFICE—VILLAGE SAVINGS BANKS.
  MR. E. W. HARCOURTasked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been called to the case of a village in Oxfordshire, where application was made for the establishment of a guarantee savings bank, and where answer was made by the authorities of the Post Office that the application could not be complied with unless the present postmistress were removed; and, whether, any arrangement can be made to insure for the future the appointment of officials in remote rural post-offices who shall be competent to perform the duties that may be required of them in the case of the establishment of guarantee savings banks, so as to obviate the objection now felt to the making of applications for guarantee savings banks in country districts, under the fear of depriving existing postmasters and mistresses of their appointments?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, I find it is the case, that in a village in Oxfordshire, where it was proposed to establish a savings bank under guarantee, it has been reported that the postmistress,

  721
  chiefly in consequence of her advanced age, is not qualified to undertake the new duties which would be imposed upon her. As I should be sorry if she were displaced from the position which she has long occupied, and as I think, on the other hand, it would be equally to be regretted that the inhabitants should be deprived of the advantages of a savings bank, I hope the difficulty may be met by supplying the postmistress with some assistance. This will increase, but I trust not materially, the amount of the guarantee. With regard to the important general question which has been raised by my hon. Friend, I hope that under the system which I explained a short time since in the House, and which allows a savings bank and money order office to be opened in any village under guarantee, the number of those banks may be so much increased, that I think it is very important that in future those who are appointed to village post offices should be competent to undertake, if required, savings banks and money order business. I shall, therefore, consider it necessary that those who may in future be appointed to these village post offices should possess the qualifications to which I have referred.

  PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS—DELAY IN DELIVERY.
  MR. HERMONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether some arrangement can be made, independent of the Queen's Printer, whereby the extraordinary delay in the delivery of important papers to Members may be avoided?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, I believe the Question of the hon. Member is occasioned by the delay in presentation of the Reports of Election Commissions. After careful inquiry, I find that the responsibility for the delay in the publication does not by any means rest entirely with the printers. Four Commissions have reported—Sandwich, Knaresborough, Boston, and Canterbury. The delay in the delivery of the Copies of the evidence taken by the Sandwich Commission is mainly owing to an omission to present it. The Reports of the Knaresborough, Boston, and Canterbury Commissions were presented with evidence, containing in all from 500 to 630 pages each, within from four to six weeks of the dates on which they
  722
  were received by the printers. The Sandwich Report was presented without evidence. The evidence, which formed a separate volume, not having been presented, no order was given to strike it off. The printers report that, had such an order been given, the delivery could have been made without difficulty several days ago.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked whether the delay did not partly arise from the fact that the Stationery Office made its contract with the Queen's Printers, thereby throwing upon them an amount of work that they were unable to turn out? He referred particularly to the Report of the Agricultural Commission.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, I do not think that the delay is due to any excessive amount of work being thrown upon one firm. They can put on any staff and turn out any amount of work. The fact is, that printing and the correction of proofs is work that necessarily takes a considerable time.
  MR. HERMON: Will the noble Lord put it up to competition?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: The arrangements of the office were revised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith) in a manner which reflects great credit on him, and, in effect, it was then put up to competition.

  RUSSIA—ALLEGED SECRET TREATY OF MAY 31ST, 1878.
  MR. ERRINGTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to the following statement in a recently published work, entitled "Merv and the Man Stealing Turcomans, by Charles Marvin":—
  "By the Secret Treaty of May 31st, 1878, the Czar solemnly bound himself never to extend the Russian frontier in Asia Minor;"
  whether that statement is accurate; and, whether any such Treaty or document affording a guarantee against the advance of Russia in Asia Minor actually exists; and, if so, whether there would now be any objection to lay a Copy of it upon the Table?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the statement quoted is not correct, and the case concerns Her Majesty's late Government, who gave the explanations which seemed to them at the time pos-

  723
  sible. I have nothing to add; and, indeed, could not add to the statement I made on the 28th of May last with regard to confidential communications between the late Government and the Russian Government without authority from both Parties.

  ARMY—THE ZULU WAR MEDAL.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEasked the Secretary of State for War, Why the South African war medal has not been issued to all those who were engaged in the Zulu war?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, I do not quite understand the object of my hon. and gallant Friend's Question. The medal has been issued to all troops of whom we have received proper rolls, and a Committee has just reported on a few doubtful cases; and I have approved their Report on the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief.

  THE COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS— CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMITTEE.
  MR. STANHOPEasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the constitution of the Committee on Railways recently appointed by this House; whether it is a fact that it includes at least eight Railway directors; and, whether, as a Committee so constituted will not be a satisfactory tribunal to decide upon the complaints made by the agricultural interest against the rates for the carriage of goods at present charged by the Railway Companies, he will undertake to ask the House to reconstitute the Committee?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, that, with the permission of the House, he would at the same time answer the Questions of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) and of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) on this subject. In the first place, it would be well to call the attention of the House to the fact that the appointment of the Committee did not rest primarily with the Government, and that in regard to nearly half of the Committee the Government had no influence in their nomination. Probably the House would regard with jealousy anything like interference on the part of the Government with the composition of the Committee, as Committees so ap-
  724
  pointed would not have the confidence of the public. Notice of the nomination of this Committee was given 10 days before the appointment was made, and the proper time to have contested the constitution of the Committee would have been when the nomination was made. It was very difficult to specify the qualifications of the Committee, because it was difficult to say what was the chief ground on which any Member had been placed on the Committee. He had carefully considered the matter; and, as far as he had been able to find out, after making allowance for dual qualifications, he found that its composition was as follows:—One hon. Member represented the Board of Trade, two were connected with the Legal Profession, four represented agricultural interests, five represented the interests of coal and iron, six the interests of manufactures and commerce, seven were supposed to be principally connected with railways, and one remained—the right hon. Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth)—whom, he confessed, he was unable to classify without permission. Under these circumstances, he did not think the railway interests unduly prominent or predominant, or that the agricultural or the manufacturing interest, or the interest of the large towns, was insufficiently or inadequately represented. At the same time, he recognized that there was a feeling, probably general on both sides of the House, that those interests should be strengthened. The proposition, therefore, he had to make was that if the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) would withdraw his opposition he would himself place on the Paper a Motion to increase the number of the Committee to 27, and would add the names of the hon. Member for East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine), who also represented the commercial interests of Liverpool, the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) and the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Mr. Phipps), one representing the coal trade, two the agricultural interest, and one a large commercial constituency.
  Subsequently,
  EARL PERCYasked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that

  725
  he had named 26 Members, whereas the Committee consisted of only 23, and whether it was not probable that he had counted some of the Members twice over?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; it is not only probable but certain. I explained to the House that several Members of the Committee had dual qualifications, and it was impossible for me to classify them as having one qualification only.

  BRITISH GUIANA—CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT.
  MR. ERRINGTONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether in the Colony of British Guiana English subjects, including indentured Coolies, previously unconvicted of any offence, are liable to receive thirty-nine lashes in addition to three months' imprisonment, with hard labour, for the offence of stealing one pennyworth of plantains, or any other common fruit of the country; whether these punishments can be and are, as a matter of fact, mostly inflicted by stipendiary justices without the intervention of a jury; and, whether any such laws prevail in the other West Indian Colonies?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: "Yes" will be my answer to all the three Questions, provided that, in spite of the turn which my hon. Friend has given to the first, it is understood that the maxim "De minimis non curat lex" is accepted in all countries. In Guiana predial larceny seems to be punished by whipping oftener than in the West India Islands. In 1879 there were in that Colony no less than 1,043 cases of predial larceny of sufficient gravity to be reported to the police. I need hardly say that plunder of their provision grounds and gardens is the greatest calamity with which the industrious negroes have to contend. Of the 1,043 cases 89 were prosecuted to conviction, and in 32 cases whipping was inflicted. The depredators on the gardens of the negroes, chiefly negroes themselves, not coolies, often go about in gangs, and commit much violence.

  POOR LAW—NEW WORKHOUSE AT DULWICH.
  SIR JAMES LAWRENCEasked the President of the Local Government
  726
  Board, Whether he has been informed of the intention of the guardians of the parish of St. Saviour Southwark to erect a new workhouse on ground adjoining Dulwich Grove; and, if he is aware that such proposed erection will be a serious inconvenience to the inhabitants in that locality, who have expressed strong objections to a workhouse being built in the midst of suburban villas; and, whether the consent of the Local Government Board has been given to the proposed erection after a request from the inhabitants that a deputation might be received and before such deputation was received?
  MR. DODSON, in reply, said he had been informed of the intention of the guardians to erect a workhouse, and the site having been inspected by an inspector of the Local Government Board, and reported to be exceedingly well adapted for the purpose, the proposed purchase was sanctioned. That was before the application for the deputation was received. He would regret exceedingly that the erection of the building on the proposed site should prove an inconvenience to any of the inhabitants; but he was bound to point out that if buildings of that kind were to be erected only on sites where no one could be found to object, they would have to abandon their erection altogether.

  POOR LAW (SCOTLAND)—INSPECTORS OF THE POOR.
  MR. P. BRUCEasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is his intention to introduce during the present Session a Bill authorizing parochial boards to grant superannuation allowances to inspectors of the poor?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN): Sir, the question referred to by my hon. Friend has already engaged the attention of the Government, and I believe I may say that we hope to introduce a Bill giving the same power to Scotch Parochial Boards as are possessed by the Unions of England and Ireland.

  INLAND REVENUE—EXTRA RECEIPTS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, When the account to be annually presented to Parliament, in accordance with the recommendations of the Public Ac-

  727
  counts Committee, "showing all arrears of payments due to the Exchequer as Extra Receipts," will be presented?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, the Treasury propose to call on the Departments to send in a Return of all moneys receivable by them as extra receipts on behalf of the Exchequer exceeding £100 which will have been outstanding for more than a year on the 31st of March next.

  ARMY RE-ORGANIZATION—ARTILLERY MILITIA.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary of State for War, What position is to be assigned to the Artillery Militia in the new scheme of Territorial Regiments, and if the Officers of that force are to wear gold lace and appointments as in the Royal Artillery?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, the case of the Artillery Militia is still under my consideration, and I cannot undertake at this moment to say what change we may make in their uniform.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has considered that, by allowing commanding officers of Militia to prolong their service beyond the age of sixty years, at which age, in accordance with paragraph 87, section I. of the Militia Regulations, they are now obliged to retire, and by compelling majors to retire at the age of 55, he will not preclude many existing majors from obtaining the command of the regiments?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has somewhat imperfectly appreciated the present regulation. It is true that colonels of Militia may be retired at 60 years of age; but this is not compulsory, as the regulation allows an unlimited extension on the recommendation of the General Officer commanding; and, as a matter of fact, there are 11 colonels of over 67 years of age, 15 over 60, and 15 majors also over 60. The new rule will be more favourable to present majors than the existing one, which is practically no rule at all, and I see no reason for modifying it.

  STATE OF IRELAND—CRIME IN IRELAND—DROGHEDA ASSIZES.
  MR. BELLINGHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-
  728
  land, Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that at the late Assizes held in Drogheda on Monday March 7th, the judge was presented with white gloves, the calendar not exhibiting a single case for trial?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that his attention had been called to the fact by the hon. Member's Question, and it was a very satisfactory circumstance.

  STATE OF IRELAND—ALLEGED WITH DRAWAL OF TROOPS.
  MR. MACARTNEYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Government contemplates the immediate withdrawal of troops from Ireland, as stated in the "Times" of Saturday the 5th March?
  MR. CHILDERS: I know nothing on this subject, except that I have read the paragraph in The Times to which the hon. Member refers. It conjectures what Government may probably do after the Arms Bill has passed. I really cannot undertake to answer all the predictions as to the future intentions of Her Majesty's Government which may appear in the newspapers.

  TUNIS—THE ENFIDA CASE.
  MR. MONTAGUE GUESTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can state what decision has been arrived at on the point of Law with reference to the Entida Estate in Tunis, which he informed the House, on a former occasion, had been referred to the Law Officers of the Crown; whether any information has been received by Her Majesty's Government that the French Government had consulted the Sheikh- el-Islam at Constantinople, thereby acknowledging that the question came under the jurisdiction of the Mahomedan Law, and should consequently be decided by the Local Courts at Tunis; whether his attention has been drawn to a statement which appeared in a letter to one of the leading journals, to the effect that the French ironclad "Friedland" did not leave Tunis, as was alleged by him, when Her Majesty's ship "Thunderer" took her departure from Tunisian waters, and if he can say if there is at present any French war vessel lying there; and, whether the time has not arrived when the Papers

  729
  connected with this subject can be laid upon the Table of the House?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, no decision has yet been arrived at on the point to which my hon. Friend refers. Her Majesty's Government have no knowledge of any reference to the Sheikh-ul-Islam beyond a statement to that effect made to Lord Granville by Mr. Levy's legal adviser. Her Majesty's Government are not yet in a position to lay before Parliament the Papers upon the subject. The Friedland did leave Tunis the day before the Thunderer left, and there is only the usual smaller ship there now.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—IRISH MILITIA REGIMENTS.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, having regard to the fact that Bands in the Militia are almost entirely supported by voluntary subscriptions and stoppages of pay from the officers, he will for this year make some allowance to the Bands of Irish Militia regiments, to enable them to tide over the difficulties consequent on there being no training, and therefore no pay issued to officers.
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, the noble Lord mentioned this subject to me privately some time ago, and, with every desire to meet his wish, I have been considering it with the departmental officers concerned. The difficulty is that officially the War Office has no knowledge of Militia bands. The men are Militiamen, paid as such, and assisted by officers' contributions. As the regiments are not called up for training, I fear I have no legal power to make any payments for this purpose.

  ARMY—MOUNTED OFFICERS IN THE FIELD.
  MR. HUSSEY VIVIANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether mounted officers are permitted and encouraged to dismount when under fire whenever their duty can be performed with equal efficiency on foot; and, whether, in view of the deadly character of the Boer's fire, it would not be advisable to issue orders that officers shall cease to wear sashes and other badges easily distinguished at a distance; and, whe-
  730
  ther their steel scabbards cannot be darkened so as to prevent their glancing in the sun?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that the Commander-in-Chief is about to issue a General Order with regard to mounted officers dismounting in action. The officers now on active service in South Africa do not wear their sashes, and it is now the custom to "dull" swords and scabbards.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. CALLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can inform the House whether there is any regulation in force, or custom existing, in the Royal Irish Constabulary, that sub-inspectors should not be permanently stationed in the same district nor continued in the same station beyond a certain number of years; and, if so, will he have any objection to place the rule or regulation upon the Table of the House?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he was informed by the Inspector General of Constabulary that there was no regulation of the sort. Sub-inspectors were sometimes transferred from one place to another, according as it was considered expedient. He would rather the hon. Member would not ask for the Return, as its production would give much trouble.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND) — COUNTY COURTS IN CAVAN AND LEITRIM.
  MR. LEWISasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If he would state the date of the death of Mr. Greer, the late county judge of Cavan and Leitrim; the date of the appointment of his successor, Mr. George Waters, Q.C.; the date of the Order in Council altering the periods for the holding courts in Cavan and Leitrim; why such Order in Council was not issued in time to enable all processes to be served in due time before such altered periods; whether, after the promulgation of the Order in Council, processes in equity land cases, and also civil Bills over £20, as well as transfers of licences, were not absolutely excluded from adjudication at the forthcoming sessions; and, whether the grave inconvenience thus caused to suitors in

  731
  Cavan and Leitrim has arisen from the re-appointment of Mr. Waters to his former post of county judge of Waterford, in addition to that of judge of Cavan and Leitrim; and, what was the date of such re-appointment?
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the counties of Cavan and Leitrim were united in one county court judgeship in February, 1878; whether the dates for holding quarter sessions, civil bill, and land courts in these counties were duly fixed, pursuant to Statute, last November for the present year; whether ample notice (fixed by Statute at six weeks) of the holding of such courts is not necessary for suitors; whether equity civil bills, land claims, and notices for transfers of publicans' licences require to be served several weeks before the holding of such courts; whether it was in accordance with the construction and intention of "The County Courts Act, 1877," that the dates at which the county court judge of Cavan and Leitrim was bound to hold his courts should be materially altered, in order to enable him to accept an additional temporary appointment; whether anyone connected with the counties of Cavan or Leitrim, except the county court judge, was consulted on the subject; and, whether the suitors in equity cases, land claims, civil bills over £20, and transfers of publicans' licences' claims, who may be precluded by the shortness of the notice from bringing forward their cases at the approaching sessions, will be compelled to wait until the following sessions, or else at greater expense to resort to proceedings in the superior courts?
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is true that the Grand Jury of the county Leitrim, now assembled at Assizes, have this day, March 7th, passed a resolution condemning in strongest terms the alteration of the dates for the holding of Quarter Sessions, Civil Bill and Land Courts in the county for the year 1881; whether it is not the fact that all ordinary Civil Bills must be in the hands of the process servers one week before the commencement of Sessions; whether in the Manorhamilton Division of the county the last day for such lodgment is not Tuesday, the 8th instant; whether this alteration of dates was only posted in the county on Friday the 4th instant;
  732
  and, whether this proceeding gave intending suitors only three days to take the necessary steps to prepare and bring forward their claims?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): In replying, Sir, to the hon. Member for the City of Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), I hope I may be permitted also to answer the Questions by the two hon. and gallant Members for the County of Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham and Major O'Beirne), and also a fourth Question, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland) has given Notice for to-morrow. There is no doubt, Sir, that there has been a miscarriage in making the necessary arrangements for holding the Quarter Sessions, Civil Bill, and Land Courts of Cavan and Leitrim. These counties were united in 1878 into one County Court Judgeship; and the dates for holding the Courts in 1881, of which adequate notice is, of course, necessary, were fixed last November. Civil bills, land claims, publicans' notices, and other proceedings in these Courts, require to be served at specified times before the holding of the Courts. Mr. Greer, the late County Court Judge, died on the 23rd of November, 1880; and Mr. Waters, then the Waterford County Court Judge, was appointed in the room of Mr. Greer by an order of December 24. At the same time, he was appointed temporary County Court Judge of Waterford, because Waterford could not for the present be joined to the group of counties with which it is ultimately to be united, and such temporary Judgeship can only be held by another County Judge. It was afterwards found that the dates fixed for holding the Courts of the united counties of Cavan and Leitrim clashed with those for holding the Waterford Courts; and it was also found that, while under the Act of 1877 there was power to vary the Cavan and Leitrim dates, there was no provision under which the Waterford dates could be altered. Under these circumstances, it was considered that an Order in Council should be made changing the dates of the Cavan and Leitrim Courts, and for this purpose the County Court Judge furnished a schedule of the dates to be appended to the Order. The Law Officers, taking for granted the dates thus furnished by the Judge, suited the requirements of the business

  733
  in his Court, did not, as it seems they ought to have done, critically examine these dates in detail; and thus the Order in Council of the 2nd instant was made to which the hon. Members have called attention. The dates thereby fixed do not allow a sufficient interval for having the business of these Courts properly transacted; and I shall, therefore, recommend that a new Order shall at once be made restoring the dates originally fixed last November. So far as these interfere with the dates fixed for the Waterford County Courts, provision must be made for holding the latter by a substitute. I need not say I regret that this mistake should have occurred; but I trust that all difficulty and inconvenience will be prevented by the course which I have now indicated.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— INSURRECTION OF THE BOERS.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the views of Her Majesty's Government upon the rising in the Transvaal were not on the 6th January expressed in Her Majesty's most gracious Speech in the following words:—
  "A rising in the Transvaal has recently imposed upon me the duty of taking military measures with a view to the prompt vindication of my authority, and has of necessity set aside for the time any plan for securing to the European settlers that full control over their local affairs without prejudice to the interests of the natives which I have been desirous to confer;"
  And, if so, if he would explain to the House what has since occurred to induce the Government now to consider by negotiations "plans for securing to the Boers that full control over their local affairs" which a few weeks ago were "of necessity" to be postponed to the prompt vindication of Her Majesty's authority; also, in order to clear up the uncertainty in which the matter is at the present moment, whether Sir Evelyn Wood, in proposing the armistice to the Boers, acted under instructions which had been given to Sir George Colley, and to which Sir Evelyn Wood of course succeeded on the death of Sir George Colley.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the Question is one which I have already answered more than once; and I have informed the House of the only instructions given to
  734
  Sir George Colley, and to which, as the noble Lord justly observed, Sir Evelyn Wood succeeded on the death of that lamented officer. As regards the first part of the Question, I have no doubt that the citation from the Queen's Speech is correct. At the time when Her Majesty was advised to sanction the delivery of that Speech we were under the impression, which I think was correct, that our first duty, on the occurrence of the rising in the Transvaal, was to place the local authority of the Queen and the military acting under Her Majesty in South Africa in a condition to deal with the emergency. We were at that time actively engaged in that duty, and until it had been fulfilled we did not consider the opportunity had arisen for our endeavouring to bring about a settlement of affairs in the Transvaal. We do consider that, in existing circumstances, such an opportunity has arisen, so far, at least, as to make it our duty and worth our while to have the circumstances carefully tested with a view to ascertain what may be the result. I cannot undertake to predict confidently the issue of the communications which are going on. We are aware of the interests on our hands, and we shall endeavour sedulously to guard them. With respect to what has been done in the interval, much, undoubtedly, has happened in the interval, including the proposal or request from the leaders of the Boers for the appointment of a Royal Commission to examine into the matter. I do not think it would be convenient or altogether just to the House if I were to endeavour, in answer to a Question, to give anything like a full or detailed account of what has happened. The best form of giving such detailed accounts—in fact, the only form satisfactory to the House—will be the presentation to the House of the actual Correspondence as it has occurred so soon as the moment arrives when the public interests will allow of its being presented. I may, however, observe that there are Supplementary Estimates on the Table, including, unhappily of necessity, both Military and Naval Estimates for the service in the Transvaal, for which it will be necessary to propose Votes within the course of the next week or 10 days. That will afford the noble Lord and other hon. Members an opportunity of offering criticisms if they think fit.

  AFRICA (WEST COAST)—RUMOURED HOSTILITIES ON THE GOLD COAST.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he is possession of any further news respecting the anticipated outbreak of hostilities on the Gold Coast?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, in reply to the noble Lord, I will read the following news from the Lieutenant Governor of the Gold Coast, which was received at the Colonial Office yesterday:—
  "Messengers from Ashantee received. King disclaims Ambassadors' threat as to attacking Assin. It was Enquie's act and should be overlooked. King entertained only friendly feeling towards English. Gold axe meant nothing. If it is reported that Ashantees are ready to attack any part of the Protectorate, report will be false. The King wishes to be friends with this Government."
  The Governor still, however, thinks the situation not altogether satisfactory.

  STATE OF IRELAND—COUNTY LONGFORD—PLOUGHING OF GRASS LANDS.
  MR. MONTAGU SCOTTasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If it is a fact that on Saturday the 26th of February, a number of men entered on the land of a tenant in the county of Longford who had been served with an ejectment, and with forty ploughs ploughed up all the grass land on the holding, so as to leave it nearly worthless for some time to the landowner?
  LORD ARTHUR HILLasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether some time since a tenant on the Carrick-boy Estate, County Longford, was served with a writ of ejectment; whether, with his sanction, on Saturday the 28th February, a party of men entered his holding and ploughed up his grass land; and, whether the ploughs on that occasion numbered about forty?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Sir, I have received reports from the Constabulary authorities in reference to tins matter, from which I find that a tenant in the Carrickboy district, in the county of Longford, who has recently been served with an ejectment process, has had, on two or three days last week, from 6 to 13 ploughs each day ploughing up a few fields for the purpose of setting the land in conacre in order to obtain money to
  736
  pay his rent and stave off eviction. The fields in question, however, were not grazing land, but tillage, and have been used for similar purposes for a number of years. The ploughing, too, was done under the eye of the land bailiff. I presume this must be the case referred to in the Question, as it is the only one that has come to the knowledge of the local constabulary.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)— OFFICERS OF MILITIA.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is prepared to recommend a step of honorary rank being granted to those officers of Militia, who, having not yet completed the term of service now entitling them to it, will be compelled to retire on account of age?
  MR. CHILDERS: No, Sir; I fear I cannot undertake to recommend to Her Majesty to carry still further the boon of a step of honorary rank, which I have mentioned as intended to be allowed to Militia officers.

  RUSSIA AND CHINA—THE RECENT TREATY.
  MR. MAGNIACasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government are in possession of the terms of the Treaty lately made between Russia and China; and, if so, whether it is in his power to communicate them to the House, either by laying them on the Table or otherwise?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government are generally acquainted with the terms of the Treaty between Russia and China which Lord Dufferin reported to have been signed at St. Petersburg on the 24th ultimo, and as soon as Her Majesty's Government are in possession of a formal copy it will be laid on the Table of the House.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he could give the House any information as to the probable course of Business to-morrow or on Monday?
  MR. GLADSTONE: If the concluding stages of the Arms Bill should not be got through to-night, we shall pro-

  737
  ceed to-morrow with the Arms Bill, in the hope that in the circumstances the debate will net be prolonged beyond tomorrow, and with the intention of proposing to the House that it shall not be prolonged beyond to-morrow. I propose to state to-morrow what we expect with regard to the course of Business next week. Estimates will be put down on the Paper on the chance of their being taken—[Mr. W. H. SMITH: What Estimates?]—but not the Navy Estimates.

  AFGHANISTAN—THE DESPATCH OF MAY 21.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the Secretary of State for India, When he expects to receive the Report called for in the following words from his Despatch to His Excellency the Viceroy of India, dated May 8th 1880, three weeks after the assumption of office of Her Majesty's present Ministers:—
  "The desire of Her Majesty's Government is that Afghan territory should be evacuated whenever it appears possible to entertain the hope that a stable Government has been secured. Your Excellency will report as to the manner in which this object may be best attained;"
  if he can state to the House, without detriment to the public service, what has been done during the past ten months for the attainment of this object; and, how it is that no Minutes from His Excellency the Viceroy or any Member of the Supreme Council has been included in the Blue Book recently issued regarding the abandonment or retention of Candahar?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I suppose the Question of the hon. Member refers to a paragraph in a despatch dated the 21st, and not the 8th, of May. In response to that despatch the Government of India have not furnished anything which could be described as taking the form of a Report; but they have from time to time sent despatches, the major part of which have, I believe, been laid on the Table of the House, giving statements of their proceedings with regard to Cabul, the Khyber, and Kuram. I have already mentioned that a short despatch has been received on the subject of Candahar, and it will be laid on the Table as soon as the enclosures which belong to it are also received. In reply to the last part of the Question, I
  738
  may say that a Minute by the Commander-in-Chief, who is a Member of the Supreme Council, has been laid on the Table and included in the Blue Book recently issued. Other Minutes by Members of the Council are expected to arrive by the next mail, and I shall be able, I hope, to present them as soon as they arrive. I ought, perhaps, to state with reference to an answer given by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury on Tuesday, in which he stated that he did not expect any movement of troops would take place for a considerable time, that on the same day I received the following telegram:—
  "The withdrawal of troops from the Candahar line commences at once. Three Native regiments and probably one European regiment will be ordered to return to India immediately."
  I do not anticipate that any very considerable movement of troops will take place immediately; but in order that there should be no misunderstanding with regard to the answer given by my right hon. Friend, I thought it my duty to make this communication to the House.
  MR. ONSLOW: Now that our troops are leaving Candahar, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for India to whom it is proposed to give up Gandahar?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Perhaps the hon. Member will give Notice of the Question.

  THE NEW ORDNANCE COMMITTEE.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will state what will be the constitution of the New Ordnance Committee, and what duties will be assigned to it?
  MR. CHILDERS: If my right hon. Friend will move for the Instructions to the New Ordnance Committee, I shall have no objection to presenting them. The Committee will be constituted as follows:—President, General Sir Collingwood Dickson, R.A.; Vice President, Rear Admiral Howard; Members, Captain Singer, R.N.; Colonel Smyth, R.A.; Captain Bridge, R.N.; Colonel Nugent, R.E.; Colonel M'Farlane, R.A. (ex-officio as Ordnance Consulting Officer for India); Major Noble, R.A.; Mr. Bramwell, C.E.; and Mr. Barlow, C.E.; Major Ellis, R.A., Secretary, and Cap-

  739
  tain Bainbridge, R.A., Assistant Secretary. The Committee's duties will begin on the 1st of April.

  STATE OF IRELAND—EVICTIONS CO. ARMAGH.
  MR. JAMES RICHARDSONasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether, on Saturday the 26th ult. certain evictions were carried into effect upon an estate situated in the townland of Carran, and adjoining townlands, in the county of Armagh; and, if he will state the number of families evicted, and the number of police present on the occasion?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Sir, there were no evictions in the townlands in question on the 26th ultimo; but I find that on the 25th ultimo, seven families were evicted for non-payment of rent. There were no police employed on the occasion. There was no excitement, and the tenants quietly gave up possession to the sheriff's bailiffs.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— THE RENEWED ARMISTICE.
  MR. RITCHIEgave Notice that, tomorrow, he would ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the first communications with respect to the terms of peace and the armistice now existing between the British troops and the Boers took place after the death of Sir George Colley; whether they were in reference to previous communications or to a new proposal; whether they were due to initiative proceedings on the part of the British Commander or anyone on his behalf, or whether they proceeded from the Boer leaders or anyone on their behalf; and whether a basis of peace had been agreed upon?

  ARMY SERGEANTS—THE DEFAULTER LIST.
  SIR WILLIAM PALLISERasked the Secretary of State for War, If he would favourably consider whether, in the case of sergeants, the defaulter-sheet, which, in most cases, is but the record of youthful indiscretions, should be kept locked up as a confidential document, in order that a man who has so reformed as to deserve promotion to this rank should start in it with a clean bill of health?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I have to state that this is purely a question of the internal economy of a regiment, upon which I am very loth to express an opinion. I have spoken to the Commander-in-Chief on the subject, and at present he does not see any valid reason for the change suggested; but the matter shall receive attention when we have less pressure of Business than now.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— THE BOERS.
  MR. J. R. YORKEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he had received any confirmation of the announcement which appeared in the morning papers that the Boers were employing the leisure enjoyed by them during the armistice in burning the homesteads of British residents in the Transvaal?
  MR. CHILDERS: No, Sir, we have received no telegram to that effect.

  THE THAMES RIVER BILL.
  MR. RITCHIEasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Thames Bill was finally arranged to come on on Tuesday?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I hope so.

MOTION.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) BILL—VOTE OF URGENCY.—RESOLUTION.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That, upon the Consideration of the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill, as amended, this day, at Ten o'clock, any New Clauses and Amendments then standing upon the Notice Paper, be put forthwith."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 347; Noes 30: Majority 317.—(Div. List, No. 141.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) [COMPENSATION].
  Further Proceeding on Report resumed.
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of compensation for arms and ammunition

  741
  voluntarily surrendered, in pursuance of the provisions of any Act of the present Session for the Preservation of the Peace in Ireland."
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 105.]
  (Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. William Edward Forster.)
  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 105.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    MR. CALLAN, in moving the following New Clause:—
    (Power of appeal.)
    "Every person who is convicted under this Act and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, or to pay any fine or penalty, may appeal against such conviction; every such appeal shall be brought in the manner and shall be subject to the provisions prescribed by and contained in section twenty-four of 'The Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851,' with respect to appeals in the cases therein stated,"
    reminded the House that in 1875, when the Conservative Party was in power, the then Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) consented to the insertion of a clause in the Coercion Bill giving a person charged with the offences under that Act the right to appeal. In the present Bill that power was taken away, and no option whatever was given to the person charged with the offence. The present Chief Secretary, who was then in Opposition, took upon himself to reply to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), and contended that such a right of appeal ought to be given. There was then great liberality of sentiment among the Liberal Opposition Members, two of the most prominent figures in the division being the present Attorney General for Ireland and the Attorney General for England. There was much more reason why this right should be conferred in the Bill now before the House, because power of appeal would give the accused greater security, and prevent the magistrates from using their powers capriciously.
    New Clause (Power of appeal,)—Mr. Callan,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
    MR. DAWSONsaid, no doubt the Chief Secretary for Ireland felt flattered by the encomium passed upon him by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) with reference to his liberal action of 1875. Three months' imprisonment was a very serious thing to the character of a man, and would act harshly on poor men who would not be provided for whilst in prison. In supporting the adoption of this clause he would appeal to the sense of fairness, justice, and consistency of the Treasury Bench.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTwas sure that the hon. Member would not think him obstinate when he felt bound to adhere to what he had already said on this matter. The provisions of this Bill were in substance the provisions of the Act of 1875. The provisions of the Act of 1851, too, applied to this Bill, and wherever the sentence of imprisonment was above a month, or the fine above 20 s., in that case there would be an appeal. The present Bill was in no respect more severe than the Bill of 1875. They could not put this Bill upon an exceptional footing in respect of offences which would compare with others which were punishable by summary conviction. The moment that was done the people of Ireland would be taught to regard convictions under this Act as a less serious breach of the law than any other conviction, and that would be a very mischievous condition of things. It would encourage the people to think that this law could be violated with impunity, and, therefore, he could not assent to this clause.
    MR. HEALYasked, what the Government would do in the case of half-a-dozen pistols being found in a man's house, and the magistrate gave him a month's imprisonment for each of the illegal articles found in his possession?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it would be his duty, as Home Secretary, to see that no injustice was committed by the magistrates.
    MR. FINIGANasked, with reference to the Act of 1875, if it was not provided that anyone arrested under the Act had the option of at once asking for a trial by jury, whereas under this Bill no such option was given.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was so under this Bill. It was so under the Act of 1875, but not under the Act of 1870.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he would be satisfied with the Home Secretary's answer, if, as he understood it, it meant that although the Bill did not give the right of appeal, it was given under another Act.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that was so.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: If the right of appeal was given by another Act, why had not the right hon. Gentleman stated it a little sooner? His whole statement previously had been that it was not safe to give the right of appeal, because juries were not found to convict.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The appeal is to Quarter Sessions.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he found he did not understand the answer. The right of appeal was not to a jury, but to Quarter Sessions.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: That is what the Amendment asks.
    MR. LEAMYdid not think the Home Secretary could reasonably refuse the right of appeal under this Bill, because he created an exceptional kind of offence which ought to give the person convicted a right which he did not possess under other Acts.
    MR. DAWSONasked the Solicitor General for Ireland why, if the ordinary Petty Sessions Act gave the right of appeal, there was a special provision for that purpose made in the Act of 1875?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he could not tell. It was wholly unnecessary.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. CALLAN, in rising to move the following new Clause:—
    (Licences to be granted on production of certificate of two justices of the peace.)
    "Every person appointed under this Act to grant licences to have or carry arms, in any district, shall be bound to grant to any occupier of one or more agricultural holdings a licence to have arms, or to have and carry arms upon any specified lands, or a licence to have and carry arms generally, who shall produce to him a certificate signed by two justices of the peace for the county, residing within the same petty sessions district as the person producing such certificate, that he is a fit and proper person to have such licence respectively,"
    said, that before 1875 the resident magistrates were the only persons empowered to give licences, but much dissatisfaction
    744
    prevailed in consequence of the partial manner in which these officials acted. He believed, however, that a change was made in 1875 as to the mode of granting licences. The object of this Act, as put before the country by the Home Secretary, was to take arms from the dissolute ruffians and village tyrants who wore likely to use them for criminal purposes, and the object of this clause was to provide a safeguard for the respectable members of society. He asked the Government to repose the same trust in the local magistracy as the Conservative Administration reposed in them under the Act of 1875. It would be absurd to confine the issue of licences to the resident magistrate, because in most cases he lived 30 miles away from portions of his district, and knew nothing about the character of the applicants for licences. To take an instance, in his own district there were two magistrates who were the largest proprietors in the district. They were Catholics, and both lived amongst the people. There were two others who were Protestants, who were equally respectable, and who, he must say, were almost as well liked. These four gentlemen had not the power to give a certificate; but this non-resident stipendiary magistrate could override their decision. In Dundalk it was in evidence that the resident magistrate expressly stated—" I will not give you the licence, because people would say you are shooting the hares." If he had said—" Because people would say you are shooting the landlords." it would, perhaps, be a valid excuse. If the local magistrates were not fit to give a certificate upon which a licence should be granted, surely they were not fit to sit upon the Bench. If this concession were not granted by the Government it would show that they were actuated by a Cromwellian spirit.
    New Clause (Licences to be granted on production of certificate of two justices of the peace,)—Mr. Callan,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second
    time."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTassured the hon. Member that the Government were not actuated by any such spirit. Practically, he did not differ much from the hon. Member as to the magistrates

    745
    being proper persons to give this power to. But the Bill was drawn in the most general terms, and, as he had stated over and over again, it was thought better to leave it to the Lord Lieutenant to accommodate the Act to the circumstances of particular places and times. He had no doubt that whoever had the power of issuing licences would be directed to consult the magistrates; but it would not be consistent with the manner in which the Bill was drawn to enter into details with regard to the matter.
    MR. CALLANsaid, the right hon. Gentleman must be labouring under a misapprehension. He did not wish to restrict the power of the Lord Lieutenant. What he proposed was that the licensing authority, whoever he might be, should be entitled to give licences to any farmer on the production of a recommendation from two local magistrates residing in the same petty sessions district.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he quite understood that; but in Acts of Parliament the expressio unius very often involved the exclusio alterius, and it was thought better that the Lord Lieutenant should have the largest discretion, both with regard to appointing the licensing authority and to the recommendations upon which that authority should act.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that the explanation of the Home Secretary was most unsatisfactory, and he would not have ventured to make it if he had the smallest acquaintance with Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the Bill would enable the Lord Lieutenant to allow persons in different places—say Cavan, Cork, Galway—to carry arms on different terms. Such a proposal was never made before in an Act of Parliament, as that these regulations were to vary with the whim of the Lord Lieutenant or his underlings. If there was one thing more than another—and here he took issue with the hon. Member (Mr. Callan)—that watt considered a fault in the Peace Preservation Act of 1875, it was the provision which compelled the resident magistrate to give a licence for arms on the certificate of two local magistrates. That provision did not work well, for persons who ought not to have arms would go to two local magistrates who did not know much
    746
    about them and get a recommendation. That the Lord Lieutenant would make such regulations as the Home Secretary suggested was absurd and ridiculous; it was just as likely that he should do so, as that he should become Lord Lieutenant in the moon. The Bill was objectionable in not defining, as the Act of 1875 did, the exact powers which the Lord Lieutenant was to have; and it was a remarkable fact that it was left to a Liberal Government to propose a Coercion Bill of the most unlimited character, perhaps, that had ever been introduced into Parliament—a Bill giving power to the Lord Lieutenant to make any regulations he pleased in respect of the carrying, or the possession, or the searching for arms.
    MAJOR NOLANobserved, that the action of the Lord Lieutenant would very much depend on the way the Home Secretary corrected his speech as reported in Hansard. In one part of his speech he said that probably the Lord Lieutenant would do a certain thing; and, of course, it would be very unlikely, if not impossible, that a Lord Lieutenant should go against the express declaration of a Cabinet Minister. But, again, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Lord Lieutenant might do what he pleased, and if that were reported in Hansard the Lord Lieutenant would naturally consider that his discretion in this matter was unlimited. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was far from satisfactory, and some further explanation on the subject was required. It was an absurd contention of the Government that they were to give to the Lord Lieutenant complete power. The Home Secretary seemed to think that they doubted the Lord Lieutenant's honour and ability, but that was not so. He did not think Lord Cowper really cared for the power it was sought to place in his hands; besides which, the Home Secretary had not shown them that it was the Lord Lieutenant who would make the rules. In his (Major Nolan's) opinion, it would be the Chief Secretary, if that right hon. Gentleman did not delegate the power to someone else. If the right hon. Gentleman were to make the rules, he must by this time know enough of Ireland to convince him of the trouble and vexation which would be occasioned by the application of one rule to one district, and

    747
    the application of a different rule to another district. He could not conceive what reasonable objection could be raised to this Amendment. The Conservative Government accepted the clause when it was brought in by Mr. Butt, and the then Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) said he was glad to see that Irish Members were disposed to place some confidence in Irish magistrates. What change had there been since 1875? Was it that a Liberal Government was going to be more restrictive than a Conservative Government? A year ago the licensing authority was practically obliged to give a licence for the carrying of a fowling-piece to anyone who was recommended by one magistrate, because if two recommendations were obtained the licence must be granted. Without this clause, the Bill would make the resident magistrate complete master of the situation. He trusted, therefore, the Government would assent to the proposal of the hon. Member for Louth, and that one uniform rule as to the licensing of arms would be adopted for the whole of Ireland. There would be the greatest difficulty if different rules were made for different districts, and their operation could not be freed from invidiousness.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYremarked, that during the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman one question kept pressing on his mind—namely, what was the reason for the great waste of time there had been over this Bill? Why not bring in a Bill of a single clause, declaring that during the continuance of this measure the Lord Lieutenant should be authorized to take whatever steps he might think fit for the preservation of peace? They were travelling very fast at present. First they had suspended the Habeas Corpus in Ireland; next they had curtailed in no small degree Parliamentary liberties; and now under this Bill trial by jury would be abolished for five years for certain offences. In fact, they were going on so fast and so far that he was inclined to agree in the justice of an observation of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) that the Government should give over all pretence of Constitutional rule and convert Ireland into a Crown Colony. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) did not feel very enthusiastic with respect to the present
    748
    Amendment; but as it tended to limit the power of the Lord Lieutenant, and impose something like Constitutional rule in the place of the arbitrary will of one man, and extended the power to respectable people to carry arms, he would be glad to support it.
    MR. LITTONconsidered the clause a very reasonable one. It would considerably lessen the objection felt to this Bill, which certainly was not viewed with approbation by a large class of persons in Ireland. He was bound to admit that he was convinced by the arguments offered by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) that it would be a right and reasonable course to take in working out the provisions of this Bill to give to two justices the power of recommending the granting of licences. Let them consider the manner in which the Bill would otherwise work. There was very little doubt that the licensing authority would be the stipendiary magistrate resident in the district. Stipendiary magistrates were gentlemen who were well known, and of high respectability; but they seldom officiated in the districts with which they were, best acquainted, and consequently know little or nothing of the people who would apply for liberty to have and carry arms. The result, therefore, must be that it was impossible for them to exercise the authority to grant licences except they exercised it capriciously, or by having recourse to the information and guidance of persons who would come in their way. These persons would be of two classes, either the county inspector or the justice of the peace of the district. If they applied to justices they would get, no doubt, proper and fair advice. But he submitted to the Government that it would be far more desirable, and that the Act would be worked with far greater justice and more elasticity, if the licensing authority were to act upon a certificate from the justices instead of acting upon verbal information communicated to them, perhaps, after dinner or over a glass of wine. He was glad to perceive the confidence which hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway placed in the justices of Ireland in this matter. The magistrates of Ireland were thoroughly well acquainted with the character of persons in their districts who would be desirous of carrying arms for the protection of their holdings, and they

    749
    would be the natural persons to apply to in such matters. He could conceive that in certain cases great injustice and injury would be done if certain classes of persons were deprived of the use of arms. How, for instance, would farmers be able to protect their sheep from dogs? He knew a case within the last month in which a man had lost eight sheep through their being attacked by dogs. The Act would work far more easily and gracefully with the clause than without it, and the clause would free the Lord Lieutenant from a responsibility of which he ought to be glad to be relieved.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that this provision in the Bill was a singularly vexatious one. On the other hand, he believed the magistrates of many districts in Ireland could not be trusted to grant licences with any degree of impartiality or with an unbiased judgment. They all knew that there had been in the North of Ireland a great stir amongst the Orangemen; and as a large proportion of the Irish magistracy possessed strong Orange proclivities, what guarantee had the House that the Orange magistracy would not arm the Orangemen in their districts wholesale, and that there would not be repetitions of the one-sided riots which had been so frequently witnessed in the North of Ireland, in which the Orange rioters would have the advantage of bullet and buckshot, and the Catholic rioters would have to trust to such weapons as nature provided them? Even in the South and West, he believed, there would be four persons obtaining licences from untrustworthy magistrates for one respectable person who would be really entitled to and would receive a licence. The overwhelming majority of the Irish justices were persons who ought not to be on the Bench at all. The Bill was a bad, Bashi-Bazouk Bill, a mere Algerine Act of a despotic Administration, and cursed with despotic Liberalism from beginning to end. He sympathized with the motive of his hon. Friend the Member for Louth in proposing the clause; but he had not sufficient faith in the magistrates to give them the power it would confer on them. If it were passed, it would be absolutely necessary for the preservation of law and order that a considerable number of the population should conceal arms for the purpose of defending themselves
    750
    against the armed nominees of untrustworthy magistrates.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYobserved, that the duty of granting licences had always, in cases like the present, been intrusted to the resident magistrates; but it was sometimes found that among that numerous body there were unreasonable persons who refused to give licences to those who were entitled to them. He had himself brought under the notice of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, when he was Chief Secretary for Ireland, the case of a most respectable man, a bank manager, who was refused a licence to carry a gun, because the magistrate was annoyed that the applicant had been asked to shooting parties in the neighbourhood. The noble Lord took up the case very warmly, and reproved the resident magistrate. Any man who received from two magistrates of his neighbourhood a certificate that he was a respectable man should be granted a licence, not for a revolver or a rifle, but for a shot-gun to be carried only on his own land. Nothing could be more reasonable, and former experience showed that it was also necessary. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), who had expressed himself in such bitter terms, had himself a clause on the Paper similar to that under consideration. When this circumstance was remembered, the language used by the hon. Member was simply an insult to the House. He did not think that the interests of the farmers of Ireland ought to be sacrificed in that way. He trusted the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, who had shown so conciliatory a spirit and so much common sense in the conduct of the Bill, would consider the matter in the light in which he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had endeavoured to put it.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he did not look upon the Amendment proposed by this clause as one of great magnitude, as it was in the Act of 1875, and he saw no objection at present to its being in this Bill. The Home Secretary seemed to prefer that the matter should be left in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, but he did not see much advantage in this. The Amendment, however, should be altered so as to meet some of the objections mentioned by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill); and, therefore, he would

    751
    suggest that if the clause now proposed should be read a second time it should be modified in sonic respects—namely, if two magistrates were to have a discretion to grant certificates, it should be on their personal knowledge that the applicants were fit and proper persons to have certificates granted to them.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTwished to know whether these suggestions would be accepted by the hon. Gentlemen opposite?
    MR. CALLANwas quite willing to accept the suggestion, as all he wished was to protect the farmer.
    MR. BIGGARwas unable to understand what the Government intended to do. He was not enamoured of the particular Amendment, as he did not think the getting two magistrates to privately sign the certificate was the proper way to do business. He thought there should be one plan for the whole country, and he would suggest, if the clause were read a second time, the justices in petty sessions should be the persons to give the necessary licence, as then some opportunity would be given to the public of knowing something about the matter.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. GIBSONproposed, in the last line of the clause, to insert the words "on their personal knowledge."
    MR. PARNELLasked whether it was worth while to insert this Amendment, as it would be a limitation to the discretion of magistrates, which might be very inconvenient in many cases. They might not have a personal knowledge, but they might be sufficiently satisfied of the respectability of persons by the information received from friends. He did not understand that under the clause as it was in the Bill of 1875, any inconvenience had arisen.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, no instance of practical inconvenience had come under his notice while he was in Office.
    MR. PARNELLremarked, that had such inconvenience arisen, no doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have heard of it.
    MR. DAWSONbelieved that the requirements of the case would be met by the magistrate's satisfying himself by inquiry or otherwise that the person to whom he granted a certificate was worthy of the trust.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLwas not quite sure that it would be well to leave this matter with the magistrates, as in some counties, say Clare, Galway, and Mayo, there were mauxais sujets, and if they should request certificates and be refused the magistrates would incur much unpopularity, and it was not a pleasant thing to do that in those counties. He hoped the Government would abandon their reticence and favour the Committee with their views upon this matter.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the reticence of the Government had thrown quite as much light on this subject as the two speeches of the noble Lord. In the first of those speeches the noble Lord attacked the Government for not accepting the Amendment.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLexplained that he never did such a thing.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that, in that case, he, for one, misunderstood the noble Lord's remarks. He was prepared, on behalf of the Government, to adopt the present proposal.
    MR. CALLANhoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar) would not resist the Amendment, as it would really be a great boon.
    MR. BIGGARwas willing to defer to the wishes of his political Friends; but lie still thought it preposterous to suppose that justices should know everybody within their districts.
    Amendment (Mr. Gibson) agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    MR. CALLAN MR. CALLAN moved the following New Clause:—
    (Register of licences to be kept and filed.)
    "Every person appointed to grant licences under this Act shall keep a list of the names and residences of all persons applying for such licences, and shall, on the first day of every year, deposit with the clerk of the peace of the county a copy of such list, adding thereto, to the name of each applicant, a statement showing whether the licence has been granted or refused, specifying also the nature of the licence applied for, and the nature of the licence, if any, granted, which list shall be kept by the clerk of the peace among the records of the county, and same shall be open for inspection without fee."
    The hon. Member quoted instances in which the magistrates had acted very capriciously in refusing licences, and

    753
    this provision, he contended, would act as a deterrent in such cases, and there could be no evasion. He could conceive of no valid objection to his proposal.
    Clause (Register of licences to be kept and filed,)—(Mr. Callan,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURThoped the hon. Member would not press the clause. It was a mere directory matter, and he had no doubt that the Lord Lieutenant would, in his proclamation, direct a register to be kept that he might know to whom licences had been given and from whom withheld; but the Government had endeavoured to make this Bill short, precise, and clear, and not to overlay it with administrative details of this kind.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that having the personal assurance of the Home Secretary that the Lord Lieutenant in his proclamation would direct a register to be kept, he should ask leave to withdraw the clause.
    MR. LEAMYdid not understand the right hon. Gentleman to pledge himself that the proclamation would contain such a direction, and he hoped the Amendment would be pressed.
    MR. HEALYthought this matter was more important than the Home Secretary seemed to think. Farmers and respectable people were liable to be refused licences without any cause assigned.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, the clause would not fetter the discretion of the magistrate; it would only limit his caprice.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANthought the veil of secrecy should not be thrown over these matters. The magistrates were supposed to act in an upright manner, and it was not too much to ask that the public should have an opportunity of judging whether they did so or not. Magistrates ought not to quail before the dread of unpopularity.
    SIR EDWARD WATKIN, premising that the necessity of supporting the Bill was one of the most painful incidents in his Parliamentary life, said, it was a very serious thing to refuse to any man the right to bear arms, and Parliament ought to have a record of all such refusals. What harm could it do? If it only helped in the detection of crime, it was
    754
    important to have it. It seemed to him that this was a clause which vitally affected public liberty, which ought to be surrounded with every safeguard, and it would enable Parliament to correct any piece of petty tyranny that might take place. The Home Secretary spoke of the Lord Lieutenant requiring such a register by his proclamation; but why not put it straightforwardly with the Bill, and let everybody know?
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. CALLANhoped that, after the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin), Government would accept the clause and save the necessity of a division.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 90:—Majority 55.—(Div. List, No. 142.)
    MR. CALLAN MR. CALLAN moved the insertion of the following Clause:—
    (Prisoners under this Act to be treated as first-class misdemeanants.)
    "Any persons who shall be convicted before a court of summary jurisdiction of acting in contravention of this Act, and shall be sentenced to any term of imprisonment, shall be treated as a first-class misdemeanant."
    He begged to point out that persons convicted under the Bill would not necessarily be guilty of any moral offence, and that as those who were convicted would not suffer in the smallest degree in their private character, they should not be obliged to herd with common criminals, but should be treated as first-class misdemeanants.
    Clause (Prisoners under this Act to be treated as first-class misdemeanants,)—(Mr. Callan,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. PARNELL, in supporting the Motion, said, he had had a clause on the Paper on the same subject; but as he was not in his place he had been unable to move it. His clause would give more

    755
    latitude to the Lord Lieutenant and the Government in reference to the treatment of prisoners. It was exceedingly likely that the cases of persons convicted under the operation of this Act would vary very much. He did not wish to dispute that there might be some instances of prisoners who would deserve the harsh treatment provided under the ordinary law; but he thought the number of those cases would be very limited. He thought the number of cases in which prisoners would be convicted who had concealed their guns for bad motives would be exceedingly limited, and that by far the greatest number of persons who would be convicted under the operation of this Act would consist of persons who from negligence or some other cause failed to give in their guns at the proper time. He thought it was evident, from the nature of the offences, and from all the circumstances surrounding the case, that but a very small proportion of persons actually convicted under the operation of the Bill would be persons belonging to the criminal classes, whose minds it would be desirable to reform by harsh treatment. He thought, at all events. power should be given to the Lord Lieutenant to treat certain persons leniently where he thought proper. The discipline of the gaols in Ireland had very materially altered for the worse since the prisons passed under the control of the Government. Previous to the Prisons Act of 1877 the prisons were under the control of the county authorities. They had then considerable power with regard to the framing of rules, and also in regard to the inspection and direction in regard to the treatment of prisoners, which had now been entirely taken away from them for all practical purposes by the Act of 1877. The prisons in Ireland were now practically under the control of the Government, the Visiting Justices, taking the least possible interest in their duties, simply because all power was taken from them. The treatment of prisoners was specially bad in regard of diet; the diet of those who would come under the Act being what was practically starvation diet. It was entirely unsuited to the agricultural classes, who were accustomed to eat large quantities of bulky food. Every man under hard labour in Class 2, which was the class under which those prisoners would come during the first month
    756
    of their incarceration, would get only 15 oz. of bread per day, 2 pints of thin gruel, and for dinner on some days 6 oz. of suet pudding; on other days 8 oz. of potatoes, and still on other days, half a pint of soup. Thus, for a man accustomed to eat fully 4 lb. or 5 lb. of bread during the day, they had only 15 oz. of bread, 2 pints of gruel, and less than half-a-pound of suet pudding or potatoes. In effect, they had about 21 oz. of food, and, including the soup or gruel, only 25 oz. of solid food. That diet was entirely insufficient for the class of persons likely to be imprisoned under the Act, and he would ask the Government whether they would not give power to the Lord Lieutenant to make some special exceptions with regard to the diet of those prisoners. Then there was the plank bed. The prisoners would have to sleep on the plank bed for the first month of their imprisonment, without any mattress; they would be forced to lie on the plank bed, which was undoubtedly a form of torture, and which he did not think ought to be sanctioned for any person whatever, and certainly not for the class of persons who would be liable to be committed under the Bill. He objected, therefore, first of all to the insufficiency of food; secondly, to the plank bed; and thirdly, to the solitary confinement. Those persons who were committed under the Bill would be kept through their imprisonment under the separate and solitary system. They would only be allowed one hour for exercise, and, therefore, the remaining 23 would have to be spent in their cells, without being allowed to speak to anyone. Therefore, it came to this, the men brought up with the strictest regard for the law—men who had never violated the law in the slightest way, either in word or deed—were now liable to be brought before a magistrate on suspicion, and sentenced to such punishment as he had described. Anybody in Ireland within a proclaimed district who did not comply with the provisions of that very stringent Bill, would be liable to be imprisoned, and branded for the rest of his life as a felon. He contended there was no reason for refusing the concessions they asked on the point. The Government gave them very fair concessions on the last Bill; and he would take the opportunity of saying that, so far as he knew, those concessions

    757
    had been carried out in the spirit and letter. No good could be attained by harsh treatment to prisoners. They would do more in Ireland to make their rule repugnant to the masses of the people by setting up martyrs to their treatment than in any other way, and nothing was more likely to create a great deal of dissatisfaction throughout the country than to seize on innocent men, place them in prison, and subject them to a correctional course of treatment such as he had shown they had to endure, and then at the end of their time set them at liberty to become standing preachers of sedition. He, therefore, hoped the Home Secretary would see the expediency of empowering the Lord Lieutenant to see that a milder treatment was adopted under the present Bill.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, a great part of the observations of the hon. Member had consisted of a condemnation of the present system of prison discipline. That was a question which might be open to discussion; but it was not one which he proposed to discuss now. If that prison discipline were bad for offenders under this Bill, it was bad for all offenders; and there was not a single word which the hon. Member had uttered against the measure before the House which might not be stated against a dozen of Statutes which were passed in every Session of Parliament. In short, the argument of the hon. Gentleman was an argument against the administration of all Criminal Law. The hon. Member said that this was an exceptional case. The Government had decided, and the House had confirmed the decision, that it was for the public interest that the Bill should be passed; and if there were persons in Ireland who offended against its provisions, and broke the law with regard to the carrying of arms, those persons must take the consequences. To treat offenders under the Bill in a different way from other offenders against the law would be a fatal political mistake, and would destroy the effect of the measure. The hon. Member had also said that they would condemn to severe treatment a number of people who offended unconsciously; but every precaution had been taken against such a result. If the offence were found to be a very slight one, there would be an equally slight penalty—a shilling or so;
    758
    and if it were found that there had been no offence at all, there would not only be no punishment, but, under an Amendment which he had placed on the Paper, a man would be actually paid for having given up his arms. In other words, every possible care had been and would be taken that no man should be punished who had not wilfully and deliberately broken a law made in the interest of public safety. He must decline to accept the Amendment.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORstrongly urged that the Amendment should be accepted, more particularly as the offence was a purely political one, and was not so much against England as against one particular class. He was of opinion that severity of punishment for political offences never resulted in anything but harm to the cause which it was meant to serve. He contended that the Bill could not be compared with other Acts, because it was constituting that an offence in Ireland which was not an offence in England, and what was innocent one day was to be a crime the next. Legislation such as this would never be accepted by the Irish people.
    MR. DAWSONthought that the Government should temper mercy with justice in the case before them. Ample discretion should be left in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant to relax rules and diminish or remit punishments. Many of the offences committed under the Act could not be moral offences at all, or only in a slight degree, and ought, therefore, to be dealt with leniently. The Irish-speaking people would have information of that Bill being in force very feebly conveyed to them, and it was extremely probable that many poor people would remain for a long time ignorant of it. The 67th section of the Prisons Act of 1877 provided that whenever any person was convicted of misdemeanour and sentenced to imprisonment without hard labour, it should be in the power of the Court to order him to be treated as a first-class misdemeanant. He could not understand why the people imprisoned under this Act should be precluded from such a provision. If the proposed clause were not accepted, the House would have only to take one step more in order to bring back to them the days of torture and the rack.
    MR. FINIGANsaid, this Bill was intended to prevent firearms being used

    759
    in Ireland for illegal purposes. He did not anticipate that many farmers would be arrested, because they would at once give up their arms and obtain the compensation provided. There was a class of young men—farmers' sons for instance—who would not care to give up their sporting rights, and it would be such men who would be arrested. As the Bill was not like the Protection Act, primarily a punishing Bill, everything ought to be done, compatible with the attainment of the objects of the Bill, to alleviate the condition of prisoners under the Bill. The Amendment would give no trouble, and might do much good; and the Government might very gracefully, and with some show of clemency, assent to it. That a man, whose offence might not have the slightest political significance, should be condemned to sleep on a plank bed was wholly inconsistent.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOIINSON)pointed out that the section of the Prisons Act of 1877, which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson), was the 48th, and did not bear the construction sought to be put upon it.
    SIR EDWARD WATKINthought they were entitled to some answer from the Treasury Bench on the point which had been raised. That was, if the prerogative of mercy were to be given to the Irish Executive, why was it that they declined to allow their own Lord Lieutenant to deal with these cases in a manner consonant with mercy if he saw fit?
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, the English people would not like to be compelled to give up possession of their arms, for which they had a great affection. In this country there were instances of the abuse of the possession of firearms, yet the Legislature did not propose to take the right of bearing arms from the people. In Ireland, immediately upon the passage of this Bill, what was now a legal possession would become a crime punishable by measures of the greatest possible severity. Many men would feel a sense of humiliation in surrendering their arms. He strongly objected to the attempt made by the Home Secretary to abolish all distinction between crimes which would come under the Bill and ordinary crimes. The
    760
    Government, he held, should not punish a man for the possession of arms in the same manner as the law punished an offender guilty of a shameful crime.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONobserved, that the Amendment was nearly identical with one which he had himself unsuccessfully proposed. The persons who would be subjected to the operation of thin Bill would be respectable men, not ordinary felons, criminals, village tyrants, or dissolute ruffians. He protested against such persons, wrong as they might be in their political views, being forced to undergo the torture of the plank bed. Persons arrested under the Coercion Act would be allowed six hours' association each day; they would be allowed to eat, drink, and smoke as they liked; they would be able to talk treason and Fenianism if they chose—they would be permitted to luxuriate in the day-time. Yet those sent to prison under the provisions of this Bill were to be placed on a plank bed. Surely that was not consistent. He appealed to the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench to re-consider the matter, and not to subject persons of the class alluded to to the treatment reserved for only the meanest criminals.
    MR. BIGGARcontended that the offences contemplated by this Bill being of a slight character, the punishment attached to them should be more mild in its nature. A man who might have lying somewhere in his house, without knowing it, a pike-head or a part of some other weapon, would be liable under the Bill to be taken before a magistrate and thrown into prison, although he might be perfectly innocent. He would have no power of appeal if his imprisonment were less than a month. He would be subjected to the ordinary prison discipline, made to lie on a plank bed, and exposed to other hardships and privations, which, if he were of a delicate constitution, would injure his health, and perhaps even take away his life. He thought that the persons to be imprisoned under this Bill ought to be treated as first-class misdemeanants; and he could not understand why a harsher prison discipline should be applied to persons coming under the operation of this Bill than was applied to those who were arrested under the Bill previously passed for suspending the Habeas Corpus Act. One of their

    761
    friends who had just been arrested under the new Coercion Act was, he understood, charged with inciting to murder; and yet he would be entitled to much better treatment during the 18 months for which he might be kept in custody than the person who would be imprisoned for a much shorter period under the present Bill. The offences against which this Bill was directed were political offences, and nothing else, because they were connected with the agitation which had made the landlords and magistrates of Ireland bring that pressure to bear on the Government, in consequence of which they were now legislating under the influence of panic.
    MR. LEAMYwas of opinion that the sting would be taken out of the Bill if this clause was incorporated in the measure. The Irish people would never look on persons arrested under this Bill as criminals, but would regard them as political offenders, who ought not to be tortured in prison by plank beds. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would respond to the appeal which had been made to him, and sanction this clause.
    MR. J. N. RICHARDSONsaid, that persons might, from inertia or laziness, not surrender the arms in their possession; and if they did not, and their premises were searched and the arms discovered, they would under this Bill be considered as criminals. Any person having arms and doing wrong with them should be punished; but he hoped that the Home Secretary would be able to grant some concession in reference to this clause.
    MR. M'COANsaid, the supporters of the clause simply asked the Home Secretary to consent to persons arrested under this Bill having some comfort in the shape of bedding, having freer intercourse with their relations, and the possibility where they could of buying better food. He congratulated the Irish people upon the fact that this Bill passed through the hands of the Home Secretary, and not through the less merciful hands of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He hoped the Home Secretary would make the final concession now asked for.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 37; Noes 201: Majority 164.—(Div. List, No. 143.)
    MR. SPEAKER: It is now my duty, in obedience to the Orders of the House, to put forthwith the several Clauses and Amendments on the Notice Paper. There are six clauses standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell). The first of these clauses I should consider it my duty to the House not to put, because it clearly could not be entertained by the House. The second, third, and fourth, providing for licences being granted on production of a certificate by two justices of the peace, for the keeping of a register of licences under the Act, and for the treating of prisoners as first-class misdemeanants, are identical with those which have been moved by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) and dealt with by the House. The 6th clause, referring to the treatment of prisoners, is also substantially the same as one proposed by the hon. Member for Louth, and which has been divided upon. I will now proceed to put the 5th clause of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, which provides for the suspension of ejectments. If the hon. Member is not in his place to move it, it would be irregular in me to put it.
    MR. FINIGAN: I rise to Order. [Cries of "Order, order!"] I rise, Sir, to a point of Order. I wish to ask you whether, when the course of Business takes this form of urgency, it is usual at this stage to call upon hon. Members either to move or not to move the Amendments in their names?
    MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: I wish to ask you, Sir, whether, as a matter of fact, the direction under which you are now proceeding from the House is, not that the hon. Members shall thereupon move the Motions which stand in their names, but that you shall put them from the Chair? If the direction were that they should thereupon be moved, no doubt it would be quite clear; but I beg to submit to you, Sir, that if the hon. Member for Dungarvan were in his place you would not call upon him to move—that, in point of fact, the direction is, not that the Clauses and Amendments shall be moved, but that they shall be put from the Chair.
    MR. SPEAKER: The general Rule of the House is quite clear. No clause can be moved except by the hon. Member who has given Notice of it,
    MR. CALLAN: I rise to Order. [Cries of "Order, order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: The next Amendment on the Paper——
    MR. CALLAN (still standing): I have said, Sir, that I rose to Order. [Renewed cries of "Order, order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: I am carrying out the directions of the House; and, so long as I am carrying out the directions of the House, I shall consider any interruptions as disorder. The next Amendment on the Paper stands in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan). It is substantially the same as that of the hon. Member for Louth, which has been already dealt with by the House. The next Amendment on the Paper is that of the right hon. Gentleman who has charge of the Bill (Sir William Harcourt). It is proposed to amend the Bill by inserting, in Clause 1, page 1, line 8, which prohibits the having or carrying of arms, after the words "any person carrying or having," these words "or reasonably suspected of carrying or having arms or ammunition." The Question I have to put is that these words be inserted.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made.
    MR. SPEAKER: The next Amendment is in the name of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, Clause 5, page 3, line 8. The hon. Member is not here. At the same time, I am bound to say that it is open to any other hon. Member to move the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 8, to leave out the words "a divisional justice," and insert the words "two divisional justices."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question put, "That the words 'a divisional justice' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided:—Ayes 265; Noes 34: Majority 231.—(Div. List, No. 144.)
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, the next two Amendments placed on the Paper by the hon. Member for Dungarvan were dependent on the preceding Amendment, which had just been negatived, and could not, therefore, be put. The next Amendment of the hon. Member proposed to add certain words which were included in the first clause of the hon. Member for Louth, and had been already rejected by the House.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, at end of Clause 5, to add the words "but nothing in this Act shall prevent the person charged, if he himself desire it, from having the option of being returned for trial before a jury."—(Mr. Finigan.)
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The House divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 267: Majority 231.—(Div. List, No. 145.)
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, the next two Amendments on Clause 5, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), could not be put, because the first was substantially the same as the Amendment which had just been negatived by the House, and the second was inconsistent with the provisions of the Bill already agreed to. With regard to Clause 6, there was an Amendment in the name of the same hon. Gentlemen, which he would put if any other hon. Member would move it in the absence of the hon. Member for Dungarvan.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 15, after the word "being," to insert the words "the term 'proclaimed district' shall mean any county, county of a city, county of a town, or any barony, baronies, half-barony, or half-baronies, in any county at large, in any district of less extent, to which the provisions of the Peace Preservation Act are declared to apply, by proclamation under the said Act, so long as such proclamation shall be in force."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The House divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 268: Majority 232.—(Div. List, No. 146.)
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 17, to leave out from the word "also," to the word "defined," in line 18, both inclusive.—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided:—Ayes 275; Noes 35: Majority 240.—(Div. List, No. 147.)
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 18, after the word "defined," to insert the words "unless it can be shown that such portions of weapons are unserviceable and useless."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

    765
    The House divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 273: Majority 238.—(Div. List, No. 148.)
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 19, to leave out all the words after the word "gunpowder," to end of Clause.'—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided:—Ayes 271; Noes 30: Majority 241.—(Div. List, No. 149.)
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 24, to leave out from the word "the," to the end of Clause 8, and insert the words "thirtieth day of September, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided:—Ayes 244; Noes 38: Majority 206.—(Div. List, No. 150.)
    MR. SPEAKER: The remaining Amendments on the Paper cannot be put, because they have been practically disposed of by the division which has just taken place. I have now to call upon the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) to state what course he proposes to take in regard to the Bill.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Naturally, the next stage of the Bill would have been to propose the third reading; but I entered into an undertaking with hon. Members that I would make a proposal to the House in respect of compensation with reference to arms which may be voluntarily given up. I propose, further, to extend the proposal to the case of persons who, not having voluntarily given them up, may be proved to have held them back under circumstances which may not appear to have been wilful. I have been desirous of giving the largest scope I could to the proposal. If hon. Members will look at what I propose to add to the 1st clause, they will see that I have endeavoured to do even more than I engaged to do. One of the complaints of hon. Members is that these arms are taken away from the people under the Arms Act, that they are not taken care of, that they could not be identified, that they could not be reclaimed, and that when the period for
    766
    keeping them from them had expired, they were neither able to get their arms or the money they were estimated to be worth. The House will see that in my proposal I have made provision, under the direction of the Lord Lieutenant, for the deposit, the registration, the value, and the care of arms. The provision applies, of course, only to arms which are given up voluntarily—of course, if any are kept in defiance of the Statute they will be forfeited. Those which are voluntarily given up under the cirstances to which I have referred will be taken into the possession of the Crown, by whom they are to be taken care of, and, as a general rule, to return them, when the proclamation ceases to be in force, to their former owners. It was, however, put strongly by hon. Gentlemen opposite that as the proclamation might remain in force for some time the arms might suffer, and that, consesequently, an injury might be inflicted upon the persons so giving up the arms. Accordingly, I have given the option to the Lord Lieutenant, in order to prevent the necessity of taking care of useless arms, or of arms that would become useless by being kept, of placing upon them a money value, and of allowing the owners to obtain the value of their arms in money. The original proposition that I made to the House was only to pay the value in cases where the arms were not restored. The proposal which I have now to make goes a good deal further, and I believe that such a proposal would have a great tendency to carry out the object of the Bill—that is, to induce people voluntarily to give up their arms. I hope the House will acknowledge that the Government have fulfilled the pledge they made on the subject. But this being a money clause, hon. Members will be aware that it is necessary to go through the formality of re-committing the Bill. We have had a protracted struggle over the Bill, and I hope I may make an appeal to the good feeling, and, if I may say so, to the sense of honour, of hon. Members opposite, that they will not take advantage of the technical Motion I am about to make in order to give effect to a clause which is to carry out the wish they have expressed, and the pledge which the Government have given, for the purpose of further prolonging these wearisome proceedings. I have great

    767
    confidence that my appeal will be responded to by hon. Members. Having made that appeal to them, I have now to move—
    "That the Bill be re-committed in respect of the Amendment to Clause 1, relating to Compensation, now standing upon the Notice Paper."
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Bill be re-committed in respect of the Amendment to Clause 1, relating to Compensation, now standing upon the Notice Paper."—(Sir William Harcourt.)
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he was sure that none of the Irish Members would desire to take advantage of the fact that the agreement entered into by the Government rendered it necessary to recommit the Bill; but, at the same time, he wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that in moving an Amendment to the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman had just made in respect to a matter which he (Mr. Parnell) would shortly explain, he would not be taking any advantage of the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman now made for the re-committal of the Bill, because he should have made it in any case on the third reading of the Bill. He proposed to move as an Amendment to add to the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman had just made—
    "And also an Amendment to the 8th clause, so as to limit the continuance of the Act to the first day of June, 1884."
    This was a Motion which he should in any case have moved on the third reading of the Bill, and to carry out the object he had in view it would have been necessary to re-commit the measure. The question he wished to raise was one which he had not hitherto been able to raise in the shape of a debate upon any of the stages of the Bill. He was debarred from raising it on the Committee stage by the course which the House decided upon adopting, and from the same cause he had also been debarred from raising it on the stage of Report through which they had just gone. It was not, therefore, from a desire to prolong the proceedings on the Bill, or to enter into any factious opposition, that he now felt it necessary to raise the question, but because hitherto it had been found impossible to raise it by debate. He thanked every hon. Member who had helped the Irish Members in the part they had taken in
    768
    opposing the measure. They had done all they could to prevent the coercion of Ireland; and he felt convinced that none of them would have cause to reproach themselves in the future with having left any stone unturned, or anything undone, to prevent their country from having this coercion placed upon it. But the question he now raised was one upon which he desired to make a last appeal to the Government. They had had a division recently on the question of limiting the duration of the Bill—to a period, he thought, of a year and a-half. The proposal he wished to submit would practically limit its duration to something like three years and two months—the question being between 1886 and 1884. It would, he thought, be a graceful act on the part of Her Majesty's Government if they would include this concession among the others they had made to the Irish Members and to the Irish people. He certainly hoped that by the time the year 1884 arrived the Irish Question would have been solved in some way or other—either that Her Majesty's Government would have been able to persuade the Irish people of their ability to govern Ireland in the House of Commons, or that the Irish Members, on the other hand, would have been able to persuade Parliament that it was only proper to restore to them the right of ruling Ireland on the shores of their native country. Surely, then, the year 1884 was long enough for such an enactment to last; and, no matter what the issue of the next few years might be, he trusted that the Government would not think that those few years were not sufficient to decide how Ireland was to be ruled, and what course should be taken in future. He was sure they would not enter into the next few years with any idea that it would be necessary to keep Ireland permanently disarmed, or even for five years. Surely, three years and two months were quite sufficient for such a purpose. The late Government re-enacted the old Coercion Act for a period of five years. He would ask a Liberal Government not to be as hard as they were, and not to be so little convinced of their own power to conciliate the Irish people to English rule; but to accept the proposal which he now made, that the continuance of the Bill should only last until the 1st of June, 1884.
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,
    To add at end thereof the words "and also in respect to an Amendment to Clause 8, to limit the continuance of the Act to the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I must say that I do heartily wish I could respond to the appeal of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell); but I will tell him in a very few words why I cannot do so. The last Government, as he says, in 1875, passed an Act which contained these provisions, and others, with reference to the preservation of peace in Ireland. I think no man can dispute that in the year 1875, when that Bill was passed, Ireland was in a less disturbed state than it is at the present moment, and has been for the last six months. The hon. Member appeals to us to make an experiment as to whether or not three years will be sufficient to enable us to dispense with a measure of this character. Now, I have had to refer to the fact that we have made that experiment. We thought, at the expiration of five years from 1875, we would try whether or not Ireland could do without an Arms Bill. That experiment has now been tried for nearly 12 months, and I am obliged to repeat again, what I said yesterday, that, in my opinion, that experiment has failed. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Hear, hear!] The noble Lord rejoices that it has failed. I regret that it has failed. I think that, as a Liberal Government, we were bound, under the circumstances, to make that experiment, and I am not ashamed of the fact that we made it. But, having made that experiment, and believing that the circumstances of Ireland are more grave now than they were in 1875, what we had to consider was whether we were to expose this Parliament again to the process through which, during the last two months, it has been going. Now, Sir, as far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, they will not expose this Parliament again to the necessity of proposing an Arms Bill. The duration of the present Bill is accordingly made five years, so that, having in view the ordinary life of a Parliament, it will belong to another
    770
    Parliament to deal with the question, and not to this Parliament. It appears to me that that is a reasonable and a sound ground to take. I think this House feels, and I think the country feels, that there are other matters to deal with besides the constant renewal of Arms Bills. It is, no doubt, perfectly true that in former times a measure of this kind was enacted only for a single year. That is true of the much more severe Act of 1847. But then you must remember this—that although these Acts were enacted for only brief periods, it was found necessary continually to repeat them, and that from 1847 down to the year 1880 there has always been an Arms Bill for Ireland. [The IRISH MEMBERS: Hear, hear!] Yes, that is a lamentable fact. I regret it as much as hon. Members do; but I differ from them in the judgment which they form of the necessity of such legislation. If that be so, if the majority of the House of Commons, and of Parliament, have found it necessary for 33 years constantly to re-enact measures of this character, what reasonable ground. I would ask, can you allege for supposing that if you were to pass this Bill for a brief term that you would not be called upon repeatedly to renew it? In old days it was the practice to introduce similar measures for short terms. Now, while I do not wish to speak offensively of hon. Members opposite—the language which has been addressed to me by them to-night has been too considerate to allow of my doing so—I must remind them, and I must remind the House, that in former days the opposition to measures of that character was conducted in a very different manner. That is an element, and a very necessary and essential element, in the consideration of this question. In former days, hon. Members who were in a minority, after having made a decent and a resolute protest against a measure, were content to accept the decision of the majority of the House of Commons; and under these circumstances, when the Government came forward with a Bill of this kind, it might be year by year, and laid before Parliament a case that was considered adequate, they were able to feel convinced that within a reasonable period the renewal of such a measure as this might be obtained. I think I am. justified in saying that now there can be

    771
    no similar expectation, and to whatever period you may postpone this Bill, you make it a brief period if you like, but you will be certain to be met on its renewal by similar resistance. ["Hear, hear!"] I am glad to find that hon. Members opposite agree with me, at all events, in that proposition. It is for that reason that I do not feel justified in proposing, in this Parliament, at an early period, to take up again the consideration of an Arms Bill for Ireland.
    MR. HERMONsaid, that as the only English Member who had an Amendment on the Paper limiting the duration of the Bill to 1E84, he trusted that the House would allow him to say a few words. He was sorry that the Home Secretary had thought it his duty to decide the question so promptly, because he thought the Bill might well have been limited to three years. He know there were many English Members who were of the opinion, and the right hon. Gentleman had found out a method by which Bills of this nature could be passed in a shorter time than was the case at the beginning of the Session. The Home Secretary's arguments would apply to the Coercion Bill, which was only to be in force one year, and if it became necessary to renew that measure there would be some contention over it, as there had been already. He trusted that the powers already taken by the Government would work reform in the state of affairs in Ireland, and he could not help expressing his belief that had the Government made use earlier of the existing law measures of the present kind would have been unnecessary.
    MR. MONKwould have been sorry had the House gone to a division without one Member on that side of the House rising to express regret that Her Majesty's Government was not able to listen to the proposal made by Irish Members opposite. He thought the Home Secretary had not sufficiently taken into consideration the measure which had already been passed by Her Majesty's Government with regard to Ireland. He had, however, reason to hope that long before the end of this Parliament Ireland would be a happy and contented country, and that there would be no necessity, in the year 1884, of renewing the Arms Bill. He could only express on the part of some hon. Members on that side of the House their
    772
    regret that the Government could not accede to the proposed Amendment.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he always turned to Hansard for the opinions of distinguished men. Accordingly he found in April, 1875, when a discussion occurred precisely similar to the present, that on the 29th of that month an oration was delivered by that champion of freedom, the present Home Secretary. The proposal was then as now to limit the duration of the Arms Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman on the occasion, said—
    "He had not heard from the Chief Secretary for Ireland any sufficient reason for suspending the rights of the character dealt with by the Bill for so long a period as five years. Former Governments in asking for such powers had acted upon a plain Constitutional principle which the present Government—and for the first time—asked the House to depart from. That principle was that the responsible Government of the day should, from time to time, state to the House of Commons that there was an absolute necessity for the granting of the powers for which they asked. The right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland had reviewed the history of Ireland for nearly a century; but he had failed to show that any administration—Liberal or Conservative—had ever made a proposal similar to the present. The argument of the right hon. Baronet in its favour would apply with equal cogency to the English Mutiny Act. That was an annual Act. Well, it was not likely that Her Majesty's Government had it in contemplation to dissolve the Army within the next five years; but what would the House say to a proposal to continue the Mutiny Act for five years? Such a proposition would not be entertained for a moment. Upon principle, and in accordance with precedent, it would be most objectionable that any Bill suspending important rights of Her Majesty's subjects should be allowed to continue for so long a period as that suggested by Her Majesty's Government. If two years were sufficient in 1847 and 1848, and in the most disturbed times in Ireland, surely a like period would be sufficient now. It was no argument to tell the House of Commons that the Government did not mean to execute the powers which they sought to obtain. The liberty of the subject had never been made dependent on the discretion of any Government. The House had shown no disposition to support Her Majesty's Government during the progress of the Bill, but he must vote against the present proposal unless a much stronger reason was given for departing from established precedent than had yet been advanced."—[3Hansard, ccxxiii. 1838–9.]
    Truly the case of Irish Members was stated on that occasion by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary with admirable force. After him another champion of freedom (Mr. Goschen) got up and declared that he was in favour of the great Liberal principle of defending

    773
    the rights of the people even against the best of Governments. The right hon. Gentleman had more than once reminded the House that there was a vast distinction between the circumstances of Ireland in 1875 and 1881. Of course there was, and the difference lay in the fact that Her Majesty's then Opposition were now Her Majesty's Government. In giving his support to the Amendment, he wished to state, that to his mind, the debates which had taken place had been extremely instructive with regard to the principles of Liberal Administrations.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 208: Majority 151.—(Div. List, No. 151.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill re-committed; considered in Committee.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I propose to add to Clause 1, page 1, the following Clause:—
    "Any arms or ammunition in the possession of persons not entitled to have the same which shall, within a period to be fixed by the proclaclamation hereinafter mentioned, be given up voluntarily, or taken under such circumstances as shall prove to the satisfaction of the Lord Lieutenant that they have not been wilfully kept back, shall be deemed to be in the possession of Her Majesty, and provision shall be made in such proclamation for the deposit, registration, valuation, and care of the same; and such arms and ammunition shall be returned to the owners thereof whenever the proclamation relating thereto shall cease to be in force: Provided, That, at any time, the Lord Lieutenant may, instead of keeping and returning the arms and ammunition aforesaid, if he think fit, pay to the owners of the same the value thereof, as ascertained in the manner provided by the proclamation, or the owners thereof may demand payment of such value, and such payments may be made out of moneys to be provided by Parliament."
    Question proposed, "That these words be there added."
    MR. HEALYsuggested the substitution of the word "shall" for "can."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: My intention is that the owner may always have the money, instead of the arms, if he chooses. As to the Lord Lieutenant, he may offer the money; but he is not obliged to do so.
    MR. PARNELL: Would not that be at the end of the five years?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: At any time—" Provided at any time—"
    MR. PARNELL: On the application of the owner?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The Lord Lieutenant may offer money and keep the arms, and the owner may "at any time demand."
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLpointed out that this new clause, for which the Home Secretary had taken such enormous credit, and over which he had covered himself and his Colleagues with such attributes of generosity, was entirely due to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), who had suggested it to the Government.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it appeared to him that the option rested with the Lord Lieutenant, and not with the owner.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported; as amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

MOTIONS.
  ARMS BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    MR. CALLAN MR. CALLAN moved for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate, and in some cases to prohibit, the carrying of Arms in England and Scotland. He explained that the object of the Bill was, in the first place, to impose special licences for carrying arms, and to require any person possessing arms for the suspected purpose of committing an offence to obtain a licence from a magistrate of the district; and, secondly, to render penal the carrying of arms by any person holding a ticket-of-leave, or by any person who has been convicted of any offence accompanied by violence against person or property.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill to regulate and in certain cases prohibit the carrying of Arms in England and Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CALLAN and Mr. MARTIN.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 109.]

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS.

  ADDITION TO SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. CHILDERS MR. CHILDERS moved to add the names of Dr. Cameron and Dr. Farquharson to the Contagious Diseases

  775
  Acts Committee, explaining that the Committee had made a Report approving of the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Dr. Cameron and Dr. Farquharson be added to the Committee."—(Mr. Childers.)
  MR. ONSLOWbelieved that the two hon. Members named would be able to render valuable assistance to the Committee; but he thought it right that a Conservative Member should rise and protest against the number of Liberal Members on the Committee. There were already eight Liberal Members on the Committee and seven Conservative Members; and if the two hon. Members proposed were added there would be ten Liberals to seven Conservatives. Tie did not wish to go against the Resolution of the Committee, which was agreed to by a considerable majority, nor did he wish to object to the Motion; but he thought it right to make this protest, and he would suggest the addition of two Conservative Members to the Committee, in order to make the two sides more evenly balanced. As a rule these Committees were never constituted with such a preponderating majority on one side, and he thought such a course would create a precedent which it would be bad to follow. He did not think many Members of the Committee would object to the addition of two more Members; and he believed several Members on that side of the House would like to serve on what was a very interesting Committee.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANstated that no Party spirit bad entered into the Report of the Committee. The Committee came to the conclusion that it was desirable to have two medical Members on the Committee to assist them in examining the witnesses and in drawing up their Report; and the two names suggested were those of the Member for Aberdeenshire and the Member for Glasgow. They happened to be Liberals; but the Conservative Members of the Committee voted in favour of the proposal, which had not been in the slightest degree a Party matter.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he had been speaking to the right hon. Member for Whitchaven, who was a great stickler for the rights of that (the Conservative) side of the House; and his right hon. Friend had referred with approval to the
  776
  proposal to add the two hon. Members named to the Committee.
  Motion agreed to.

MAINTENANCE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, he moved for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Law relating to Maintenance. It might be necessary to inform hon. Members who did not belong to the Legal Profession what sort of "maintenance" was here referred to—namely, a very old but a very absurd and oppressive doctrine, of law which for nearly a century our Judges had inveighed against, even while they felt compelled to recognize and apply it. According to that doctrine if a benevolent person gave a poor woman a £5 note to enable her to obtain justice in a Court of Law, the kindly act was illegal—was, in fact, the crime of what is called "maintenance." Barely a few weeks ago Mr. Justice Lindley expressed his repugnance to this monstrous doctrine; and he (Mr. A. M. Sullivan), in this effort to sweep it away, was promised the co-operation and sympathy of legal men on both sides of the House.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to Maintenance, ordered to be brought in by Mr. A. M. SULLIVAN and Mr. Serjeant SIMON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 110.]

  LEASES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. DAVEY, Bill to amend the Law relating to Leases, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DAVEY, Mr. GREGORY, Mr. M'CULLAGH TORRENS, Mr. LEWIS, and Mr. CHITTY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 108.]
  House adjourned at One o'clock.