Commons Sitting of 18 June 1886

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report Forestry* [No. 202]; Rivers Pollution (River Lea)* [No. 207].
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Patents Amendment* [289]; Law of Evidence Amendment [286] [House counted out].
Committee—Report—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Public Works (Loans)* [288].
Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Third Reading—Revising Barristers' Appointment [245]; Incumbents of Benefices Loans Extension* [276]; Merchant Shipping (Fishing Boats) Acts Amendment [274], and passed.
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Oxford University (Justices)* [280]; Revising Barristers (Ireland) [283]; Idiots* [287]; Probation of First Offenders * [39], and passed.
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Westminster Abbey Restoration* [281]; Shop Hours Regulation [216], and passed.
Third Reading—Public Works Loans (Tramways Ireland) [259]; Metropolitan Board of Works (Money)* [285], and passed.
Re-committed—Committee—Report—Considered as Amended—Third Reading—Sea Fishing Boats (Scotland) [270], and passed.
Withdrawn—Merchandise (Fraudulent Marking) [291]; Bankruptcy (Ireland)* [47]; Allotments and Small Holdings* [53].
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Second Reading—Local Government (Ireland) (Public Health) Act (No. 2)* [261].
Report—Local Government (No. 6)* [238]; Local Government (Gas)* [222]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) (No. 2)* [2461; Tramways (No. 1)* [195]; Pier and Harbour* [201]; Municipal Corporations (Scheme Confirmation)* [247].

QUESTIONS.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—THE REV. H. MILLS, CHAIRMAN OF THE KINETON PETTY SESSIONS, WARWICKSHIRE.
  MR. COBBasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a series of decisions reported in The Club and Institute Journal of June 12th to have been recently given by the Rev. Henry Mills, the Chairman of the Board of Magistrates for the Kineton Petty Sessional Division of Warwickshire; whether it is true, as therein reported, that Mr. Mills had refused, on the 26th of May, to exercise his power under the Licensing Act of 1842 to grant an interim authority to the widow of a licensed victualler at Northend to carry on the business of her late husband until the transfer of the licence could be legally effected; and, whether he will communicate with Mr. Mills as to the conduct of the business of the Sessions, and the language which he is reported to have used on the Bench?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT), in reply, said, the Secretary of State had no jurisdiction in the case of a magistrate acting as a Licensing Authority. That was altogether different from a case in which sentences were passed.
  1842
  It was, therefore, not a matter in which the Secretary of State could interfere.

  WAR DEPARTMENT—CALSHOT CASTLE, SOUTHAMPTON WATER.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended, in connection with the proposed fortifications, to destroy Calshot Castle, at the entrance of Southampton Water; and, if so, whether it would be possible to modify the plans, so that it might be spared?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN)&c.): There is no intention whatever of destroying Calshot Castle. Possibly the defence of Southampton Water may involve the erection of a new building; but, if so, care will be taken to make them harmonize with the ancient edifice.

  POST OFFICE (SCOTLAND)—MAIL TO THE OUTER HEBRIDES.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Mail steamer from Oban to the Outer Hebrides calls regularly at Lochmaddy; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay in fulfilling the promise on this subject made three months ago by the Secretary for Scotland?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): The contract for the mail service by steamer between Oban and the Outer Hebrides does not at present extend beyond Lochboisdale; and, therefore, the steamer does not call regularly at Lochmaddy. Tenders for an extension of the steamer service will, however, at once be invited, with a view, if possible, to such a call being made. The Post Office knows nothing of a promise made by the Secretary for Scotland in the matter; but I am making inquiry on the subject.

  POOR LAW (SCOTLAND)—MEMORIAL OF THE PAROCHIAL BOARDS OF SKYE.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether an answer can now be given to the Memorial on behalf

  1843
  of the Parochial Boards of Skye, praying for interim relief by way of advance to these Boards?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): An answer was sent to the Parochial Boards of Skye to-day, expressing the regret of the Treasury at their inability to accede to the Memorial.

  PARKS REGULATION ACT, 1872— RICHMOND PARK.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEasked the honourable Member for North West Staffordshire, Whether he is aware that, in consequence of the Guildford coach being lettered, it is not allowed to pass through Richmond Park, whereas cabs and hackney carriages are so permitted; and, whether he will use his influence to procure a remission of the prohibition referred to?
  MR. LEVESON GOWER (A LORD of the TREASURY): The Guildford coach is not permitted to go through Richmond Park, not on account of its being lettered, but because, by the published Rules for the Park, under the Parks Regulation Act, 1872, stage coaches as well as omnibuses and hearses are prohibited from entering. No such prohibition, however, extends to cabs and hackney carriages. I shall be happy to bring the matter under the notice of the First Commissioner, with a view to considering whether any relaxation would be practicable.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—COMMERCIAL RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE WEST INDIES.
  MR. BADEN-POWELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received that "further communication" (in reference to greater facilities for trade between the United States and the British West Indies) "from Washington, in reply to Lord Granville's Despatch to Sir L. West of February 12 1885," which Her Majesty's Government "were expecting" on March 11th; and, if so, whether he can inform the House as to the tenour of this communication, or give any further information as to the prospect of any progress being made in these
  1844
  negotiations for securing greater facilities of commercial intercourse between the British West Indies and the United States?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): The answer of the United States Government, which has been received, is to the effect that the treatment of the question of the improvement of commercial relations between the United States and neighbouring States must be dealt with as a whole, and that partial and local attempts in that direction must therefore be held in abeyance, until their fitness as parts of a comprehensive adjustment can be considered, and that the United States Government were, therefore, unable to offer the explicit views which Her Majesty's Government requested, or to indicate the particular measures which might prove applicable to British Colonies. If the hon. Member desires to see the Correspondence on the subject, there will be no objection to laying it upon the Table; but it does not add much to the information already possessed by the House.

  SOUTH AFRICA—ZULULAND—THE PAPERS.
  MR. BADEN-POWELLasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can state when the further Papers relating to Zululand (which were promised to be issued shortly after the Whitsuntide holidays) are to be presented, and whether they will be printed and circulated during the present Session; and, whether he can give any further information as to the proposed settlement of Zulu affairs?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN): My hon. Friend is not quite accurate when he states that I promised that these Papers should be issued shortly after the Whitsuntide holidays. All I did was to express a hope that they might then be produced. The negotiations between Sir Arthur Havelock, the Boers, and the Zulu Chiefs relating to Zululand are still pending, and are likely to be somewhat protracted. Under those circumstances, it would be premature, and might be detrimental to the public service, to give to my hon. Friend the information he asks for. For the same reason I cannot

  1845
  hold out to him any hope that the further Papers in question can be printed and circulated before the impending Dissolution.

  ARTIZANS' DWELLINGS ACT—THE BROOKE MARKET SITE, HOLBORN.
  COLONEL DUNCANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether a Report has been received at the Home Office of the inquiry held last year by Mr. Cubitt Nichols, under the Artizans' Dwellings Act, with reference to the Brooke Market Site in Holborn; and, whether the Report will be published?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT)(for Mr. CHILDERS)said, the Report had been received, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman could see it at the Home Office. It was not usual to publish these Reports.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. PORTER, J.P.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What action the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has decided on taking with reference to the conduct of Mr. Porter, J. P.?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I believe the Lord Chancellor has decided to suspend Mr. Porter from acting as a magistrate for a period of 12 months.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND)—THE DINGWALL SCHOOL BOARD.
  MR. MACDONALD CAMERON&c.)asked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to a report in The Inverness Courier of the 15th instant, in which it is stated that the Chairman of the Dingwall School Board had, on his own responsibility, changed the day of meeting of the Board from the 7th to the 11th instant, although the former date had been unanimously agreed to at the previous meeting of the Board on the 15th May; whether the Chairman had a legal right to do so; and, whether the Clerk to the Board had a right to refuse to attend the meeting that had been unanimously agreed to be held on the 7th instant?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.), in reply, said, that the rules for summoning meetings of school boards were governed by the standing orders of the board, and these were not subject to the review of the Department, and any dispute arising in regard to them could only be settled by a Court of Law. The same rule applied to the conduct of the Clerk of the Board.

  THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA— THE FISHERY DISPUTES.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What arrangements Her Majesty's Government have made with the Governments of the United States and the Dominion of Canada for the settlement of the recent fishery disputes?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): Negotiations on the subject are now in progress, and are being conducted in a friendly spirit; but they have not yet reached such a stage as would enable Her Majesty's Government to make any definite statement on the matter.

  ADMIRALTY—THE RESERVE AND CHANNEL SQUADRONS—THE MANŒUVRES.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, The nature and object of the manœuvres in which the Reserve and Channel Squadrons are to be engaged during the coming autumnal cruising, and where the manœuvres are to be conducted; and, how many men of the Coast Guard and Naval Reserves are to be embodied; together with the number and description of torpedo craft that are to accompany the squadrons?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. HIBBERT): The Reserve Squadron which has assembled at Portland will proceed to Berehaven to carry out torpedo mining exercises, afterwards sailing for the Coast of Spain and returning to England about the end of July. The Channel Squadron will, during the present month, be engaged in the neighbourhood of Portland on exercises of the usual character, especially in connection with a flotilla of torpedo boats. At the beginning of next month the Squadron will proceed

  1847
  to Queenstown and Berehaven to carry out torpedo mining operations, and afterwards on a cruise terminating at Milford Haven about the middle of August. It is contemplated to employ the Squadron for a few days in connection with the Army in operations illustrative of the attack and defence of harbours. The number of Coastguardsmen embodied for the cruise is 1,647, and there are eight officers of the Naval Reserve. The Admiralty have not yet decided on the composition of the torpedo flotilla to accompany the Squadron.
  COMMANDER BETHELLasked, whether the Admiralty would consider the desirability of relying entirely upon the resources of the Fleet for the mining operations, without preconcerted assistance from the Dockyards?
  MR. HIBBERT, in reply, said, they would be very glad to give every consideration to that, and he had no doubt that that was the intention.

  STATE-DIRECTED EMIGRATION—EMIGRATION BUREAUX.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government have arrived at any practical decision with regard to the establishment of emigration bureaux for the purpose of promoting, as promised early in the Session, a systematic system of State-directed emigration?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN): My hon. Friend is wrong in supposing that Her Majesty's Government have ever promised to promote a systematic scheme of State-directed emigration. What they did promise was, to establish one central office in London for the purpose of affording trustworthy information to persons desirous of emigrating to the Colonies. That promise they are, as I stated a week ago in answer to my noble Friend the Member for the Stratford-on-Avon Division of Warwickshire (Lord William Compton), now engaged in carrying out. Premises have been secured for an office in a central position, of which possession will be given from the 24th instant. The rooms are being fitted up, and it is hoped that in a very short time the active work of the office will be begun.

  NAVY—H.M.S. "COLLINGWOOD"— BURSTING OF THE 43-TON GUN.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the 43-ton gun which failed on board H.M.S. Collingwood, was originally intended to bear a service charge of 400 lbs. of gunpowder; whether its service charge was afterwards reduced to 295 lbs.; whether it failed under a charge of 222 lbs.; and, whether he will refer the following questions to the Committee appointed to inquire into its failure, and report the result to the House:—What was, under the conditions of failure, the calculated bursting strain in tons per square inch of this gun; what was, similarly, the strain with the charge employed; what would have been the strain with a charge of 400 lbs.; what was the principle of increasing twist applied in the rifling of this gun; is that principle generally employed in guns now constructed for Her Majesty's Service; was that principle employed in the guns that burst on the Thunderer, and on the Active, as well as on the Collingwood; is it not possible that the shot may have jammed in the rifling in all these cases, and thus have caused the failures; and, would it not be better to abandon the principle of increasing twist?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN)&c.): The gun referred to was not originally intended to bear a charge of 400 lbs. of gunpowder. Its service charge was determined on the introduction of cocoa powder to be 295 lbs., and it failed under a charge of 231¾ lbs.; having previously, as already stated in the House, been fired nine times with charges varying from 275 lbs. to 340 lbs. The remaining points in the hon. Member's Question are among those referred to the Special Committee which will report on the gun.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked whether the Report would be published?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That I cannot say till I have seen it.
  MR. CARBUTT&c.)asked, whether it was true that Colonel Maitland, in reading a paper on the design of this gun, stated that it was designed for a charge of 400 lbs.?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not aware of that.

  WAR DEPARTMENT—QUARTERMASTERS IN THE COMMISSARIAT AND ORDNANCE DEPARTMENTS.
  DR. CLARKasked the Secretary of State for War, Is it a fact that the Officers called Quartermasters in the Commissariat and Ordnance Departments perform precisely similar duties to the other Officers in these Departments, but that they are ineligible for promotion to higher rank; and, are Quartermasters appointed to different duties after forty years of age; and, if not, is there any other class of Officers in Her Majesty's Service, who, while serving and performing similar duties to their brother Officers, are debarred from promotion for the last fifteen years of their service?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN)&c.): The hon. Member's Question is of an argumentative character, and will hardly admit of a reply in the ordinary compass allotted to an answer. I may, however, say that there is a difference in the responsibility thrown upon these quartermasters and on other departmental officers. The cases of these quartermasters and of other departmental officers do not admit of comparison. The former are usually appointed when no longer young, and the rank and pay given them are in great measure regarded as rewards for past service. Their age and other circumstances would, in many cases, unfit them for further advancement to posts for which younger officers are required.

  THE MAURITIUS—SIR JOHN POPE HENNESSY.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether there has been received at the Colonial Office a petition or memorial from Mauritius complaining of the administration of Sir J. Pope Hennessy, the Governor, together with an address relating thereto, presented to the Governor, and signed by 6,500 persons; and, whether those documents, with any others relating to the same subject, will be laid before Parliament?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN): The Colonial Office has received a Petition or Memorial, such as
  1850
  that referred to by my hon. Friend; and if he will move for these documents, and any others relating to the same subject, I will consider whether they can be laid before Parliament.

  CIVIL SERVICE—LOWER DIVISION CLERKS AND WRITERS.
  MR ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to his statement that the case of the Civil Service Writers was under the consideration of the Treasury, Whether any decision has yet been arrived at with regard to it; and when it is likely to be settled?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): The question of the Civil Service Writers has been referred to a Departmental Committee, who have under their consideration all the schemes which have been suggested with respect to this rather complicated question. I can assure the hon. Member that no time is being lost by that Committee in bringing the matter to a settlement.
  MR. BARTLEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Minutes in respect to the Lower Division Clerks and the Civil Service Writers will be issued before the Dissolution?
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: As regards the Civil Service writers, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I have just given to the hon. Member for East Donegal. The consideration of the case of the Lower Division clerks is more advanced, and I hope to lay proposals on the subject before the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his approval very shortly. When the scheme has received his sanction it will be embodied in a Minute; but there is no possibility of that being done before the Dissolution.

  EGYPT (THE MILITARY EXPEDITION) —THE TROOPS AT ASSOUAN.
  MR. NORTON: asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that 150 deaths or thereabouts have recently taken place amongst the troops at Assouan, and several hundreds invalided; and, whether it is absolutely necessary that the troops should remain there during the present hot season?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN)&c.): There has, I regret to say, been considerable mortality and sickness among the troops at Assouan and in the neighbourhood. I cannot, however, be certain that the figure quoted is correct. Sir Frederick Stephenson has been requested to remove to healthier positions as much of the force as can possibly be spared from Assouan; but the actual proportion which must be left there is a question entirely for the decision of that officer. Steps have already been taken to send all the young and sickly soldiers to Cyprus, where I hope their strength will be soon restored.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— THE RIOTS AT SLIGO.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the case that the perpetrators of the outrage on the Roman Catholic Bishop's residence at Sligo have been arrested, and confessed their guilt; if it is true that all these three men are Roman Catholics, and that no Protestant had any hand in the outrage; whether the same men afterwards took part in the riots and incited the mob to acts of violence; and, if he will communicate to the House the confession made by all or any of the persons arrested?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): Two men, both of whom are Catholics, and one of whom is alleged to have been the ringleader in the riots at Sligo, have been arrested, and both state that they are guilty of having caused the injury to the wall of the Catholic Cathedral and the Bishop's Palace; and I understand, from a telegram which I have received to-day, that a third person has turned approver. Beyond that I have no information. As prosecutions are pending, I must refrain from expressing any opinion upon the case.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether he is aware, with reference to this affair, that the Catholic clergy of Sligo have been exerting themselves, both in the streets on Saturday night and in their places of worship on Sunday, for the prevention of the continuance of the disorder; whether he is aware that a Catholic priest has met a large crowd of
  1852
  people outside the town of Sligo, and induced them to go back, and that cordial relations exist between the Catholic clergy of Sligo and their Protestant brethren?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY, in reply, said, the Police Reports confirmed what his hon. Friend had stated as to the attitude of the Catholic clergy, and the cordial relations which existed between them and their Protestant brethren.

  ADMIRALTY—THE COASTGUARDSMEN —THE GENERAL ELECTION.
  ADMIRAL FIELDasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether arrangements can be made for the coastguard men now embarked for their summer cruise to return to their respective districts, for the purpose of recording their votes in time for the forthcoming Election, by shortening the duration of the cruise, or otherwise?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. HIBBERT): I regret that it will not be practicable to curtail the cruise of the Reserve Squadron in order that the Coastguardsmen shall be back for the General Election.

  WAR DEPARTMENT—THE DOCKYARDS —DISCHARGE OF WORKMEN AT WOOLWICH.
  MR. JOHN WILSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to allegations which from time to time have been specifically brought under the notice of the Department, with regard to the discharge of certain workmen from their employment in the Laboratory at Woolwich, presumably in consequence of their participation in the electioneering proceedings of last year, or of their connection with a Labour Protection League established among the workmen at the Royal Arsenal; whether among the workmen so dismissed are several who have been conspicuously active as Liberal workers, who have been as long as 11, 16, and 18 years in the Government employ, while, contrary to usage, others are retained who have been taken on very recently; and, whether he will undertake that an impartial and searching investigation shall be made into the truth of the complaints, and that Government employés may be enabled to

  1853
  exercise their political franchises and to take part in the forthcoming Election free from the apprehension of their being prejudiced thereby?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN)&c.): Representations of the kind referred to have been from time to time made to the Surveyor General of the Ordnance and myself, and the subject is at the present moment engaging our serious attention. The authorities responsible for the discharge of the workmen warmly rupudiated the charge of having been biased by any considerations of the kind alleged, and stated that the men in question had not been discharged because they belonged to any Labour League, nor because of their political opinions; and the Superintendent of the Royal Laboratory has asked for an opportunity of putting me in possession of all the facts of the case. I propose to inquire into the subject at the first available opportunity; but, in the meantime, I must say that, notwithstanding what I hear is a prevalent local opinion to the contrary, I cannot believe that any workman has been prejudiced by his political opinions, or is less free to act independently in the interests of one political Party than of another. Should any instance occurring during the forthcoming contest be brought under my notice of anything said or done on the part of persons in authority at Woolwich or elsewhere, prejudicing workmen in the exercise of their political rights, I shall have to give the most serious consideration to cases of any such offence against the general spirit of the Public Service.

  ISLANDS OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC— THE NEW HEBRIDES—ACTION OF FRANCE.
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: May I ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any further communications have passed between this country and the French Government, respecting the hoisting of the French flag at the New Hebrides?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): A telegram has been received to-day from Lord Lyons, stating that he saw M. De Freycinet this morning, who informed him that no intelligence had been received by the Government of the
  1854
  Republic of the hoisting of the French flag in the New Hebrides; but that the French Government had, nevertheless, yesterday telegraphed to the Governor of New Caledonia instructions that if the hoisting of the flag had taken place it should at once be discontinued. No intelligence confirming the other reports in the newspapers had been received by the French Government. M. De Freycinet promised to send details regarding the murders in the New Hebrides which had occasioned the expedition.

  ISLANDS OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC— NEW CALEDONIA—HER MAJESTY'S ACTING CONSUL.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): On the same subject I would ask, If the hon. Gentleman can now state who is the Acting Consul at New Caledonia who made the report; and, whether he will also say whether he still considers the matter one of great gravity, notwithstanding the positive and explicit assurances of the French Government?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): Mr. Leopold Layard is Acting British Consul in New Caledonia, in the absence on leave of his father, Mr. Edgar Layard, Her Majesty's Consul. Mr. Leopold Layard has already had experience in acting for his father, and is unpaid Vice Consul. He is not prohibited from trading, although there is reason to believe that he does not do so.

MOTION.

  PARLIAMENT—THE DISSOLUTION— ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he is able to tell the House on what day he expects the Dissolution to take place, and when the Writs will be issued?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): I cannot go any further than the statement of the Prime Minister—that the Dissolution will take place at the end of next week; but the actual day cannot yet be stated. That depends, I believe, on transactions elsewhere than in the House of Commons. I beg leave to move, Sir, that, Committee of Supply

  1855
  being closed, the House at its rising do adjourn until Monday.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House, at its rising, do adjourn till Monday next,"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer,)—put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  (Mr. Courtney, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)

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

  NAVY—NAVAL ADMINISTRATION.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    SIR JOHN COMMERELLsaid, that, although he did not wish to commence a naval debate, there were one or two questions of importance as regarded naval administration to which he wished to call attention. The first was that of contract work given out by the Lords of the Admiralty, which was not at the present time, and had not been for a number of years, in a very satisfactory condition. There was a very widespread feeling of dissatisfaction among contractors and private yards generally that contracts were not given out by the Board in the fairest and most just way, and that there was no continuity in the policy according to which they were given out. An instance of this was to be seen in the case of the Nile and the Trafalgar. No doubt, there might be some special reasons; but he thought that in general they ought to know the principle upon which contracts were given out, and also that they were not called upon to tender unless they were considered capable of fulfilling the contracts. The lowest tender should be accepted, which was not the case at present. Another point was our torpedo flotilla, which had been supplied by two or three firms, no doubt very excellent ones, and who had done their work well; but he believed that if these contracts were put up to more public competition they might get quicker and cheaper work. He thought, also, that there was a great deal of money wasted at the pre-
    1856
    sent time in the Dockyards, and that a list of prices should be published when contracts were given out, in the same way as that in which they were published in the case of contracts for stores, which would give a good deal of satisfaction to contractors generally. He was himself very strongly of opinion that a certain class of ships resembling merchantmen in type, such, for instance, as transports and store ships, should be built in private dockyards, in order that we might be able to meet all emergencies in time of war. Another question which had been a burning one for many years was that of overtime in our Dockyards. This was a most extravagant and unsatisfactory kind of work, as a man could not possibly do his work thoroughly after working for eight or ten hours a-day. He had discussed this matter with a good many men in our Dockyards, and he considered that the system of overtime was bad for the men, not only physically, but also morally, since they were tempted to spend the extra money in the public-house on their way home late at night.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. HIBBERT)said, he agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there was nothing in which greater care was necessary than the way in which contracts were given out; but he could not agree in the view the hon. and gallant Gentleman had expressed that the lowest tender should always be accepted. There were cases when it was not desirable to do so, and the Committee which had examined into the question of shipbuilding had reported against taking the lowest tender in all cases. The present policy of the Admiralty, however, was always to take the lowest tender where it was possible, except under certain circumstances where it was not considered desirable to do so. When they considered, for instance, the great importance of such vessels as the Nile and the Trafalgar, they would recognize how desirable it was that their machinery should be made by the best firms in the country. That machinery would cost something near to £200,000; and the House would see there was reason why they should act with the greatest caution in giving out work of that kind. In regard to the torpedo vessels, they were given out to three of the principal firms in the country, and

    1857
    at present, the Admiralty could not say which of the firms had turned out its work in the most complete manner. They intended, however, in the course of a few weeks to have a trial made of the vessels, and then they should be able to see which firm had done its duty best to the country. With respect to the question of overtime in the Dockyards, he entirely agreed with the hon. and gallant Member, and so strongly did he feel on the point that he had taken considerable trouble to reduce the sum allowed for overtime to the least possible amount, a very few thousand pounds having been taken in the Estimates of this year for that purpose, as compared with previous years; for instance, last year the sum taken was £40,000. He fully agreed that overtime was undesirable and wasteful, and should never be adopted where it was possible to avoid it.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—PURCHASERS OF GLEBE LANDS.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENsaid, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that he had on a former occasion drawn the attention of the House to the case of the glebe purchasers in Ireland. It was conceded then practically, he believed, that those purchasers were obliged to purchase their holdings, whether they liked it or not, and that they had never been able to get any relief from their burdens during all those years. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that their case was a very deplorable one, and that the Government were desirous of rescuing them from their unfortunate position. He (Mr. W. O'Brien) believed the Government were willing that a clause should have been introduced into the Land Purchase Bill if it had got into Committee; but, of course, they all knew what had become of the Land Purchase Bill. At all events, whether there was to be a Land Purchase Bill or not, he took it for granted that the Government would not find it very difficult in the Autumn Session to make some adequate provision for the relief of those poor men. All he asked in the meantime was that the Government would see that the Land Commissioners should not press too harshly
    1858
    or unduly for the old arrears that were due, those being the arrears that prevented them from getting any benefit under the Land Purchase Bill of 1885. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) on the last occasion admitted that the arrears due from those tenants were something very small. The arrears were a mere bagatelle to the Treasury, but a matter of great injustice to those poor tenants. He understood they were at present being a good deal harassed and threatened with legal proceedings for those arrears. Those arrears were due to an Irish fund, and nearly £1,000,000 of that fund had been already expended in wiping out arrears of a similar character, so that nobody would be damnified by the delay in their payment.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY)said, his hon. Friend (Mr. W. O'Brien) had given a very accurate account of what was in the mind of the Government, as expressed by himself and the Secretary to the Treasury not many weeks ago. They felt that the condition of the tenant purchasers of the glebe lands was a particularly sad one, and his hon. Friend had not at all overstated the meritorious attempts which those purchasers had made to keep up their instalments. He (Mr. John Morley) had to-day a Report from the Land Commissioners, stating that the whole amount of the arrears of all the purchase money standing out on mortgage on the 31st of March last was £41,000. But the remarkable part of the case was that of that £41,000 of arrears only £13,000 or £14,000 was due from tenant purchasers properly so-called. All the men who had bought their own holdings under the Act had paid up their purchase money, except a small sum of £13,000 or £14,000, and the balance between that sum and the £41,000 was due by those who were not purchasers of their own holdings but outside buyers. The question as to whether the Land Commissioners had exercised due discretion in enforcing payment of those arrears, he could not answer very authentically; but he could assure his hon. Friend, from his own knowledge, that there was no desire whatever on the part of the Commissioners to press with any harshness on

    1859
    those unfortunate purchasers during the interval, whether long or short, before legislation took place on the subject. The prospect of legislation was not a little obscure; but the lines upon which legislation should go, whether it should proceed from the Government or private Members, were pretty well admitted in all quarters of the House. It was the desire of the Government when they had an opportunity to legislate on this subject, and they would seek to extend to tenants under leases for 21 years the benefits of previous legislation confined to tenants from year to year. There would also, he understood, be little objection on the part of the Treasury to allow the arrears to be added to the capital sum due and to treat simple mortgages as instalment mortgages.

  ADMIRALTY—TORPEDO BOATS.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, that, as that would be the last opportunity of calling attention to the subject, he desired to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty as to the progress that was being made with the torpedo boats that had been promised. At the time of the Russian scare in 1884, the then Secretary to the Admiralty, the hon. Member for Hastings (Sir Thomas Brassey), gave the House a solemn pledge that the building of torpedo boats should be pushed forward with the utmost possible speed. We were then in the miserable position of having only eight torpedo boats, and of these only two were capable of keeping the sea. France had 60, and was increasing the number to 80. Of the 55 that had teen ordered, the House of Commons was promised 40; but of these only six had been delivered; and, so far as he understood, even if the present programme of the Admiralty was carried out, we should only have 25 at the end of the year. The contractors, it appeared, preferred to carry out foreign orders, on which they got more profit, and were not carrying out the orders of the Admiralty as promptly as they ought. Considering the state in which our Navy was for want of these boats, he thought the Admiralty ought to put strong pressure upon the contractors, in order to keep them up to their en-
    1860
    gagements, and that, if necessary, the penalties should be enforced.
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. DUFF)said, he would admit that there had been considerable delay in the delivery of the torpedo boats by private contractors. When the present Government came into Office, this delay was at once noticed; and, since that date, the contractors had been constantly pressing upon the different firms to deliver the boats. This pressure was still being brought to bear upon them. He did not think they would be in a satisfactory position until the Admiralty arranged to build some of its own torpedo boats, instead of depending upon private firms, and the expediency of taking that step was under the consideration of the Board.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—OMAGH PRISON.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. M. J. KENNYsaid, he would take that opportunity of raising a question as to the transfer of prisoners from Omagh to Derry Prison. In Omagh, the gaol occupied a position convenient for the county and the Province, and the Committee on the subject, a short time ago, reported not altogether unfavourably to Omagh Prison. The defects complained of had been remedied, though, certainly, it was after a long delay that the necessary improvements were made, and only after a Governor of the prison died from a disease contracted in the building. Instead of Omagh, it was now proposed to make Derry the central prison; but the gaol at the latter place was totally unfit for the purpose. It was old and antiquated in its arrangements, was one of the worst prisons in Ireland, and had not the advantage of being in a central position, standing as it did in the North-West of the Province. The cost of maintaining prisoners at Derry was also much heavier than at Omagh, while the amount of productive labour turned out at the latter place was much greater. Beyond that, the prison at Omagh might be made far more useful than it had been, for it had been only partially used. Instead of prisoners from Fermanagh being sent there, they had been sent elsewhere, though a considerable saving might be effected by sending prisoners there from Fermanagh, Donegal, Derry,

    1861
    and Armagh. It was the usual mismanagement of the Irish Prisons Board that prevented this being done, and now they proposed to change the prison to a far less central position, and that at an increased cost. On what grounds had they proceeded in their action? So far as he knew, all the arguments were against the change.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY)said, he could not profess to answer the Question put to him, as regarded this prison, with a thorough knowledge of all the circumstances. But the subject was raised in the form of a Question a short time since, and he then looked through the Papers in relation to the matter. The impression made upon his mind by the information he gathered was that the Prisons Board had been well advised in their action, and had acted prudently. Their policy was guided by the recommendations of the Prisons Commission, which, as the hon. Member would recollect, sat in Ireland not long since, and made careful inquiry into the whole subject. The change in the status of Omagh Prison was entirely in conformity with the spirit of those recommendations.
    Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

  REVISING BARRISTERS' APPOINTMENT BILL.— [BILL 245.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Secretary Childers.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Power to appoint additional revising barristers).
  On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, to strike out Sub-section 5.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

  REVISING BARRISTERS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 283.]
  (Mr. John Morley, Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. John Morley.)
  MR. LEWISsaid he should like to know whether Her Majesty's Government thought there was any necessity for additional Revising Barristers in Ireland, seeing that in a great many counties there would be no contests and the Revising Barristers' work would be of a merely formal character. The appointment of one additional Revising Barrister in Ireland, under the circumstances, would be a scandal, yet, by the Bill, it was proposed to appoint 12.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY)said, that the Government were bound to provide for special emergencies, for there was no certainty of there being no contests in the Registration Courts, although a great number might not be anticipated. It was therefore necessary to make some provision. Last year 39 additional Revising Barristers were appointed in Ireland; but, on the present occasion, probably 12 at most would meet the emergency. That would be the outside number; but it might not be necessary to appoint so many. He was informed that unless some additional Barristers were appointed, it was doubtful whether the work could be done in time.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he was decidedly of opinion that, although nothing like so many additional Revising Barristers would be required as last year, there would still be necessity for some.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Power to appoint additional revising barristers).
  MR. LEWIS: I do not intend to make a speech upon this subject again, and I do not intend to divide

  1863
  the Committee upon it; but, notwithstanding what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, I repeat, most emphatically, that no one need go further in regard to the last Election than the counties of Mayo, Kerry, and Cork, or indeed the whole of the South of Ireland, to know that there was practically an entire absence of opposition, and that à fortiori registration was unnecessary. The right hon. Gentleman intimates that the appointment of some 12 additional Revising Barristers is contemplated. I do not know whether I shall have a seat in the next Parliament, or not; but if I have, I shall certainly call attention to the manner in which the provisions of this Bill shall have been carried out, and the amount of work executed, which I need scarcely say I shall, in the meantime, narrowly watch. I believe the appointment of additional Revising Barristers to be a great scandal. I have no hesitation in saying again, that the appointment of only one additional Revising Barrister will be a great scandal. Prior to the extension of the franchise, there were many counties in Ireland which were capable of being contested by the two great political Parties; but in a largo majority of cases, since the extension of the franchise, there is nothing like effective or active opposition. Election contests are altogether dead, and, therefore, à fortiori, there is no necessity for registration. I believe that there are no grounds whatever for the introduction of this Bill, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland has certainly given none. I shall watch the matter most narrowly. No doubt, many barristers will apply for these appointments; and when it is known that there are to be 12 extra appointments, I have very little doubt that there will be at least 244 applications for them, notwithstanding the fact that the pay is by no means excessive. Speaking with considerable knowledge upon the matter, I think it is more than probable that many of the Revising Barristers appointed this year, will have nothing but mere formal work to do.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I did not say that 12 new appointments would absolutely be made, but that, in my opinion, 12 was the outside number. If there are 244 applications, all I can say is that about 240 of those who make them
  1864
  will probably find that they have been misled.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Interpretation) agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (TRAMWAYS IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 259.]
(Mr. Henry H. Fowler, Mr. John Morley.)

THIRD READING.
Order for Third Reading read.
MR. BIGGARsaid, he wished to enter a protest against the lending of public money on inadequate security, as proposed by the Bill, and he would also assert that the Bill gave an unfair preference to contractors for particular tramways.
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER)said, he thought that the case must be a good one which received the approval of the strict, cautious, and capable officials who examined closely into all such matters before they came under the notice of the Secretary to the Treasury.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

SEA FISHING BOATS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [Lords].— [BILL 270.]
(Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)

THIRD READING.
Order for Third Reading read.
On Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND, Bill re-committed in respect of an Amendment and two New Clauses.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
On Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND, Clause relating to transfer of boats struck out of the Bill.
On Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND, the following new Clauses added:—Clause relating to transfer of boats; and Clause respecting exemption from Stamp Duty.
Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

MERCHANDISE (FRAUDULENT MARKING) BILL.— [BILL 291.]
(Mr. Mundella, Mr. Acland.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading road.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. C. T. D. Acland.)
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that he had made application for a copy of the Bill, and had been informed that it was not yet printed. He would not, however, object to the second reading of the Bill, which he believed was approved by the Cutlers' Company, if such opposition would prevent the measure passing during the present Session. He was very anxious that a measure to prevent false marking should pass this Session. The subject-matter was of great importance—especially to the working classes of Sheffield and other large towns—and was embodied in a Bill which he himself introduced early in the present Session. His hon. Friends the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen), for Darwen (Viscount Cranborne), for Liverpool (Mr. Baden-Powell), and for Hallam (Mr. Stuart-Wortley), had backed the Bill.
THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. D. ACLAND)said, he had been under the impression that the Bill had been printed and circulated; but that not being the case, he would not now press for the second reading.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question, "That the said Order be discharged,"—(Mr. C. T. D. Acland,)—put, and agreed to.
Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (FISHING BOATS) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
(Mr. Mundella, Mr. Acland.)

[BILL 274.] COMMITTEE.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clauses 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 6 (Accounts to be rendered by owners to crews paid by share).
On Motion of Mr. C. T. D. ACLAND, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, line 22, after "exceeding," insert "five."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 (Certificates of service to be issued to second hands until the 1st of May, 1877).
On Motion of Mr. C. T. D. ACLAND, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, line 23, leave out "May," and insert "September."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 (Provisions of 4C & 47 Vict. c. 41, s. 4 2, as to certificates of competency to apply to second hands as well as skippers).
On Motion of Mr. C. T. D. ACLAND, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, line 34, leave out "May," and insert "September."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 separately agreed to.
Clause 11 (Regulations respecting conveyance of fish from trawlers for safety of life).
On Motion of Mr. C. T. D. ACLAND, the following Amendment made:—In page 4, line 3, at end of Sub-section (2), insert—
"Provided always, That every regulation made by the Board of Trade under this subsection shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and no such regulation shall come into operation until the expiration of one month thereafter."
On Motion of Mr. HENEAGE, the following Amendment made:—In page 4, line 3, at end of Sub-section (2), add—
"Provided, That such regulations shall not have any effect or operation unless and until the same has been laid before both Houses of Parliament; and if any such regulations shall be disapproved of by either House of Parliament within one month after the game shall have been so laid before Parliament, such rules, or such parts thereof as shall be disapproved of, shall not be enforced."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Clauses agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

SHOP HOURS REGULATION BILL.
(Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Burt, Mr. E. Macnaghten, Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Rathbone.)

[BILL 216.] CONSIDERATION.
Bill, as amended, considered.
Clause 9 (Exemption of members of the same family).
MR. WESTLAKE, in moving the rejection of the clause,

1867
said, it did not appear what constituted being one of the family, and he thought that the clause would only lead to litigation. There was no necessity for the clause at all. If it was thought desirable to declare the excessive employment of young persons to be improper and criminal, he did not see why an exception should be made in the case of young persons who were members of an employer's family. The word "family" might include servants; and, besides, there was, in his opinion, no reason why they should give power in the Bill to work their own children longer than the Bill allowed them to work their ordinary employés.
Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 9.—(Mr. Westlake.)
Question proposed, "That Clause 9 stand part of the Bill."
MR. LEWISsaid, he objected to the way in which the House had been treated in connection with this Bill. Two hours of yesterday's Sitting were occupied in endeavouring to give shape to the Bill, and the result was still very unsatisfactory. He protested against that sort of legislation at the end of the Session, in the absence of the Home Secretary and of the promoters of the Bill, and in such a very thin House.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.)said, he thought that the Bill would be a somewhat dangerous one to pass without the clause.
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 103; Noes 15: Majority 88.—(Div. List, No. 137.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir John Lubbock.)
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK, in moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read the third time that day three months, said, he must protest against contentious Business being taken after the statement of the Prime Minister that it should not. He objected to the Bill because he was of opinion that such a mischievous piece of legislation, belonging to the harum-scarum order, should not be allowed to pass into law.
1868
The whole drafting of the Bill was lax. No provision was made for enforcing its provisions, and it infringed the principle of free trade. The Bill should be withdrawn this year, and brought forward on a more suitable occasion next Session, in order that it might be thoroughly considered and discussed.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
SIR JOHN LUBBOCK, in pressing the necessity that existed for reading the Bill the third time, said, it had been most carefully considered by a Select Committee and by the Committee of the House, whilst its principle, on the second reading, was accepted without a division. With one exception, in which the Bill was strengthened, and the omission of the power of relaxation intrusted to the Home Secretary, the Amendments passed last night were mainly verbal. The Select Committee were, with one exception, in favour of the Bill; and even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-East Manchester (Sir James Fergusson), who still objected to the Bill, himself admitted the gravity of the evil. The omission of Clause 9, against which he voted just now, would rather have strengthened the Bill; but it only related to members of one family, and parents were not likely to overwork their own children. He hoped the House would assent to the third reading.
MR. LEWISsaid, that if the Bill had been considered thoroughly by the Select Committee, it was strange to find that it had been considerably altered in its passage through the Committee of the House. As a matter of fact, the Bill was an entirely different measure from that which came before the Select Committee. It now included public-houses, whereas, formerly, the Committee proposed to exclude them, and the dispensatory power to be placed in the hands of the Home Secretary was taken away. It was the worst drawn Bill he had seen, and a more unworkable measure had probably never been presented to Parliament.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 17: Majority 67.—(Div. List, No. 138.)
Main Question put.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

LAW OF EVIDENCE AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].
(Sir Henry James.)

[BILL 286.] SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
SIR HENRY JAMES, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to enable persons charged with criminal offences, if they wished it, to be witnesses in their own behalf. The measure came before them clothed with great authority, for not only had that House, on several occasions, affirmed its principle, but it had twice or thrice received the assent of the House of Lords, and one of the last speeches which the late Earl Cairns had made was in support of an analogous measure. The principle had also been recently tested in measures relating to explosives and to offences against young girls. The Explosives Act contained a clause enabling a person charged with an offence under it to give evidence; and in a subsequent trial one of the prisoners availed himself of the privilege. If he had not done so it was almost certain he would have been convicted; but by the evidence he gave on examination-in-chief and on cross-examination he obtained his acquittal. Last Parliament a similar provision was introduced into the Criminal Law Amendment Act, because it was felt that charges might be made under that Act against innocent persons who alone could give explanations that would establish their innocence. This Bill would make the law general. The main ground upon which he recommended it to the favourable consideration of the House was that, although it might enable a proved guilty person to escape, yet that was a small matter compared with the additional safeguard it would provide in connection with the acquittal of the innocent, which would be facilitated by the change. He understood that Irish Members objected to the Bill being extended to Ireland. He should have wished to see the Criminal Law ad-
1870
ministered uniformly, believing that the change would be equally advantageous in both countries, and he trusted the opposition of the Irish Members would not be persisted in. He now moved the second reading of the Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Henry James.)
MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought that a Bill of this importance and magnitude, effecting, as it did, a fundamental change in the Law of Evidence, should not be proceeded with under the circumstances in which the House was at that time placed, Parliament being about to expire, and when so few Members were present. He believed that the Bill, if it became law, would be exceedingly dangerous in its operation, especially if it were extended to Ireland. ["Oh, oh!"] At all events, the operation of the Bill in that country would not be quite the same as it might be in England. In Ireland persons might be charged with offences of a political complexion, and, although they might be innocent, they would rather run the risk of conviction than answer questions which might be put to them with ulterior objects if they became witnesses. In such cases the silence of accused persons would be regarded as evidence of guilt, and thus the measure would unjustly facilitate the conviction of innocent persons. He feared if the principle were established in England the disposition to extend it to Ireland would be irresistible. From the number of blocks on the Paper, however, the prospect of proceeding with the Bill in Committee seemed very slight.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT)said, that if his right hon. and learned Friend (Sir Henry James) desired to facilitate the passing of the Bill, he ought not to have begun by introducing the question of Home Rule. He (Sir William Harcourt) did not himself think it desirable that there should be a different rule of law for England and Ireland; and, as he was in favour of the Bill, he would support the second reading. It was one which deserved the full consideration of the House. Upon it might depend the liberties, the lives, and the property of Her Majesty's subjects. He had come to the conclusion that, on the whole, it would be

1871
better that men accused should have the opportunity of giving evidence to exculpate themselves from serious charges, and to explain circumstances which would explain their innocence. At the same time, they should, by no means whatever, be compelled to do so. There were many cases in which people who had been convicted would have been acquitted if they could have given evidence. At the same time, he could understand where it would be very inconvenient for a prisoner to be cross-examined; but he thought it would be the duty of the Judge to restrain such power of cross-examination. In his opinion, the Bill would introduce a judicious change in the Criminal Law, and, therefore, he would support it; but he would oppose the measure if it made a distinction between the law of England and Ireland.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, he also hoped that the Bill would be read a second time. In prosecutions for sending unseaworthy ships to sea, prisoners had been allowed to give evidence with very great advantage to themselves. There had been seven or eight important trials, in which it would have gone very hard with the accused if they had not been allowed to give evidence. It was said that silence would be prejudicial to the prisoner; but, in a very important case, the Judge adopted the view that no presumption was to be drawn from the silence of the prisoner, and, certainly, no latitude of cross-examination would be allowed. Anything like an unfair cross-examination into the past life of the accused would be contrary to the spirit of the Bill; and any Judge trying the case would be bound to prevent such a cross-examination. It would be an important step to make the principle of the Bill applicable to England. If Irish Representatives wished to make a distinction between England and Ireland in that respect, they could bring up an Amendment in Committee. He trusted, however, that that would not be done; because he had no doubt that Judges were disposed to administer the law as fairly in Ireland as in England. The late Sir John Holker, and almost all the distinguished men who had considered the question for years past, were in favour of the principle of the Bill, and he trusted that the House would recognize it and would
1872
allow this amendment of the law to be a redeeming feature of the legislation of the present Session, and that it would be applied not only to England, but to Ireland.
MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he felt a double difficulty in opposing the second reading of the Bill. First, although he thought that a measure of such great importance should not be taken hastily, in a very thin House, at the end of the Session, he would admit that he had supported, during the last few days, several Bills against which similar objections had been urged; and, next, he conceded, that every light ought to be thrown upon each case by all possible evidence. He did not object to the proposal to make the wife or husband of an accused person a competent witness, nor did he object to allowing an accused person to tender himself, or herself, as a witness; but he understood the present Bill, with a very slight exception, proposed to make the law as to evidence in criminal prosecutions the same as it was in France. At every stage of the proceedings, the prisoner might be examined by the magistrate; the only difference being that, by this Bill, the prisoner might refuse, but, in France, he could not. Unfortunately, unless magistrates in each case explained the Statute, an accused person would not know that he might withhold his consent. In troubled times, for a man charged with, a political offence, the Bill opened up a new procedure. At so late a period of the Session, he did not think that a matter involving such a serious change in the practice of our Courts could be properly considered. He did not know whether he was justified in drawing a distinction between cases of political crime and cases of ordinary crime; but it was a distinction which the public mind had ever drawn in this country. In cases of alleged seditious speeches, as in the Chartist times, or of alleged unlawful assembling, as in St. Peter's Fields in 1819, the provisions of the Bill might be used with terrific effect against poor and ignorant men. He would appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman who introduced the Bill (Sir Henry James) whether it was necessary, in the interests of public justice, to press this matter at the end of the Session. If it were proposed that the taking of evidence should only be on a trial which would take place before

1873
a Judge of the Superior Court, he should not have so much objection to the Bill; for he believed that there was no Judge of the High Court who, in a political prosecution, would allow himself to strain any form of procedure against the prisoner. He (Mr. Bradlaugh) had often said, both in this and in other countries, that no English prisoner need fear to trust his life to the impartiality of any Judge of our High Court, even though a political opponent. But he (Mr. Bradlaugh) could not pretend to have the same confidence in the unpaid magistracy, or even in the stipendiary magistrates. For the unpaid magistracy, he should not like to trust them, in poaching cases, or in those of trespass in pursuit of game, with the uncontrolled right to examine the prisoner before them. It was said that, under the Bill, a prisoner was not bound to answer; but how was a poor and ignorant man to know that? If it were provided that some kind of caution should be given by the magistrate, as was now provided by statute, where the magistrate, before committing a prisoner for trial, asked if he desired to make any statement, a great deal of his objection would be done away with. Still, he thought that the matter was not pressing, and he hoped the House would not read the Bill a second time. He trusted that he would not be thought to be opposing the Bill in any captious spirit, but that it would be seen he was only trying to see that no injustice should be done to persons in a most difficult position.
MR. HUNTERsaid, he was very much delighted, for he thought it was a most refreshing tiling, although the House would probably be much surprised, to hear a thoroughly Tory anti-Reform speech from the hon. Member for Northampton. This reform had been advocated by Reformers for many generations; and to hear the hon. Member go against it, was enough to make the ghost of Jeremy Bentham rise from his grave to haunt him. The Bill was simply the logical consequence of a long series of Acts for the amendment of the law to which Sir Samuel Romilly gave the initiative, and that reform was advocated alike by Liberal and Conservative lawyers. While, however, he (Mr. Hunter) supported the principle of
1874
the Bill, he was quite willing that Ireland should be excluded from its scope; inasmuch as it was strongly opposed by the Irish people, under the impression that it would operate unfairly and harshly against prisoners. He, however, would point out that that had not been the result in Scotland, where persons accused of offences were examined before the Sheriff, with a result equally valuable in detecting the guilty, and in clearing the innocent.
MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENsaid, that he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir Henry James) had, by the opposition which his Bill had evoked, seen the un-wisdom of forcing it upon the House after the understanding entered into by the Prime Minister that no measures of a contentious character should be considered this Session. The Irish Members regarded the Bill as eminently contentious. Having regard to the class of men who hitherto had been in a position to manipulate Party and political trials in Ireland, he was firmly persuaded that this Bill would be the means of working the most frightful injustice in Ireland. Having also regard to the time of the Session, and the undertaking of the Prime Minister that no contentious Business should be forced upon the House, he would appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to proceed with the Bill. Even if he carried the second reading of the Bill, it would be nothing more than a barren victory; for many of his (Mr. O'Brien's) hon. Friends, who were then absent, would return in their full strength on Monday for another purpose, and the prospects of the Bill for that Session would be hopeless. He begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
MR. BLAINEseconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. W. O'Brien.)
The House divided:—Ayes 37; Noes 40: Majority 3.—(Div. List, No. 139.)
Original Question again proposed.
MR. MOLLOYsaid, he hoped that now the opinion of the House had been so strongly expressed, the right hon. and learned Gen-

1875
tleman who had introduced the Bill would withdraw it. He (Mr. Molloy) objected to the measure, in its present form, not only for Ireland, but for England.
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
House adjourned at Eight o'clock till Monday next.