VOTE ON ACCOUNT.

HC Deb 28 February 1890 vol 341 cc1523-611

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £3,725.103, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, viz:—

CIVIL SERVICES.
CLASS I.
	£
Royal Palaces and Marlborough House	5,000
Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens	12,000
Public Buildings, Great Britain	30,000
Admiralty, Extension of Buildings	4,000
Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain	8,000
Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain	6,000
Diplomatic and Consular Buildings	7,000
Revenue Department Buildings	56,000
Surveys of the United Kingdom	40,000
Harbours, &c. under Board of Trade, and Lighthouses abroad	3,000
Peterhead Harbour	6,000
Caledonian Canal	1,000
Rates on Government Property (Great Britain and Ireland)	83,000
Public Works and Buildings, Ireland	60,000
CLASS II.
United Kingdom and England:—
House of Lords, Offices	6,000
House of Commons, Offices	6,000
Treasury and Subordinates Departments	15,000
Home Office and Subordinate Departments	15,000
Foreign Office	10,000
Colonial Office	6,000
Privy Council Office and Subordinate Departments	2,500
Board of Trade and Subordinate Departments	27,000
Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade	3
Board of Agriculture	6,000
Charity Commission	6,000
Civil Service Commission	7,000
Exchequer and Audit Department	10,000
Friendly Societies, Registry	1,500
Local Government Board	27,000
Lunacy Commission	2,000
Mercantile Marine Funds Grant in Aid	— —
Mint (including Coinage)	20,000
National Debt Office	2,600
Public Works Loan Commission	1,500
Record Office	4,000
Registrar General's Office	8,000
Stationery Office and Printing	70,000
Woods, Forests, &c, Office of	6,000
Works and Public Buildings, Office of	8,000
Secret Service	6,000
Scotland:—
Secretary for Scotland	2,000
Fishery Board	4,000
Lunacy Commission	1,200
Registrar General's Office	1,000
Board of Supervision	1,500
Ireland:—
Lord Lieutenant and Chief Secretary	8,000
Charitable Donations and Bequests Office	400
Local Government Board	15,000
Public Works Office	10,000
Record Office	1,000
Registrar General's Office	3,000
Valuation and Boundary Survey	6,000

CLASS III.
United Kingdom and England:—
Law Charges	12,000
Miscellaneous Legal Expenses	8,000
Supreme Court of Judicature and Land Registry	65,000
County Courts	20,000
Police Courts (London and Sheerness)	3,000
Police, England and Wales	10,000
Prisons, England and the Colonies	110,000
Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain	80,000
Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum	6,000
Scotland:—
Lord Advocate, and Law Charges and Courts of Law	10,000
Register House	6,000
Crofters' Commission	1,500
Prisons, Scotland	15,000
Ireland:—
Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions	15,000
Supreme Court of Judicature, and other Legal Departments	20,000
Land Commission	20,000
County Court Officers, &c.	18,000
Dublin Metropolitan Police, &c.	20,000
Constabulary	300,000
Prisons, Ireland	20,000
Reformatory and Industrial Schools	30,000
Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum	1,500
CLASS IV.
United Kingdom and England:—
Public Education, England and Wales	800,000
Science and Art Department, United Kingdom	45,000
British Museum	27,000
National Gallery	3,000
National Portrait Gallery	600
Learned Societies, United Kingdom	7,000
Universities and Colleges, Great Britain	10,000
London University	3,000
Scotland:—
Public Education	160,000
National Gallery	400
Ireland:—
Public Education	200,000
Endowed Schools Commissioners	200
National Gallery	300
Queen's Colleges	500
CLASS V.
Diplomatic Services and Consular Services	100,000
Slave Trade Services	8,500
Colonial Services, including South Africa	28,000
Cyprus, Grant in Aid	— —
Subsidies to Telegraph Companies, &c.	16,000
CLASS VI.
Superannuation and Retired Allowances	120,000

Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, &c.	1,000
Friendly Societies Deficiency	— —
Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain	500
Pauper Lunatics, Ireland	70,000
Hospitals and Charities, Ireland.	4,000
CLASS VII.
Temporary Commissions	9,000
Miscellaneous Expenses	4,000
Total for Civil Services	£3,055,103

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
Customs	100,000
Inland Revenue	100,000
Post Office	100,000
Post Office Packet Service	20,000
Post Office Telegraphs	350,000
Total for Revenue Departments	£670,000
Grand Total	£3,725,103

(4.40.) MR. BUCHANAN (Edinburgh, W.)

I desire, Sir, to raise the question which I attempted to bring before the House before the Speaker left the Chair. I should like to state very shortly what has actually taken place with regard to this matter, and what the proposals of the Government, and the action they desire to take, really amount to. The whole subject originated in the Estimates Procedure Committee, 1888, which considered the possibility of grouping the Votes in Supply, and a scheme was submitted to them, which was by no means identical in essence or detail with the scheme or which the Estimates now before the Committee is based. The recommendation of the Procedure Committee is that the scheme should be submitted to the consideration of the Treasury with a view to a scheme being submitted to the House. In the autumn of 1888 a different scheme was sent to the Public Accounts Committee, and the scheme upon which the arrangement of the present Estimates is based is a modification of the scheme of the Public Accounts Committee. That scheme should have received the approval of the House before being applied to the Estimates. On April 30, 1889, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it could only be with the full assent of the House that the Government would take any steps to limit discussion on the Votes. The subject is not merely a technical or financial one. It is closely connected with the efficient conduct of the business of the House. The discussions in Committee of Supply are upon questions of administration, and as such they are highly valued by hon. Members on both sides of the House. No doubt questions of administration are sometimes discussed in Committee at undue length; but that is comparatively a small evil, for it is by the discussion of those questions that the way is paved for substantial reforms. Discussions in Supply are very highly valued by hon. Members on both sides of this House save, perhaps, those who sit on the two Front Benches. The financial value of the discussion, of course, has often been considered and often minimised. Discussions on questions of administration are often doubtless continued at very great length and go into minute details; but, taking them all round, they are essentially of very great value for legislation and the effective discharge of their duties by Members of this House. Speaking particularly on behalf of Scotland and a body of Members who form a small minority in this House, I may say that these discussions in Committee of Supply afford us practically the only opportunity we have of bringing forward subjects in which we are interested and which cannot otherwise gain the general attention of the House. I urge upon independent Members of this House not to allow any substantial limitations of their opportunities for discussion until they have a fuller knowledge of what the limitations are and have had the chance of debating the proposals in detail before agreeing to them. We are practically, however, excluded from a due consideration of them—at any rate, for this Session—and we are required to act upon the proposals and vote estimates in accordance with them. In the short time that has been at disposal it is very difficult for a Member of this House to gather the extent of the alteration which has been made by the scheme now submitted. First of all, large and important Votes on which discussions took place in former years are being put together. The Diplomatic and Consular Votes are no longer taken separately—Votes which last Session formed almost the only opportunity we had of discussing Foreign Affairs. The Colonial and South African Votes, too, are no longer capable of being discussed as separate Votes; they are to be taken as a single Vote. Undoubtedly, we have hitherto debated these Votes separately, not as to financial detail, but in regard to our colonial administration, which is interesting not merely to Members of this House, but to the public. Then the Votes of the Chief Secretary and of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland are taken as a single Vote. Everyone is aware that these two Votes form the subject of discussions in this House. Similarly, with regard to subordinate Departments, large numbers of which, hitherto separate, have been put together. Take the Scottish Votes. This scheme does not include under one Vote all discussion of Scotch matters as did the scheme submitted to the Public Accounts Committee, but it considerably minimises our opportunities. The Vote for the Registrar General for Scotland and another Vote under Class II. have disappeared from the list. Then the Exchequer Vote for Scotland; that has also disappeared, and I think it has been distributed among several Votes. I cannot find it, but amongst the payments connected with the Treasury under the new scheme is the "Exchequer (Scotland)— Salaries only." The Exchequer (Scotland) Vote has disappeared.

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. W. L. JACKSON, Leeds)

It is in Class VII.

MR. BUCHANAN

That makes it still more confusing than I imagined it to be, and it only illustrates the very great difficulty we shall have in the future in knowing exactly what we are voting. Take, for example, the Diplomatic and Consular Buildings Vote. We spent £26,000 last year (the estimate for this year is £40,000), and a Vote of £7,000 on account is asked for to-night. I am quite at a loss to understand this Vote, and we are left perfectly in the dark by the Government as to whether this is a large and substantial increase in the expenses, or whether it is due to the new scheme now being adopted. No doubt when we have the Memorandum of the changes submitted to us, we will be able to understand it. It is essentially the duty of Her Majesty's Government, before they insert in the Estimates alterations of this sort, to lay a statement before the House and Committee that we may see with what we are dealing. The Public Accounts Committee had a scheme submitted to them in 1888, and they reported. According to two letters addressed to the Chairman of the Committee by the Secretary to the Treasury — the Treasury, not the Government—found it desirable, comparing the Estimates of 1890–91, to effect some rearrangement of the Votes, the result being a reduction of the number of Votes. As I understand, a statement explanatory of that was not submitted at the same time.

SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH

A statement was submitted at the time. Unfortunately, it has not been printed.

MR. BUCHANAN

Of course it is not printed. I am sorry I fell into the error. But it was only laid on the Table last night without notice being put upon the Paper. Had proper notice been given, probably it would have saved a great deal of discussion. I understand that part of the scheme before the Procedure Committee, but not included here, was that the Votes should go before a Select Committee, who should make certain of the Votes the subject of several large Resolutions. That has all fallen out. I think such a substantial alteration in the financial procedure of the country as that now proposed ought certainly to be considered by the Government before submitting it to the House. I earnestly call the attention of hon. Members to the subject as one which vitally affects their interests not only in respect of their financial control, but as regards the effective discharge of their duty in discussing the conduct of the Administration. Though no doubt a little of the diminution of the number of Votes is due to the Local Government Act and other causes, yet this is an alteration of a very different character, and one of such importance that it ought to have been submitted to this House. I beg, Sir, to move to report Progress, and that you ask leave to sit again.

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

(5.2.) THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's, Hanover Square)

I am sorry that the hon. Member takes so serious a view of the situation. The Government believe that, in submitting the accounts in the present form, they are carrying out the recommendation of the Committee which sat on the question. If the method of presenting the accounts had been brought before the House endless debate would have arisen almost on every group of Votes. The hon. Member, and perhaps some others, have somewhat magnified the importance of the changes which have been made. It is said that Votes have been grouped together, each of which deserve the fullest discussion. But I can assure the Committee that there is no single Vote or sub-head of a Vote which, under the new system, cannot be discussed as amply as under the old, though fewer Votes will be presented. I may appeal to the Members of the Committee on Public Accounts, certainly to those who were on the previous Committee whether they do not think the system of grouping advantageous. The hon. Member himself doubted the value of a system of grouping, and opposed that system on the Committee. But it was distinctly recommended by the Committee, who said that some convenience and probably some economy of time would result from the adoption of a system of grouping two or more Votes which were now separately submitted to the Committee of Supply. It will be remembered that it was the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) who started the idea, that the proceedings of Supply might be simplified by grouping and presenting fewer Votes to the House. It may be that though each Vote may be discussed as amply as before, there will be less temptation, if I may say so, to frequent, discussion. The grouping system has commended itself to the majority of the House. It might have been better to have referred the matter to the Committee on Public Accounts, rather than to put the Votes in the amended form at once before the House, but I shall be surprised if any Member of that Committee objects to the scheme of the Government as a whole.

An hon. MEMBER

It should have been referred to the House.

MR. GOSCHEN

I thought the complaint was that we had not referred it to the Committee on Public Accounts.

(5.5) SIR U.KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH

To make it clear, I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the complaint of the Public Accounts Committee is that, instead of submitting a scheme of the proposed changes first to the House, and through the House to the Committee, the Government first made the changes in the mode of submitting the Estimates, and then came to the Public Accounts Committee with the changes already adopted, and asked them to criticise or adopt those changes. The changes were already made before the Committee were consulted. That is not the plan which the Procedure Committee recommended. The Government have not consulted either the House or the Public Accounts Committee.

(5.7.) MR. GOSCHEN

I thought the complaint was that we had not submitted the changes to the Public Accounts Committee, but I now find that the Committee do not make a complaint.

(5.7.) SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH

I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman does not understand me. It is, in one sense, a complaint because the change has been made before either the House or the Public Accounts Committee had an opportunity of considering the scheme. The Committee do complain of the way in which they have been treated.

(5.8.) MR. GOSCHEN

The right hon. Member interrupted me too soon. If the House had been consulted, the reform proposed would have been delayed for another Session. If the House studies the accounts in this new form, as it cannot fail to do in the practical working of the scheme, they will find it more convenient than the old. As to the complaint that we are only referring the change to the Public Accounts Committee rafter it has been effected, I can assure the hon. Member that we only propose to refer the matter to the Committee, because, from what we have learnt, we believe it to be their desire to have the Matter before them. But I am quite willing even now to adopt any course which the right hon. Gentleman, on consultation with the Government, may desire for bringing the matter before the Public Accounts Committee. Although there will be undoubtedly some economy of time, I think the importance of the change has been unduly magnified.

(5.10.) SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH

The right hon. Gentleman has disarmed criticism by the extremely courteous way in which he expresses it to be his desire to treat the Committee over which I have the honour to preside, and in which he endeavours to make amends for any mistake he may have made. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to admit that a different course should have been pursued, and to say that he regrets what has been done. Speaking as a Member of the Public Accounts Committee, and not as belonging to either Party in the House, I desire to say that the Committee on Public Accounts are always unanimous, and by an old and invariable tradition are absolutely free from Party influences. And I hope that so long as I am connected with the Committee it will always be free from Party influences. What was done last Wednesday—and the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) will bear me out in this—was done with perfect unanimity, and no one objected to a word in the Report we presented to the House. There was a word which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to which I wish to draw attention for a moment. He said that, in introducing these changes on the responsibility of the Government, he was acting according to the principle laid down in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee. That is not the view of the Committee, because they think it is too great a power to leave in the hands of Departments for them to present their accounts in any form they please—for instance, to reduce considerably the number of the Votes. From the public accounts point of view, we do not enter into the question of the effect the changes may have upon the mode in which money is voted in Parliament. We look to the clearness and continuity of the accounts and the efficiency of Parliamentary control over the money voted. If the number of Votes is diminished, it will be easier to transfer money voted for one service to the use of another. For example, in one Vote for Public Buildings in Great Britain money is to be voted for the Office of Works, and in place of the three existing familiar Votes there are three heads of the Vote—one for the Houses of Parliament, another for other public buildings, and a third for furniture for public offices. The Office of Works may spend money voted for one of these purposes on another. Under the present system of three separate Votes that could not be done, because it is impossible to transfer money voted, say, for the Houses of Parliament to other public buildings without a Resolution of the House; but, supposing this change is adopted without such a safeguard as that to-day suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, the money could be transferred, and there would be no sufficient Parliamentary control over the expenditure. The object of Parliamentary control would be defeated.

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON, Leeds, N.)

It would be stated in the Appropriation Account.

SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH

Yes, but it would not be necessary to come to the House to sanction the transfer from one Vote to another. This, I think, shows the danger of the change, and this is the justification of the view which has been repeatedly taken by the Public Accounts Committee, and which was stated in 1888—that important changes in the Estimates should not be effected at the sweet will of any Department of the Government, but should be submitted first for consideration to this House and the Public Accounts Committee. I have no doubt, on mature consideration, the Members of the Government will take exactly the same view as the Parliamentary Accounts Committee. All that I wish and claim is this: that we shall be perfectly free to consider this change as if it had not been made—as if all that had been done had been to submit a scheme for the re-arrangement of the Estimates, applying not only to these, but to the Army and Navy Estimates also. We should be in no way committed by the unfortunate fact that the Estimates have been re-cast in this form without consultation with the House and the Public Accounts Committee. As to the point I alluded to some time ago in putting a question, I hope I may be allowed to say that as to the matter of voting money in Committee of Supply, to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh alluded, I think it would be a very proper subject for the consideration of a Special Committee. I would deprecate the throwing of that matter on to the Public Accounts Committee, as it is not at all germane to their functions.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

(5.20.) Original Question again proposed.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

I rise, Sir, to move the reduction of the Vote, and I base the Motion upon the fact that certain official persons, whose salaries are included in it, have conspired together to defeat the course of justice.

MR. MACLURE (Lancashire, S.E., Stretford)

I rise to a point of order. I wish to call attention to the fact that strangers are present.

Notice taken, that strangers were present.

Whereupon Question, "That Strangers be ordered to withdraw," put, and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I was saying that practically my charge is that certain official persons confederated together to defeat the course of justice by interfering to prevent their friends being put on trial for a crime in regard to which two persona were tried and convicted. Before stating the facts, I wish to call attention to the present position of the law in these matters. There is no doubt that of late years a certain offence—I will not give it a name—has become more rife than it ever was before. Before 1885 the law was insufficient to deal with it, because the offence had to be proved by an accessory, and many other offences very much of the same nature were not regarded as crimes at all. In 1885, when the Criminal Law Amendment Bill was before a Committee of the House, Mr. Stead—who, it will be remembered, took a very active part in urging that Bill on the attention of the House —sent me a report with reference to this offence, giving particulars and evidence which went to show the extent of its prevalence. I was requested to read this report to the House, but I did not think it desirable to do so, although I thought the case was pretty well proved. I proposed the addition to the Bill of a special clause which I took from the French Code, and this clause was submitted to the Attorney; General and Lord Cross, and, with some verbal alterations, accepted and incorporated in the Bill, and is now the law of the land. Therefore, in 1885, Parliament armed the guardians of public morality with full powers to deal with this offence. In doing so, they recognised that the offence was on the increase, and they expressed their desire that it should be stamped out; and, presumably, it was I intended that the law should be used equally against high and low. I will now state the facts of this case. It is very likely that I may fall into slight errors of detail, but I think I shall be able to submit enough to establish a primâ facie case that there has been a gross scandal, and that there is ground for investigation into the conduct of those who are responsible for it. In the beginning of last July a boy in the Post Office was found to be in possession of much larger sums of money than it was likely he would have obtained in a legitimate way. On the 4th of July the boy was sent for by Mr. Phillips, an official of the Post Office, and Constable Hanks, attached to the Post Office, and the boy confessed that he had received the money for a certain offence committed in a house in Cleveland Street, occupied by one Hammond, and that other boys in the Post Office were equally guilty. These other boys were examined, and they also confessed, all stating that they had been induced to go to the house by a certain Newlove, a clerk in the Post Office. Newlove was interrogated and confessed to the charge. Newlove was arrested on the 7th of July, taken before the magistrate on the 8th, and by successive remands detained until the 20th of August. On that day a man named Veck was arrested. He was associated with Hammond in this house. Newlove and Veck were charged together; on the 11th of September they were committed for trial; and on the 18th were tried at the Old Bailey. Veck was indicted for felony and for misdemeanour; and Newlove was indicted alone for misdemeanour. Both pleaded guilty to misdemeanour and were sentenced, Veck to nine months' and Newlove to four months' imprisonment. The sentence on Veck was scandalously inadequate. Veck, who was called "The Rev. — something — Veck" — I do not know whether he was in holy orders, but he went about dressed as a clergyman — had not only committed these offences himself with the boys, but was the associate and partner of Hammond, and induced boys to go to Cleveland Street for money, and in order to serve his private ends. If ever a man deserved the full sentence of the law this man Veck did. The Committee will remember how if a poor man, urged by primary necessity steals some small thing, he is sent to prison often for more than nine months, and how in Ireland men are sent to prison for longer periods for offences which assuredly even no Gentleman on the opposite side of the House will assert are in the least to be compared with that of this man Veck. Whether this inadequate sentence was a condition of these men pleading guilty, or whether, as they did plead guilty, it happened that the depositions at the Police Court were not shown to the Recorder, and he did not know how monstrous the case was, I do not know. But I think it is pretty clear that the real object was to stop all further disclosures, hush the matter up, and get these men out of the way. I believe that Newlove and Veck would never have been prosecuted had it not been for the action of the Postmaster General and the secretary of the Post Office. The matter occurred in the Post Office, and they—I honour and respect them for it —insisted that action should be taken in the matter. The Solicitor to the Treasury, who is, I believe, under the orders of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and the Treasury—and I dare say the Home Secretary also—knew perfectly well by this time that certain persons had frequented this house in Cleveland Street; they knew that the police had got certain clues; they knew certain names had been mentioned; and they determined, so far as they were concerned, that if they were obliged to prosecute these two men the case should go no farther if they could prevent it. Having thus arranged matters in regard to these two men, what, the House will wonder, had become of Hammond,the proprietor of the house? If Hammond had been arrested, he would no doubt have been able to make revelations. These wretches live not only by this particular offence, but by a system of levying blackmail; and it is incredible to suppose that Hammond did not himself know the names of many of the persons who had frequented the house. I stated that on the 4th of July these matters were investigated at the Post Office by Mr. Phillips, with Constable Hanks, and that Newlove and the other boys told what they knew about Hammond. Hammond was not watched on the 4th of July; far from it. It may be reasonably supposed that information of what was passing was conveyed by Newlove to Hammond, who, not being watched, fled the country. When he had got well away, on the 6th of July, a warrant was obtained against him. The Treasury were informed by Mr. Monro that Hammond was not present, but the police, unlike the Treasury, were perfectly in earliest in this matter. The Postal Authorities wrote at the same time to ask that, if possible, Hammond should be secured and brought back to England. On the 25th of July the Treasury forwarded to the police a letter from Lord Salisbury saying that the Government could not ask that Hammond should be extradited from France. By this time the Post Office, who were still anxious to pursue Hammond, had sent Mr. Phillips over to Paris, and on the 7th of August a telegram was received from him asking that someone should be sent over to complete arrangements for the expulsion of Hammond from France. On the 8th of August Inspector Abberline was sent over; but he did not stay long, and he was succeeded by Inspector Lowe. I do not know exactly what was being done with the French Government, but nothing came of it, and Hammond remained in France for about a month. On the 12th of September Hammond, whether expelled or not, went over the Belgian frontier, and Inspector Lowe followed him and reported to Scotland Yard that Hammond was at a town in Belgium. Mr. Phillips also went to Belgium on the 12th of September, and it appears that on the 14th he was already in communication with the Belgian police, for he telegraphed that the moment an assurance could be given that demand for extradition would be made, the Belgian police would arrest Hammond. On this the English police applied to the Treasury. The reply was that an answer should be sent as soon as possible, but that the question was not free from difficulty. On September 16, the secretary to the Post Office, who was also in earnest, wrote to the police urging that immediate steps should be taken to secure Hammond's arrest. On September 17, Inspector Greenham was sent to Belgium and reported himself at Brussels. On the same day the Treasury wrote to the police that there was no evidence before them of an extraditable offence, and therefore they could not ask for Hammond's extradition. On October 6 a strong letter was written by Mr. Monro to the Treasury, drawing attention to the stigma which would rest on the English police if Hammond were allowed to escape. On that day he did escape. Remember, this man was surrounded by English police. He was being watched by the Belgian police, but he went to Antwerp and embarked on board a ship called The Pennland, which was bound for the United States. During the time Hammond had been in Belgium, the Belgian police reported that he was accompanied by an English boy. This boy had been abstracted from his parents presumably for vile purposes. Now, whilst Hammond was in Belgium, whilst the English and Belgian police were surrounding him, Mr. Newton was with the solicitor to Lord Arthur Somerset and also to Veck and Newlove, either went to Belgium himself or sent someone there. This Mr. Newton, or this other person, gave Hammond a large sum of money, and also paid for the ticket not only of Hammond, but also of the boy who had fallen into such a terrible position. Any one can find that out by going to Cook's office.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER, Isle of Wight)

Who obtained the tickets?

MR. LABOUCHERE

Newton or his representative. I cannot help thinking that if the Government had been in earnest, they might have obtained the extradition of Hammond, because our Extradition Treaties, both with France and Belgium, cover such charges as those of indecent assault, either by the principal or by accessories. It was put in evidence before the magistrate, and I do not think it was questioned, that Hammond induced boys to come to his house, that he took them into a room and handed them over to the creature who was going to assault them. I should say that that was being an accessory to an indecent assault, but I admit the point admits of a good deal of discussion. As this, however, was not a political offence, and as both the French Government and the Belgian Government and everybody in, either country would have been glad to have had the men turned out of their country, I think they would in all probability have stretched a point if the matter had been fairly put before them. But there is another course. There is such a thing as expelling men from a country. I remember when I was in the Diplomatic Service being engaged in a case of expulsion. You can always get a Government, when it is going to expel, to expel on the frontier nearest to your own frontier, and I have no doubt we could have induced the French or the Belgian Government to have expelled Hammond by putting him on a British ship which would have brought him to this country. Certainly, in the opinion of the police and the Postal Authorities, something might have been done, but nothing was done by the Treasury or the Foreign Office; or, if anything was done, it was done in a perfunctory manner, so that no result should be achieved. If it had not been intended to extradite Hammond, if the Government had no plan by which they intended to get hold of him, what was their object in hunting this man from France to Belgium and from Belgium to America, and then leaving him alone? I think the object is pretty obvious. They wanted to send him away as far as possible from this country. Their object, in fact, was much the same as that of Mr. Newton, who gave him money and paid his passage, and also that of the boy with him, to America. Both of them, each for different reasons, wanted him not to turn up in England. The Government did not wish for revelations; they wished to hush up the matter. Now, Cleveland Street was frequented by a considerable number of persons. They were persons who used these boys, and most unquestionably it was desirable to get at them. I shall not trouble the Committee with more than one extract. I am going to read an extract which I think will surprise the Members of the Committee. It is from the evidence given by a constable named Sladden, who was put to watch the house to see who came to the house after Hammond had fled. This is his evidence:— I have been engaged in watching the house No. 19, Cleveland Street. I commenced on July 9th. On that day I saw at 5.10 p.m.—

SIR R. WEBSTER

Will the hon. Gentleman say from what he is reading?

MR. LABOUCHERE

Depositions.

SIR R. WEBSTER

There are no depositions of Sladden as far as I know.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I think I can convince the hon. and learned Gentleman. They may not have been published, and perhaps I am wrong in using-the word depositions.

SIR R. WEBSTER

The hon. Gentleman says he is reading from depositions; I accept his word.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I am reading the evidence of Constable Sladden at the Marlborough Police Court. I will produce the official copy. Sladden said, "I commenced on July 9th—" I can understand why the hon. Gentleman does not want this evidence read.

SIR R. WEBSTER

I do not rise for my own personal protection; but I venture to submit, for the honour of this House, it is not right that such observations should be made respecting one who, in the discharge of his public duties, is watching to see what is being put before the House.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton must see that that observation is a most offensive one, which ought not to be made across the floor of this House.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I will withdraw it, but perhaps I may be allowed to explain that my case is that the Government wish to hush this matter up. I put the matter in a general way and not in reference to the hon. and learned Gentleman in particular. Sladden said— I commenced on July 9th. On that day I saw at 5.10 p.m. a corporal of the 2nd Life Guards arrive at the house. A gentleman arrived at 4.50 p.m. knocked at the door, and was answered from the door, He and the corporal shook hands, talked for about five minutes, and walked away without entering the house. On July 13th I saw the same men call again. The house was empty, and they went away. On that same day a great many gentlemen called at the house. On July 14th a gentleman and a Royal Artilleryman called. On July 30th I saw other gentlemen come, and finding the house empty went away. Now, I think I have proved my case. The house is in no obscure thoroughfare, but nearly opposite the Middlesex Hospital. Surely it must have been known to the police, and if it was not known to them it ought to have been. In no other city in the world are such abominations openly carried on. Parliament has done its best to put down houses of ill-fame, but compared with this place a house of ill-fame is respectable. If it were desired to make an example of the offenders, why was not a policeman stationed at the house to follow the persons who came there? The obvious answer is that it was not desired to follow them up and punish them. One person guessed the police were on his track. I do not wish to mention any names except those which have already been made public, but I will give the name of this person because a warrant is out for his arrest. It is Lord Arthur Somerset. A warrant is out for his arrest and he has fled. I am not certain whether the police got on his track by seeing him come to the house or whether his name was given by one of the boys, or by Veck or Newlove, but in any case on the 23rd of July several of the boys were taken to Knightsbridge Barracks, where Lord Arthur Somerset was quartered, and the boys identified him as a person who had been with them in the house. I know that evidence of informers is generally tainted, but the evidence of the boys is not near so tainted as would have been the evidence of one of these professional wretches. These boys were employed at the Post Office. They have been more sinned against than sinning, and it is not likely that they would have identified Lord Arthur Somerset unless they honestly believed he was the man who tempted them. On the 23rd of August, further evidence was obtained against Lord Arthur Somerset. A boy named Allies said he had received money from him in post-office orders. The boy lived at Sudbury, and on going to the post office there, the police found two post-office orders signed by Allies. The orders had also come from the Knightsbridge District Office. This, at least, was confirmatory of the statement of Allies. On the 24th of July, these boys were taken to identify Lord Arthur Somerset, and on the 27th of July Mr. Monro reported to the Treasury the evidence of the boys. On the 24th of August he further reported the evidence of Allies. The Treasury gave no sort of instructions, but after these Reports were made, the police were enjoined to take no further action until they heard again from the Treasury. The object of the Treasury was to hush up the matter, not to have prosecutions. The matter was referred to the Law Officers of the Crown. The Law Officers of the Crown, I need not say—

SIR R. WEBSTER

What date is the hon. Gentleman referring to?

MR. LABOUCHERE

I do not know at what date, but I need not say the Law Officers did not advise a prosecution. Let me ask the Attorney General whether all the evidence was before the Law Officers? [Sir R. WEBSTER assented.] May I ask whether the questions that were put to the boys at Marlborongh-street were arranged, in any sort of way, by the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, or by any of his subordinates? [The ATTORNEY GENERAL made no reply.] The hon and learned Gentleman will not answer that.

SIR R. WEBSTER

The hon. Gentleman must not say that. I prefer to answer when I make my statement.

MR LABOUCHERE

I know that the cross-examination was so conducted as not to bring in Lord Arthur Somerset or others, because Mr. Newton was solicitor to Lord Arthur Somerset, and also solicitor to the prisoners Veck and Newlove. I have the evidence that was submitted at Marlborough Street, and not one-half of the statements of the boys to the police were brought out, and it was only stated in cross-examination that they had made statements at the Treasury, the obvious intention being to limit the prosecutions to Veck and Newlove. On August 3rd the police were watching Lord Arthur Somerset. Two constables saw him at the Knightsbridge barracks when he was on his way to take part in the review on the 7th of August, on the occasion of the German Emperor's visit to this country. On the 22nd of August a constable again saw him at the barracks. On the 11th of September he called at the barracks and was informed that Lord Arthur Somerset had obtained four months' leave of absence and had gone abroad. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: That is not quite correct.] Anyhow he did go abroad; I do not know when. On the 8th of October the funeral of the Dowager Duchess of Beaufort took place at Badminton. A constable was sent down by Mr. Monro because it was thought Lord Arthur Somerset would come there. I suppose it was thought desirable to give the Treasury one more opportunity of acting. ["Oh!"] An hon. Gentleman seems to question my facts. The constable reported— I beg to report that, in accordance with instructions, I attended the funeral of the late Dowager Duchess of Beaufort, and saw bold Arthur Somerset was present at the obsequies.

SIR R. WEBSTER

Will the hon. Gentleman give the name of the constable?

MR LABOUCHERE

Luke Hanks, of the General Post Office. The Report Hanks made was sent to the Treasury, and no doubt the Home Secretary has a copy of it. I believe that a, suggesting was made that action should be taken. The reply of the Treasury took the form of a direction to at once withdraw the constable. Finding no action was taken. Lord Arthur Somerset remained in England, and want to his clubs as if nothing had occurred. During this time inquiries had been made of the police and the Treasury by the commanding officer of Lord Arthur Somerset's regiment, and by a gentleman connected with the Household of the Prince of Wales, Lord Arthur Somerset himself being a member of that Household. The police refused to give any information in the matter, and about the middle of October the gentleman representing the Household of the Prince of Wales telegraphed to Lord Salisbury, asking fur an interview with him.

SIR R. WEBSTER

Will the hon. Member give the gentleman's name?

MR. LABOUCHERE

Sir Dighton Probyn. On the 18th of October this gentleman had an interview with Lord Salisbury. At the end of the conversation, Lord Salisbury said—I am not perfectly certain of the words—that a warrant would be obtained to-morrow or a warrant should be obtained immediately. I think this fact was communicated to the commanding officer of Lord Arthur Somerset's regiment, and Lord Arthur Somerset then fled the country. I am not in the least complaining of the gentleman connected with the Household of the Prince of Wales nor of the commanding officer of Lord Arthur Somerset's regiment. In view of their position I can well understand the course they adopted. Probably they know the family of Lord A. Somerset, and they can hardly be blamed for desiring that his lordship should get out of the country to avoid a trial. I am not quite certain that if I had been in the same position as they were I should not have done as they did; but their position is very different from that of Lord Salisbury. The importance of the point here is why did Lord Salisbury interfere in the matter? What right had he to interfere? Was it the business of a Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary to mix himself up in such matters? But if he did intend, or know that a warrant was about to be issued, surely the last thing a man in his official position should have done was to communicate the fact to a friend of Lord A. Somerset's. The object, however, is perfectly clear. Lord Salisbury had had his hands forced. Public attention had been drawn to the matter; it became necessary to issue a warrant, and it was intended that a hint should be conveyed to Lord A Somerset to get out of the jurisdiction of the law before the warrant could be served on him. But this is not all. Let us admit this to have been a mere indiscretion on the part of Lord Salisbury; but was any time lost in the issue of the writ? Was it issued immediately? No; the conversation with Lord Salisbury took place on the 18th of October, and the warrant was not issued until the 12th of November, in order that it might be absolutely certain that Lord A. Somerset had received the information that a warrant was going to be issued and to give him time to get out of the country. So palpable was this that when the warrant was issued it was perfectly well-known that he was out of the country. It was a mere brutum fulmen, and the police so regarded it. They took no trouble to look after Lord A. Somerset, because they knew he was out of England. I would ask in regard to the warrant what further evidence there was on the 18th October than there was when Lord A. Somerset was in England? What further evidence was there on the 12th November than was known on October 18? We know there was no farther evidence. Why was not the warrant issued as soon as Lord Salisbury stated it was to be issued on October 18, and when Lord A. Somerset was in the country? Why was it put off until November 12? Perhaps the Attorney General when he speaks will tell us that. For my part, I think the reason is pretty clear. If the Committee are somewhat surprised at these transactions in which Lord Salisbury is concerned, they will be still more surprised when they learn what occurred. Lord A. Somerset was a major in one of her Majesty's regiments of Guards, and on the 9th of November it was announced in the Gazette that his resignation had been accepted. Now, this form of resignation is an honour-able discharge. If an officer in the Army is not considered worthy of an honourable discharge, it is inserted in the Gazette that his services are dispensed with. Can anyone think that, if the man had been a mere Lieutenant Jones or a Captain Smith, this would have occurred? It is an insult to every officer in the Army and to every man in the country who is anxious that the Army should remain an honoured and an honourable profession. This is not all. It will be found on investigation that Lord A. Somerset, who is a fugitive from justice, is still a magistrate for two counties. He went to Constantinople, and showing, as he was able to do, that he had been allowed to honourably resign his position in the Army, and that he was a magistrate for two counties in England, he asked for some official position in the Court of the Sultan. By this time, public attention had been drawn to a certain extent to what was going on, and Ministers began to think they were getting into a mess. They were a little frightened at what might happen, and so they looked around for a Jonah, and they found him in the person of Mr. Newton, solicitor to Lord A. Somerset, and they prosecuted him for getting witnesses out of the way. I do not blame Mr. Newton; so far as I know, he only aided Lord Salisbury in defeating justice, but it seems to me that if Mr. Newton is prosecuted, Lord Salisbury and several other gentlemen ought also to be prosecuted and charged under the same indictment. I can well understand that there might be an indisposition to bring scandals of this kind before the public, but it must be borne in mind that Ministers have no dispensing powers with regard to the English law, and I hold that they were utterly false to duty when they did not make every effort to bring to justice a man whom they had reasonable ground to believe was guilty of such an offence. It must net be forgotten what has taken place in regard to this case. Two men have been sent to prison, but they are poor. Their confidant was left alone. Their confidant had Attorney General, Solicitor General, and Heaven knows what at his back to take his part and to give him information and advice to get away as fast as he could. Hon. Members may remember that one of the charges brought against my hon. Friend the Member for Cork before the Special Commission was that he gave money to Byrne to aid him to escape from justice, and I should like to ask what difference there is between giving money to a man to escape and giving him information which enabled him to do so. But entirely apart from what I hold to be the criminality of Lord Salisbury there can be no doubt that Lord Salisbury at least acted very foolishly in the matter. He aggravated the scandal. Foreign newspapers took notice of the case, and they have represented this country as a nation of hypocrites, and made very strong and, I believe, in many cases unjust reflections on persons in high stations. It is the common talk in the workshops of this country respecting the case that the law is not fairly administered as between the rich man and the poor man, that justice is not fairly meted out between man and man, regardless of rank and social position, and thus great harm has been done by the course which has been adopted. We have heard a good deal lately about criminal conspiracy. What is this case but a criminal conspiracy by the very guardians of public morality and law, with the Prime Minister at their head, to defeat the ends of justice? Neither the upper classes nor the Treasury have any reason to thank Lord Salisbury for his action in the matter, for both have been considerable sufferers by it. Is it not a fact that during the time the matter was before the public the name of many a gentleman was insidiously and unjustly whispered about as being concerned in the scandals? I myself heard the names of several persons in high position hinted at and whispered about in connection with the case, and after what has occurred I feel it my duty to say that, so far as I know—and as the result of close inquiry I know as much about the case as any man—not one of those gentlemen whose names have been mentioned abroad and at the clubs was directly or indirectly in any sort of way connected with the scandals. In short, no name was spared, however high the position of the man who held it. I have seen the name of a gentleman of very high position mentioned in foreign newspapers in connection with the case, but having, as I have just said, looked very narrowly into the whole matter, I am absolutely certain that there is no justification for the calumny. In connection with this I may add that I know that a still more eminent gentleman, closely connected with the gentleman to whom I have alluded, has used all his efforts to have the fullest publicity given. I think that it is due to that eminent gentleman that the Government have at last been forced into the qualified action which has been taken against Lord A. Somerset. I think that this ought to be known. As I think all know, I myself took strong views upon the matter of Royal Grants, but I expressed my views openly, and I protest against the good name of any man, be he prince or peasant, being whispered and hinted away, I honour and respect the eminent gentleman to whom I have alluded for his action in this matter. I consider it wise and noble, and worthy of the great position he holds. However, I only allude to this in order to show how incalculable are the evils that might have arisen from this system which the Government has adopted of hushing up these matters. But the action of the Government, the guardians of public morality, docs not affect individuals alone; it encourages persons of any social station to think that they may commit this sort of offence with absolute impunity. The statement of Constable Sladden is perfectly astounding, but I do not think it can be contradicted. I think the Home Secretary can bear me out. A considerable number of years, ago Sir E. Henderson sent a Report complaining of inaction, and no action was taken because the law made it almost impossible to convict. The Home Secretary will bear me out when I say that this offence has been on the increase of late, but every constable or inspector takes care not to arrest any cognate person, because they believe that by doing so they would make themselves marked men and be sent out to the suburbs. In the streets, in the music halls, you have these wretched creatures openly pursuing their avocation. They are known to the police, yet the police do nothing to stop this sort of thing. It is scandalous that such a state of things should exist in London. There is no capital where it exists more openly. This was not the case 10 years ago, and I ascribe the increase entirely to the immunity granted to the criminals. I quite agree that it is most undesirable on many accounts to parade these scandals in the public Press, but I maintain that it is far more undesirable that poor persons should be prosecuted, and cognate persons allowed impunity when they happen to be wealthy. These poor and wretched creatures live to minister to the vices of those in a superior station. Is there any man who will not feel indignant that boys employed in one of our public offices should be tempted into indecencies more gross than were ever committed under Louis XV.? Instead of making every effort to punish offences, as far as I can see every effort has been made to hush up the matter. I do not know what the defence of the Government may be, but I venture to advise them not to put up any lawyer with a brief in his hand, who will by special pleading and evasive chicanery defend this charge. [Cries of "Order!" and "Withdraw!"] Very well, then, I will say not by the same tactics as those pursued with regard to the Special Commission—that means the same thing to us on this side of the House. My first charge is that Lord Salisbury and others entered into a criminal conspiracy to defeat the ends of justice. I ask for a Committee to investigate this charge and allegation, and if it is granted I am perfectly willing to withdraw my Amendment, but I will not, and I do not think that many in this House will, be satisfied with a mere ex parte denial on behalf of the incriminated persons. If the Committee is not granted Lord Salisbury and the others stand condemned by their own Code of ethics. The hon. Member for Cork was charged with writing certain letters, and again and again hon. Gentlemen opposite said that he must be guilty because he had not courted an investigation. Mr. Walter was not a member of this House; I am. Mr. Walter had certain proofs, but he did not submit them; I have submitted my proofs. For my own part, I think I have already shown more of a primâ facie case for an inquiry than there was simply because Pigott sold forged letters to the Times. If the Government refuse this investigation, either they admit their guilt or they have two Codes of ethics—one for an Irish leader and another for a Conservative leader. If the Government plead guilty I shall deem it my duty to divide the House, because I think that this House ought to disconnect itself from any condoning of abominable offences of this kind, and ought to stand up for the principle of equal justice between man and man. If they do not admit their guilt I shall divide, because a man cannot be Judge, jury, and defendant in his own case. If those charges, openly made in this House, are not in some way investigated a heavier blow will be dealt to the good name of the country and to the cause of law and order than anything that his been done for many and many a year. I appeal to the whole House, to hon. Members sitting on both sides, to support me in the action I have taken. I appeal to them, not as followers of this Ministry or of that, but on the broad ground that they are English gentlemen. I appeal to them because I know that they loathe these offences as much as I do, and I hope that they will stand by mo in the only course that ought to be pursued in this matter, and the only course which will lead to the thorough and efficient prevention of such crimes.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,725,003, be granted for the said Services."—(Mr. Henry Labouchere.)

(6.25.) SIR R. WEBSTER

Of all the occasions on which I have spoken in the House and of all the questions I have heard raised since I have had the honour of being a Member of the House, nothing in my opinion has approached the importance of the occasion on the charge made by the hon. Member for Northampton to-night. He has charged the Prime Minister with being party to a criminal conspiracy to defeat the ends of justice, and that subordinate officials, whom he said must have known what was being done, were also parties to that conspiracy. The hon. Member has said that deliberate notice was given to enable an accused man to escape from justice, and said that it was the wish of those whom he charged that that person should not be brought to justice; and he has alleged that certain criminal proceedings were arranged by a corrupt bargain with the view of minor punishments being inflicted in order that other persons who might be implicated might escape. I think that the Committee will agree with me that these are charges of most disgraceful conduct if they are true, and more disgraceful charges if false, and it is strange that, with that semblance of fair play which the hon. Member has pretended to assume, though he knew that the person who now addresses the House must be one of the persons implicated in the so-called conspiracy, the hon. Member has endeavoured to discount what I may be going to say by describing it as only the chicanery of a lawyer. I do not think that my hon. and learned Friends the Members for South Hackney and Stockton will acquiesce in that view. The main sting of this charge is that Lord Salisbury on a given night in October, with the purpose of allowing Lord A. Somerset to escape, made a communication which was intended to be conveyed to him, and that on receiving that communication Lord A. Somerset fled. Before I sit down I shall demonstrate that there is not a shadow of foundation for that charge. But if the charge is true, is it just or is it right that it should be made in the presence of the man who can answer it, or behind his back?

MR. LABOUCHERE

I am not a peer.

SIR R. WEBSTER

If the hon. Member has any prima facie case, any of the peers who are opposed to Lord Salisbury could ask the question in the House of Lords. Does the hon. Member moan to suggest that Lord Herschell, if he believed in such facts as the hon. Member for Northampton asserts that he believes, would not have thought it his duty to have brought them forward and enable Lord Salisbury to give an answer across the floor of the House of Lords? I am going to accept the responsibility for my own acts and state exactly what I have done. If there be anything in that spirit of fair play to which the hon. Member thought tit to refer at the conclusion of his remarks, it should have prompted those who appreciate a sense of justice to have made this charge where the answer could have been directly given by the person particularly affected by it. I hope the House will bear with me, for it may be that I shall have to address it at some length. It is absolutely essential I should deal with all the points raised one by one, and I am sure the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian would rather I should trespass upon the time of the house too much than too little. We are dealing with infamous charges, and I will undertake to demonstrate that they are not true. The House must remember that these infamous charges are levelled against myself, the Treasury Solicitor, and possibly the Chief Commissioner of Police, though he seems for some reason or other to have been exculpated. But what is to me much more important is, it is suggested that members of my own profession, who have practised for years and whose names are well known, have also been mixed up in that foul conspiracy with their knowledge. It is not very easy for me to take this story exactly in the order I should like to take it, because the hon. Member has thought tit to break it up into a number of different cases, and has put before the House what he asserts about each of those cases. Perhaps the better course, therefore, for mo to take will be to follow the order the hon. Member has found it convenient to adopt. If I were to do otherwise, I might possibly overlook some of the hon. Gentleman's statement. But first I wish to make one or two preliminary observations. At a date which does not substantially differ from that given by the hon. Member, and which we may take roughly to be about July 25—I do not say that is absolutely the earliest date, but some time in the middle of July, and certainly before July 25—the case was put in the hands of the Treasury Solicitor. From that time down to the present every step in the proceedings has been taken under my direction, and the hon. Member knows it, and therefore the House will appreciate what the hon. Member means by suggesting that no lawyer was to get up with a brief. That is the spirit of chivalry and fair play which animates the hon. Member. The first three cases are the Veck and Newlove case, the Hammond case, and the Somerset case, and, less important, the Newton case. It is, I must say, strange to my mind that the hon. Member for Northampton should have thought fit to introduce the Newton case into the discussion, seeing it is my unfortunate duty to have to represent the Crown in that prosecution, in which the defendant Newton is to be defended by the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney, I venture to think that knowing that, as he undoubtedly did from his speech, and as I shall show from other sources—

MR. LABOUCHERE

I did know it.

SIR R. WEBSTER

It is somewhat strange he should have thought fit to express the opinion he did about that case. I pass from that. When I deal with the matter I shall contradict every statement the hon. Member made; now I want the House to follow me and appreciate what the Veck and Newlove charge is. The charge against Her Majesty's Government is that these cases were intended to be punished by light sentences; that it was arranged between the prosecuting and defending counsel, with the knowledge of the Treasury Solicitor, that the accused should have-those light sentences as the price of silence; and that that corrupt bargain was made with the knowledge of those in authority. I think the House will agree that, if true, more infamous conduct was never charged against persons in authority. I am fortunately able to-speak more than once in this debate, and if, by inadvertence, I omit to deal with any point, I hope I shall be reminded of it. The first information given by the Post Office was on the evening of July 5; that was the same day as that on which Hammond bolted. Certain statements respecting Veck in connection with the-boys were placed before me some time in the month of July. The hon. Member has suggested that I either had instructions from some higher authority or gave instructions that no prosecution should take place.

MR. LABOUCHERE

No, I did not.

SIR R. WEBSTER

In connection with the Somerset case the hon. Member said that most distinctly, but I desire to say that whatever case the statement may be intended to apply to there is not the slightest shadow of foundation for the suggestion. My sole wish has been that when the evidence was sufficient to put a man on his trial he should at once be brought before a Court of justice, and there has been no distinction or difference whatever between one person and another. I will state exactly what did happen. Up to the middle of August, the evidence against Veck was not complete. I think the House will agree that anybody who puts forward these charges ought to be practically certain he can prove them, I cannot imagine anything worse than that a man should be put on his trial on such a charge on the mere chance of getting a conviction on some slight evidence. For it is perfectly well known that if these charges are once made, however much a man may clear himself, there are people foolish and wicked enough still to believe there is some truth in them. I do not hesitate to say that the sole consideration operating on my mind was whether there was or was not sufficient corroborative testimony. Up to the middle of August there was not sufficient evidence to put process in force against Veck. I may say, by the way, there was amply sufficient evidence against Newlove and Hammond, and the warrants were issued on the 7th.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I never raised this point. I simply stated as a hard matter of fact that Veck was arrested on the 20th August.

SIR R. WEBSTER

It is absolutely necessary the whole story should be told, for the hon. Member has said that when these men were put on their trial on the 18th September they were lightly sentenced in consideration of pleading guilty and disclosing no other person's name. The warrant was issued as soon as the evidence in our hands was, in my opinion, sufficient. There was some difficulty in finding Veck, but he was arrested on August 20th, committed for trial on September 11th, and pleaded guilty on the 18th. Now I come to the gravamen of the charge. Every particle of evidence against Veck came under my immediate notice, and I was represented by Mr. Poland, Q.C., and Mr. Avory. I do hope the hon. and learned Member for Hackney will speak in this debate. No? I hope some hon. and learned Member of this House will bear me out in what I am saying with regard to these gentlemen. I want to know by whom this accusation is going to be supported. If any hon. Members opposite, who belong to my profession, speaks in this debate I do hope they will express their opinion of one—I may say both—of those gentlemen who represented the Crown in that prosecution, and say what they think of Mr. Poland, who has lived all his life at the Bar, and is perfectly well-known for his high honour and standing in the profession. The prisoners were defended by Mr. Gill and Mr. C. W. Mathews. The house has heard something about whispers. Perhaps the hon. Member for Northampton, has had something to do with some whispers circulated in connection with this case. Whether he has or not, the knowledge that the hon. Member was going to bring this charge has enabled me to obtain from Mr. Poland and from Mr. Avory a written statement with regard to this particular matter. I do not believe there is a Member of this House who will suggest that what I am about to read, signed by Mr. Poland, is other than the strict and literal truth in the matter. The learned counsel says this:— Mr. Avory, my junior, was informed by Mr. Grill, who defended Newlove, or by Mr. Mathews, who defended Veck, that the prisoners intended to plead guilty, and that the case would be disposed of in the course of the day. I went to the Old Bailey between 3 and 4 o'clock and went into Court shortly before 4, that being the time when pleas of guilty are taken, when convenient. I addressed the Recorder, and Mr. Gill and Mr. Mathews addressed him also. I wish to say that I neither directly nor indirectly made any arrangement with the prisoners' counsel as to what counts the prisoners should plead guilty to, and that there was no undertaking of any kind, either expressed or implied, as to what should be done by me or by the prisoners' counsel. That is, I think, sufficiently categorical. I have here also the shorthand note of what Mr. Poland said before the Recorder. If there had been any such arrangement as was suggested by the hon. Member I must have known of it. Does he still insist that there was an arrangement?

MR. LABOUCHERE

I still state, Sir, that there was an understanding beforehand as to the pleas of guilty. I have never stated that it was agreed that the prisoners should plead guilty and get short sentences provided that they did not mention any names. That is not how things are done. One counsel says to the other, "Don't yon think the prisoners had better plead guilty?" and the other replies, "Well, what do you think?" And then the first says, "Well, we will see what we can do," and so on. The Attorney General has appealed to the lawyers on this side. I also will make an appeal to them. Will any lawyer who has practised get up and tell me that arrangements are not frequently made by which it is agreed that if the accused pleads guilty the prosecuting counsel will try and get him a light sentence?

SIR R. WEBSTER

Now, I understood the hon. Member to say that he had it from a credible informant that the arrangement which he described was come to between the prosecuting counsel and the counsel for the prisoners. Will the hon. Member now say who his credible informant is?

MR. LABOUCHERE

No, Sir, I will not—for the same reason which the Chief Secretary for Ireland so often gives us—he would be a marked man.

SIR R. WEBSTER

I am surprised that the hon. Member, having now heard me state on behalf of the counsel engaged in the case that this wicked and corrupt bargain was not made by them, withholds the name of his credible informant. But I feel as certain as I am of the fact of my standing here that it is impossible for the hon. Member to give the name of any credible person who will come forward and state that this wicked arrangement was made. The next allegation made by the hon. Member was that the case was called on at a late and inconvenient hour when the reporters were not present.

MR. A. O'CONNOR

I was informed of that fact by a learned counsel who was present.

SIR R. WEBSTER

At the Old Bailey pleas are always taken either at 4 o'clock or at the beginning of the day's work. Mr. Poland is of opinion, an opinion which I entirely share, that no good is done by reporting cases of this description, and it is greatly to the credit of the reporters of the Press that they almost invariably refrain from, reporting them. But I have Mr. Poland's assurance in writing that he took no steps to have the Court cleared or to prevent the proceedings from being reported in the newspapers. When he began his speech there happened to be a woman in Court, and the Recorder of his own motion ordered her to leave. Mr. Poland says, "I was specially careful to do nothing in this case out of the usual and ordinary course." Now I come to the hon. Member's charges, based on the allegation that the sentence was light. Veck pleaded guilty to 13 counts of the indictment. There was no evidence of felony in the case at all, and Veck was prosecuted for misdemeanour under the section of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Newlove was indicted for assault with intent to commit sodomy, as well as for offences against the Act. He did not plead guilty to the graver charge, and I was satisfied that there was no evidence to go to the jury on the grave charge, and it was on my responsibility, and mine alone, that the count against Newlove for the more serious offence was not pressed. The House must bear in mind that by pleading guilty these prisoners rendered themselves liable to more than two years' imprisonment. Cumulative sentences can be inflicted under the Act and the Recorder could have passed a much higher sentence if he had thought fit to do so. I say distinctly that neither directly nor indirectly was there any communication with the Recorder on behalf of the Government, or, as far as I know, by any living person with reference to the sentence passed upon these men. It is not my business to justify that sentence. It may not have been sufficient; I think myself that it might have been severer; but the question of insufficiency is a matter affecting the Recorder only. Does the hon. Member for Northampton intend to charge a Judge like the Recorder of London with being a party to this criminal conspiracy? Unless the hon. Member admits that the sentence was a sentence passed by the Recorder in the exercise of his discretion, he must contend that the Recorder also was a party to the conspiracy, and for some motive was willing to inflict a lighter sentence than should have been passed. The hon. Member affirms that the real object of the conspiracy which he alleges existed was to hush the matter up. Well, I have answered the hon. Member by meeting every assertion which the hon. Member has made respecting Veck and Newlove.

MR. LABOUCHERE

There is one point which the hon. and learned Member has not dealt with. I said that I did not know whether it was suggested to the Recorder that he should pass a light sentence, or whether the depositions showing the gross iniquity of Veck and Newlove were not submitted to the learned Judge.

SIR R. WEBSTER

All the depositions went before the learned Recorder as a matter of course. There is not a shadow of foundation for saying that anything but the ordinary course of justice was pursued in this case. The hon. Member has suggested that the real object of passing these sentences was to hush the matter up, and that these prosecutions would not have taken place but for the action of the Postmaster General. All I can say is that when the statement respecting Veck and Newlove came before me, I, and I alone, exercised my judgment, taking counsel, however, with those whose opinion in criminal matters is of the highest value. I think, Sir, I have proved to the House how unfounded the hon. Member's charges are, and now I come to the allegation respecting Hammond. It is an allegation which I confess has filled me with astonishment. The hon. Member says that Hammond ought to have been watched by the police, and that the Postmaster General, or the Secretary to the Post Office, desired that he should be prosecuted, but that the police and the Treasury Solicitor and others desired that he should escape. As a matter of fact no information of any kind was given to the police until the afternoon of July 5, and Hammond left the country on the morning of that day. I lay no blame upon the Post Office for not taking steps. We know perfectly well that by the Criminal Law we are not entitled to arrest a man without a warrant unless he is caught in the commission of crime.

MR. MAC NEILL (Donegal, S.)

How about the Statute of Edward III.? [Laughter.]

SIR R. WEBSTER

This case is far too serious to be made the subject of laughter, and I do not know whether right hon. Gentlemen opposite think I ought to be interrupted in this manner. Hammond left on the morning of the 5th of July; and, notwithstanding the insinuations and statements of the hon. Member, from that moment Hammond was beyond the reach of the law. The hon. Gentleman has suggested that Hammond could have been extradited if the Foreign Office had wished it to be done. He had also suggested that arrangements could have been made whereby Hammond might have been put aboard an English steamer and so arrested. All I can say, and I carefully confine myself to what I know, and the Postmaster General can confirm me, is that every step was taken to bring the arrest about. From the beginning we have been extremely anxious to get hold of Hammond; indeed, ever since the issue of the warrant in July, 1889. As far as I know, no single act was done, directly or indirectly, to prevent Hammond from being brought to justice as quickly as possible. The hon. Member for Northampton has said that a letter came on the 25th of July from Lord Salisbury at the Foreign Office saying that Hammond could not be extradited. Will the hon. Gentleman give his authority for that statement? [Mr. LABOUCIIERE shook his head.] Then, has it come to this, that without any warrant at all such charges can be made across the floor of this House? As a matter of fact, the reply came from one of the Official Secretaries of the Foreign Office, who wrote the letter, it being a matter of regular routine business, and nothing being known about the case except that there was no evidence of any crime on which Hammond could have been extradited. I will not go into the strictly legal aspect of the question, as the authorities did not regard it in that light. They were all extremely anxious to obtain the extradition. The only ground on which it could have been demanded was aggravated or indecent assault; and, unfortunately, in the case of Hammond all the boys consented and were above the protected age. I again distinctly repeat that, with reference to extra-legal extradition, a step was taken to bring Hammond to justice. Hammond fled to Belgium. I understood the hon. Member for Northampton to suggest that it was with the cognisance of the Government.

MR. LABOUCHERE

Oh, no.

SIR R. WEBSTER

I am glad to have that withdrawal. Certainly an expression fell from the hon. Gentleman which made me come to the conclusion that the Government was distinctly charged with getting Hammond away, first to Paris and then to Belgium. If the charge be withdrawn, the House will draw its conclusions with reference to some of the other charges. I took down the hon. Member's words, which were to the effect that the Government could have induced the French Government to expel Hammond to an English ship; and that they hunted the man from France to Belgium, and the Government wanted to send the man away. I would ask the hon. Member, if he is bringing forward his accusation from a sense of justice, and desires to make this indictment because the interests of public justice require it, whether he will tell the House whose authority he had for saying that the Government wished to send Hammond away? There is not one scrap of evidence before me that the Government, directly or indirectly, took any stop to prevent Hammond from being brought to justice. On the contrary, every act is in the other direction. But the hon. Gentleman said that, owing to the action of the police— and supposedly he meant the action of the police under directions—and the action of the Government, a poor, miserable boy was abstracted from his parents and sent away to America. What did the hon. Gentleman mean by suggesting that this was done by the action of the Government? Are such charges to be bandied about on the mere ipse dixit of any hon. Gentleman who chooses to believe any clap-trap he may hear? If there were the slightest warrant for this charge the hon. Gentleman would be amply protected for any statement made in tile House. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to give the name of his informant. As to the circumstances under which Hammond did go to America my own mouth is closed. I should be perfectly willing, and some day I shall be allowed, to state them. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney knows them as well as I do.

SIR C. RUSSELL

I know nothing at all about them.

SIR R. WEBSTER

The hon. and learned Gentleman's memory misleads him. He appeared for Newton on the application to remove the case into the Queen's Bench; and on that occasion all the depositions and statements of Newton were brought up, and Newton's affidavit, in which he stated that he had been a party to getting Hammond to go away on account of the blackmail he was levying on people in England.

SIR C. RUSSELL

I am sorry that my name is being brought into the matter in this way, especially as I intimated to the hon. and learned Gentleman early in the debate that I should take no part in it, for reasons which it is unnecessary to state to the House. I can assure the Attorney General that, although I may have seen some general statements, I had no connection with the case which required me in any way to examine them.

SIR R. WEBSTER

Of course, I accept the statement of the lion, and learned Gentleman, and withdraw my remark. I would say, however, that I am precluded from stating the facts of the case, because it is sub judice, and I have to be the prosecuting counsel against Newton. On the Hammond case I think I have dealt with every fact mentioned by the hon. Gentleman; but if he will repeat any charge that has been overlooked, I will meet it subsequently. Then, as to what must be supposed to be the main charge against Lord Salisbury— the charge that Lord Salisbury connived at Lord Arthur Somerset getting away. This case stands on a different footing. I have had for many months upon my mind the necessity of considering, with the greatest anxiety, whether there was sufficient corroborative evidence against Lord A. Somerset or not. It was not until the 5th or 6th of November that I gave directions, after careful consideration, that the warrant should be issued. It is stated that this was done in consequence of some higher power preventing, for fear of revelations, a proceeding which was right, and amply justified. It is quite true that about the 25th July statements had been made respecting Lord A. Somerset, an attempt at identification was made, and I say so advisedly. But it was not at Knightsbridge, but in Piccadilly. I cannot give further facts, because the case may be further tried. On what grounds can it be suggested that, when Lord A. Somerset may come back and take his trial, the House is to prejudice the case? I should be guilty of a gross breach of duty if I were to suppose the information correct before there has been any cross-examination. The evidence of identification was unsatisfactory. The two witnesses did not agree, and there was some doubt whether they had not by conversation afterwards come to some agreement. The person who conducted the investigation moreover did not know Lord A. Somerset. I will now make a statement of which I am not ashamed, and for which I do not think the House will condemn me. I did not altogether act, upon my own judgment in such a matter. I have permission to say that in the month of August, before Veck was arrested, I consulted the Lord Chancellor. I will not appeal any more to lawyers; but will state that there was no man whose career at the Bar has been more honourable than that of the present Lord Chancellor. There is no man of whom it can be said with less justice that he has ever interfered with the course of justice, and there is no greater criminal lawyer living. After the most careful consideration and examination of the whole case, the Lord Chancellor came distinctly to the conclusion that there was not such corroboration as would justify any man being put upon his trial. The same course exactly was pursued in the case's of Veck and Lord A. Somerset, both cases being submitted to the Lord Chancellor. Subsequently further evidence came up about Veck, and he was placed upon his trial. When Veck was arrested some documents were found upon him, and some of them led the authorities, about the 24th of August, to find out the boy Allies at Sudbury. The boy Allies made a statement which may be said to have given corroboration of the evidence against Lord A. Somerset. But we were in this difficult po- sition. Some communication, which, as far as we could trace, did not come from Lord Arthur Somerset, was made to this boy the night before he was seen and the document was destroyed. The hon. Member suggests that the postal orders coining from Knightsbridge must be presumed to have come from Lord Arthur Somerset; but we were not able to identify them as having come from Lord Arthur Somerset. This was about the middle of September, and during the trial of Newlove. All the statements were presented to me; and knowing that I had previously had the benefit of the advice of the Lord Chancellor, I took upon myself the responsibility of sending the whole of the statements and of asking his advice. I thought that the matter was so serious that I took a step of which I am not ashamed. I asked Mr. Poland, who had been in the case of Newlove and Veck, to write a letter to the Lord Chancellor stating what his views were on the evidence. I did not see that letter until after it had been sent, nor had I any part in the preparation of it. It was a letter covering more than a sheet of foolscap, containing a most careful analysis of the evidence, and examining the considerations which bore on the duty of prosecuting or not. I received a communication by telegraph, and subsequently a letter from the Lord Chancellor, saying that, having gone carefully through the matter, he was of opinion that the corroborative evidence was wholly insufficient. These are facts which can be tested by any hon. Member, and can anyone suggest that such conduct could have been pursued by men in league with a criminal conspiracy? Can anyone suggest that I, not acting upon my own opinion and taking the opinion of wiser men than myself, ought to be ashamed of having taken the course which I did? If it had been a criminal conspiracy should I have taken Mr. Poland into my confidence and have asked him to write independently a letter to the Lord Chancellor? I am aware that acts of mine have been severely criticised in this House; but I did not think that any opponent of mine opposite was so hostile as to believe that I was being party to a criminal conspiracy, or had any lot or part in such matter. Now, Mr. Courtney, so the matter rested until the end of September; and now I come to the extraordinary allegations made by the hon. Member respecting Lord Salisbury in October. The hon. Member stated categorically that the Law Officers did not advise a prosecution. If by that the hon. Gentleman means that I, as Attorney General, did not direct a prosecution, he is perfectly right; but if the hon. Gentleman means that I corruptly and improperly declined to order a prosecution because of an arrangement that Lord Arthur Somerset should not be brought to justice, then I have to say that it is absolutely wrong, and there is no shadow of foundation for the statement. Then the hon. Gentleman put this extraordinary question to me— I wish to ask whether the questions that were put to the witnesses at the Treasury were arranged by the Attorney General? What is the insinuation contained in that? The hon. Member asserts that those questions were not intended to elicit tire real facts; the insinuation is that in the case of certain persons giving information to the Treasury I, as Attorney General, suggested that certain questions should be put to them, and certain others not be put to them in order not to elicit the facts. There is not a shadow of foundation for the statement.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I was speaking of the questions in the Court of the police magistrate.

SIR R. WEBSTER

The questions asked before the police magistrate only relate to Veck and Newlove. Does the hon. Member suggest that, on the case against Newlove, and I being of opinion that there was no sufficient ground for criminating other persons, questions ought to have been asked by means of a side-wind, so to speak, in order to elicit a charge against other persons? It would have been most discreditable conduct on the part of the person charged with the prosecution of Newlove and Veck to have put questions so as to bring out evidence against Lord Arthur Somerset or any other person. Questions were put by Mr. Avory in order to establish the guilt of Veck and Newlove; but I understand the hon. Gentleman to make a much more serious allegation, that the Attorney General arranged the questions which were to be put either by Mr. Avory or by the Treasury solicitor. Not one word ever passed between me and Mr. Avory and the Treasury solicitor as to the questions to be put. The statements were taken and examined in the ordinary way. Then the hon. Member said that Hanks went down to Badminton and received directions to withdraw. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House his authority for that? As far as I know, there is not the slightest foundation for the statement; because I myself gave personally directions to the Chief Commissioner of Police, among others, that an inquiry should be prosecuted, in order to bring all the parties who were really implicated to justice. I, therefore, ask again who was the person who informed the hon. Member that Hanks was directed to withdraw? Now, I come to the very grave charge which the hon. Member makes respecting the supposed communication between Lord Salisbury and Sir Dighton Probyn, and the allegations founded thereon. Now, the hon. Member was very careful, for I watched him most closely, in making this charge. Does the hon. Member suggest that Sir Dighton Probyn has given him a version of the conversation? From whom did the hon. Member get that statement? Was it the gossip of the clubs?

MR. LABOUCHERE

The hon. Gentleman asks me a question, and I will offer him this. I will write down the name of the person from whom I received it, and then I will leave it to the hon. Gentleman to read it out to the House or not.

MR. MAC NEILL

Accept the challenge.

SIR R. WEBSTER

The hon. Member may or may not write the name down; but my question is "Yes" or "No;" did the hon. Gentleman get the statement from Sir Dighton Probyn? There are two parties to this interview. I have been able to communicate directly with one of them; but I have not been able to communicate with the other. But I am able to state exactly what did happen at the supposed interview. The statement is this: that, at a place not named, Sir Dighton Probyn, having telegraphed to see the Prime Minister, had a conversation with him, the exact purport of which is not stated. But at that interview Sir Dighton Probyn was told by the Prime Minister that he would issue the warrant "to-morrow or imme- diately," and that that communication was intended to be delivered by Sir Dighton Probyn to Lord Arthur Somerset. Mr. Courtney, the best answer to that is to give the simple statement of Lord Salisbury, which cannot be made otherwise than through me, in consequence of the course which the hon. Member has thought lit to pursue. The statement was very simple and straightforward, and I think the House will be able to judge whether, after a fair recital of the words, the story is likely to be true. Sir Dighton Probyn did see Lord Salisbury on a date, which I cannot fix, but it was the date upon which Lord Author Somerset fled from London. It was the evening of the day on which Lord Arthur Somerset disappeared. Sir Dighton Probyn saw Lord Salisbury, and asked him whether there was any truth in the imputations made in certain newspapers against certain parsons whom he named. Lord Salisbury said that, as far as he knew, there was not a vestige of evidence against any of those persons except one, and in his case the evidence of identity was not he believed, in the judgment of the Law Advisers of the Crown, sufficient. Whether Lord Salisbury said that or not, hon. Members can, of course, form their own opinion; but it is much more probable that Lord Salisbury would have said something which was in accordance with truth than that which was contrary to the fact. The statement made by the hon. Member is that some person told him that Lord Salisbury said the warrant would be issued "to morrow or immediately." As a matter of fact, I can state, from my own personal knowledge, that it was not determined to issue the warrant, and my directions were not given until the 7th or 8th of November. I cannot fix the exact date, because I cannot remember how long it took to prepare the depositions. But now I am glad to be able—for I believe the House want to know the facts—to negative the other statement, though I have not been able to check the statement as to the supposed conversation. I cannot imagine a more simple and straightforward story than that which I am enabled to make. Sir Dighton Probyn came back from the interview with Lord Salisbury; he never saw Lord Arthur Somerset again, and he never, directly or indirectly, com- municated with him through any person. Nobody was more surprised than Sir Dighton Probyn that Lord Arthur Somerset had gone, for up to that moment he believed emphatically in the innocence of Lord Arthur Somerset. I assert that there is no foundation whatever for the statement that Lord Salisbury stated that a warrant was going to be issued "tomorrow or immediately."

MR. LABOUCHERE

Does he deny it?

SIR R. WEBSTER

The hon. Member says "does he deny it?" Never until to-night has he stated what the words were. But I ask whether it is possible to reconcile the alleged story with the statement I have read in Lord Salisbury's own words?

MR. LABOUCHERE

Then he does, not deny it?

SIR R. WEBSTER

I would not notice such an unjust observation and, criticism upon the simple story I have told of this matter. The hon. Member knows that Lord Salisbury has denied it in the most straightforward manner by stating what actually did take place. If this kind of argument is to be used, why has not the hon. Member in common fairness allowed the question to be put across the floor of the House of Lords "Did that conversation take place?"

MR. LABOUCHERE

I will tell the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have not got Lords in my pocket.

SIR R. WEBSTER

No; the hon. Member has not got Lords in his pocket to do such dirty work as that. The hon. Member might have put a question to the First Lord of the Treasury. Over and over again questions have been asked in this House as to whether Lord Salisbury has made such and such a statement. The hon. Member comes down to the House and makes an allegation without taking the slightest means of verifying it.

MR. LABOUCHERE

How do you know that?

SIR R. WEBSTER

Because if he had a scrap of evidence lie would be only too glad to produce it. Mr. Courtney, the statement is so absurd that—

MR. LABOUCHERE

I do not want to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, but he said he would take this piece of paper from me with the name on it. I will leave him to read it out to the House or not, as he likes. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman take it. [Here the hon. Member held out a small piece of paper]

SIR R. WEBSTER

I insist upon putting the question which I am entitled to put. Does the hon. Gentleman say he got the statement from Sir Dighton Probyn? Will he answer that question or not?

MR. LABOUOHERE

Look at the paper.

SIR R. WEBSTER

I am entitled to continue my speech. Nobody is entitled to make such a charge as this on hearsay evidence.

MR. LABOUOHERE

It is not hearsay evidence.

SIR R. WEBSTER

This I assert, that Lord Salisbury does distinctly deny that he ever said one single word about a warrant being issued, or directly or indirectly, conveyed anything of the kind. In this particular matter, I have only one more fact to discuss. The matter was most carefully considered, and I again saw the Lord Chancellor, and, not being convinced altogether, the Lord Chancellor told mo I should act in the matter on my own responsibility.

SIR H. DAVEY (Stockton)

Which matter?

SIR R. WEBSTER

The matter I am dealing with—that of Lord Arthur Somerset. That was about the 1st or 2nd of November. I then gave directions that the warrant should be issued. I have been occupied with this matter for a long time, and I say that a more infamous charge than that made by the hon. Member was never brought, without a shadow of foundation. I hope and believe there are many on the other side of the House, who, however bitter their Party feeling, will not by their vote support such an accusation as that which has been levelled by the hon. Member for Northampton. The hon. Member has said that when Lord A. Somerset went to Constantinople he applied to the Sultan for an appointment. I know absolutely nothing about it. I do not suppose the hon. Member can know anything except some newspaper rumour that has come home, but in any event, it has nothing to do with the case, and was only introduced, I suppose, as a matter of prejudice. The last charge made is that Newton was made a scapegoat. I am not sure that I am justified in saying what I am about to say; but I suppose I must do so in consequence of the suggestion that has been made. The suggestion of prosecuting Newton was started as early as September or October, when we had reason to believe that he was doing that which was subsequently stated on oath. So far from making the man a scapegoat, I considered whether the evidence was sufficient, and I came to the conclusion that it was not sufficient to sustain the charge. I may be right or wrong, but nobody in my position can approach such questions otherwise than with a great feeling of responsibility; and I have been actuated throughout the whole affair by the determination, from which I never swerved, that, be he high or low, if there was evidence, the man should be prosecuted; but that I would not subject a man to these horrible accusations on the whispers which come from clubs or the paragraphs which are inserted in newspapers. I believe I have now referred to all the allegations made by the hon. Member. I thought the hon. Member would have given some authority for the statement that the policy of Her Majesty's Government has been that distinguished persons are allowed to go about committing these crimes with impunity, but that poor persons are hauled up. If there were any justification for such an, allegation, why, in the name of every instinct of fair-play, did not the hon. Member give us the time at which he says some Minister has directly or indirectly controlled the action of the Criminal Law? It is a mistake to suppose that the Director of Public Prosecutions acts under the direction of the Home Secretary. The rule is that the action of the Public Prosecutor should in all matters, including the instruction of counsel, be subject to the Attorney General, and during the time I have had the honour of holding my present office I have had, practically speaking, in all such cases the evidence before me. If there were any attempt to prevent justice being done it must have been known to me; and I repeat that there is not a shadow of foundation for the charge which the hon. Member has thought fit to bring. This is not an occasion on which, if I were capable of doing so, I should indulge in elo- quent denunciation of the hon. Member's conduct. I leave it to those who have heard the hon. Member's accusation and to those who have heard my statement and know his reputation to judge on which side truth lies. I can well understand that hon. Members, who, I am aware, regard my conduct in other respects in an unfriendly manner, have thought fit to suggest that my statement is unworthy of credit. [Home Rule Cheers.] I am quite willing to submit that to the judgment of the House. This I will say: examination was conducted step by step into the conduct of the persons in this matter; and though it may be easy to say that in the possible knowledge of guilt other steps might have been taken, yet in regard to the accusation made against Lord Salisbury and those connected with him that they have interfered with the course of justice, there is not the slightest foundation in any way for the allegations which the hon. Member has put forward.

(7.45.) MR. LABOUCHERE

I will deal first with Lord Salisbury. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that Lord Salisbury did not say anything about a warrant, because he told him he said something about something else.

SIR R. WEBSTER

Will the hon. Member pardon me? I stated distinctly that Lord Salisbury denied the allegation about the warrant. I had not his words at that moment before me. They are distinct. Lord Salisbury says:—"I said nothing whatever about the date of the issue of the warrant."

MR. LABOUCHERE

I was not certain as to the exact word—whether it was "soon" or "next day." The hon. Gentleman thought he had proved his case by asking, from whom did you get this information? What did I offer? I offered to write down the name of the gentleman, and to submit it to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and if he, having seen the name, liked to read it to the House he was at full liberty to do so. [Ministerial cries of "Read it yourself."] I leave it to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman at first appeared to accept the proposal, but he thought better of it afterwards. I can perfectly well understand why the hon. and learned Gentleman did not accept the proposal. I am obliged to speak frankly and truly in this matter. I assert, if I am obliged to do it, that I do not believe Lord Salisbury.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is aware that there is a certain courtesy due from Members of this House to the Members of the other House. It would be intolerable for an hon. Member to use that language of a Member of this House, and he cannot be permitted to use it of a Member of the other House.

MR. LABOUCHERE

Sir, I repeat it.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must call on the hon. Member to withdraw the expression.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I decline, Sir, to withdraw. [Cries of"Name."]

THE CHAIRMAN

I shall have to exercise the authority vested in me if the hon. Member declines to obey my ruling. Does the hon. Member withdraw?

MR. LABOUCHERE

No, Sir.

(7.48.) MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

As a matter of order, Sir, I wish to ask whether there is any precedent for a Member of this House being called upon to withdraw a statement he had made with regard to a Member of the other House; and if there be any precedent—in the case of an hon. Member of this House refusing to withdraw such a statement—for the Presiding Officer resorting to the pains and penalties which he is authorised to enforce. I will call your attention to the fact that on one occasion a statement was made by the Marquess of Salisbury, after the departure and suicide of Pigott, that certain letters, which are now acknowledged to be forgeries, attributed to the hon. Member for Cork, were really not forgeries. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland happened to make some allusion which enabled me to say something with regard to both him and the Marquess of Salisbury. You, Sir, called upon me to withdraw the observation, which was practically similar, as to the Chief Secretary, because he was a Member of this House. I repeated the observation with, regard to the Marquess of Salisbury, and you did not call upon me to withdraw.

THE CHAIRMAN

There is nothing in the objection of the hon. Member. I again ask the hon. Member for Northampton whether he is about to obey the direction I have given him to withdraw?

MR. LABOUCHERE

With all due respect to you, Sir, I must decline to withdraw.

THE CHAIRMAN

Then I name you, Mr. Henry Labouchcre.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH, Strand, Westminster)

It is my duty to move that Mr. Henry Labouchere be suspended from the service of the House.

MR. HENEY LABOUCHERE,

Member for Northampton, having been named by the Chairman as disregarding the authority of the Chair:—

(7.50.) Motion made, and Question put, "That Mr. Henry Labouchere be suspended from the service of the House:"—The Committee divided:—Ayes 177; Noes 96.—(Div. List, No. 15.)

Whereupon Mr. Chairman left the Chair in order to report the said Resolution to the House.

MR. SPEAKER

resumed the Chair, and Mr. COUBTNEY reported that Mr. Henry Labouchere had been named by him to the Committee as disregarding the authority of the Chair, and that the Committee had resolved that Mr. Henry Labouchere be suspended from the service of the House.

MR. E. ROBERTSON (Dundee)

I rise to order. I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is possible to obtain your ruling now with reference to a certain ruling of the Chairman from the Chair, in consequence of which ruling the Motion now reported to you was carried?

MR. SPEAKER

That is not in order now.

Question put, "That Mr. Henry Labouchere be suspended from the service of this House."

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that a division has not been challenged, you having declared that "the Noes have it."

MR. SPEAKER

A division was challenged, and I ordered strangers to withdraw.

(8.0.) The House divided:—Ayes 178; Noes 97.—(Div. List, No. 16.)

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Gentleman will withdraw.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I beg, Sir, to withdraw, expressing at the same time my regret that my conscience would not allow me to say I believed Lord Salisbury.

The hon. Member withdrew accordingly.

SUPPLY again considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Question again proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £3,725,003, be granted for the said Serviees.

(8.10.) MR. E.ROBERTSON (Dundee)

I am sure you will not misunderstand me, Mr. Courtney, when I say I feel bound at once to rise in consequence of what has happened, and to move to report Progress. I understand I am at liberty to speak only to the matter of such Motion, and if I inadvertently do more I shall be glad to be called to order. I make this Motion specifically on the ground that there has been an infringement of the liberty of debate. An ancient privilege of this House, liberty of debate, has been infringed, when an hon. Member of this House has been expelled for declaring that he did not believe the word of an individual who happened to be a Member of the other House of Parliament. The word so challenged by my hon. Friend was not uttered in that House; was not uttered in his character of a Member of that House; was not uttered even in his character of an official of this country; but it was communicated to this House by a Member of the Government as a statement made by a private person, and it was communicated to him and communicated to the House in a matter affecting his official conduct. I understand that the rule of courtesy and comity which prevails between the two Houses extends to individual Members of either House in their capacity as such Members. But I do not understand that the Rules of this House require us to observe the rule of courtesy where the action concerned is the action of a private Member of the other House, not as a Member of that House, but as a private individual. Incidentally and collaterally to that, I beg the Committee to observe that at this moment, in consequence of what has taken place, we are deprived of our leader in this debate, and to allow the debate to go on under these circumstances would manifestly be futile. Our liberties have been invaded by your ruling, Mr. Courtney. On that general ground, Sir, which I allege with the most perfect respect for yourself in your capacity as Chairman of Committee, and also on the particular ground that the continuance of this debate has become an impossibility, I beg now to move that you do report Progress.

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

(8.14.) THE CHAIRMAN

I did not interrupt the hon. Member in his speech; but I must point out that to discuss my ruling on the Motion to report Progress is irregular. If the hon. Member wishes to challenge or arraign my ruling the proper way to do so is by Motion with the Speaker in the Chair. The second contention of the hon. Gentleman is, of course, perfectly relevant to the Motion.

(8.15.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 97; Noes 168.—(Div. List, No. 17.)

Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,725,003, be granted for the said Services."

(8.37.) MR. J. MORLEY (Newcastleon-Tyne)

Mr. Courtney, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, who made the Motion upon which we have just divided, gave two reasons for that Motion. You then, Sir, from the Chair told us that, so far as one of those reasons was concerned—namely, that on the questioning of your ruling—the proper course was to arraign that ruling when the Speaker was in the Chair to take a division in a, full House upon that subject. I understand, Mr. Courtney, that it is the intention of some of my hon. Friends behind me to raise the question of your ruling, and on the proper occasion I shall support them. So far as the second ground is concerned, I think it is felt that the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton is a good reason why we should not continue a debate in which he has not completed his answer. I therefore would suggest to my hon. Friends that we should now leave the hon. Member for Northampton's proposal, and resume the discussion on some occasion when he shall be present, and that we should proceed with the other business before the Committee. So far as the debate has gone, it seems to me that my hon. Friend has done a good service in raising a subject around which a great cloud of rumour and mystery has gathered; and I think I am bound to say that the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney General, although there were in it some gaps which may, on some future occasion, be criticised—I think the effect of that speech will, undoubtedly, be to dissipate most of those rumours. I do not know what happens to the Motion of my hon. Friend; but, at all events, I think the Committee will be well advised if this particular discussion is allowed for the present to drop, to be resumed at some time when the Mover is present.

(8.40.) MR. W. H. SMITH

The right hon. Gentleman has only done what we should have expected from him when he said the speech of the Attorney General had dispelled those mists that had gathered round this painful question; but I must remind him and the Committee that it will be impossible for us to allow the question to drop without a division on the proposal which the hon. Member for Northampton has raised. The Government cannot allow a charge of this kind to hang round the Prime Minister for an indefinite period, until the hon. Member for Northampton is able to return to his place. The Motion is in charge of the Committee, and must be disposed of by the Committee. If the hon. Gentleman is so ill-advised as to return to the charge at a future period he may do so; but we must challenge a decision from the Committee now that we have had the charges, and that which we claim, to be a complete and absolute refutation from the Attorney General of one of the most odious charges that could, by any possibility, be brought against a Minister of the Crown.

(8.42.) MR. E. ROBERTSON

Without making any admission whatever as to the effect of the speech of the Attorney General, I refuse to accept the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman to take a division now. A division now, without further debate, would be a mere farce, and can have no effect whatever on the character of Lord Salisbury, or as indicating the feeling of the House in regard to his action. We have not the materials for a decision; many matters have been left unexplained. If a division is forced, I shall take no part in it.

(8.43.) MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

The Debate upon which we are now engaged, if ended by a division under present circumstances, will compel an expression of opinion inside and outside the House which I think would be much to be regretted. A statement has been made by the Attorney General contradicting several allegations made by my hon. Colleague, one of them especially dependent on a matter of fact upon which a Member of the other House has also made a statement. I take it, Sir, that in accordance with your ruling it is not possible, within the bounds of Parliamentary usage, for one Member of this House to express his disbelief of a statement made by another Member of this House. Your ruling must go to that extent, otherwise it would seek to enforce stricter rules as applied to language used as against Members of the other House than as to language used in relation to Members of this House. I did not understand my Colleague to use the kind of language which I have over and over again heard checked as disorderly in this House, and as implying wilful misstatement to the person against whom such language was directed; I understood it to be his expression of his belief in the matter. And there is this difficulty: that if two statements are made, one by a Member of this House, and one by a Member of the other House, which conflict, and upon which this Committee is asked to express its judgment—presumably my Colleague would have gone on to give the reasons for his disbelief.

THE CHAIRMAN

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member; but he is now entering upon a matter which is not pertinent to the Vote before the Committee.

MR. BRADLAUGH

I will not press that line of observations, which seems to be out of order. I only intended to show how extremely unsatisfactory any Division must be, when, to my mind, and possibly to the minds of many others, the debate or issue before us has been abridged at a point where proof or disproof of denial might have been given.

I can only say that I shall be driven to vote for a reduction of the Vote if the Division is forced upon the Committee now, because my Colleague, in the middle of his statement, was prevented from concluding it. I am bound to say that, clear as was the statement of the Attorney General on some points, there was one point upon which it was consider-lacking in clearness. A charge made by my hon. Colleague was that at a particular time in November Lord Arthur Somerset learned from somebody—I do not know from whom—that proceedings were likely to be taken criminally against him, and thereupon he fled to escape these proceedings. I gather from the statement of the Attorneys General that early in July a case, full of suspicion at any rate, against Lord Arthur Somerset was then submitted to him. I gather from the statement of the Attorney General that on three occasions he consulted the Lord Chancellor on the subject, a course he will agree with me in saying which is not usual in criminal matters—a course which it may be presumed was pursued because of the very high position of one of the persons implicated.

SIR R. WEBSTER

I distinctly stated that I also consulted the Lord Chancellor in reference to others. I made no distinction whatever in respect to persons.

MR. BRADLAUGH

But I gather from the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman that at that time evidence implicating Veck was before him, and that there were statements which—whether or not they were sufficient as evidence—did cast suspicion on other persons. I think that appears to be on this agreement, and perhaps the only common ground at the beginning between my Colleague and the Attorney General. Afterwards further evidence came in, upon which the Attorney General again consulted the Lord Chancellor; and yet further evidence, upon which he for the third time consulted the Lord Chancellor. The date of the resignation of his commission by Lord Arthur Somerset, and the acceptance of that resignation between October 18 and the date of the issue of the warrant, is certainly a most important matter, especially as in the more complete statement from the noble Marquess read to the House, to which I listened very atten- tively, it was stated that he said nothing whatever as to the date of the issue of the warrant. That is perfectly consistent with my Colleague's statement that something was said about the issue of the warrant. Ambiguous language has been used, and I am not expressing an opinion on matters of fact that are not within my own knowledge. I should be loth to uphold the contention of my Colleague against the denial of the noble Marquess except upon the statement of the Attorney-General himself who read to the Committee a statement as coming from Lord Salisbury, from which it appears that the noble Marquess had an interview with Sir Dighton Probyn on this matter, and which does not positively deny that anything was said about a warrant. The words read from the paper returned to the first Lord of the Treasury, and which I presume was some communication from Lord Salisbury himself, the words were that the noble Marquess said nothing whatever about the date of the issue of the warrant. I submit to the Committee, although to me a discussion of this kind is painful, from inception to end, I submit to the Committee that however my Colleague may have been held to have broken the rules of Parliamentary debate, at any rate there is more in the allegation made by my hon. Colleague, and the arguments he used than may have seemed to many Members opposite. I should be unworthy of association with my Colleague in the representation of the borough for which we sit, if, though I have no knowledge of the actual facts, I did not take the opportunity of putting this before the Committee.

(8.50.) COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

I greatly regret that the leader of the House does not see his way to accept the hint of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle. It must be allowed that the Front Opposition Bench has up to now given the Government much assistance in the conduct of business, and now the first time the Government are asked to make some little allowance for circumstances in the interest of fair discussion, the right hon. Gentleman puts down his foot and positively declares he will have a Vote. The Committee is perfectly familiar with the practice of postponing contested Votes and taking other Votes, and in another week or fortnight we can resume this discussion in cooler, calmer minds, and decide the matter on its merits. I will not go so far as to say I am the most impartial man in the House, but I do say I have given proof of my impartiality in reference to the matter before the Committee to-night. For this reason I missed the first Division on the Suspension, because I thought it was a Division on a question in which I did not wish to interfere in any way. Being very impartial in that respect, still I think it is only fair that the hon. Member for Northampton should be allowed to return to his seat before the discussion is proceeded with and a decision arrived at. I, myself, heard the Attorney General distinctly challenge the hon. Member for Northampton to get up and indicate any point in which his reply was not complete, and but for that challenge I hardly think the hon. Member for Northampton would have got up again. In the course of his speech the hon. Member strayed into some expressions which did not find favour at your hands, Mr. Courtney, but I no more dreamed that the right hon. Gentleman would have moved the suspension of the hon. Member for Northampton, than that he would move the suspension of the First Lord of the Treasury. I think, Sir, under the circumstances we cannot now come to any fair determination. I do not pretend to have any knowledge of the main question, but if the question is put while the hon. Member for Northampton is absent, I must vote in what I suppose will be the minority, though if the hon. Member is here again I shall probably do as I intended to do when I absented myself from the first Division. To give the First Lord every opportunity to recede from the position he has taken, and accept the moderate proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle, I beg to move that you now leave the chair.

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

(8.52.) MR. W. H. SMITH

Of course, Sir, it is impossible for us to accept the Motion just made. The hon. and gallant Gentleman professes an impartial mind on the subject we have been discussing, and I am sure I should be glad to listen to expressions of impartial opinion. He expressed some surprise that I should have found it necessary to move the suspension of the hon. Member for Northampton. In making the motion for the suspension of the hon. Member, I was simply acting in a Ministerial capacity. You, Sir, in the exercise of the authority which rests with you in the Chair, had named the hon. Member, and I had no discretion in the matter, but to give expression to your ruling, and to make the Motion which I placed before the House. The most grave charges are made which could be made against any public man—[A Voice: "Murder"]—well, I am not sure that this is not worse than murder, which might possibly be committed under provocation; but we are charged with deliberately hindering the course of justice. The hon. Member for Northampton had laid his case before the House, and he had abundant opportunity of making a reply to the speech in which that statement was answered; but he was called to order, and refused to obey your ruling. I may say, parenthetically, that no hon. Member should consider himself as subjected to any inconvenience, or that there is anything personally derogatory to himself in obeying the ruling of the Chair. It was the refusal to obey your ruling, Sir, that led to your reprimand of the hon. Member. We cannot permit ourselves or our Colleagues to remain under this charge or to leave it hanging round our necks for an absolutely unlimited period, and we must ask the Committee to decide whether they believe these statements to be true or false. That is the issue. Deeply as I regret that the hon. Member for Northampton has excluded himself from the House, I say it is only a matter of common fairness between gentlemen and Members of this House that this discussion shall be concluded this evening, and that the Committee shall say whether they believe Her Majesty's servants to be guilty of this great enormity, this frightful crime charged against them, or whether they do not.

(9.20.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

(9.22.) MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I had no intention of taking part in the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the senior Member for Northampton, but I am forced to do so by the fact that we have not now the benefit of the assistance of the hon. Member who is most intimately acquainted with the facts. I must congratulate the Attorney General on the success of his tactics, for in the most provoking manner he invited my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton to give his opinion with regard to a certain statement by the Marquess of Salisbury, and in that way provoked my hon. Friend into an assertion as to his credence or want of credence regarding that statesman's utterance. He has thus gained the marvellous advantage of securing that his speech shall not be replied to. There is not a single one of us who would not have assented to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle, which offered the Government a means of escape from the unfortunate position in which they are placed by the absence of the hon. Member for Northampton. But such is their gratitude for this kind and generous offer, that the First Lord of the Treasury challenged us to keep on the discussion, although one of the parties most concerned in it is present. We are, therefore, compelled to go on to state our views regarding the statements which have been made. Now, what is our position? The Member for Northampton has made a statement, and the Attorney General has also made a statement. These two hon. Members are the sole depositories of the facts, and yet the First Lord of the Treasury thinks it fair to call upon us to give a vote aye or no, when only one of the disputants present, and he a Member of the political party opposite. I do not wish to embitter this controversy by any allusions that may be disagreeable to the Attorney General, but I think he must allow me to say that we have had previous experience of the learned Gentleman with regard to the question of foul and calumnious and odious charges, and he cannot be surprised if we adopt an attitude of reserve and scepticism with respect to the statements he has made. I think I have put that as gently and as courteously as any man could do. I feel inclined to be rather gentle with the hon. and learned Member, because I see his experience has not altogether been lost on him, for there was nothing more edifying in his singularly lofty address—lofty I mean in manner, and gesture, and acclamation—the horror he expressed for charges which were lightly made. There is unalloyed joy on these Benches at the somewhat tardy repentance of the hon. Gentleman. Now we are asked to give a vote in the absence of the hon. Member who initiated the discussion, and we are asked to give a vote on the uncontradicted speech of the Attorney General relating to a long Series of facts which I, for one, found it vary difficult to follow. We think that the Government should postpone this discussion until my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton is in his place. But the Attorney General and the First Lord of the Treasury object to postpone the discussion of these grave and odious charges for so long a period. Again I must congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Attorney General on his newly awakened faith in the desirability of prompt means being given to answer such charges. But let me point out that we do not ask that the discussion be postponed for an indefinite period. My hon. Friend will be in his place in a week's time. My hon. Friend has not lightly taken up this question; he has done so because he considers it his duty as a public man, and I tell the Attorney General he will hear more of this question from my hon. Friend. If the Government insist on our going to a Division, I will be no party to it, because such a Division would be taken under circumstances of disadvantage to the cause of the hon. Member for Northampton. I have said that this case travels over a large number of complicated events on various dates, and the hon. and learned Member cannot expect us to be able to decide immediately after hearing his speech—which is the speech of a trained lawyer and advocate, part of whose professional duty is—and I do not say this in any bad sense—to mystify those whom he addresses with regard to awkward facts. I am quite prepared, although at a disadvantage, to dissect some of the statements that have been made by the Attorney General, and I must say the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley) put it very fairly when he stated that there are gaps in the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Now, what is the first gap?

THE CHAIRMAN

I must call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Motion before the Chair. It is simply that I do leave the Chair. The hon. Member is travelling very wide of that question.

(9.33.) MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I did not happen to be in the House when this question was first raised, and therefore I may be excused for having somewhat diverged from the proposal before the Committee. My attention having now been called to it, I shall not be guilty of so flagrant a breach of order as to attempt to enter upon the general question. I am sure I express the feelings of my hon. Friends on this side of the House when I say that we should not go to a Division, under existing circumstances, if we did not feel justified in so doing. We accept the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle, and I would urge upon the Government the desirability of affording an opportunity for continuing this discussion when the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) is in the House. If, however, the Government are desirous of snatching a verdict under the circumstances, let them do so, but they will have to face the verdict that will be given outside this House. It will be for the country to judge of the action of Her Majesty's Government in forcing this question to a premature Vote when the House has before it only an imperfect statement of the real facts. I would therefore urge upon the House not only in its own interests, but in the interests of fair-play, and in the general interests of the public as well as of those who are suffering under most unjust imputations with regard to the offences that have been brought before the House, to postpone this Vote until my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) can be again in his place, and we shall have a fair opportunity of full and free discussion.

(9.35.) DR. TANNER (Cork, Mid)

I have not had the opportunity of hearing this matter discussed; but I must say that I felt very much astonished to hear that an English Member trying to do his duty in this House had been absolutely sat upon in a way with which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General is so familiar. Practically speaking, the hon. Member was led into a trap, with the result that he has been suspended from the service of this House. Of course, it is not for me at this moment to enter into detailed comment on the subject of the hon. Member's suspension, but, at the same time, it is a very serious matter; and having noticed the aspect of the Attorney General since I came into the House, I can understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman is sorry for what has happened. The question that has been under discussion is not a very pleasant one for Members of this House to discuss; but when the senior Member for Northampton has taken the question up and endeavoured to prove the case he has submitted, the dirt and filth lie with hon. Members on the opposite side of the House who refuse to take action on the subject. There ought to be no dilly-dallying with this sort of business.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! I would point out to the hon. Member that the Question before the Committee is that I leave the Chair.

DR. TANNER

Certainly, Sir. [Laughter.] Hon. Members should bear in mind that this is no laughing matter. Mr. Courtney, I always bow to your ruling, and accept it in a most thorough manner; but I repeat that this is no laughing matter, especially to Members of the Government who sit there and are absolutely dumb. They have listened to the remarks which fell from my hon. Friend and Colleague the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) and they will give him no answer. What are Her Majesty's Government paid for except to answer? Why does not some right hon. Gentleman get up and reply? Why is there any hesitation on the part of the Government? The suspension of one of the senior and most intelligent Members of this House—a gentleman who never gets up to speak without being attentively listened to by the most intelligent portion of the House—is a very serious matter. Of course, I do not allude to the "deadheads," and I repeat that we ought to have a reply from some spokesman of the Government, if, indeed, they have anything to say on the subject. Their conduct is really stupid. [Cries of"Order"] If that remark is not Parliamentary I withdraw it. But I certainly think it is stupid on the part of the salaried Officers of the Crown to succeed in suspending an hon. Member of this House, and when their conduct has been challenged from this side refuse to give an answer. Now, Mr. Courtney, I do not desire to continue this debate. I only got up for the simple purpose of trying, if possible, to spur on, to egg on, to compulse, to coerce, and to exercise some pressure on the Attorney General, who seems content to sit dumb under the charge which has been brought against the Government from this side of the House. It is disgusting.

(9.40.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 80; Noes 163.—(Div. List, No. 18.)

Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,725,003, be granted for the said Services."

(9.51.) MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

In view of the vote just given by the majority of the House, we are compelled, in the absence of my hon. Friend, to go on discussing this case. The general effect of the Attorney General's speech has been, in my opinion, which perhaps may be considered due to partisanship, that, while it has corrected some statements, and thrown doubt on others, to convince us of the general truth of the case. [Ministerial laughter]I have no doubt that what the Attorney General said has carried conviction to hon. Gentlemen opposite. But what the hon. and learned Gentleman said with regard to the Pigott forgeries had exactly the same effect upon them. As the hon. Member who has brought forward the question is absent, all that can be done is to dissect the case of the Government as presented by themselves. The statement of the Attorney General has been charitably described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle as having certain gaps; it is more accurate to say that it was all gaps. The great fact left unexplained is that a house admittedly used for vile purposes was for months under the supervision of the police, and the net result, even after the action of the Attorney General, the Lord Chancellor, and the Prime Minister, is that two of the most obscure criminals have been imprisoned for ludicrously short terms. The common sense of the country will not regard the sophistries of the Attorney General as any explanation of this fact. Again, why is it necessary to call into the discussion of the case the Attorney General, the Lord Chancellor, and the Prime Minister? These crimes are, unfortunately, of not uncommon occurrence; and any frequenter of an Assize Court must have seen many poor and wretched agricultural labourers brought up on such charges.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Newport, Shropshire)

No, no.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I congratulate the hon. Member on his ignorance; it is an ignorance which I do not at all find fault with. But the hon. Gentleman is wrong in his statement. It is a fact well-known to those who attend Assizes, that labourers and poor people are frequently brought up charged with these offences. [Colonel KENYON-SLANEY: No, no.] If the hon. Gentleman wishes to interrupt me, of course he can do so.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Member, but I object to the character which he gives the agricultural labourer. I do not think it fair because of this particular controversy to brand the whole class of agricultural labourers, who, at all events in my particular county, do not bear that character.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I must say that I do not see the relevancy of the interruption. I do not brand the whole peasantry of the country because certain of them are sometimes charged with these odious offences, any more than I brand the whole nobility because one member of it flies from justice. I cannot really give way to the hon. Gentleman, whose remarks are irrelevant and do not enlighten the House with regard to any statement I have made. What I want to ask the Attorney General is this: When a humble person is charged with such an offence, does the Attorney General consult the Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister? There is no answer to the fact that the titled position of suspected persons induced consultation with Ministers of the Crown who would not otherwise have been consulted. Is that equality before the law? Is the prosecution of a crime like this, because a man happens to bear a title, to be made a Cabinet question? That is a point upon which the public mind will eagerly ask for information. I have asked a question of the Attorney General, and he has not answered me. His attention was called to the fact that he consulted the Lord Chancellor as to the case of that unhappy nobleman whose name I. do not wish to mention, because I desire to spare his friends any pain in the matter. He denies it. What I complain of is that he makes the denial with such—I would not like to say affectation, but such an appearance of almost celestial virtue that we must have time to consider his answer before we are able to see what it really amounts to. The hon. and learned Gentleman says he did not consult him with regard to the case of the nobleman, but with regard to the case of Veck. One would really have thought from his gestures and his manner that he supposed we would be superficial and shallow enough to take that as an answer. Why did he consult the Lord Chancellor with regard to Veck? Because of all that Veck knew of this particular nobleman and other titled persons. I do not understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman has any answer to that. A gesture even so eloquent as those the Attorney General can use will not satisfy me. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked that his attention might be called to any point he might hive omitted. I have called his attention to this point, and I will not be put off with a gesture; he will keep his word. If he breaks it the country will be left to judge. There is another point to which I wish to call attention. The Attorney General says Hammond left on the morning of the 5th of July. I want to ask whether the Government or any Member of the Government knew the facts before the 5th of July?

SIR R. WEBSTER

I beg to state at once that the boys made a statement on July 4, and were immediately suspended, and were able to go away from their work. It is supposed that New love communicated with Hammond that night, and on the following morning Hammond went away.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

That is exactly my case. Why were not both New love and Hammond watched? The Government can find detectives enough to dog the footsteps of the Irish Members; they cannot find a detective to dog the footsteps of a ruffian who, for upwards of a year, has kept a house in this City which has brought disgrace on the character of the City. They let Hammond go to France. They ought to have watched him within an hour of New love's confession, if they were serious in the business. If the Attorney General had got up and said he had thought it batter that these matters should not be made public, and that the sacred ignorance of thousands of persons in this country should be preserved even though a few miscreants should escape, that would have sealed my lips to-night. He takes up, however, an entirely different position. I corns now to the sentences passed on New love and Veck. The Attorney General assumes an air of the most virtuous indignation because my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) spoke of an arrangement between the counsel for the prosecution and the defence in this case. The Attorney General is an experienced lawyer of many years' practice, and he knows that arrangements of this kind are common; that they take place almost every day, and that there is no dishonour on one side or the other. Take the case of Father M'Fadden and the other Gweedore prisoners. Everyone knows that light sentences were passed because a number of the prisoners, in obedience to the advice given by counsel after consultation with counsel on the other side, pleaded guilty. Some of them, no doubt, got long sentences; but, still, these arrangements between one side and the other are as common almost as criminal trials. In spite of all the Attorney General says, I maintain that there was such an arrangement here, and the object and meaning of it was to close the mouths of the persons in gaol, and in that way save the criminals whom their confessions might have exposed. I must now call attention to the Attorney General's conduct with regard to Lord Salisbury. Knowing very well that the hon. Member for Northampton was about to make an attack on the Government and Lord Salisbury, the Attorney General had ample means of getting from Lord Salisbury a statement in reply to the hon. Member for Northampton. He had, he says, formal notice, and no one can say that my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) has acted at all unfairly in the matter. He has for months given notice of his intention in a public journal with which he is notoriously associated. What docs the Attorney General do? He produces a letter from the Marquess of Salisbury denying a statement which my hon. Friend never made, but not denying the statement my hon. Friend did make. My hon. Friend's statement was that the Marquess of Salisbury spoke of a-warrant being out against this nobleman. The Attorney General, as a contradiction of that statement, says that the Marquess of Salisbury was asked whom he thought to be guilty and whom innocent, and that the Marquess replied that except in the case of one person, against whom the evidence was not quite complete, he thought the evidence broke down. How did the Prime Minister of this country become so intimately acquainted with the details of the whole case? Why was it not left to the authorities at Scotland Yard? I think the country will learn with something like stunning bewilderment that the Prime Minister, who is also our Foreign Secretary, is actually diverted from the enormous and momentous duties he has to perform in our relations with foreign countries to the discussion of the hideous, and loathsome, and horrible details of a case like this. Sir, there was no small cause for bringing the Prime Minister so deeply into the knowledge of this case. The Attorney General says Lord Salisbury stated his opinion that the evidence was strong against one individual, and insufficient against the others.

SIR R. WEBSTER

I must say, Sir, that is not in the least what I stated. I stated that Sir Dighton Probyn had asked Lord Salisbury whether there was any truth in the rumours about certain persons whom he named. Lord Salisbury replied that as far as he knew there was no evidence against any of those persons except one, whom he named, and that in his case the evidence was not, in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, sufficient.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

Of course I accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, which is in correspondence with my own recollection. But my hon. Friend asked not as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence against this person or that, but whether Lord Salisbury did or did not communicate the information with regard to the warrant. The Attorney General had no answer ready to that question. He said that the statement he made implied a contradiction of the statement of my hon. Friend. Then, by some means which I do not wish to inquire into, another statement of the Prime Minister was brought in.

SIR R. WEBSTER

I should like to put the hon. Gentleman in possession of the accurate facts. The letter from which I quoted is entirely in Lord Salisbury's handwriting, but I had copied in my own handwriting as much of it as Lord Salisbury actually said—the affirmative part. I did not copy out—I did not think it was part of the story of what he said—the denial. The letter was in the keeping of the First Lord of the Treasury, to whom it was sent, and when the question was put to me again by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchore), I got up and read the denial. I have not the smallest objection to read the whole reply again to the hon. Member, so that he may see it bears out what I have said.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I have no objection. I only ask the hon. and learned Gentleman not to read it, because I do not wish him to think, as he appears inclined to do, that I am making a charge against him. I am doing no such thing.

(10.15.) SIR R. WEBSTER

I understood the hon. Gentleman to suggest that I had not read a denial, and that some other paper was produced—as if I had produced something to which I had not referred before. I explained that I read only the affirmative part and not the negative part. This is the letter— Sir Dighton Probyn, I believe on October 15, asked me whether there was any truth in the imputations which had been made in certain newspapers against persons whom he named. I said that as far as I knew there was not a vestige of evidence against any of those persons except one, and in his case the evidence of identity was not, I believed, in the judgment of the Law Advisers of the Crown, sufficient. I said nothing whatever about the date of the issue of the warrant.

(10.17.) MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I am dissecting the Attorney General's speech, and I hope fairly. I did not charge him with concealing any part of the letter. What I said was that the Attorney General seemed to have received two statements, whereas I find he received only one. I will deal with the letter the hon. and learned Gentleman has read. Now, the Marquess of Salisbury is accustomed to writing letters of great importance, and he is a man who knows as well as anybody the significance and importance of words. What is the meaning of the mysterious reserve Lord Salisbury makes in saying not that he did not mention a warrant, but that he did not mention the date of the warrant?

(10.18.) SIR R. WEBSTER

I think it only right I should read the only document sent to Lord Salisbury with reference to this matter. This is the letter, dated February 26, of the hon. Member for Northampton:— Dear Akers-Douglas,—I think it only right that I should tell you when the Cleveland Street matter comes on I mean to refer to Lord Salisbury's interview with Sir Dighton Probyn on October —it may be the 16th or the 18th; I cannot pledge myself, for the hon. Member's writing is indistinct and to show that the statement of Lord Salisbury on that occasion that a warrant against Lord Arthur Somerset would be issued next day was conveyed to him and was the direct cause of his flight. The warrant was issued on November 9.—Tours truly, H. LABOUCHERE. That letter was sent to Lord Salisbury, and I have read his reply in his own words.

(10.20.) MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I am glad the letter has been read, because it shows how base and without foundation is the charge that adequate notice was not given by the hon. Member for Northampton to the persons he intended to attack. The whole burden of the Attorney General's speech was the unfairness of the attack which, by some miraculous intervention,—in spite of the tactics of my hon. Friend—he was yet in a position to meet. Still, the fact remains, that the Marquess of Salisbury did not deny the mention of a warrant; he said he denied the mention of the date of a warrant. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer see no difference between the two?

(10.22.) MR. GOSCHEN

As the hon. Member appeals to me, I say the charge was that Lord Salisbury said a warrant "would be issued to-morrow;" and he denied that in the most absolute terms.

(10.23.) MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not answered my question. I quite agree that the terms of the hon. Member's letter might have suggested the terms of the reply; but the Marquess of Salisbury did not deny that he had mentioned a warrant. The Attorney General also contradicted a statement my hon. Friend did not make. My hon. Friend did not say that Sir D. Probyn had seen Lord A. Somerset; there was no necessity that Sir D. Probyn should see him; the suggestion is that Sir D. Probyn communicated the knowledge he had obtained from Lord Salisbury by some other person to Lord A. Somerset, the result being that he left the country.

(10.25.) SIR R. WEBSTER

There is no doubt about my words. I said that on that night Sir D. Probyn neither saw Lord A. Somerset nor had any communication, direct or indirect, with him, and no one was more surprised than Sir D. Probyn that he had left, as he firmly believed Lord Arthur was innocent.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

The hon. and learned Gentleman knows well the authority on which my hon. Friend made the statement, or if he does not, it is because he has wilfully refused to secure the knowledge. My hon. Friend was challenged to produce his authority, and offered to write down the name, thus exercising what I, knowing the facts, deem to have been a wise and honourable discretion—a discretion which every hon. Member would respect if he knew the name. Declining thy responsibility of divulging the name, the hon. Member challenged the Attorney General to mention it. Why did he not? If the Attorney General does not know, at any rate he suspects whence the information came.

(10.26.) SIR R. WEBSTER

I am extremely sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I must crave the indulgence of the House. I had not the slightest idea as to the name the hon. Member referred to; I considered, and I consider, the responsibility of bringing in the names of these persons other than that of Sir D. Probyn should rest with the hon. Member for Northampton.

(10.27.) MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

That is a question the hon. Member must decide for himself. I maintain that the Attorney General, who may be right or wrong, is at any rate no longer in a position to say that my hon. Friend refused to give the name of his informant Sir, I, myself, know the name, but it was given to me in confidence, and I would not accept the responsibility of mentioning it; but I say the name of the informant makes it a matter of absolute conviction that the hon. Member stated the facts when he said that Lord A. Somerset knew the result of the interview between Sir D. Probyn and Lord Salisbury. It certainly seems a singular coincidence that the flight of Lord Arthur Somerset should occur on the day of that interview. I am precluded from casting doubt on the accuracy or veracity of Lord Salisbury. I will not commit myself in face of your ruling, Sir. Indeed, I do not know that I should desire to question anyone's veracity even if you had not given a ruling. I cannot say that Lord Salisbury wilfully said what was untrue; but I can say that his recollection was imperfect, and that Sir Dighton Probyn's recollection is imperfect also. And I say that the public will ask with some curiosity how it came to pass that the date of this interview and the date of Lord A. Somerset's flight were the same? A further question is this On the 12th of November there was a warrant issued against Lord Arthur Somerset, but the police knew that he was then out of the country. Why were there no proceedings to extradite him?

SIR R. WEBSTER

It was not an extraditable offence, unfortunately.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

Of course not, if the offence was reduced by the Government from felony to misdemeanour.

SIR R, WEBSTER

I say distinctly there was not the slightest evidence against the unfortunate man to whom the hon. Member refers of anything exceeding misdemeanour. There is no offence for which he could be extradited.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I, of course, accept the statement, and I am relieved to hear that so much can be said in extenuation. But I am not dealing with the offence of this unfortunate gentleman—he will suffer for it to the end of his days. I am dealing with the action of the Government, who took the course of issuing a warrant for the arrest of a man who had been out of the country a fortnight or three weeks—a farcical afterthought to make up for their remissness or laxity in allowing the man to escape. It was not on the 18th November that the Government knew for the first time of the charges against Lord Arthur Somerset. He had been watched. Why was not soma effort made to arrest him? How was it that he fled the country on the very day the conversation took place between Lord Salisbury and Sir Dighton Probyn? The common sense of the country will be able to judge of these facts. No amount of argument on the part of the Attorney General can explain the coincidences in connection with the conversations and the escape of these men. Now, Sir, what is the justification for raising this question at all? I admit that if I were left to my free choice I would never have mentioned a word of the case. But the solid ground on which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton stands is this: that whereas these odious and horrible offences are punished here in the case of poor men, all the resources and counsels of the Government are exhausted to save rich men who are charged with them. [Ministerial cries of "No."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite contradict me. Well, I have stated one side of the case; the Attorney General has stated the other, and I leave the public to decide between us. The public will not stand inequality in the treatment of anyone. It will not stand a number of unfortunate wretches being sent year after year to long sentences of penal servitude for these offences when in the midst of our city a house is allowed to exist where titled people commit these offences, and when they are allowed to escape in the end.

MR. W. H. SMITH

Now, Sir, I ask the hon. Gentleman to state to the House the name of the person on whose authority the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) made his allegations. The hon. Gentleman says he knows it. I claim, in the interests of justice, that he should state it to the House. I ask an answer from the hon. Member.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

Of course I must answer the direct appeal of the right hon. Gentleman. He knows that the name is not in my custody. My hon. Friend mentioned the name to me in confidence. [Cries of "Oh, oh!" and ironical cheers.] Does any hon. Gentleman doubt my word?

An hon. MEMBER

Yes.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! I do not know from what hon. Member that cry came.

MR. MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)

I see the gentleman, Sir—the fourth from the Gangway on the second Bench opposite.

THE CHAIRMAN

It is most un-parliamentary, and I ask him to disavow it.

MR. T. FIELDEN (Lancashire, S.E., Middleton)

If I s lid anything un-Parliamentary, of course I withdraw it.

MR.T. P. O'CONNOR

I would not take any notice of the hon. Member's observations under ordinary circumstances; but after what has taken place I feel called upon to say that the hon. Gentleman opposite did say "Yes" when I asked if anyone doubted my word. I call on you, Sir, to compel him to withdraw.

THE CHAIRMAN

I understood the hon. Member to withdraw it; but if there is any doubt about it I will again require him to withdraw it.

MR. T. FIELDFN

I withdraw.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

The right hon. Gentleman asks me to reveal a name given to me in confidence. I cannot do it in honour. The hon. and learned Attorney General had the opportunity of revealing the name, because my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) when in the House wrote it down and offered it to him.

(10.35.) MR. PICTON (Leicester)

I do not think, Sir, that any complaint can be made after what has happened tonight that it should be found necessary to discuss this question at some little length. I am afraid that neither the Ministry nor hon. Members on the opposite side of the House understand the gravity of the issues in this case. An impression has been created, and is likely to be extended, that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. I am afraid that the natural heat of the discussion has led occasionally to some little misapprehension. I should he sorry, indeed, to bring any charge of anything like corrupt collusion in the escape of criminals against members of the present Ministry. I should be very far, indeed, from endorsing a charge of criminal conspiracy, except in the innocent and merely political sense that is necessarily attached to that phrase in some particular circumstances. All that I accuse the Ministry of—and I cannot but consider that, at any rate, a primâ facie case has been proved—is a somewhat wrongful negligence. They may have thought that they had a discretion to exercise; but, in my opinion, they exercised it improperly. We can well understand the natural unwillingness of the Government to meddle with such a disgraceful matter at all, but when the exposure took place, and the law dealt, with such a case, the law ought to have been evenly and impartially applied; and the question is, whether that has been the case? There are certainly gaps in the Attorney General's argument. He assured us that the Ministry throughout the history of this dreadful case always intended when the evidence warranted it to proceed. I quite believe that; but I cannot help thinking that they formed an over-estimate of what was necessary evidence to enable them to proceed. An impression has been created that they would have been satisfied with much less evidence in the case of poor men than in the case of certain rich men. Then, again, in every criminal case it is always considered as of the utmost importance to arrest the criminal before he has time to escape. The police frequently arrest men suspected of murder if they have a reason able amount of suspicion, and why should not the same rule have been applied in the case of a dreadful crime like this? I cannot but think that a grave error has been committed by those responsible in allowing these criminals to escape while even suspicion existed. The Attorney General has denied that any arrangement was made by which the persons arrested were to plead guilty. Of course I know nothing about law, and I may not have understood the language of the Attorney General properly; but it seems to me that the Attorney General did not exactly deny what was alleged on this side of the House. The allegation is not that Mr. Poland arranged the counts on which the accused should plead guilty; but that there was a general understanding that if the men pleaded guilty they would be dealt with leniently. As far as I understood the Attorney General, he did not deny that.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir E. CLARKE, Plymouth)

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to re-read the passage from Mr. Poland's letter which the Attorney General has already read? It is as follows:— I wish to say I neither directly nor indirectly made any arrangement with the prisoners' counsel as to what counts they should plead guilty to. There was no undertaking of any kind, either expressed or implied, as to what should be done by me or the prisoners counsel.

MR. PICTON

Mr. Poland states there was no arrangement made as to which counts the prisoners should plead guilty to; but he does not say there was no understanding whatever that they should plead guilty generally. These poor men know nothing about counts. The allegation is that they pleaded guilty generally, on the suggestion being made to them that if they did so they would be leniently dealt with. Of course, that may not be so; but all I say is that the denial given to us does not absolutely contradict what has been said on this side. Then with regard to Hammond, we are told by the Attorney General that he could not possibly have been arrested. It was on the 4th July that the first revelations were made, and had there been prompt action taken Hammond could certainly have been arrested. Hammond did not escape until the 5th. One cannot help thinking that if the same energy had been displayed as would be displayed, we hope, in the case of a murderer, the man might have been arrested before he left the country. Then, it is said, he could not possibly have been brought back by extradition. But we have been told, and it has not been contradicted, that Mr. Phillips, who is connected with, the Post Office, went to Belgium and telegraphed, on the 14th of September I think, that as soon as assurance was given that demand for extradition would be formally made, action would be taken by the Belgian police. If the Belgian police were anxious to co-operate with the police of this country, why was not advantage taken of their willingness? Even if the Extradition Treaty did not apply to the case literally, arrangements might have have been made by which the man might have been expelled the territory of Belgium and so brought into the hands of justice. I do not think that the case made by my hon. Friend has been quite answered, and I cannot but think that the impression created by this debate in many parts of the country will be a very disagreeable one. It is most important that the law should by enforced regardless of rank or position. ["Hear, hear."] Yes, but the impression has been created that this has not been done in the present case, and the Government will have to make a very much better defence than they have made to-night if they would convince all sections of the community that the law in this case has been applied equally and impartially.

(10.48.) MR. MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)

Very early in the life of this Government I came to the conclusion that they would if they could introduce Irish methods into English administration, and the facts that have been elicited to-night have gone very far to bear out the justice of that conclusion. This debate has been interesting in a literary point of view; it has brought out a fresh letter from Lord Salisbury, but a letter very unlike those written to the Portuguese Government, a letter equivalent to the plea of the man who said, "Not guilty, but I will not do it again." The answer given by Lord Salisbury to the anticipated attack of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) convinces me that bluntness is hereditary, for I see the style of the Prime Minister in answering questions bears a remarkable family likeness to the style of the Chief Secretary in answering Irish questions. Now, there are various coincidences in this case to which I should like to direct the attention of the country. The 5th of July is a remarkable date in these transactions. On that date the warrant was issued for the arrest of Hammond, and on the same date Hammond escapes. No matter how the hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head—

SIR R. WEBSTER

I had better correct the hon. Gentleman. The information was put into the hands of the police on the evening of the 5th. The warrant was not issued until the 6th; and that was obliged to be because there had to be sworn informations obtained. Hammond escaped early on the morning of the 5th.

MR. MACNEILL

That makes the case against the Attorney General stronger. We shall make him a very fine criminal lawyer before we have done, as good a criminal lawyer as the Lord Chancellor. On the 4th of July these unfortunate boys were dismissed from the Post Office. They were told for what they were dismissed. That gave them an opportunity of communicating with Hammond. We have been told of the difference between misdemeanour and felony; and that Lord A. Somerset could not be extradited because he was only accused of misdemeanour. What were the boys accused of? If of anything, they were accused of felony; and if the Government had wished justice to come home to Hammond, they would have at once arrested Hammond's collaborateurs in iniquity, and not given them an opportunity of communicating with the wretch. When I heard the description of Hammond's escape just at the lucky moment I thought of our old friend Richard Pigott and his escape just at the lucky moment. If we do not sec to these matters the administration of justice in this country will become rather more Irish than it is in Ireland. The next date is the 18th of October. That was the date on which Sir Dighton Probyn interviewed the Prime Minister in reference to a criminal matter; and on that evening who escaped from justice? Lord Arthur Somerset. When Lord Arthur Somerset was well out of the way the Government issued a warrant against him. The Dowager Duchess of Beaufort died in October, and Lord Arthur Somerset attended her funeral. Constable Hanks was sent to arrest Lord Arthur Somerset, but when he got to Badminton his orders were countermanded. Why were his orders countermanded? I would suggest was out of kindness—it would have been an ungracious thing to arrest a man at a funeral. But no such considerations enter into the system of Irish administration. We know that Irish funerals are happy hunting grounds, not only for arrests, but for baton charges. Lord Arthur Somerset, a member of the classes, is to be allowed to go, while John Mandeville, who is a member of the masses, is to be arrested. I respect the Attorney General as a lawyer, and I always thought he was an independent man. When, however, he was consulted in this matter what did he do? He asked the opinion of two of the highest persons in the land, the Lord Chancellor and Lord Salisbury. When did Lord Salisbury become a criminal lawyer? I do not think even the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would be satisfied with his criminal knowledge. It is rather singular that in a case of this kind the Attorney General should consult these high person ages, when we know that in a case in which the character of the Irish Members was involved, he studiously kept aloof from any Members of the Cabinet. He confers with the Lord Chancellor and Lord Salisbury in this wretched case, but in a case in which perjury and forgery went together, in which violence and fraud kissed each other, he depended upon his own unaided judgment. I think if the Solicitor General were defending a criminal in a case like this, in a case where there might happen to be a conflict of evidence between two men, such as there is between the Marquess of Salisbury and the hon. Member for Northampton, he would consider the probabilities of the case as to where the truth would be likely to be. Did the Attorney General act in this way? The hon. Member for Northampton, when there was a conflict of testimony between himself and the Marquess of Salisbury, invited in support of his own case the name of a certain person. Now, I ask the First Lord of the Treasury and the Attorney General do they know the name of that person?

SIR R. WEBSTER

No.

MR. MACNEILL

Does the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury know? [Mr. W. H. SMITH dissented]. Well, I pass it by, for I fear that if I press the question further the right hon. Gentleman will move the Closure, having regard to his sense of duty to the House and the country. The right hon. Gentleman keeps looked up in his own breast the secret he challenged an irresponsible Irish Member of the House to give to the House and the country. Why did not the Attorney General in his investigation of the truth take for what it was worth the evidence put forward by the hon. Member for Northampton? Why did lie, a lawyer with 30 years experience at the Bar, and a high reputation in this House, why did he when he rejected that evidence, reject it with the blushing modesty of a young lady of 16? Why was the good man nonplussed? Because he knew that the personage whom he does not know but whom he strongly suspects—perhaps he has no legal proof, perhaps he only has the name of hear-say—because he knows that the name being known would at once give predominance to the truth of the allegations of the hon. Member for Northampton. I do not accuse Lord Salisbury of falsehood; I simply say there is an inaccuracy of recollection. Were I called upon to give judgment as between the testimony of Lord Salisbury and the testimony of the hon. Member for Northampton, I should find myself on the horns of a dilemma. The hon. Member for Northampton has always been a very good friend, an honourable and a true-hearted friend of ours, and therefore I would, with all my heart and soul, believe him. But, on the other hand, I would believe Lord Salisbury because he is a Member of the House of Peers. But I would point out—and I am sure the Solicitor General will agree with me—that in judging in a conflict of testimony between these two, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman were, say, engaged in defence of the hon. Member for Northampton, he would naturally, by examination, test the memory of Lord Salisbury. Suppose the noble Marquess in the witness-box, one of the questions would be:—"Do you remember the Salisbury-Schouvaloff Memorandum, the existence of which you at first denied, but afterwards confessed, amid the cheers of the opposite Party?" In this matter of recollection, it would be fair to judge Lord Salisbury and the hon. Member for Northampton by their antecedents. I do not impute inaccuracy of statement to hon. Gentlemen, but I ask them, do they know what truth is? The hon. Member for Northampton has done good service in noting a difference in the administration of justice as between rich and poor; he has made a gallant fight, and I do not think that eventually he will get the worst of it. If for a season we are deprived of his voice here, I have no doubt it will be heard with effect in speaking to the Commons at large in St. Pancras.

(11.5.) MR. C. HALL (Cambridgeshire, Chesterton)

I will detain the House but a very few minutes. I was in the United States when these occurrences took place, and up to this point I thought it bettor to leave to those better qualified by knowledge to speak on the matters which form the subject of this discussion. I should not have interposed now but I for some observations that fell from the hon. Member for S. Donegal, in which he alluded to what he called the "marvellous coincidence" between the date of Lord Arthur Somerset leaving London, and the date of the interview between the Prime Minister and General Sir Dighton Probyn. It is necessary to refer to the charge originally made in this respect by the hon. Member for Northampton, for it is practically repeated by the hon. Member for S. Donegal. Now, what was this charge? The charge brought by the hon. Member for Northampton was, that. Lord Salisbury having told Sir Dighton Probyn that a warrant would be obtained the next day or immediately, that information was conveyed to Lord Arthur Somerset, who left London the same evening. The hon. Member went on to say that the information was given with the intention that it should be conveyed to Lord Arthur Somerset. Now, there is no mistake about that being the allegation and I hope by the recital of a very short statement of facts to show not only that information was not given, but that it was impossible that it should have been given. I will not deal with the question of the honour of Sir Dighton Probyn; his name is too well known to suffer from any attack from the hon. Member for Northampton, but I will show first of all that it is impossible that the information could have been communicated by Sir Dighton Probyn to Lord Arthur Somerset, or anyone on his behalf; secondly, that Lord Arthur Somerset's flight was the very last thing that any man connected with the household of Marlborough House wished. The facts are simple, and I will recite them as far as I can without any expression of feeling. The interview between Sir Dighton Probyn and Lord Salisbury took place at King's Cross in the evening. When that interview was over Sir Dighton Probyn drove home to dress for dinner. It was then late, and having dressed he went to his club and commenced a late dinner. Before Sir Dighton Probyn had finished his dinner, and before he had spoken to anyone on the subject, Lord Arthur Somerset had left London, and it has since been ascertained that he gave orders to his servants to have his things ready for his leaving London before the interview between Lord Salisbury and Sir Dighton Probyn took place. Now, if that be the case how can it be suggested that Lord Arthur Somerset's flight was in any way connected with any information given by Sir Dighton Probyn, or through Sir Dighton Probyn? I have only to add that Sir Dighton Probyn and Lord Arthur Somerset's Colleagues in the Household believed him to be innocent, and it was their most anxious desire that he should take steps to clear his character from what they believed base and scurrilous accusations made against him; and on that, very day Sir Dighton Probyn had urged him, pressed him, to vindicate his character, and Lord Somerset said he would take steps to do so. How, in the face of these facts, can it be alleged that Sir Dighton Probyn behaved as has been suggested. I have stated the facts, and they speak for themselves. I venture to say that when these matters are looked into, when the facts are considered dispassionately, it will be seen that so far from being true it was absolutely impossible that Sir Dighton Probyn could have given information to Lord Arthur Somerset, or anybody on his behalf, before he left London.

(11.10.) MR. PHILIPPS (Lanark, Mid)

I do not psrsonally take any interest in this matter, but, after the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Hall), it is right that somebody should say a word on behalf of the hon. Member for Northampton, who is not here to speak for himself. The hon. and learned Gentleman has given us a very fair account of Sir Dighton Probyn's experiences on the evening of the interview with Lord Salisbury, but he has expressed some indignation that anybody else should have put things in a contrary way. Up to the present moment, however, we have not heard any hon. Member who is able to speak so authoritatively as the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am glad to have heard him for several reasons, but especially because just as he was resuming his seat he said that his statement of facts would be borne out when the thing came to be examined. Now, it is for this that I have risen, because the hon. Member for Northampton said he wished for a Select Committee to inquire into the matter. He did not ask for a decision as the result of this debate. He asked the Government to appoint a Select Com- mittee for inquiry. Now, from the time the hon. Member for Northampton sat down many hours ago, the Government have made no answer whether they will grant this Committee or not. All we heard on the subject from the leader of the House was that the matter ought to be decided to-night, because this was not the sort of thing the Government could allow to hang over them. Well, it is rather hard that we should be required to accept the vote of a mechanical majority on a matter which the hon. and learned Gentleman says ought to be inquired into.

MR. C. HALL

What I said was, when the facts are looked into dispassionately.

MR. PHILIPPS

Quite so, when the facts are dispassionately looked into, but can that be done by the Committee to-night? How can the facts be best looked into? The Government, I believe, do not like Select Committees; perhaps they would prefer a Royal Commission. The hon. Member for Northampton would prefer a Select Committee, but no doubt he would be satisfied with any impartial tribunal. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to take it for granted that there is going to be an inquiry because he talked about it when these things are inquired into.

MRK. C. HALL

I must really ask the hon. Member not to misrepresent me. I said nothing about an inquiry by Committee, or of any sort whatever.

MR. PHILIPPS

I took down the words, and I thought the hon. and learned Gentleman said when these matters were looked into dispassionately. Well, surely that must refer to some time other than to-night. One good service the hon. Member for Northampton has done is bringing before our notice this very curious interview which took place between Lord Salisbury and Sir Dighton Probyn. Now, when my hon. Friend was making his speech and gave an account of this interview, I thought that this surely would be denied. I never thought that any Member of the Government would admit that such an interview had taken place between the Prime Minister of this country and a private individual in reference to a criminal prosecution. I say that interview, whichever account of it you accept, that interview of Lord Salisbury's showing was a very curious affair. As to the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman that this gentleman who has left the country did not leave in consequence of that interview because he had arranged his departure before that interview took place, I have no doubt that the statement was made in good faith, but, speaking as a lawyer, I should like to have all that kind of thing tested by cross-examination; it is not to be settled by any hon. Member coming here and giving us an interesting account of the proceedings of an hour or two. The Committee cannot decide fairly upon the materials before them. The Attorney General asked us to point out to him anything that he had not awswered fully, and I must say I do not think he has explained how Lord Salisbury came to be mixed up in these matters at all. He has told us that he took the legal opinion of the Lord Chancellor, and he said of course that the Lord Chancellor's opinion was valuable on a matter of Criminal Law. He says he also took the opinion of Mr. Poland, but he did not say why or when Lord Salisbury was brought into these transactions. Why in the world should the Prime Minister, with, I should think, work enough on his hands be consulted about a criminal action? There is another little point the Attorney General did not deal with and which I will recall to his recollection. The hon. Member for Northampton mentioned that this gentleman now absent from the country left the Army under somewhat peculiar circnmstances. His resignation was accepted, whereas the usual course in such matters is to issue a Gazette notice that his services are dispensed with. Whether that is so or not I, of my own knowledge, cannot say; I only know that such was the statement made by the hon. Member for Northampton, and the Attorney General has not said a word about it to-night. These among other things ought to be cleared up by a Member of the Government before we go to a Division. It is unfair that we should be called upon to vote to-night. It is a very important matter that people should know why it is that a Prime Minister and other Members of the Cabinet should mix themselves up in criminal matters. We cannot determine these things to-night, and it is because these matters must be inquired into, because the demand of the hon. Member for Northampton for a Committee is reasonable, that if the present Motion is carried to a Division I shall support it.

(11.20.) MR. JAMES ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)

I am the first of the Metropolitan Members to speak upon a matter upon which London is specially concerned. I am not going into the whole controversy that has occupied the evening; I regret that the hon. Member who introduced the matter is not here to bring it to an issue; but what I wish to draw the attention of the Government to is that they have not said one word expressing their opinion as to an inquiry. Let me ask them seriously to consider this. I speak with some knowledge of what has been in the public mind in London during the autumn and winter. The people of London have had a great scandal in their midst, and in connection with this scandal many rumours have been going about, growing as rumours do until they took shape that has filled the public mind with anxiety. The names of many influential persons have been mixed up in matters with which the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton is concerned, and in the public interest it is necessary that these matters should be cleared up. I ask the Government to consider, can they grant this inquiry—whether there is anything in the allegations freely made outside or not? Let the thing be sifted. Let the worst be known—let public confidence be restored. One thing there is that fills the public mind with anxiety. I do not say it is true, but it has been forced on the attention of the people of London, that, owing to the intervention of the higher authorities, the police have not been permitted to perform their duty in connection with these cases. It is a most serious charge to make, and I do not say it is true, but bring it to the light of day, and if it is only wild rumour show that it has no foundation in fact. Let us have it searched into and settled once for all. I know the rumour has great hold on the public mind in London. Even this evening after listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton and the reply of the Attorney General, one cannot help noticing in connection with the action of the police referred to by the hon. Member, that there was not an answer from the Attorney General as to whether the best possible means were taken to bring the criminals to justice. The whole question cannot be settled by a Vote in this House. Whether the majority against the hon. Member for Northampton be large or small, it will leave the public mind exactly where it was before. No one who was in London through the autumn could have failed to recognise that these scandals have produced a great effect on the public mind. The wildest rumours are prevalent; let us for Heaven's sake know what is the truth. I earnestly urge the Government again to agree to an inquiry in order to restore public confidence.

(11.25.) MR. W. H. SMITH

I understand that it is deliberately suggested by the hon. member that a Committee of the House of Commons, or some similar body, should be appointed to inquire into the truth or falsehood of the rumours that have prevailed in connection with these charges—that is to say, that the names of a number of gentlemen, or rather of persons, because all people are equal before the law, who, according to the opinion that is entertained by the Law Officers of the Crown, have been falsely accused should be dragged before the Committee or other body appointed to carry out the inquiry, and that they should be pilloried and gibbeted, and perhaps injured and ruined for life by the institution of inquiry into the truth or falsehood of these rumours. Well, I think that a Government who undertook to authorise such an inquiry of such a character would be guilty of the greatest possible wrong to a number of persons against whom, according to the information that has been received, no sort of evidence exists. I will say at once that the Government will not be a party to such a proceeding. I can also say that we rely upon the completeness and fulness of the answer given by the Attorney General, and that we claim the judgment of the House upon the matter.

(11.27.) MR. J. ROWLANDS

I did not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman while he was speaking, but he has made such a parody of my statement that I must explain. Nobody asked that any persons should be pilloried or gibbeted. We have had a distinct statement made us on a matter of fact that the police were not so active as they might have been, because the higher authorities checked them. That is the question I urge should be inquired into. No man in his senses would propose that all the names associated with rumours should be brought to light and be gibbeted; I only mentioned the disquieting effect of an impression that action taken by the Government had prevented that being done by the police which could have been done. With all respect to the Attorney General his statement will not be satisfactory to the people of London. One effect it certainly will have, to strengthen our determination to have the control of our own police, and take it from the Home Office.

MR. PICTON

The right hon. Gentleman has entirely misinterpreted the object with which this question has been brought on. It is not rumours with which the proposed Committee would concern itself, but the action or inaction of the authorities —surely a proper subject to bring before a Committee. No innocent man need fear being gibbeted by the inquiry. If the name of any person falsely accused comes up before the Committee, he will have the opportunity of clearing himself. No harm can come to the innocent person, but if the guilty escape it is a curse to the whole nation.

(11.28.) MR. MACNEILL

I am most anxious that the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Hall) should not have a false impression of what I said earlier. I simply said it was a remarkable coincidence—and I only put it as a matter of comment—a remarkable coincidence that the flight of Lord Arthur Somerset took place on the self same day as that memorable interview between the two friends, Lord Salisbury and Sir Dighton Probyn, an interview which seems likely to become as famous as the Parnell-Carnarvon interview. The hon. and learned Member says—and I believe him—that Sir Dighton Probyn in no way had any communication with Lord Arthur Somerset between the interview with Lord Salisbury and the flight of Lord Arthur Somerset. But it is remarkable, and it is a fact we did not know before, that Sir Dighton Probyn came straight from an interview with Lord Arthur Somerset to the interview with Lord Salisbury. He saw Lord Salisbury at some railway station on the day of his last interview with Lord Arthur Somerset, and then the hon. Member, in a short description of the habits of Sir Dighton Probyn, told us how that gentleman went home to dress and afterwards dined at his club, both important occupations, but he did not come into personal contact with Lord Arthur Somerset. But the principal question is, what communication had Sir Dighton Probyn with Lord A. Somerset after the interview with Lord Salisbury?

MR. C. HALL

I stated distinctly that he never communicated directly or indirectly with Lord Arthur Somerset or anybody on his behalf.

MR. MACNEILL

It is perfectly certain that Lord Arthur Somerset was able to find out the result of the interview.

(11.34.) DR. TANNER

After the discussion which has taken place in the House this evening, I think people outside will ask themselves "What is it that the Government wish to hide? Not so long ago, when charges and allegations were made against us, we were asked why we would not go before a Court of Justice, and now I am inclined to ask why the Government do not propose the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the charges brought forward by the hon. Member for Northampton. The Attorney General may smile and smile, and smile again, but we are growing accustomed to his smiles now. I want to know, seeing that these charges have been made in the strongest possible way, what it is that the responsible Ministers of the Crown are trying to hide. I think the Government have put in a poor, shabby, paltry, and mean defence. Lord Arthur Somerset, against whom these abominable charges are made, is a member of the aristocracy; he held a high position, and I want to know what was done to prevent him escaping from justice. Just compare the action of the authorities in this matter with their action in regard to persons suspected of offending against the Coercion Act in Ireland. Why, in my own case, when I was served with a summons for telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, a big force of police was employed to serve the document, although it was only an ordinary civil proceeding not even arising under the Coercion Act. Hon. Members who wish to address their constituents in Ireland are dogged all over the place, but the course taken is different when a member of the aristocracy is concerned, although he may be accused of a most abominable crime. Why not give the people an opportunity of forming their opinion on this matter? I should have thought that, in the interests of justice and fair-play, we should, instead of this conspiracy of silence, have had some answer from the responsible and paid minions who are at present decorating the Front Bench opposite.

"(11.38.) MR. PICTON

I understand the question before the Committee is whether the whole Vote on Account shall be passed? At present we have not had an opportunity of discussing it.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is in error. The question now before the Committee is the reduction moved by the hon. Member for Northampton.

MR. PICTON

When a Division is taken on the reduction shall we still be able to discuss other points in connection with the Vote on Account?

THE CHAIRMAN

Yes.

MR. PICTON

I do not think the question has as yet been thoroughly discussed, and I therefore move that you do now report Progress.

(11.40) Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Picton.)

The Committee divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 202.—(See Div. List, No. 19.)

Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,725,003, be granted for the said Services."

Whereupon, Mr. William Henry Smith rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

(11.53.) MR. COBB (Warwickshire, Rugby)

I only wish to make a few remarks. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire tell us for the first time in this discussion of the interview between Sir Dighton Probyn and Lord Salisbury. He said Lord Salisbury had no intention whatever of giving information to any one that a warrant was to be issued for the apprehension of Lord Arthur Somerset. I do not presume to dive into the intentions of the Prime Minister—

MR. C. HALL

I never said one word about Lord Salisbury's intentions. I never referred to them. I simply quoted the remarks of the hon. Member for Northampton. He said it was intended that the information should be communicated to Lord Arthur Somerset. I said nothing as to what Lord Salisbury's intentions were.

MR. COBB

I should be sorry to in any way misrepresent the hon. and learned Gentleman. He told us that after the interview Sir Dighton Probyn went home to dress for dinner, and then went straight to his Club. The only assurance we have got is that he did not communicate either directly or indirectly with Lord Arthur Somerset or any one on his behalf. But we have not been informed whether Sir Dighton Probyn told any one that evening what Lord Salisbury had said to him. If he did, it is quite possible that without any intention on his part to communicate directly or indirectly with Lord Arthur Somerset, the information may have got to Lord Arthur Somerset through some third person. We have been told that Lord Arthur's luggage was packed in readiness for his flight before the interview between Lord Salisbury and Sir Dighton Probyn took place. But is it not probable that a man, knowing the position in which he was placed and the crime he had committed, would have everything ready to go away directly he heard that a summons was out against him? I take no interest in the facts of this case, but I am interested in ascertaining whether the law is administered impartially to rich and to poor. I think we are carrying on this discussion under great disadvantages in consequence of the absence of the hon. Member for Northampton, and I hold that we ought to have further time to debate this Vote on Account, as there are other questions which we desire to raise. I therefore think I should not be doing my duty to my constituents if I did not move that you now leave the Chair.

(11.57.) THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is under a complete misapprehension. The Vote can be discussed even if the present question is disposed of.

Motion made, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Cobb.)

But the Chairman, being of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, declined to propose the Question thereupon to the Committee.

(11.58.) MR. P. O'BRIEN (Monaghan, N.)

I desire to support the reduction of the Vote. We have frequently been told that equal laws are applied to Ireland and to England. Recently, when we complained of the Statute of Edward III. being put in operation in Ireland, we were told by the Home Secretary that it could be put in force also in England. Within the last few days we have seen a venerable pastor in Ireland and a lot of his parishioners—

(11.59.) MR. FORREST FULTON

rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

(12.2.) Question put, "That the Question be now put:"—The Committee divided: —Ayes 196; Noes 78.—(Div. List, No. 20.)

Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,725,003, be granted for the said Service."

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I beg to say that no division was challenged, Mr. Courtney.

MR. SEXTON

When you declared the Ayes had it that declaration was not challenged.

THE CHAIRMAN

I heard it challenged.

(12.10.) The Committee divided:— Ayes GG; Noes 206.—(Div. List, No. 21.)

Original Question again proposed.

It being after Midnight, and Objection being taken to Further Proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.