Lords Sitting of 1 August 1879

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Rending—East India Loan (Consolidated Fund)* (172).
Second Reading—Lord Clerk Register (Scotland)* (164); Border Summons* (170).
Committee—Report—Petroleum Act (1871) Amendment (161).
Report—Industrial Schools (Powers of School Boards)* (153).
Third Reading—Summary Jurisdiction* (162); New Forest Act (1877) Amendment* (149), and passed.

LUNACY INQUIRY (IRELAND) COMMISSION.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD O'HAGAN,in rising to call attention to the Report of the late Irish Lunatic Inquiry Commission; and to ask a Question, said: My Lords, some time ago, I ventured to make a statement to your Lordships—perhaps, at too great a length—as to the miserable condition of some thousands of imbeciles and idiots amongst the poor of Ireland, and I presented a Bill designed for the improvement of their condition. On that occasion my noble Friend opposite (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) promised, on behalf of the Government, that the subject should receive their prompt attention, and, feeling that it would so be dealt with more effectually, I withdrew the Bill. I am bound to say that the undertaking was not forgotten. A Commission was issued to inquire
  1822
  generally as to Lunacy in Ireland; the Commissioners were very competent and able men, and they have produced a masterly Report, giving proof of great industry and conscientious care, and containing a large mass of important information. It concluded with wise and humane suggestions. So far, useful progress has been made; but months have elapsed, and I am not aware that anything has been done to carry those suggestions into practical effect. Your Lordships will, therefore, perhaps, forgive me if I invite your attention to them, and indicate in a few words the pressing importance of adopting, with such modifications as may seem desirable, the beneficial changes which are made imperative by the lamentable state of multitudes of our fellow-beings. Let me ask the attention of the House to the case of neglected lunatics in Ireland. It is the most pressing, as it is the most deplorable. In the year 1857 a Royal Commission ascertained that there were 3,352 lunatics at large, of whom no fewer than 1,583 were returned as "neglected." And this Report informs us that within the last 20 years the number of that class increased by more than 100 per cent—from 3,352 to 6,709—without, in the opinion of the Commissioners, any diminution in the proportion of those who may still be classed as neglected." So that, at this moment, there would appear to be 3,352, neglected lunatics" in Ireland. "What is the life of these wretched people? How does it affect their families and the country around them? Your Lordships will best understand the answer from the details of an individual case described in a letter which is contained in the Report of the Inspectors of Lunacy, and embodied in the Report of the Commissioners—
  "On approaching a small farmhouse at a place called—near—in the county,—I heard a most peculiar howling noise, and, to my horror, when I came near the house I saw a lunatic stark naked, confined to a room and looking through the wooden bars that closed the windows, for there was no glass whatever. He is about 19 years of age, and I heard from his mother that up to 10 or 11 years he was a most intelligent boy; but at that age he suddenly lost the power of speech and became moody and abstracted, wandering about the fields alone, and constantly uttering a low muttering noise, and with incessant tendency to mischief. By careful watching the family prevented him injuring himself or others, until, of late, he has got so strong and unmanageable, and his inclination

  1823
  for destruction is so great, that they have been obliged to confine him in the room I have described. He breaks the window directly it is glazed, tears his bedclothes into shreds, and will not allow a stitch of clothing to remain on his body; besides, his habits are most disgusting. It is really a sad case, and the more so as there are two grown-up sisters in the house."
  Now, my Lords, this is only one of nearly 4,000 cases, which, may be better or worse according to the circumstances, but none of which are protected by any intervention of the law from exhibiting themselves in as shocking an aspect. The Commissioners themselves state the results of their own observations in very startling words—
  "We took occasion, ourselves, to visit several of these cases in different parts of the country. Some of them we found in a deplorably neglected condition; others disturbing the arrangements of a whole family, the head of which would willingly contribute a small sum towards maintenance in some suitable place of refuge. It admits of no doubt that many a case, if taken in hand at an early stage, might have been restored to society instead of lapsing into hopeless incurable insanity. Serious evil often results from the freedom with which idiots of both sexes are permitted to wander abroad, often teased and goaded to frenzy by thoughtless children, often the victims of ill-treatment or the perpetrators of offences far worse."
  Surely such a state of things should not be permitted to continue, and especially as it may be mitigated, even if it be not removed. The legislation of Ireland is sadly behind that of England in this unhappy matter. In both countries—as, indeed, throughout the world—there was long a grievous indifference to the most afflicted of the human race. Only when the life of George III. was threatened by a lunatic in England did Parliament interfere, and send the insane to gaols. Only in 1838, when it was discovered that gaols were not fit receptacles for them, was provision made for committing them to asylums; and only in the Consolidating Act of 1853 were provisions made for such inspection and report as were needful for their protection and the safety of their neighbours. I lament to say that Ireland was left without even the benefit of the Act of 1799 until 1838, and that the advantages which the Act of that year gave to England were not extended to her lunatics until 1867; whilst you will scarcely believe that the salutary reforms of 1853 have not to this hour been made operative in Ireland. On this, the Commissioners observe in their Report—
  1824
  "The interests of the public, no less than of the insane, require that means should be adopted to ascertain that all of that class are properly eared for. This can only be done by substituting the visit of a medical man for that of the constable, and a professional report for the incomplete return that is now made. If it were the duty of the dispensary medical officer to visit and report upon the condition and treatment of every 'lunatic' within his district, as it is the duty of district medical officers, in consideration of a moderate fixed remuneration, to visit and report upon the condition of pauper lunatics in England, incalculable benefit would be conferred both upon the patients and the general public. The visit of the medical man, instead of being received with suspicion or hesitation, would be welcome as that of a friend, in most cases known to the family, to whom all necessary information would be freely communicated. By such means, too, the statistics of lunacy at large might be made as complete as are those of the asylums."
  My Lords, need I say more to press on the consideration of this House and of the Government the absolute necessity of applying a remedy to an evil so enormous—and this, especially, when such a remedy has been applied, and applied successfully, to a large extent in this country? The want of identical legislation, when the needs and conditions of England and Ireland require and justify it, is of incalculable mischief. A Bill which your Lordships passed yesterday evening, affording to the commercial community in Ireland the protection which England obtained in a former Session, illustrates that mischief; but the disparity in the matter with which I am dealing now is far more unwarrantable and of far greater evil. I do not mean to detain the House; but I must entreat the Government to give speedy consideration to the general recommendations of the Report which affects nearly 20,000 lunatics. They propose the classification of asylums for the purpose of curative treatment, the care of chronic cases, and the allocation of workhouses as auxiliaries for the benefit of the quiet and harmless amongst the insane. These, and other suggestions, they urge with great force and persuasiveness, and they very emphatically remark that there is no hope of effective change except through the interference of the Executive. They point to the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1857, and a Committee of the House of Commons in 1858, largely identical with their own, and show how they have been equally disregarded. I trust that it may not be so again. I think that this earnest

  1825
  counsel of men of high authority, backed by the evidence of most faithworthy witnesses, and capable of being followed with facility if attention be only given to it, will not again be neglected and contemned. The Commissioners and the Inspectors of Lunacy differ as to material points on the modus operandi. The Inspectors desire the extension of the district asylums. The Commissioners do not agree with them, and that extension is suspended. I cannot judge between them. The Inspectors are men of high position and large experience, and the Commissioners have every title to be favourably heard. But no time is to be lost in settling the controversy. The poor lunatic suffers whilst it is not authoritatively settled, and I trust and hope that the Government will recognize the responsibility this Report unquestionably casts upon them, and take such measures as will do away with the social mischief which it so painfully discloses. I conclude, my Lords, by asking whether any proceedings have been taken or resolved on to carry into effect the suggestions of the Commissioners?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not surprised that my noble and learned Friend has referred to the Report of the Commissioners. The subject is certainly a very important one, and the Report is a very voluminous document. It occupies over 100 pages, and there are some 200 pages more of Appendix, containing evidence and other information. The subject which this Report travels over is about the most difficult that can be dealt with. It includes the question of the administration of the Poor Law, the best mode of treatment for curable lunatics and of those unhappy classes, incurable lunatics and imbeciles; and there is underlying the whole the important question of finance. It is further complicated, I am sorry to say, by a certain amount of difference of opinion between the public functionaries who have been investigating the subject. I would only say, in answer to the Question which my noble and learned Friend has asked, that the Report was made in February last, and has engaged, and will continue to engage, the most anxious attention of Her Majesty's Government. I trust it will not be in the category of those Reports which have gone before and have produced no result, and that the Government may be
  1826
  able, before long, to see their way to act upon some of the recommendations of the Commissioners' Report. I am not able to give my noble and learned Friend any further answer than that at the present moment.

THE LATE PRINCE IMPERIAL.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question which stands in my name, and to move for copies of certain documents, because I think it is a fitting time for your Lordships' House and the country to have some information concerning a subject which has exercised men's minds to a considerable extent for some time, and has excited a good deal of feeling throughout the country. It is exactly a month since my noble Friend on my right (Lord Truro) asked a Question in this House concerning the position of the late Prince Imperial, and made, at the same time, certain remarks about the conduct of affairs in South Africa. My noble Friend opposite the Under Secretary of State for War, in his reply, commented rather severely upon the tenour of the noble Lord's speech. He said he thought it was a pity that the noble Lord should take advantage of his privilege of free speech to throw broadcast, without proof, without waiting for reliable information, his censures as he had done, loud and long, and couched in almost violent language; and this, he said, the noble Lord had done on nothing better than the irresponsible statements of journalists. I hope I shall not be betrayed to use any language that might be described as almost violent; but if I am to wait to exercise my privilege of free speech until we have some information from Her Majesty's Government I might as well abandon my right of free speech altogether. We have had since then the newspapers full of these "irresponsible statements of journalists;" but not one word of responsible and reliable information from Her Majesty's Government. The position which the Prince Imperial occupied with our Forces has been, and is, involved in a good deal of obscurity. The noble Lord, on the occasion to which I have alluded, asked whether the Prince Imperial was in command on the 1st of June. In

  1827
  his reply to the noble Lord, the Under Secretary of State for War said that the Prince Imperial could not have been in command, because he could not bear any commission from Her Majesty; and he added, in the same speech, that he could not have been in command, because he was in the presence of an officer a great deal senior to him. Either one of these statements taken alone might be considered good, though not conclusive evidence, that the Prince Imperial was not in command. It would not be conclusive, because it is quite possible that an officer might be, under certain circumstances, put over the head of an officer senior to him, and it is conceivable that an individual not bearing the commission of Her Majesty might be in command of a party. Taken together, the two statements afford no proof whatever. If the Prince Imperial held no commission or appointment, he could not have been in the presence of an officer senior to him. He might not be the junior of that officer; but he might have held some appointment or commission. The noble and illustrious Duke (the Duke of Cambridge) read two letters in your Lordships' House—one from Lord Chelmsford, the other from Sir Bartle Frere. The letter from Lord Chelmsford is the only one that concerns me at present. It was to the effect that the Prince Imperial was anxious to serve with our troops in South Africa; that Her Majesty's Government would not sanction that; but that he had the sanction of the noble and illustrious Duke's writing to Lord Chelmsford to recommend the Prince Imperial to him. He was recommended to enable the Prince Imperial to see as much service as he could with our troops in the field. At the same time, he was told to take care of the Prince Imperial. It is obvious that the object of Her Majesty's Government, in not allowing the Prince to serve with our troops, was to guard against his running a certain risk; but, with all respect for the accumulated wisdom of Her Majesty's Government, certainly the means they took were not calculated to carry out the aim they had in view. They allow the Prince Imperial to go out as an irresponsible individual. It would have been wiser, I think, if they had attached him to Lord Chelmsford in some definite capacity. If they had allowed that, it would have been pos-
  1828
  sible for the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa to have prevented him running any false risks which it is very natural and unavoidable that a young and brave man would run in his desire to see some active service, especially in such a campaign as was waged in South Africa. Lord Chelmsford was given a task which it was impossible for him to fulfil. As a matter of fact, we know Lord Chelmsford did attach the Prince Imperial to his personal Staff. The Secretary of State for War read extracts from two private letters, and from one official letter, from Lord Chelmsford stating that he had made the Prince Imperial an extra aide-de-camp, and the Secretary of State for War in "another place," and the Under Secretary of State for War in this House, stated that that was probably done to enable the Prince Imperial to draw forage and food. We do not know what that was probably done for. We want to know what it was done for. I think it would be interesting to your Lordships to see a copy of the orders by which the Prince Imperial was attached to the Staff of the General commanding in South Africa. I am quite aware that it is customary, when a non-combatant and civilian is allowed to accompany the Forces into the field, to give him certain facilities and a certain position. He is allowed to pass freely within the lines, and is usually offered the rank of lieutenant, or captain, or some rank suitable to him, to enable him. to draw forage and rations; to be billeted if there are any quarters to be billeted for; to have facilities for transportation, and so on. But there the matter ceases. The individual so treated cannot be called upon to perform any kind of military duty. The authorities cannot demand his services in any way. The authorities are not responsible for his well-being or his life in the smallest degree. If that was the position occupied by the late Prince Imperial, it is well that your Lordships and the country should know it for certain, and at once; for, in that case, nobody is responsible for the Prince Imperial, and the country would learn with a sense of relief that no British soldier or officer was responsible for him; and that, consequently, there has been no neglect of duty. Unfortunately, it does not appear certain that the Prince was a mere spectator.

  1829
  It is quite possible for a civilian to be employed in a definite capacity. Your Lordships will excuse my being personal; but I would say that I know that from my own experience. I had the honour of accompanying an English expedition in the field. I had left the Service and was a civilian; but I was attached to the Quartermaster General in a definite capacity. My services were at the disposal of the Quartermaster General, and he was entitled to command them; and he was responsible for my life in the same way that any officer is responsible for the lives of those subordinate to him. It appears to me that that was the position occupied by the late Prince Imperial; and, if so, I want to know who was responsible for him? It has been rumoured that the late Prince Imperial was given some command in some Native or Colonial Force. I have no idea whether there is any truth in that report. If not, it would be well that it should be authoritatively denied by Her Majesty's Government. Well, then, we know that the Prince Imperial was transferred from the Staff of the General commanding in South Africa to the Quartermaster General's department. We have a telegram from Lord Chelmsford saying that the Prince was, on the 1st of June, acting under the orders of the Assistant Quartermaster General. It would be interesting to see a copy of the orders by which the Prince Imperial was transferred from Lord Chelmsford's Staff to the department of the Quartermaster General. It appears to me that the statement which has been made in both Houses, that the late Prince Imperial was a mere spectator, is quite incompatible with the fact that he was appointed an aide-de-camp of Lord Chelmsford's Staff, and that he was employed by the Assistant Quartermaster General to do a specific duty—namely, to fix a locality for a camp. Is it possible for a man to be an aide-de-camp without being liable to perform military duty? I would wish to consider principally the position occupied by the Prince on the 1st of June. We have had various statements, some made by Lieutenant Carey, by the troopers who formed part of the escort, and by Colonel Harrison. It has been said that the Prince gave the word of command which was obeyed by the troopers; that he disregarded the advice
  1830
  of Lieutenant Carey when he was urged to wait for the Basutos who were to have formed part of the escort, when he was recommended to alight and off-saddle on the ridge instead of in the exposed position where he did off-saddle, and when he was advised to leave; and we know that the Prince carried written instructions which were lost with him. In order to clear up the matter surrounding the Prince's position on the 1st of June, I moved for copies of the orders or instructions on which the Prince Imperial was acting on that day. The position of Lieutenant Carey was also very doubtful; and it is scandalous that there should be any uncertainty about a matter of such importance. It has been stated that he was in command of a reconnoitring party; that he was in command of an escort; and that he was present merely as a volunteer, because he knew the ground well, having been over it before. There is one very simple method of solving all these difficulties; that is for the Government themselves to lay upon the Table a copy of the orders which were given to Lieutenant Carey on the 1st of June. If Lieutenant Carey was not detailed for duty on orders, either the statement that he was present as a volunteer is correct, or the campaign in South Africa has been conducted in a manner very different from that in which warlike operations are invariably conducted by civilized nations. Further, I move for copies of the charges upon which Lieutenant Carey was arraigned. I presume that the proceedings of the court martial have been now for some time before the Judge Advocate General, and that there can be no difficulty in giving your Lordships information as to the charges. It is obvious that there are two charges upon which he may have been tried—neglect of taking proper precaution, and misbehaviour in face of the enemy. The whole thing depends, of course, upon the position which Lieutenant Carey held. If he was in command of a reconnoitring party, then he was to blame for not taking the ordinary precaution -which, a man would take if he was at all acquainted with savages and their mode of carrying on war. If he was in command of the escort merely, he cannot be held accountable, because he would be entirely under the orders of the Prince Imperial, and would no more have dic-

  1831
  tated to the Prince than an officer of one of the Household Cavalry Regiments, commanding an escort accompanying Her Majesty to a levée at St. James's Palace, could dictate to Her Majesty as to when she was to go, or when she was to leave. If Lieutenant Carey was a mere volunteer, still less, in that case, could blame attach to him. From all that can be gathered, it is quite certain, that no danger whatever was apprehended. Smaller bodies of men had traversed the country in security. Basutos were scouting on the other side; General Marshall's Cavalry were close at hand; Colonel Wood's camp was only one mile distant; General Newdigate was at a distance of only four miles. The small-ness of the escort shows that no danger was apprehended. The party had un saddled and tethered their horses; their carbines were not even loaded; and it appears that the expedition was looked upon more in the light of a military pic-nic than anything else. If, therefore, Lieutenant Carey is to blame for not having taken proper precautions, it appears to me that at least an equal amount of blame attaches to the officer, whoever he was, who allowed the Prince to go out under such mistaken notions, and with such an inadequate idea of the danger that he incurred. If Lieutenant Carey has been tried for misbehaviour, that is quite another matter. We know enough about the circumstances to be able to form some idea of the nature of the surprise. The horses, as I have said, were unsaddled and tethered; the men were cooking, and were scattered about the place, resting themselves. The alarm was given, and the command to mount was ordered with such precipitation that, according to the statements of the troopers, scarcely any one of them had time to get into his saddle properly. It appears as though each man threw himself on his horse, and made his escape as speedily as possible. Is it conceivable that any officer, under such circumstances, could have rallied his men in a few minutes, and could have been aware of what was going on about him, even if it had been his duty to rally and halt them. If Lieutenant Carey were in command of a reconnoitring party, it clearly was not his duty to offer any resistance. The duty of a party employed in feeling for the
  1832
  enemy is to carry information of their presence the moment that you feel them. It might be impossible to judge of the number of the Zulus. They might have been in force; and if they had been in force, and the little party had lost their lives, the result might have been a surprise, and, possibly, the destruction of the troops in the neighbourhood. I would ask your Lordships to pay special attention to the fact that it is not the duty of a reconnoitring party to stop and fight, but to get out of the affair as soon as possible, and convey the intelligence to the first body of troops. Besides, my Lords, we have been told that the Prince Imperial was merely a spectator. If that be the case, it would surely have been most culpable for Lieutenant Carey to have imperilled his life, and the lives of his men, and consequently to have endangered the safety of the camps and the troops in the vicinity, for the sake of endeavouring to save the life of a mere spectator, however exalted the rank of the spectator might be, and however peculiar the circumstances surrounding him. That is the real difficulty of this question. It is almost impossible to look at it with perfectly impartial eyes. The position of the individual who there lost his life is so peculiar that men's minds are indefinitely influenced by it. It is not easy to find a single life regarded with the utmost affection of which the human heart is capable, calling forth the deepest friendship of friends and comrades, around which, at the same time, cluster and cling all the hopes and aspirations of a great Party of a great nation; and it is not unreasonable to suppose that Lieutenant Carey's case has been somewhat prejudiced on that account. As a matter of fact, it appears to me to have been prejudiced in various ways. He was removed from his Staff employment. Previous to the Court of Inquiry and the court martial, statements, prejudicial to him, have appeared in the newspapers. The Times published a letter, some little time ago, signed, One present," and written from the Army and Navy Club, comparing Lieutenant Carey's conduct with that of another officer, under what might be considered to be similar circumstances. The circumstances were not at all similar. The ignorance of the writer on military matters was only equalled by his want of decency

  1833
  in attempting to prejudice the public mind against a man awaiting his trial. The circumstances were not at all similar, and no comparison could be made. But, unfortunately, the general public are so ignorant of military affairs that they cannot fail to be prejudiced by such a letter. Moreover, the Prime Minister, speaking in this House, made use of an expression which I fear may have tended to prejudice Lieutenant Carey's case. The noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government said that the life of the Prince Imperial had, in his opinion, been so "needlessly and cruelly sacrificed." I understood the noble Earl to mean by that word "needlessly," that so valuable a life, one which had such great possibilities before it, had been sacrificed for no great object, and with no adequate results; but it is obvious that another meaning could be attached to the word, and I fear that many of those who naturally weigh and ponder the words of a Prime Minister might think that the noble Earl considered that his life might and ought to have been saved by those who were present. Moreover, the newspapers, in speaking of the matter and writing of the Court of Inquiry and court martial, made constant allusion to the late Prince Imperial, to the inquiry into all the circumstances attending his death; but made scarcely any mention whatever of the two troopers who lost their lives on the same occasion. This cannot fail to make people think that if it had been merely a question of the lives of those two troopers, possibly the affair would have attracted no attention whatever, and Lieutenant Carey would not have been blamed to the extent that he has been. There is some danger that the public mind may be prejudiced against Lieutenant Carey. There is danger also that strong re-action may set in which might cause some miscarriage of justice. For, as your Lordships are well aware, the English people will not stand for a moment the notion that any responsibility should be cast upon the shoulders of a man who ought not properly to be made to bear it. They will not for a moment suffer Lieutenant Carey in any way to be made a scapegoat of in this matter, or to be treated differently on account of the illustrious rank of the individual who perished when with him, than he would have been treated had it been merely a ques-
  1834
  tion of the lives of the two troopers who also perished. This matter is one of such importance that I make no apology for bringing it before your Lordships, and I beg to ask, Whether the late Prince Imperial held any appointment in South Africa under Her Majesty's Government, either Home or Colonial? I beg also to move for Copies of the Orders or Instructions under which the late Prince Imperial was acting on the 1st of June; and for Copies of the Orders which detailed Lieutenant Carey for duty on the same day; and for Copies of the Charge or Charges upon which Lieutenant Carey was arraigned.
  VISCOUNT BURY: I am afraid I must answer the speech of the noble Earl in a very few words. I must decline to follow him into any of the details which he has brought before the House—in my opinion, the time has not yet arrived when we can discuss this matter. The proceedings of the court martial which sat on Lieutenant Carey have reached this country; but they have not yet been confirmed, neither are they yet officially before the War Office. I have not myself seen them. Under these circumstances, it is impossible for me to follow my noble Friend into those details on which he has framed some ingenious hypotheses. I will, therefore, confine myself to answering the Questions in the fewest possible words, guarding myself, at the same time, against the supposition that there is any indisposition on my part to afford the information for which my noble Friend asks. My noble Friend asks whether the late Prince Imperial held any appointment in South Africa under Her Majesty's Government either Home or Colonial? My noble Friend suggested that the Prince was attached to some Colonial Forces, and had a commission in them. That is not the case; neither is it a fact that he held any commission or had any direct employment under Her Majesty. He was employed in the Quartermaster General's Department on the occasion in question, in the same way that any civilian may be employed without acting in any military capacity. The answer, therefore, I have to make to my noble Friend's first Question is that the Prince Imperial, though he was employed, had no appointment under Her Majesty. My noble Friend moves for Copies of the Orders or Instructions

  1835
  under which, the late Prince Imperial was acting on the 1st of June. We have at the War Office no knowledge of any such Instructions. They have not come to us, and we do not know of their existence. My noble Friend asks for Copies of the Orders which detailed Lieutenant Carey for duty on the same day. I must give to that Question the same answer—that they are not in the possession of the War Office, and I am not aware of their existence. My noble Friend also asks for Copies of the Charge or Charges upon which Lieutenant Carey was arraigned. My Lords, as I have said, the Report of the finding of the court martial, and the proceedings of the court martial, are in this country; but until they have been confirmed it will not be possible to produce them. When, however, they can be produced without injury to the Public Service or to the interests of justice, those Charges will be laid upon the Table of your Lordships' House.
  LORD TRUROsaid, the reply of the noble Viscount the Under Secretary of State for War was characterized by reticence and ambiguity; indeed, most of the noble Viscount's replies were capable of a double signification. ["Oh! oh!"] What could be the meaning of the Prince Imperial being employed and yet holding no appointment under Her Majesty? There was a double significance in the noble Viscount's answer. The answer was not intelligible. The evident intention of the Government was that this matter should not be discussed in Parliament during the present Session. He complained that they were keeping the public uninformed' on a subject which excited so much interest throughout the country until Parliament should be prorogued.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: The speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down, I think, will lead all your Lordships thoroughly to understand the very great ignorance which he displays upon matters connected with the Military Service of this country; because it is scarcely credible that the noble Lord should have got up and found fault with my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for War for the answer which he gave him, if he had any knowledge whatever of anything connected with the Army. The noble Lord laments the death of the Prince
  1836
  Imperial, and complains that the subject is not likely to be discussed during the present Session of Parliament. But the subject-matter connected with the lamented death of Prince Louis Napoleon, and the subsequent transactions which took place in South Africa affecting the character of an officer of Her Majesty's Army, are questions not to be discussed in Parliament until Parliament has before it the whole of the circumstances of the case. It would be most unjust to Lieutenant Carey, and most unseemly and incorrect on our part, if we were to give any opinion upon this matter until the whole of the proceedings of the court martial can with propriety be made public, and they cannot be made public before they have been approved by the General Com-manding-in-Chief. The noble Lord seems to think that the proceedings of a court martial can be treated like some trivial proceeding before a police magistrate. The noble Lord seems to imagine that those proceedings should be made the subject of discussion at once; but that was more surprising than the noble Lord's being surprised at what was said by the noble Viscount the Under Secretary of State for War. My noble Friend stated that the Prince Imperial did not hold any appointment in the British Army—and it was impossible that the Prince, situated as he was, could do so—but on this occasion he was employed; and that answer was substantially correct and true; and if the noble Lord brought forward the question over and over again he could not receive any other answer—namely, that the Prince was employed on the 1st of June, but held no appointment.
  LORD WAVENEYthought that the subject had been very ingenuously brought before their Lordships by the noble Earl who raised the discussion, who, as he understood, had some apprehension and had stated that there were some fears in the country that this subject would not be discussed in that House this Session. The subject was one of the highest importance, and it should not be left to be considered simply upon any Report that might be presented which few people would read. He did not understand his noble Friend (Lord Truro) as wishing to discuss the proceedings of the court martial. He asked for information; and, no doubt, it was

  1837
  important that their Lordships should learn whether the discipline of the British Army was what it ought to be. The very fact that the Prince received employment showed that his life was under the protection of the British flag; and his life should, therefore, have been as strictly guarded as that of anyone engaged in the Queen's Service. As for the Instructions which had been moved for, he understood that the correspondence was so much in arrear that copies had not come home. The Adjutant General's Department in that case must be very ill-served. Of Lieutenant Carey he knew nothing; but he trusted an opportunity of discussing his case would be given before the end of the Session, notwithstanding the misgivings of his noble Friend. All these questions must be settled authoritatively, with as little delay as possible. He supported most cordially the Motion of his noble Friend for the Papers, with the exception of those relating to the court martial.
  LORD HAMPTONagreed with his noble Friend (Lord Waveney) that no exception could be taken to the speech of the noble Earl who introduced this subject. The inquiries were very natural under the circumstances, and no complaint could be made of the tone in which, he had spoken. But he could not speak in the same sense of the speech of the noble Lord who followed the Under Secretary (Lord Truro). He had listened to the remarks of his noble Friend the Under Secretary, and he had not heard a word which would justify the charge that his speech was distinguished by ambiguity and reticence. Equally without foundation was the statement that it was the evident intention of Her Majesty's Government that the subject should not be discussed this Session, and that the Papers were withheld on that account. He had never heard in that House a statement more destitute of foundation. His noble Friend had said all that he prudently could say under the circumstances. With respect to Lieutenant Carey, until the proceedings of the court martial had been confirmed they could not be made public, and, in the meanwhile, there would be necessarily great curiosity to know in what manner that officer would be treated. It was essential that justice should be done to Lieutenant Carey, and justice could
  1838
  not be done if the unusual course were taken of discussing his conduct before the House was in possession of the whole of the circumstances of the case.
  LORD TRUROwished to say a word in explanation. The noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) had taken him to task with great severity, and had imputed to him the idea that the proceedings of the court martial ought at once to be laid before that House. He was perfectly ready to acknowledge his own little acquaintance with military affairs; but he did not for a moment suppose that the proceedings of the court martial would be laid before that House before they had been confirmed by the Commander-in-chief.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it was quite clear it was not desirable that the House should discuss the case of Lieutenant Carey without full information; but the noble Earl who brought forward this Motion (the Earl of Dunraven) did not ask their Lordships to discuss the subject without information. The great object of his noble Friend was to get whatever information Her Majesty's Government could give on the question. The observations which his noble Friend had made contributed very useful information as to the case, and he was quite sure that information on the matter was required by the public, whose feelings were stirred in the most extraordinary degree. For his own part, he could give no opinion on such questions as these—whether Her Majesty's Government were right in permitting the Prince Imperial to go to South Africa at all—the question as to the position in which the Commander-in-chief placed him—the question as to Lieutenant Carey's position with respect to the Prince—and, above all, the question of the unfortunate situation in which Lieutenant Carey was now placed, whether he was guilty of very grievous misconduct or not. Upon these questions he expressed no opinion whatever. But he thought it was obviously reasonable that Her Majesty's Government should decline to produce the Report of a court martial which the Under Secretary said had not yet reached the War Office, and had not been confirmed by the Commander-in-chief. No doubt all the Instructions asked for by his noble Friend would be found in the Papers of the court martial; if not, important information would be

  1839
  wanting without which it would be impossible for Her Majesty's Government to act. What he wanted was that when complete information could be given on the subject it would not be withheld from Parliament.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, that as the noble Viscount the Under Secretary of State for War had stated that he had received no copies of the documents he would not press for them. In what he had said with regard to himself he meant that he was under orders and served in a special capacity. He held that appointment throughout the campaign, he received a medal for the campaign, and he was a civilian. He thought his position in that case was analogous to that of the Prince Imperial.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, the Prince Imperial was attached to the Staff, but was not an aide-de-camp.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

MERCANTILE SHIPPING—EXPLOSIVES ACT, 1875.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD TRUROasked, Whether Her Majesty's Government have taken any steps since the last Session of Parliament to prevent the shipment in merchant vessels, carrying passengers, of gunpowder or other explosive substances in larger quantities than the law permits; and, also, whether any steps have been taken to compel the owners of merchant vessels carrying passengers to provide properly constructed magazines for the stowage of explosive substances? The noble Lord remarked that the trade in explosives from this country had increased so enormously during the last few years, that he thought the time had now come when it would be expedient for the Government to consider whether they ought not to enact that it should be carried on in vessels specially constructed and exclusively appropriated to the traffic?
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, he fully acknowledged the importance of the subject, and thought the best way of answering the Question would be to explain the exact position of the Board of Trade in this matter. Under the Explosives Act of 1875, the harbour authorities were bound to make bye-laws; the bye-laws required the sanc-
  1840
  tion of the Board of Trade; the Board of Trade had no power to compel the harbour authorities to make those bye-laws; but, soon after the passing of the Act of 1875, they issued a Circular to all the harbour authorities drawing their attention to the new Statute. That Circular was issued to all the harbour authorities catalogued by the Commissioners of Customs, and their names were to be found in the House of Commons Paper, No. 213, of 1874. To show that the matter had been in no way neglected, he might say that some of those authorities to which Circulars had been issued were now found to be no longer harbour authorities, or only so in name. Of these, 177, including the principal ports, such as the Thames, the Mersey, the Tyne, and the Tees, had made bye-laws, which had been sanctioned by the Board of Trade. Since the noble Lord brought that question before the House last year the Thames Conservancy had—as he then stated was probable—issued amended bye-laws, with the view of securing the hoisting and keeping the red flag flying on all ships which were about to receive or had on board explosives. In the case of ships carrying passengers, which came under the operation of the Passenger Acts, the carriage of explosives was entirely prohibited, and the officers of the Board of Trade had done their best to see the law properly carried out. In the case of ships which did not come under the Passenger Acts, the Board of Trade officers interfered when they had reason to believe the method in which the explosives were stowed rendered the ship unsafe. The Board of Trade had issued no instructions as to the construction of magazines on board ship. Those they had issued were as follows:—
  "The principal officer of the Board of Trade need not detain any such ship, provided the explosives, being packed as required by the Explosive Substances Act and by order of the Secretary of State, are enclosed in a substantial compartment formed of double boards with an intermediate lining of felt, and free from all exposed iron in the interior thereof, and exclusively appropriated to the stowage of explosives. If such a compartment is not provided, the officer must satisfy himself that the explosives are 'otherwise,' and by careful stowage, secured from contact with or danger from any other article or substance carried as cargo on board the ship. If, for instance, the explosives are surrounded with goods carefully packed and have boards between them and the goods, so as to completely isolate them from all cargo, packing-cases, &c., likely to cause explosion by

  1841
  metal or other dangerous articles coining in contact with powder, and if they are placed on and surrounded by sailcloth or felt in such a way as to prevent effectually any of the powder getting adrift during the voyage and filtering into the general cargo, and if they are so placed and surrounded that the crew cannot get among them in their attempts to plunder cargo during the voyage, the officer need not interfere with their stowage. It is, of course, understood throughout that explosives are not to he placed in the same part of the ship as coals, combustibles, spirits, or other inflammable goods."
  The noble Lord (Lord Truro) wished to know why ships could not be fitted specially to carry explosives only? There was no reason against ships being so fitted, as far as the Board of Trade were aware, except one—namely, that the cost of fitting ships and using them exclusively for that trade would be too great. As to the desirability of securing to passengers and crew a knowledge that explosives were to be carried by any ship, it was not legal to carry explosives on board passenger ships, as he had said, under the Passenger Acts. Therefore, in those ships there was nothing to warn passengers of. As to passenger ships not under the Passenger Acts, the Board of Trade had nothing to do with regulating the stowage, and were not in a position to give any warning. If a passenger wished to know whether explosives were to be carried, he could easily ascertain the fact by making an application to the Customs or to the harbour authority. With regard to the number of ships burnt, 26 ships had been burnt only, as far as could be known, in the two years ending in 1878. That, of course, was open to a qualification, as some ships—a large number—were reported as lost with the cause unknown. However, the number was not large, when the fact was considered that 316,887 British ships, and 29,881 foreign ships—a total of 346,768—had cleared from ports in the United Kingdom in 1878; 15,187 British, and 3,576 foreign ships from London alone.

PETROLEUM ACT (1871) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 161.)
(The Lord Steward.)
PETROLEUM ACT (1871) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 161.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  LORD COLCHESTERurged the importance of proceeding with the greatest care in dealing with this subject. The
  1842
  public safety required that they should guard against undue laxity in any legislation of this kind.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that in 1871 the Petroleum Act was passed, and it provided a certain test, which was known as the open test. In 1872, a Bill was introduced to substitute another test for that contained in the Act of 1871, and that Bill was referred to a Committee of their Lordships' House, which took a great amount of evidence on the question. The proposal in the present Bill was the outcome of experiments that had been made in order to test the character of the petroleum.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.