Lords Sitting of 17 April 1883

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Committee—Report—Bills of Sale (Ireland) Act (1879) Amendment (29).
ARMY (INDIA)—SURGEON-MAJOR THORBURN.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD TRURO,in rising to call attention to the case of Surgeon-Major Thorburn, and to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether it is true that, notwithstanding a court of inquiry at Lucknow completely exonerating him from a charge of turf irregularity, the Commander-in-Chief in India held that, in his opinion, the same evidence confirmed a previous adverse decision of a Calcutta racing club, and ordered him to England, refusing to grant a court martial; and whether, upon the matter

  401
  being referred to the military authorities at home, a court martial was again refused, and Dr. Thorburn forced to retire, while presented with a gratuity of £2,500, with the alternative of removal from the service; and whether any other acts of civil or military misconduct than that referred to were the real grounds upon which this determination was arrived at? said, he brought this matter forward with considerable pain and distress—pain, because he had undertaken to say some words in justification of a man who, he believed, had been grievously injured; and distress, because he knew he was to be opposed by one of the most formidable Departments of the State. But he congratulated himself that he was to be answered by the noble Earl below him, whose ability, if he would allow him to say so, was only surpassed by his ingenuousness, and that had relieved him of considerable embarrassment. He felt that the House of Lords did not like to hear personal matters, and considered that they should be left to the Departments; and it was only because he was convinced that Surgeon-Major Thorburn had been harshly dealt with that he was induced to bring the case before their Lordships. Surgeon-Major Thorburn had been for 18 years and a-half a medical officer in the Army; he served in Ireland for some years, and in India for 11 years, and during the whole of that time there was not a complaint of any description against him, while his service in India was commended. Having some knowledge and experience of horses, he engaged in the agreeable pastime of racing. For many years, and up to the period to which he (Lord Truro) was about to allude, Surgeon-Major Thorburn was unsuccessful, and lost about £2,000. It seemed that he purchased a ponynamed "Modesty, "an Arab of great speed, standing 13 hands, and which was sold to him with the character of "a rogue." The pony, which was sometimes disinclined to go, was bought for the purpose of steeplechasing, and on the 12th of August, 1881, it was entered for two steeplechases, each two miles in length, with 16 jumps, the pony to carry 11 stone. In the first the pony jumped the fence, but on the wrong side, and consequently was thrown out of the running, Surgeon-Major Thorburn losing a large sum of money. It
  402
  was supposed at first that this was intentional; but it eventually turned out that, as the owner had lost money, there could be no suspicion of unfairness. In the second race he was successful, but came in much jaded. On the following day the animal was engaged to run again in flat races, and Surgeon-Major Thorburn, seeing the condition it was in, determined not to back it. In that race 13 horses were to run, and there were two especial favourites among them. Surgeon-Major Thorburn had backed those horses, and was in the belief over night that there was no reasonable chance of his own horse winning. Two gentlemen—one of them a Mr. Watson, and the other a Native gentleman—came to him and proposed that he should put money on his own horse for the purpose, as he (Lord Truro) was instructed, of inducing people to believe that he expected it to win, one of the gentlemen also suggesting that his own jockey should ride the horse. Surgeon-Major Thorburn, of course, refused to entertain either proposal. On the following morning he found his pony in a better condition than he had expected, and therefore put £75 upon it, and £85 and £110 respectively on the other two. He not only put money on his own horse, but wrote a letter to a private gentleman, Mr. Wills, asking him to ride instead of his own jockey, and that gentleman declined because he had not his breeches and boots with him. Surgeon-Major Thorburn, anxious to obtain his services, asked him to do without his breeches and boots, to tie his trousers tightly round his legs, and ride in that way. Mr. Wills, however, being somewhat of a sporting character, declined to do this, and the matter came to an end. The race was run, and "Katie" won by a head. There were counter-statements as to what took place immediately after the race. The statement of Surgeon-Major Thorburn was that the two gentlemen he had alluded to, and who were disappointed, immediately ran up to the president of the meeting, General Cureton, and said—" What do you think of that? "by which they meant that the horse had been pulled. The General sent for the jockey, and asked him what instructions he had received from his master. He replied—" I was to romp along, and win if I could." He subsequently repeated that answer, when further inquiry was made.

  403
  No other evidence, as far as he (Lord Truro) had been able to ascertain, was taken on that occasion; but the jockey was there and then suspended from riding on the course for a year. On the following morning, which was Sunday, during the hours of Divine Service, between 10 and 12, the stewards of the race meeting met to consider the reflection, if not the imputation, that had been cast upon Surgeon-Major Thorburn, the master of the pony "Modesty." Those gentlemen must have known that any decision they came to on the matter would not only affect his title to racing in future, but might ruin for life the character of Surgeon-Major Thorburn. It was surely reasonable, therefore, to inquire whether those who sat in judgment on Surgeon-Major Thorburn were entirely free from prejudice; and he was sorry to say it was clear beyond all doubt that there was a strong and bitter animus against him. The first member of that turf meeting was General Cureton, who had previously inflicted a fine upon Surgeon-Major Thorburn, which he had refused to pay, and which was afterwards remitted. The next member of the meeting was Colonel Wood, a personal friend of General Cureton, who afterwards stated that when he saw the horse "Modesty" jump out of the course in the steeplechase he was under the impression that Surgeon-Major Thorburn had won a large sum of money by it, and that he was determined to watch closely what took place in the race on the following day. The third member of the meeting gave evidence on a subsequent occasion to the effect that he saw the horse's head pulled round to the jockey's boot; and the fourth, Colonel Harris, who had acted as judge in the race, stated that he was so intent on judging the race that he saw nothing whatever. Could it then be said that those gentlemen were unprejudiced? Surgeon-Major Thorburn was invited to attend the meeting; but he stated that the words in which he was asked to do so by the secretary were to the effect that he could come if he liked, but that there was no necessity for him to do so. Consequently, he was not present at the meeting, and the stewards gave judgment in his absence, upon the evidence of Mr. Watson and the Native gentleman; and upon their evidence alone this gentleman was suspended from racing upon
  404
  the Lucknow racecourse, and had been driven from the Service. Upon hearing of the judgment of the stewards, Surgeon-Major Thorburn went to a Civil Commissioner, named Sparks, whose duties being wholly judicial was, he (Lord Truro) thought, hardly a proper person to be a member of a Turf Club, and stated the condition of things, making a distinct application to be examined. Such were the proceedings before the Lucknow Turf Club, and a statement was drawn up for the Calcutta Club. The only evidence presented to that Club was that he had just mentioned. The words "and win if I can," in the orders given to the jockey, were suppressed, as was also the application to Mr. Wills to ride. The Calcutta Club sent for more evidence, and a statement was then drawn up by General Cureton, unaccompanied, however, by any fresh evidence, and the Club refused to act upon that. A month then elapsed during which the Lucknow Club endeavoured to collect evidence, and obtained seven letters containing statements prejudicial to Surgeon-Major Thorburn which he never saw, and the Calcutta Club at last confirmed the judgment. He afterwards learned at Calcutta, from the secretary of the Club, that the judgment would have been in his favour had not one member of the Calcutta Club recommended that the matter should be referred back to the Lucknow stewards. The judgment of the Lucknow stewards was not signed, but they sent a list of 13 stewards, and stated that their judgment had been unanimous, leaving the Calcutta Club to suppose there had been a judgment of 13 stewards against Surgeon-Major Thorburn. General Cureton sought to move Dr. Clutterbuck—the Deputy Surgeon-General—to make a representation to the Commander-in-Chief, but Dr. Clutterbuck said he did not consider there was sufficient evidence to convict Dr. Thorburn; but if he—the General—who knew the pros and cons of the matter, thought there was enough to make a communication upon, he should do so, being "the king of discipline there." Some two months after this a communication was made by Dr. Crawford, the Surgeon-General, to the Commander-in-Chief, in which he said that in the course of his tour of inspection, representations had been made to him which made it desirable for him to furnish a report. Dr. Crawford's commu-

  405
  nication was accompanied by a statement, at the bottom of which, but without any marks to disconnect it, was a copy of the decision of the Calcutta Turf Club, signed by the secretary, the whole document appearing to be one composed at Calcutta, whence it was dated and addressed, and to be in its entirety the Turf Club's report or summing up. Was that a genuine document and was it drawn up at Calcutta? Was the whole of that document the decision of the Turf Club? It was not. Dr. Crawford himself wrote a portion of it, which was composed at Lucknow, while it was calculated to lead the Commander-in-Chief to suppose it had emanated from the Calcutta Turf Club and was signed by them. Soon after this Surgeon-Major Thorburn earnestly applied for a court of inquiry, a court which he might remind their Lordships sat for the purpose of ascertaining facts. This court was presided over by five officers, who, no doubt, endeavoured to discharge their duties to the best of their ability. Witnesses were called, 15 on the one side and 20 on the other. General Cureton himself was examined, and the prosecution was conducted by the Deputy Judge Advocate, who stayed with General Cureton during the trial. The evidence given was of a most contradictory character, and Surgeon-Major Thorburn was not permitted to cross-examine some of the witnesses. Surgeon-Major Thorburn proved by the evidence of a coolie that he had sent a letter to General Cureton, who looked at the superscription and refused to take it. General Cureton had denied ever having received it. Major Nesbitt was asked which horse was pulled, and he replied the horse nearest the ropes. He was then asked which horse won, to which he replied he did not know until the numbers went up. There were no numbers. He was asked what was the colour of the winning horse, and he answered it was a bay mare. "Modesty" was a chestnut horse. All the officers, gave different accounts of the transaction, one saying that the horse was pulled to the left, another to the right, another that the horse's head was pulled round to the rider's boots, while a fourth admitted that he knew nothing about it. From the evidence at Lucknow it appeared that Surgeon-Major Thorburn's name was shown on the lottery books as having won money by the race. This,
  406
  however, was not the case. Was it credible that this man was to be ruined on evidence of that kind, when the secretary of the Turf Club had admitted, in cross-examination, that what he first stated in regard to a money charge was incorrect? After the proceedings were over Surgeon-Major Thorburn came to England, and naturally went to the head of the Medical Department. Dr. Crawford, who had also returned home, advised him to retire. He answered that he had no intention of retiring. At a later interview he was told that if he did not retire voluntarily, with 15 s. a-day for life, he would very likely be compelled to retire with nothing at all. Subsequently he decided to retire, and was informed that he would receive a gratuity of £2,500 in lieu of 15 s. per day. If he did not, he would be dismissed the Service without anything. He accordingly retired, and took the gratuity. That was the position of Surgeon-Major Thorburn, and he had solemnly resolved to appeal to their Lordships' House, to the Press, and to the public, in order that justice might be done him. Although he had accepted the gratuity, he would never cease in the attempt to vindicate his character. That was the case he had to lay before their Lordships, and he trusted that he should receive a satisfactory answer from the noble Earl below him.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, although he had no knowledge of Surgeon -Major Thorburn except from the statement of the noble Lord, and from some papers sent to him the day before, he considered that there should be further inquiry, and that the noble Earl the Under Secretary of State would not do justice to Surgeon-Major Thorburn unless he showed who it was that had sent the Commander-in-Chief the fictitious document, purporting to come from the Calcutta Turf Club.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he was quite certain that their Lordships, in common with himself, would give full credit to his noble Friend (Lord Truro) for a desire to see justice done in this case. The noble Lord believed, from representations made to him, that au officer had been unjustly dealt with, and he desired to get that injustice removed. But he would point out that the noble Lord had admitted himself that he was making a purely ex parte statement, and

  407
  he mentioned that he only said what he was instructed to say. The noble Lord was, in fact, acting the part of counsel for the defence. Though he was aware that their Lordships' House was the highest Court of Appeal in the Realm, he scarcely thought it would consent to revise the decision given by various bodies connected with racing in India or that of the highest military authorities both in India and at home. For that reason he did not intend to follow the noble Lord's example and act the part of counsel for the prosecution. The noble Lord had not quite accurately stated the facts. They were as follows:— At the Lucknow races, on the 13th of August, Dr. Thorburn was accused of having caused a certain pony to be pulled. He was not going into all the details of that matter. All they knew was the the stewards of the Lucknow racecourse found him guilty of the misconduct imputed to him, and when the matter was referred to the Calcutta Turf Club, which occupied a similar position in India to the Jockey Club hero, they confirmed the decision. Dr. Thorburn was aware of the decision in the middle of October. What course was then open to him? The Queen's Regulations laid down that every commissioned officer, whose character or conduct was publicly impugned, must submit the case within a reasonable time to his commanding officer or other competent military authority for investigation. Dr. Thorburn, however, did nothing until the matter was brought before the Commander-in-Chief in January. Then came an episode to which he must refer, because it reflected on a distinguished officer, now Director-General of the Medical Department—Dr. Crawford. When he was on a tour of inspection he found that this case had caused considerable scandal at Lucknow, and he considered it his duty to bring the matter to the knowledge of the Commander-in-Chief. He sent to the Commander-in-Chief a statement of the allegations made against Dr. Thorburn. The noble Lord who preceded him had, he believed, found nothing but a mare's-nest in hinting that this document was a forgery. It was simply a statement of allegations, and at the end of it there was a statement, headed—"Decision of the Calcutta Turf Club." This was signed by the secretary of the Turf Club, and there was no other
  408
  signature to the document, which was enclosed by Dr. Crawford in his letter to the Commander-in-Chief. Dr. Crawford had no intention whatever of leading anyone to believe that the whole of that document was the report of the Calcutta Turf Club, and the Commander-in-Chief was not in the least deceived on the matter. After the Commander-in-Chief became acquainted with the facts he applied to General Cureton, and then referred to Dr. Thorburn. Dr. Thorburn then for the first time, in the month of March, five or six months after the races at Lucknow, wrote a long letter impugning the impartiality, and he might say the honesty, of the gentlemen who sat on the case—namely, the stewards of the racecourse at Lucknow and the Calcutta Turf Club. The Commander-in-Chief in India became of opinion that further inquiry was necessary, and a court of inquiry assembled at Lucknow in the month of June. The noble Lord asked whether it was true that, notwithstanding a court of inquiry at Lucknow completely exonerated Dr. Thorburn from a charge of turf irregularity, the Commander - in - Chief held that, in his opinion, the same evidence confirmed a previous adverse decision of the Calcutta Racing Club? The noble Lord had answered that question himself, for he stated, and stated rightly, that a court of inquiry had no judicial function whatever. If it expressed an opinion as to his guilt or innocence, it would be guilty of a great irregularity. The only function of the court of inquiry was to collect evidence on which the military authorities might arrive at a decision. It would be impossible for him to weary the House by going over the arguments of the noble Lord, or for their Lordships to act as a Court of Appeal to revise the decision given by more than one authority of the highest position. It was sufficient for him to say that the evidence taken by the court of inquiry, after having been carefully analyzed and summed up by the Judge Advocate General in India, was passed on to the Commander-in-Chief, who considered the case very carefully, and the result of the evidence on his mind was that, although it was not absolutely conclusive, it confirmed the sentences already pronounced by the stewards of the Lucknow racecourse and the Calcutta Turf Club. That ended the matter in

  409
  India. Dr. Thorburn's time for retiring from service in India came, and the Commander-in-Chief, when he went home, communicated with His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief in England to the effect that the court of inquiry had not removed the imputation which the sentence of the Calcutta Turf Club left on his character, and asking His Royal Highness whether he was not of opinion that it was advisable Dr. Thorburn should leave the Service. The Commander-in-Chief in India, holding one of the highest and most responsible positions in the British Army, must receive credit for absolute fairness and impartiality; and it would be very difficult for their Lordships to impugn the justice of the verdict he gave after reading the evidence taken by the court of inquiry, as analyzed and summed up by the Judge Advocate General in India, and after seeing the proceedings of the Calcutta Turf Club. Dr. Thorburn returned home in October last. The first thing he did was to see the Director General of the Army Medical Department, Dr. Crawford. There was a great divergence between the account given to him by Dr. Crawford of what had passed at that conversation and the account of it given by his noble Friend. It was, of course, impossible for him to say absolutely which of the two accounts of the interview was correct. He was informed by Dr. Crawford that he had particularly guarded himself from expressing any opinion on the guilt or innocence of Dr. Thorburn, but that in reply to the question whether there was anything against his professional character he said distinctly "No." There must have been, he thought, a misunderstanding in Dr. Thorburn's mind as to what. Dr. Crawford had stated. Dr. Crawford gave no opinion as to the effect which the various inquiries had on Dr. Thorburn's character and honour. It was true that Dr. Crawford, when his advice was asked, did advise Dr. Thorburn to retire. The latter was, however, under a misapprehension as to the terms on which Dr. Crawford said he would advise him to do so. Under the New Warrant, he could not be permitted to retire on half-pay; but as he had had 18 years' service he was entitled, in the ordinary course of things, to retire with a gratuity of £2,500. On those terms he retired, and a few days afterwards he applied to be allowed to
  410
  cancel his retirement. The Illustrious Duke on the Cross-Bench declined to allow that, and their Lordships, he believed, would think that His Royal Highness had not acted unwisely or unjustly in taking that course. Mr. Childers, then Secretary of State for War, also went most fully and carefully into the case, and came to the distinct conclusion that Dr. Thorburn should not be allowed to revoke his application to retire. Shortly afterwards, Lord Hartington succeeded Mr. Childers at the War Office, and again Dr. Thorburn applied to have that decision reversed. The new Secretary of State went fully into the case, and determined to uphold the decisions of his Predecessor and of the Illustrious Duke. That was a very painful case; and he much regretted, in the interest of Dr. Thorburn, that his noble Friend, with however admirable a motive, had thought fit to bring it before their Lordships. The case had been investigated several times in India; Dr. Thorburn had failed to remove the suspicion cast upon him; and it was against the decision which had been confirmed by the Illustrious Duke and two successive Secretaries of State that he now complained.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONasked, whether the court of inquiry went behind the whole matter and re-heard all the charges that were made against Dr. Thorburn, before the decision of the Lucknow Turf Club, and whether they were convinced that he was guilty of "pulling" his horse in the race referred to?
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that the court of inquiry went fully into the case from the beginning. They expressed no opinion upon it, but merely collected evidence for the Commander-in-Chief in India to give his decision upon.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONwished to know whether they were satisfied that the Lucknow Turf Club were justified in the judgment it had passed on the case?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBUREYasked who had given the opinion on which Dr. Thorburn had been disgraced?
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that noble Lords appeared to be under a misconception as to the nature of courts of inquiry. They were not a judicial body at all. According to the regulations

  411
  under which they were constituted, they had no judicial power. They were, in strictness, not courts at all, but only a means of collecting evidence which was afterwards summed up by the Judge Advocate General, and then sent to the Commander-in-Chief for his decision.

METROPOLIS—ST. JAMES'S PARK.

  QUESTION.
  THE EAUL OF BELMOREasked Her Majesty's Government, Why spiked iron railings had been erected across St. James's Park from the Marlborough House entrance to opposite Queen Anne's Gate, and why the gates are closed at 7 o'clock, instead of the hour specified on the notice-boards at the entrances to the Park?
  LORD SUDELEY,in reply, said, that complaints had been frequently received, both from Members of Parliament and the clergy of Westminster, as to the immoralities which went on after dark in the enclosures, which were also represented to be unsafe. The First Commissioner of Works and the Illustrious Duke, the Ranger, consulted together, and agreed to shut up the enclosures after dark; but, to meet the convenience of the public, they determined to leave open all night, properly policed, railed off, and lighted, the road between Marlborough Gate and Queen's Anne's Gate. Unfortunately, the old notice-board, by an oversight, was not removed. Notice of the change had, however, been published in all the London papers, and the measure had given universal satisfaction.

FRANCE AND ANNAM (TONQUIN).

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD HARRISasked the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he could inform the House what was the actual state of relations existing at the present moment between France and Annam? It was not his object to raise any question as to the rights of Franco on the Red River. He was aware that a Treaty was made in 1871 between Annam on the one part and France on the other, by which Annam undertook to open up the Red River to the sea and to look on France nominally as her protector. He was aware that France asserted that this Treaty had not been observed, and that Annam not
  412
  having kept the country in orderly subjection, the stipulations of the Treaty had become a dead letter. It was not his object to enter in the question as to the claim of China that Annam was a tributary State. The particular Question he wished to put to the noble Earl was against whom was the action of France directed, for he confessed that at present there was considerable obscurity upon the point? It might be in the recollection of their Lordships that he asked a Question somewhat similar to the present last year. It was whether the Government had any reason to fear that the action of Franco would affect English trade, and that Question was answered most satisfactorily by the noble Earl the head of the India Office, to the effect that lie had no reason to fear interruption to English trade in those waters. In asking a somewhat similar Question again, it was not to be supposed that he was raising any question of jealousy as to the action of France. If such a suggestion could be made, it would be satisfactorily answered by the fact that such commerce as had been created at Tonquin had been directed to Hong Kong instead of Saigon by Chinese merchants, who chiefly promoted it. He was astonished to find that among all the Parliamentary Papers issued to their Lordships' House during the last six months there was not a single Paper upon the subject. When it was remembered that Tonquin, the point to which his Question was particularly directed, was only 300 miles off the line taken by all steamers between Singapore and Hong Kong and China, and that the Red River came from that part of Asia which had been recently marched through by Mr. Colquhoun, he thought their Lordships would allow that it was a part of the world which at no distant day was likely to become much better known. He was surprised that so much interest had been taken in Madagascar, while so little had been taken in Annam. Several Papers had been issued on Madagascar; but, so far as trade was concerned, he thought Annam might prove at no distant day of no less importance than Madagascar. His object was to clear up the question against whom French action was directed. There was very little information on which he could base his Question, and therefore he was obliged to refer to certain telegrams

  413
  of the Paris Correspondent of The Standard, in order to show the obscurity of the question, against whom was the action of France directed? [He had been under the impression that it was directed against the Black Flag Pirates, but that was very doubtful. In a telegram in last Wednesday's Standard, he found the following statement:—
  "During the Easter recess, now drawing to a close, the Council of Ministers has on several occasions deliberated on the state of affairs in Tonquin and the Expedition it is proposed to send there. Though the exact terms of the Bill which the Chambers will be asked to vote sanctioning that Expedition have not yet been definitely agreed upon by the Cabinet, the exchange of views which has taken place between MM. Jules Ferry, Challemel-Lacour, and Charles Brun, goes far to show that the Expedition will not assume the importance which the Duclerc Cabinet proposed to give it. The Expedition, as conceived by Admiral Jaureguiberry, Minister of Marine under M. Duclerc, comprised the despatch to Tonquin of six thousand soldiers, and a flotilla of gunboats and other vessels drawing but little water. The latter portion of this scheme will probably be carried out with but little modification, but it is almost certain that the contingent of troops will not be so large as was first decided upon. The French intend to compel the Emperor of Annam to carry out the Treaty of 1874, and insure the free navigation of the Red River. If he is powerless to accomplish that the French will do the work for him. The present Cabinet does not seem to consider that, to arrive at that result, the conquest of Tonquin will be necessary, but believes that it will be sufficient to create in that country, and especially on the Bed River, a series of military and commercial establishments, which will form the central points of new colonics. It is in this manner, and with the aid of the Native population, who are represented hero as being most anxious to be freed from the exactions of the Annamite Mandarins, that the French hope to succeed within a brief delay in annexing Tonquin to their possessions in Cochin China."
  Then another telegram stated as follows:—
  "On the other side the French representative at Hue, feeling his position there untenable, on account of the annoyances to which he was subject, and which late events were calculated to aggravate, judged it prudent to leave that capital. He embarked with the personnel of the Legation on board a despatch boat, and is now at Saigon."
  He concluded from that that the Representative of France at the Court of Annam had left that country. Finally, he might call their Lordships' attention to an article in The Temps, which, after reflecting on certain remarks in the journal referred to respecting the con-
  414
  templated action of France in Tonquin, concluded by saying—
  "The occupation, without firing a shot, of the three Western provinces of Lower Cochin China in 1867, the astonishing facility with which the Gamier enterprise was accomplished in 1874, the few men with whom Post Captain Rivière has maintained his position for months in the delta of the Red River, are sufficient to demonstrate the weakness of the Annamite power, even when supported by the famous black flag, under which are enrolled the deserters from the Chinese Army."
  That seemed to show that the action of France was directed against the Emperor of Annam, and not against the Black Flag Pirates. He begged to ask the noble Earl whether he could inform the House what was the exact state of the relations between France and Annam?
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I am sorry I cannot give a complete answer to the noble Lord's Question. As I understand, the action of France is directed to the maintenance of the rights which she claims under the Treaty she entered into with the Sovereign of Annam in 1874; but I have no official information on the subject.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Have we an official Representative of any sort at the Court of Annam?
  EARL GRANVILLE: We have none.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: None!

THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNasked the Lord President of the Council, What is the cause of the delay in communicating to the Royal Irish Constabulary the result of the Commission which was appointed eight months ago to inquire into and report upon their grievances; whether any conclusions have in fact been arrived at on the subject; and, if so, when they would be made public? The noble Lord said, that great discontent existed in the ranks of the Constabulary at the extraordinary delay which had occurred. The agitators, as usual, had made this discontent a means of furthering their objects in Ireland.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL),in reply, said, the subject of the grievances complained

  415
  of by the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police was a large and complicated one, and had occupied much time in consideration; but he was able to say that the Irish Government approved generally of the recommendations made by the two Committees of Inquiry. The Treasury had also approved generally of the financial recommendations made by the Committees; but in order to carry some of them into effect Her Majesty's Government must introduce a Bill in the other House. In the meantime, the information asked for would be supplied, for he intended to lay on the Table that evening the Report of the two Committees and the Minutes addressed by the Lord Lieutenant to the heads of the two bodies of Police.
  EARL COWPERwished to be excused for saying that he did not think the noble Earl's Question had been exactly answered. His Question had reference to the cause of the great delay that had taken place, which had not been explained, and which struck him (Lord Cowper) as very unfortunate. He was very well aware that Her Majesty's Government must feel, as their Lordships all did, how much they owed to that splendid body of men, the Royal Irish Constabulary. Considering what the Constabulary had done during the last two or three years, it was impossible not to be astonished that their conduct had been what it was. Although these men were either sons or brothers of, or had near relations among, the most active members of the Land League, yet they had never swerved from their loyalty or their duty. Though they had been frequently placed in the most trying positions, and insulted and stoned by mobs without being able to fire in return—a position that would severely have tried the discipline of veteran soldiers—they had never lost their self-control. This body of men was so admirable that he felt that everything that concerned them was of vital importance. He confessed that when the lamentable outbreak took place among them some time ago, he did feel that there must have been some delay in dealing with their claims, for he knew that when he left Ireland a Report had just been made by a Committee appointed for the purpose, recommending that a certain grant of money should be made to them. Dealing with a mutiny
  416
  of that sort was, of course, a very delicate matter, and he must state his opinion of the admirable manner—the firmness, kindness, and good feeling— with which it was dealt with by Lord Spencer. Although far from imputing any blame to the Irish Government, yet, considering that the Commission now alluded to was appointed eight months ago, he must say it was quite time that the matter was settled. He did not know much about the circumstances of the case as they existed at present; but he thought it was impossible for anyone to have filled any position in public life without knowing that, whoever was in Office, there was very often a great deal of obstruction, and a great deal of difficulty to contend with, in regard to the Department alluded to—he meant the Treasury. He did not know whether that was the case now, but it was generally acknowledged that the Treasury only parted with money after great importunity. If that was the case in the present instance, it was most unfortunate. He was happy, however, to hear that the Commission was now about to report. He was also glad to see that nothing more was said in the papers of that day as to any fresh ill-feeling amongst the police. He knew so well it was the interest of many parties to make it appear that there was discontent among them, that he could not help hoping that the reports of fresh discontent were exaggerated or without foundation.

BILLS OF SALE (IRELAND) ACT (1879) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 29.)
(The Lord Fitzgerald.)
BILLS OF SALE (IRELAND) ACT (1879) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 29.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, he wished to call the attention of their Lordships to certain provisions of the measure, particularly with reference to the absence of the necessity for the attestation of a bill of sale before a solicitor. This Bill only required that the execution of the bill of sale should be attested by some credible witness or witnessess, whereas the old Act contained as a safeguard that every bill of sale should be attested before a solicitor.

  417
  He did not know why this protection against fraud had been abandoned.
  LORD FITZGEBALDsaid, that this Bill had been introduced, with the approval of the Chamber of Commerce of Dublin and the commercial community of Ireland, to extend to Ireland the provisions of the last English Bills of Sale Act. It was most desirable, in his opinion, that the Commercial Law of the two countries should be identical in every respect. With regard to the point adverted to by the noble Earl, the fact was that the Bill threw a great deal of protection around persons which did not exist before. Bills of sale for sums under £30 were void; there was a simple form which anyone could read and understand, besides many other safeguards. Under those circumstances it had been thought that attestation by a solicitor was no longer necessary.
  Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.