Sitting of 13 February 1872

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—John Philip Nolan, esquire, for Galway County.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Thanksgiving in the Metropolitan Cathedral, appointed.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Religious Disabilities Abolition * [34].
Ordered—First Reading—Poor Law (Scotland) [35]; Game Laws Abolition [36]; Contagious Diseases, Prevention [42]; Charitable Trustees Incorporation * [38]; Adulteration of Food and Drugs * [37]; Justices' Clerks (Salaries) * [39]; Public Parks (Ireland) * [41]; Game Law (Scotland) Amendment * [40].

THE QUEEN'S SPEECH—HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
THE COMPTEOLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Lord OTHO FITZGERALD)reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:—
I thank you for your loyal and dutiful Address.
I rely with confidence on your careful consideration of the measures which will be submitted to you, and I assure you of My sincere desire to co-operate with you in your endeavours to promote the welfare of My People.

RAILWAY AMALGAMATION BILLS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he intends to propose any special measure for the consideration of Railway Amalgamation Bills?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEreplied that, without giving any opinion as to the merits of the Railway Amalgamation Bills referred to by his right hon. and gallant Friend, he might state that, in the opinion of the Government, it would not be advisable to leave those Bills to take the ordinary course of reference to a private Committee. It would also be advisable, in their opinion, before Parliament was asked to sanction those Bills, to institute a preliminary inquiry into the question of the public interests involved in these great amalgamations, and the practicability of protecting those public interests. As to the precise mode of inquiry, or the precise terms of reference, he would rather not pledge himself to them at that moment.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENwished to inquire, as the matter was of immense importance to commercial and also to railway interests, when he could put a Question as to the exact Motion proposed to be made by the right hon. Gentleman?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he would communicate with his right hon. and gallant Friend within the present week.

POST OFFICE—SUNDAY LABOUR—THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. REEDasked the Postmaster General, When the Report of the Committee upon Sunday Labour in the Post Office will be laid before the House?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it would be laid before Parliament immediately.

SCIENCE AND ART MUSEUM (EAST LONDON).—QUESTION.
MR. REEDasked the Vice President of the Council, When the East London Museum on Bethnal Green will be opened to the public?
MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he believed the Museum would be handed over to the Science and Art Department in about another month; that it would take about six weeks thereafter to make the necessary arrangements; and that he trusted the Museum would be open before the end of April.

THE FIJI ISLANDS.—QUESTION.
MR. DIXONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government of the Fiji Islands has been acknowledged by Her Majesty's Government, and if not, whether he can state to the House the reason why the acknowledgment has been delayed?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD: It is presumed that the hon. Member refers to a Council of British subjects which has been formed under the authority of one of the Native chiefs in the Fiji Islands. The Governors of New South Wales and of some other Australian colonies, and the Naval authorities on the station, have been instructed to deal with this newly-constituted Government so long as it exercises actual authority as a de facto Government so far as concerns the districts
290
which may acknowledge its rule; but Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to give any opinion as to the propriety of formally recognizing it without much fuller information as to its character and prospects.

BANK HOLIDAYS ACT—THANKSGIVING IN THE METROPOLITAN CATHEDRAL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BARNETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is in contemplation to make the 27th of February a Bank holiday in the city of London or elsewhere, under the provisions of the fourth section of "The Bank Holidays Act, 1871?"
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, the Government had desired to do whatever seemed agreeable to those more particularly concerned, and, having had communications with the representatives of City banking houses, he was led to believe that it would be agreeable if the 27th of February were made a bank holiday according to law, so far as London was concerned. That, therefore, it was the intention of the Government, as at present advised, to do. Their intention, however, was limited to the metropolis.

RAILWAYS—COMMUNICATION BETWEEN PASSENGERS AND GUARDS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONasked the President of the Board of Trade, If it is his intention to take any steps this Session for enforcing the adoption, by Railway Companies, of a really efficient means of communication between passengers and the drivers and guards of trains?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, in reply, said, he was well aware of the unsatisfactory working of the present system of communication between passengers and guards; but he did not think they could say that a really efficient mode of communication had yet been discovered, which would entitle the Government or Parliament to enforce the mode exclusively upon railway companies. He had, however, pointed out to the different railway companies the failure of the rope system, and called upon them to submit to the Board of Trade an improved mode of communication. When he had received the

  291
  answers to this circular, he would be better able to decide what should be done.

RECTORY OF EWELME.—QUESTIONS.
MR. MOWBRAYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether by an Act of Parliament passed in 1871, Her Majesty is entitled to present to the Rectory of Ewelme only a person who is a member of Convocation of the University of Oxford; whether the Reverend Wigan Harvey, M.A., of King's College, Cambridge, was on the 10th day of October, 1871, incorporated as a Member of Oriel College, in the University of Oxford, and having subsequently completed forty-two days of residence within the last-mentioned University was, on the 22nd day of November, 1871, admitted by the Vice Chancellor of Oxford "ad jus suffragandi in domo Convocations," in these terms, "Magister licebit tibi post centum et octoginta dies ex hoc die numerandos jus suffragrandi in domo Convocationis exercere;" whether the Reverend Wigan Harvey was, on the 15th December, 1871, presented to the Rectory of Ewelme, and further instituted thereto on February 6, 1872; whether the Statutes of the University of Oxford provide "Neque liceat ulli jus suffragandi in domo Convocationis exercere nisi post centum et octoginta dies ex eo die quo coram Vice Cancellario comparuerit computandos;" whether under these circumstances Her Majesty has been advised that the Reverend Wigan Harvey was, on the 15th December last, such a member of Convocation of the University of Oxford as Her Majesty was by Law entitled to present to the Rectory of Ewelme; and, whether he is aware when or by whom it was first suggested to the Reverend Wigan Harvey that he should become an incorporated member of the University of Oxford?
MR. GLADSTONE: I will, with the permission of the right hon. Gentleman, begin with the last of his formidable list of Questions, which I have seen for the first time this morning, because that is alone strictly within my province. It was first suggested to the Rev. Mr. Harvey that he should become an incorporated member of the University of Oxford by myself on the 31st of July last, when, the Act having passed, it became
292
my duty to consider, in view of the approaching voidance of the living, how it should be disposed of. With the four Questions, from the second to the fifth, I have no concern whatever. It was my duty to inform the Rev. Mr. Harvey of the conditions of the Act of Parliament. With the Question as to whether he should become a member of the Convocation of Oxford I had nothing to do. That matter rested entirely between himself and the University. If Mr. Harvey, under the guidance of the authorities of the University, has duly qualified himself, he is then Rector of Ewelme. If he has not duly qualified himself under those formidable statutes which the right hon. Gentleman has quoted, and which I am glad to see he appears to have by heart, then so much the worse for Mr. Harvey, inasmuch as I apprehend he is not Rector of Ewelme at this moment. But as that is rather a serious question, I have taken the liberty of sending these Questions of the right hon. Gentleman to Mr. Harvey, and I have no doubt he will give me an opportunity of knowing how the matter stands. It is no part of the duty of the First Minister of the Crown to ascertain, by the inspection of original documents and of deeds, the qualifications of persons whom he presents. It is his duty to see they know what qualifications they ought to have, and it is his duty to have presumable and probable evidence upon the case. If the right hon. Gentleman chooses to make inquiry, he will find that cases of such a nature have constantly happened. On the day when I came into office I found two cases of great importance, with respect to which most important legal doubts were stated to me to exist. They had just been made by the Crown; and as to one of them, it took the Law Officers a considerable time before they could arrive at a conclusion. In the first Question, although it is not very clearly expressed, the right hon. Gentleman asks in what sense it is that I understand the Act passed last year. He asks—"Whether by an Act of Parliament passed in 1871, Her Majesty is entitled to present to the Rectory of Ewelme only a person who is a Member of Convocation of the University of Oxford?" Yes, Sir, that is so, and I have reason to know that, because my concern in the Act of Parliament is altogether a special one. The Bill for severing

293
the Rectory of Ewelme from the Regius Professorship of Divinity was a measure for which I was peculiarly responsible. When the Bill was brought in, desiring to pay all possible respect to the University, although it was needful to separate the Rectory from the Professorship, my object was to leave the Rectory as nearly as possible in the same position in which it stood before the severance with reference to the privileges of the University of Oxford. Now, the right hon. Gentleman, I dare say, knows perfectly well what that position was. The Queen could appoint to the Professorship of Divinity any person she pleased, whether a member of the University of Oxford or not; but the Regius Professor of Divinity became, of course, upon his appointment, a member of the Convocation of the University of Oxford. In the Bill, as originally introduced, it was provided that no person should be eligible for the Rectory except a person who was eligible for the Professorship. But in the House of Lords it was thought better to say—except a member of the Convocation of the University of Oxford. When that was brought under my notice I said I saw no objection to it, because just as the University of Oxford would receive or did receive habitually as a member a person presented to the Professorship, so they would receive a person presented to the Rectory of Ewelme. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that it was no part of my duty—indeed, it would have been inconsistent with it—to submit to any limitation of the patronage of the Crown. The object was to effect a practical reform, but to leave the patronage where it was. The patronage was not limited before the severance, and consequently it was not to be limited to the Regius Professorship afterwards. My concern in the Bill was considerable, because when the rights of the Crown are affected by a measure going through this House, by the Rules of this House it cannot pass unless the consent of the Crown be given. It was my duty to advise with respect to the consent of the Crown, and I could not have advised the consent of the Crown being given to that measure if it had been professed or declared that the intention of the measure was to limit that patronage. I saw no such intention to limit the patronage of the Crown, and therefore to narrow the
294
circle of selection of persons for the Rectory of Ewelme. I will not enter further into this question; but if the right hon. Gentleman chooses to have a discussion at length, I shall be most happy to state my reasons for this appointment.
MR. MOWBRAY: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered some of my Questions. Do I understand that he will on a subsequent day, after communication with the Rev. Mr. Harvey, answer them if I repeat them?
MR. GLADSTONE: I have referred them to Mr. Harvey, and I will take care that whatever information I can obtain is given to the right hon. Gentleman.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON—THE "ALABAMA" CLAIMS.—QUESTION.
MR. DIXONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether any despatches have been sent to the Government of the United States since the publication of the American Case on the Alabama Claims; and, if so, whether he would object to their being at once laid upon the Table of the House?
MR. GLADSTONE: I am sorry to say that it was not in the power of Her Majesty's Government, consistently with their duty, to present any communications to the Government of the United States since the publication of the American Case in the Alabama Claims. I sympathize with the desire of my hon. Friend, and I can assure him that the Government will be as well pleased as himself when they can find it possible, consistently with their duty, to present the communications.

FORTIFICATIONS OF BERMUDA.

  QUESTIONS.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, If the Fortifications of Bermuda have been completed and armed?
  SIR HENRY STORKSreplied that they were not completed.
  LORD ELCHOasked within what time the fortifications would be completed and armed?
  SIR HENRY STORKSsaid, he was not able to answer the Question at present; but he would inquire and let the noble Lord know.

INDIA—BONUS COMPENSATION TO INDIAN OFFICERS.—QUESTION.
COLONEL SYKESasked the Under Secretary of State for India, With, reference to Lord Cranborne's Despatch to India on the Bonus question, dated 8th August 1866; to the subsequent Despatch of Sir Stafford Northcote, dated India Office, 2nd May 1867; to the Despatch of the Duke of Argyll, consequent on an Address of the House of Commons to the Queen, calling upon the Government of India for an opinion whether the conditions of the above Despatches had been fulfilled or not; to the answers of the several Governments in India; and finally, with reference to the fourth Clause of the Army Regulation Act of 1871; whether the Secretary of State for India in Council has taken the above documents into consideration, and is or is not prepared to grant bonus compensation to officers of the Indian Army, on the principle enunciated in Clause 4 of the Army Regulation Act, 1871?
MR. GRANT DUFF, in reply, said, the Secretary of State for India in Council, after most carefully considering the documents to which the hon. and gallant Member referred, was not prepared to grant bonus compensation upon any other terms than those set forth in the despatch of Lord Cranborne, of the 8th August, 1866.

GAME LAWS.—QUESTION.
MR. M'LAGANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is his intention to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the Game Laws this Session?
MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, he feared it would not be in his power to undertake the charge of this heavy inquiry; but a Motion for a Committee on the subject would not be objected to by the Government.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—APPROACH FROM PARLIAMENT STREET.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he will endeavour, if possible, to provide (either by subways or by any other method) for some safer passage than
  296
  now exists from Parliament Street to Palace Yard?
  MR. AYRTON, in reply, stated that it was almost impracticable to construct a subway from the end of Parliament Street to Palace Yard, because the Metropolitan District Railway ran between. Therefore, any subway would have to descend some 40 feet. The only other method would be to construct a bridge, which would have to be 20 feet high, and approached by steps, and he did not think any hon. Member would go up 20 feet, and come down 20, in preference to crossing the road. But, in point of fact, there already existed a very easy way by which any hon. Member could go from Parliament Street into the House of Commons without exposing himself to any risk. He had only to walk along the north side of Bridge Street, where he would find a flight of steps leading to the subway already existing. That flight of steps was a temporary arrangement; but he hoped that when buildings had been erected on the north side of Bridge Street, a permanent arrangement would be made for a convenient approach to the subway.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON.
  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. OTWAY: Sir, I wish to offer a few words of personal explanation in reference to a statement made by me the other day, which has caused some annoyance to my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. I said, with respect to the Treaty of Washington, that I assumed that every word of the Treaty had been submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown, and I said so because I was pretty cognizant of the custom prevailing at the Foreign Office when I had the honour of being connected with that Department. But I have since been authoritatively informed that no portion whatever of the Treaty of Washington was submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown except those rules which are to be regarded as rules of International Law henceforth. I regret very much that I should, under that misapprehension, have stated anything that has caused annoyance in any way to my hon. and learned Friend.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  Moved, "That this House will meet To-morrow at Two o'clock."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the Motion before the House enabled him to make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the state of the Notice Paper for to-night showed that it was quite impossible to carry out the understanding which was entered into with the right hon. Gentleman with respect to the Public Business and the Motion standing in his name. Thirteen hon. Members had given Notice of various Resolutions with regard to the business of the House. The Notice Paper suggested two considerations—first, that as it stands it would be impossible to proceed to a consideration and debate on the business of the House without constant interruptions, and that it would be impossible, with the Notice as it stands, to come to a satisfactory conclusion on this most important subject, which interested every Member of this House, and through the Members of this House deeply affected the interests of the country. He would make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the order of the Government that it would be reasonable that the House should devote one whole day to the future arrangements of its business. The Government was asking to be placed in command of more days, and he suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that he should relieve the House of the embarrassment in which it was placed consequent on the change which had taken place in the intention of the Government with respect to the Public Business. He felt, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) and a great many Members of the House, that there had been Committees enough, and that what was needed now was that the House should decide what Amendments were necessary in its procedure—Amendments having been suggested by the Select Committee of the House which sat last year. He believed some of them would greatly contribute to the relief of the House. He had met a very high authority—one of the highest authorities with respect to the business of the House, and
  298
  therefore with respect to the prospects of the Session—and he had said—"I am glad to hear that you are about to draw the attention of the House to this subject, because I am quite confident that unless something is soon done the House of Commons will come to a dead lock." Now, it would be lamentable that it should come to a dead lock; but some of the means taken to extricate the House were almost as mischievous as the dead lock itself. He would therefore conclude by asking the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the Government would assist the House by devoting a day to the consideration of the various subjects connected with the future transaction of the business of the House; and he could only say that if the Government would decline to grant the House this favour, he and he believed other hon. Members would be anxious to use their best endeavours to put some Friday at the service of the House.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he hoped Her Majesty's Government would consent to postpone the consideration of the proposed alterations in the mode of conducting business. These changes involved one of the most important questions which could be brought before the House, and ought not to be pressed on without further deliberation. They were placed in considerable difficulty by being asked to go on with the Resolutions that evening, no proper opportunity having boon afforded them for giving Notice of Amendments. He was exceedingly anxious to consult with hon. Members on whose judgment he relied as to what Amendments he should propose in the Resolutions, but he had been allowed no time to do so. He therefore trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would defer his Resolutions for a few days.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he had risen at the same moment as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), to make the same request as he had done. When they considered that the most important question which could be brought before the House was the arrangement of the machinery by which it conducted its business, it was really desirable that Government should do those private Members who wished to take part in the discussion of the question the justice of giving them the opportunity of considering it which they desired. Although the subject had been

  299
  inquired into by a Committee which had reported, and whose recommendations were laid before the House last Session, yet the Prime Minister the other night got up and said he did not think that inquiry sufficient; that it was desirable to have further inquiry; and that whatever was done should be done with the utmost deliberation. That appeared to be the rational way of dealing with the question, and was the result of its consideration by the Government during the Recess. But no sooner was it proposed than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) rose and stated that, all the requisite information being already before the House, there was no necessity for another Committee. Whereupon the Government immediately changed their course, and gave Notice that in a day or two a series of Resolutions would be submitted to the House. He did not say that in a spirit of captious opposition to the Government; but that was not the way in which so grave a question as the Business of the House should be brought before it by the Government. Considering the circumstances attending the Report of last year's Committee, that their decision was not very distinct, and that their Resolutions were carried by a very small majority, he thought the original proposal of the Government for a further inquiry by a Committee was the right one, and he would ask the Prime Minister to revert to it, rather than to persevere in his hasty determination to deal with the question at once by Resolution. At all events, if they proceeded by Resolution, instead of attempting to run this matter like a cargo of contraband goods on a night set apart for private Members, let them fix it on the first Order of the Day on some Government night at least a week or a fortnight hence—a course which would not involve so long a delay as the appointment of a Committee would have occasioned.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he thought it was the interest of the Government itself—of which he was a general supporter—that that question, which was not a party one, should not be brought before the House in a way which was sure to run more or less counter to the feeling of private Members on both sides. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not press his Resolutions
  300
  to a precipitate decision at the fag-end of the evening.
  MR. OSBORNEsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his extremely yielding nature, would not resist the applications made to him by Gentlemen on both sides of the House. That was a question in which the interests even of the Government—of which his hon. Friend who spoke last was so good a supporter—must be held subordinate to the interests of the House. The question was one which concerned the entire House, and although it was not expressly mentioned in Her Majesty's Speech, yet it might come under the head of the several "administrative reforms" which were hinted at in that document. This was a night devoted to private Members; there were 36 Motions on the Paper, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Resolutions stood as the 20th. What chance, therefore, had they of coming on at an hour when they could be considered with the care due to their importance? He was surprised at the selection of that night for bringing them on. The right hon. Gentleman could not surely be aware of the very great and deep interest taken in the subject by nearly every Gentleman present, and more especially by those who come under the anomalous class of independent Members, because that blow was expressly aimed at that highly-deserving body of men. The Government, of course, wishing that such a body of men should be in that House, could not refuse the request made both by dependent and independent Members that they should select one of their own nights for the discussion of that question. He believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his natural good humour, would yield on that point with the same becoming grace as he gave up some of the principal features in his last Budget. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman refused to do so, he intended to himself move the adjournment of the House the moment the right hon. Gentleman rose.
  VISCOUNT BURYconcurred in the appeal to the Government not to press their Resolutions on the House that night. The Prime Minister had told them very properly that last Session was most prolific in suggestions from hon. Members for improving the mode of conducting business; but the Chancellor

  301
  of the Exchequer's proposed Resolutions did not deal with, but rather ignored, those suggestions, some of which, in the opinion of many, would do much more than his Resolutions to facilitate the despatch of business. The suggestions, in particular, made before the Committee of last year by a high authority on Parliamentary law, who sat at the Table of that House, were deserving of the most careful consideration; but they were not embodied in the proposals of the Government. He thought the Prime Minister had been too yielding in abandoning his Motion for the appointment of a Committee, and he would recommend him to adhere to his first decision. The Report of last year's Committee was incomplete, and to be viewed rather as a mere ad interim Report. There was nothing of a party character in that question, because Members on both sides had been unanimous in their recommendations to the Government, who, he hoped, would consider the matter as a whole.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it seem fated that that question of the Orders of the House was to occupy almost as much time in deciding when it was to be discussed as it would do by its actual discussion. But he would endeavour, as far as he could, to state to the House how the matter really stood, and he could assure them that the Government had no other wish than to consult their opinions, because it was perfectly true, as was said by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Osborne) and other Gentlemen, that that was as much or more the affair of the House than the affair of the Government; and therefore it was only reasonable that the wishes of the House should be consulted, more especially on a matter of that kind, in which no doubt every hon. Gentleman thought himself personally interested. Last Session a Committee sat on that question and made a certain Report. Certain of the Resolutions in that Report the Government felt it their duty to submit to the House last Session, and those Resolutions were frequently on the Paper, but, unfortunately, from the pressure of business, they were never able to bring them on. The Government, therefore, thought at the beginning of the present Session, as probably many of the things that happened last Session had called the
  302
  attention of the public and of the House to the state of their Orders, that the best course was to refer the matter back to the Committee; and that proposition they accordingly made to the House. But hon. Gentlemen, and particularly the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) and another Gentleman of very great weight on those subjects—the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie)—got up and objected to that course, and thought its adoption would throw what would certainly have been a very undeserved slight upon the proceedings of the Committee of last year; and no other Gentleman rising to express a contrary opinion, and Government, having no wish in the matter except that it should be managed in a way; agreeable to the wishes of the House, assented to proceeding by Resolution. Now, they found on bringing Resolutions forward that a movement had arisen from the other side, and Government was asked to re-consider the course of proceeding by Resolution, and recur to the course originally proposed of appointing a Committee. He did not think that that would be a proper course for them to pursue. The Government had yielded to the expression of opinion that the matter having already been decided by a Committee it should not be sent before a fresh Committee until it had been submitted to the judgment of the House. The Government, however, were of opinion that when the judgment of the House had been pronounced upon the recommendations of that Committee, it would be right that the matter should again be sent before a Committee in order that it might be ascertained whether any fresh view had been arrived at with respect to it during the Recess. The Government were asked not to bring on the matter that night, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), to whose opinion great weight ought to be attached, had expressed a wish that further time should be given the House for considering the question. It would be very difficult for the Government to press the matter forward on that occasion in the face of such representations; but, at the same time, he must frankly state that it would be simply impossible, in the present state of public business, for a Government

  303
  night to be given for the discussion of this subject. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), however, had made a suggestion that the Government would have the greatest pleasure in acceding to, and that was that they should devote some private night to the discussion of the matter; and Friday had been suggested. As a compromise between the House and the Government, he thought that the adoption of this suggestion would be very reasonable, and he would suggest that some Friday should be taken for the purpose. He might, however, remind the House that these Resolutions could not be brought on as Amendments on going into Committee of Supply, and if the course so suggested were adopted it could only be done by postponing the Committee of Supply until after the discussion upon the Resolutions had been held. Probably the most convenient day on which the discussion could be taken would be next Friday week.
  MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was in error when he stated that the House had objected to the proposal of the Prime Minister to refer this matter to a fresh Committee. The fact was that while only two voices had been raised against that proposal, and before the general view of the House upon the subject could be ascertained, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had risen in his place, and had withdrawn his Resolution for the re-appointment of the Committee of last Session. In his opinion, the great majority of the House was in favour of the re-appointment of that Committee. He thought, however, that the Committee should be differently constituted. Further, it was within the knowledge of most Members that there were facts in connection with the proceedings of the Committee which made those proceedings so irregular that they had lost all claim to the consideration of the House. He would, he believed, not be using too strong an expression when he said that the question submitted to the Committee was not fairly dealt with by them. They were about to deal with one of the most important questions that could be brought before the attention of the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Osborne) had truly said that it was a question of importance to independent
  304
  Members of the House; and he would add that it was a most important question, not only for the House, but for the country at large. If this question were placed for discussion upon a private night it must necessarily come on at a time that it would not be possible to give it due consideration. The right hon. Gentleman said that it would not be possible to give a Government night for the purpose; but could it be said that the question was so unimportant that it was not worthy of having a Government night devoted to it? It was a Government measure, brought forward by the Government; and if it were not a direct attack upon the privileges of the House, it was at least a proposal to make such vital changes in the mode of conducting business that no more important question could be brought before them. He trusted that the House would not consent to discuss the question unless it were brought forward as the first measure upon a Government night.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he thought that the House had some reason to find fault with the course taken by the Government in respect of this question. It was the understanding last Session that the Government would endeavour to embody the recommendations of the Committee in their Resolutions. As one of the Members of the Committee, he might say that there were six Resolutions passed, but three of them had been utterly ignored; and of the Resolutions proposed by the Government, the second one had not been proposed by the Committee. The Resolutions that the House were asked to adopt were not those of the Committee, but some that the Government had evolved out of their inner consciousness. There was but one Resolution upon which the Committee were unanimous, and that was that no opposed business should be taken after half-past 12 at night; and surely if the Committee were worth anything the Government should have taken some notice of that. The only Resolution of the Committee that the Government had taken any notice of was that as to strangers withdrawing, and, under these circumstances, it was too bad to endeavour to entrap the House into a decision as if they were only carrying into effect the decision of the Committee.
  MR. BOUVERIEpointed out that the debate was of rather an irregular character,

  305
  and remarked that, as he understood the state of the case, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had practically abandoned the hope of bringing on these Resolutions that evening, and had, in accordance with a sort of vague desire to meet the wishes of the House—which had been ascertained in some unknown manner—proposed to fix the discussion on the Government Resolutions for some Friday evening. He (Mr. Bouverie) was afraid that when the appointed Friday arrived hon. Members who had Notices on the Paper would not be so ready to give up their rights as the right hon. Gentleman appeared to assume. The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to fully appreciate the force of his own case, because the matter was one which concerned not only the House and the Government, but the despatch of the business of the country. If these Resolutions were required to facilitate the business of the country, he was sure that the majority of the House would assent to them; but he thought it desirable that the question should be disposed of upon a Government night, and as soon as possible, because if the consequences anticipated from the Resolutions should follow the Government would gat on with their business much more rapidly and efficiently than if this discussion were kept hanging over. The Government should take warning from what had occurred last Session with reference to this subject, because, although the Report of the Committee was laid upon the Table of that House on the 31st of last March, no time had hitherto been found for discussing the recommendations it contained.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he thought that there were two courses open to the Government in this matter—to regard the question either as one of the most important that could be submitted to Parliament or else as a Government matter, and in either case to bring it on on a Government night.
  Motion agreed to.
  House, at rising, to adjourn till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (LORDS' BILLS).

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. MONK MR. MONK moved, as an addition to the Standing Orders—
  "That when a Bill brought from the House of Lords shall have remained upon the Table of
  306
  this House for twelve sitting days without any honourable Member giving notice of the Second Reading thereof, such Bill shall not be further proceeded with in the same Session."
  The hon. Member said, he did not anticipate any objection being raised to the proposed Order, as it was framed in the exact words of a Standing Order of the House of Lords, which was adopted last Session with the approval of the Government. It was sometimes impossible towards the end of the Session, when a large number of Bills came down from the other House, to ascertain who were the hon. Members in charge of them, and it sometimes occurred that a Bill, after lying for weeks upon the Table, was, on the Motion of some hon. Member, read a second time at 3 o'clock in the morning, and became law without having been properly discussed. As an additional remedy, he thought it desirable that the names of the hon. Members who had charge of Bills originating in the House of Lords should be printed on the backs of the Bills when they came down to that House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That when a Bill brought from the House of Lords shall have remained upon the Table of this House for twelve sitting days without any honourable Member giving notice of the Second Reading thereof, such Bill shall not be further proceeded with in the same Session."—(Mr. Monk.)
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he thought the proper course would be for the hon. Member to bring forward his proposal in Committee.
  MR. GLADSTONEobserved, that the only question was whether they were to enter that evening upon this Motion, which really formed part of the subject which it had been agreed should be postponed; and, under the circumstances, he took it almost for granted that the hon. Member would not press his Motion, and that it would be withdrawn. It would be impossible for the Government to accede to the Motion; but if the Notice were left upon the Books and a Committee appointed to consider the general subject, it would be very proper that such a Motion should be brought under the notice of the Committee.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEasked whether any of these Motions would be proceeded with that night, and whether the Government would take the opportunity of saying in a day or two what course they would recommend the House to pursue?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Motions would not be proceeded with that night, and they would simply stand adjourned until Friday week.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEsaid, he thought that Friday fortnight would be better.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he could not presume to accept the responsibility that had been thrown upon him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of moving the suspension of the Standing Orders on Friday week. If the Government wanted their Resolutions to be properly discussed, they ought to provide for the discussion being taken on a Government night, or else themselves move the suspension of the Standing Orders on Friday week.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the only effect of fixing these Resolutions for Friday week would be that they would not be discussed on an earlier day. The question of postponing the Notices and the Orders on Friday week until after these Resolutions had been disposed of was another matter, and it was the great confidence of the Government in the influence of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, and in his promise that he would exert himself to the utmost of his power to obtain a Friday evening for the discussion of the Resolutions, that had induced them to give up their chance of bringing on the subject that night.
  MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, he hoped that it would be understood that those who objected to the course of the Government would insist upon their giving a night for the discussion of these Resolutions, so that they should not be discussed in the scrambling way that they must be dealt with if the discussion should come on upon a Friday evening.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

IRELAND—DUNGANNON BENCH OF MAGISTRATES.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTON, in rising to call the attention of the House to the treatment of the Dungannon Bench of Magistrates by the Irish Government; and to move for Copies of the Report of the Commissioners appointed by the Lord Lieutenant to hold an inquiry into the charges preferred against them, the
  308
  inquiry having terminated on the 24th of August last; and, of Correspondence that has passed between the Magistrates accused and the Government in reference to the charges made against them, said, that there was no person in the House who was less disposed to bring under their attention merely local matters; but still he must at the outset admit that the matter now in hand was local, and referred to individuals not known to the general public. It had, however, a direct bearing upon the administration of justice, and upon this great question, whether gentlemen who in Ireland undertook the responsible position of magistrates were entitled to the support of the Government in the discharge of their duties. The character of the magistracy was public property, and anything calculated to affect their character for impartiality and a desire to do equal justice to all would prove seriously detrimental to the public interests. In fact, their character should not merely be pure, but it should be above all suspicion. It was, therefore, impossible to exaggerate the importance of a public investigation into the conduct of the magistrates. It was the duty of the Government, when serious charges were made into the character and conduct of gentlemen in the position of magistrates, to institute a searching inquiry into the subject; and, if those charges were sustained, to immediately take steps for their removal from the magisterial bench. If, on the contrary, those charges were found to be utterly baseless and untrue, it was equally the duty of the Government to give the accused the utmost satisfaction, and to make known to the world the results of their inquiry. Now, the circumstances of the particular case he had to submit to the consideration of the House dated as far back as seven and a-half months ago. At that time no less than seven honourable gentlemen were publicly charged with partiality in their magisterial capacity; and from that day to the present, they had been wholly unable to elicit from the Government an opinion, as to whether they deserved that serious imputation or not, although all the while allowed to continue their important and arduous functions towards the public. Nothing could be more prompt than the demand made by these gentlemen for a full and searching inquiry into the allegations against their character. He had

  309
  the honour of being charged by those seven gentlemen, who felt themselves seriously aggrieved by imputations upon their character, to bring their case before the House. The facts of the case were these:—On June 23 an investigation took place in the town of Dungannon, arising out of a complaint made by a constable against the sub-inspector of the force, both stationed in that town. The circumstances of that complaint had, however, nothing to do with the magistrates whose case he now represented. In the course of the inquiry the evidence of Captain Ball, the stipendiary magistrate at Dungannon, was taken, and that gentleman, when cross-examined, stated, to the astonishment of all the gentlemen present—many of whom had acted with him for a considerable time previously in the most friendly and familiar manner—that, in his opinion, the magistrates generally sympathized with drumming parties who disturbed the public peace. That statement, charging partiality and partizanship, created a great sensation, and immediately attracted the attention of the seven gentlemen to whom it directly applied. Being all honourable men, they lost not a moment in taking public notice of it, and in demanding a Commission of Inquiry into their general conduct as magistrates. They wrote a letter on the subject to the Lord Chancellor, calling his attention to the case, and praying that high functionary to institute an investigation at once, as the charges made affected their personal honour, and also through them the administration of justice in their locality. The Lord Chancellor replied most courteously, expressing his regret that he could not interfere in the way requested, inasmuch as he had no jurisdiction over stipendiary magistrates, and referring the applicants to the Executive Government. The magistrates aggrieved then addressed a letter to the Lord Lieutenant, setting forth the whole case, and requesting his Excellency to institute a public inquiry. No notice whatever, as he was informed, was taken of this communication by the Lord Lieutenant. An intermediate letter, however, was received from the noble Lord the Chief Secretary, having reference to another transaction entirely. A second letter, couched in the same terms as the former one, was forwarded to the Lord Lieutenant. An answer was received on the
  310
  31st of July, in which he ventured to say there was evinced an evident disinclination on the part of his Excellency to allow the accused any inquiry or satisfaction. The noble Lord in that letter declined to call on Captain Ball to substantiate his charge, insisting that no charge had been made. A further correspondence took place, in the course of which a clear and forcible letter on the subject from his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dungannon (Colonel Stuart Knox) was addressed to the noble Lord. Upon receipt of this the Executive no longer refused the demand upon it, and Captain Ball was called upon to support his charge before a Commission of Inquiry appointed to investigate it as well as the allegations contained in a certain memorial to which he (Lord Claud Hamilton) would by-and-bye call the attention of the House. But he regretted to say it appeared to him that the noble Lord seemed to entertain little sympathy with the feelings of these magistrates, and to think that they might be assailed with impunity, and that no opportunity need be given to them to vindicate their conduct and character from the charges thus unfairly made against them. As a Member for the county he (Lord Claud Hamilton) felt himself called upon to put a Question to the noble Lord on the 6th July in relation to this matter, but failed to receive such an answer as could satisfy the magistrates of Dungannon. In justice to Captain Ball he must say that he had heretofore acted in a most gentlemanly spirit, and was, generally speaking, much esteemed and respected. He had never imputed improper motives to that gentleman, who from the first never attempted to deny having made these charges, nor ever disputed the particular words imputed to him. A Commission of Inquiry was ultimately granted—such Commission being constituted of two gentlemen who stood very high in their profession as men of great honour and learning. In the presence of that Commission, to the astonishment of all persons present, Captain Ball, in the frankest manner, completely withdrew the charges in the most ample and comprehensive manner. He had a legal adviser pro-sent of the name of Barry, who asked the following question: "Did you know, on the occasion referred to, what questions

  311
  we were going to ask you?" To which he replied in the negative, saying that he had not the slightest idea of what they were to he. Captain Ball declared that he had not the slightest intention to impute the slightest partiality or corruption to the body of magistrates at large, or to any one of them in particular. Now, nothing could be more handsome, complete, and unreserved than the withdrawal of all those charges by Captain Ball. That gentleman admitted that he had committed an error of judgment, and frankly withdrew the offensive language he had used. Both the Commissioners, treating the charge as a grave one, expressed their satisfaction at the handsome conduct of Captain Ball in unreservedly withdrawing all his imputations. He (Lord Claud Hamilton), however, regretted to say that this withdrawal, however complete and unreserved, did not relieve the magistrates from the consequences that followed them. The wound was not cured by the withdrawal of the weapon that inflicted it—it still remained, and might prove even greater than the weapon which created it. There were two political parties in Dungannon, as there were generally in other Parliamentary boroughs; and though those charges were completely withdrawn, immediate steps were taken by one of those parties to make political capital out of them. A Mr. Hayden, a tradesman, who was the leading agitator on the side of the Liberal party in that town, immediately assembled his friends and told them that those charges afforded them a good opportunity to get up an agitation against the sitting Member, and called upon them to back up the statement made by Captain Ball. The memorial, although drawn up on Sunday, was ante-dated, and it was explained that it was done to make the memorial coincide with Captain Ball's statement. If it had stood alone the accused magistrates would not have asked for an inquiry; but the memorial was not got up as a real charge against the magistrates, but as a backing up of Captain Ball's paper. The inquiry having commenced it was necessary for the accused gentlemen to go into the several charges that had been made against them, and the principal charge was that the magistrates approved of, or if they did not approve of they did not discountenance, the objectionable
  312
  practice of "drumming parties" in the neighbourhood of Dungannon; whereas, on the contrary, witnesses were called who proved that for years past those gentlemen had used every means in their power to stop this objectionable practice. But they were powerless as the law now stood. There was so much difficulty to decide where illegality commenced, that it was almost impossible for the magistrates to put the law in force against these practices or even to check them. The magistrates had frequently called Captain Ball's attention to the state of the law, and they had made attempts to get an alteration of the law, but without effect. They had done all that lay in their power to prevent these demonstrations; but it was impossible for them to check them until the law was altered. Captain Ball had, on former occasions, stated that he considered the magistrates had power to interfere by proclamation; but when examined he stated that he did not know what means there were at his disposal by which he could suppress them. A case had recently occurred in Londonderry in which no less a person than the Deputy Inspector of Constabulary, a gentleman of great experience, had been fined £100 because he rashly acted upon a proclamation of magistrates. It appeared that in anticipation of some disturbance the magistrates of Derry issued a proclamation which the Deputy Inspector of Constabulary thought had the force of law, and for acting upon that opinion he was fined. The trial of the case excited great attention and lasted several days. The Lord Chief Justice who tried the case expressed his opinion that the proclamation had not the element of legality; that a proclamation signed by magistrates could make nothing illegal which was not so before; and that magistrates could no more make a thing illegal by proclamation than they could build a house by proclamation. The defect of the law was that if these drumming parties took place in districts where the people were all one way of thinking, no objection was made to them; but it was only where there was a difference of opinion that offence was given and all these troubles arose. It was a constructive illegality. It was not the way in which the offence was committed, but in the manner in which it was received by the people, and hence

  313
  the difficulty of drawing the line. It was, therefore, the bounden duty of the Government to amend the law. All these objectionable practices were dying out in 1864; but unluckily in that year the Government allowed an illegal monster meeting to take place in Dublin, under the excuse that it was in honour of the late Mr. O'Connell, when the law was violated in every respect except in the carrying of arms, but in reality its object was to show that the people were determined to march in large bodies with banners and emblems. So long as those illegal displays were permitted in the South of Ireland there would be counter displays in the North; but it was a most unfounded and unjust charge to make against the magistrates of Dungannon that they had in any way encouraged them in that district. A very gratifying feature of the case was that the evidence adduced to show how they had tried to put down those objectionable practices was, in a great proportion, given by Roman Catholics and Liberals who were opposed to them politically. These persons came forward to testify to the very high character of the magistrates and the zealous way in which they tried to put down those objectionable practices. For seven months and a-half they had been unable to obtain from the Government any intimation whether they considered the original charges had been proved or rebutted in the inquiry that took place before the Commissioners; but in justice to two of them who were mentioned by name in the memorial, it was right to say that the Commission had completely exonerated them. The charge against Mr. Lisle was that he had knowingly encouraged drumming parties by allowing them to assemble on his grounds, and that he had permitted bonfires on certain anniversaries; and so much reliance was placed on it, that the inquiry was twice adjourned for the production of a material witness named O'Neil. When he appeared and gave his evidence it turned out that what he referred to occurred 12 or 14 years since, and it was distinctly proved by a policeman that during Mr. Lisle's absence he took a drumming party through that gentleman's grounds to prevent a collision taking place in the town, and that with regard to the bonfire it was simply a few leaves and sticks which the gardener and Mr. Lisle's son had set on fire
  314
  to commemorate the latter's coming home for his holidays. The Commissioner in expressing his opinion said that until the case was explained he did not wonder that some prejudice had been entertained against Mr. Lisle; but that immediately it was explained it seemed to him the imputation had been completely swept away. There was not, he added, the shadow of a shade for the charge, and that the witness's statement was a misrepresentation. Although the Commissioners stated that they would be able to make their Report in the course of two months, as long a period as five-and-a-half months had been allowed to elapse, and the seven gentlemen, whose character as magistrates was immediately concerned, were utterly unable to elicit from the Government any information whatever with regard to the result of the inquiry. It was a remarkable circumstance that at the conclusion of the inquiry the assailant of these gentlemen, Captain Ball, was removed from the office he had held, which looked very much as if the Government disapproved of the course he had pursued in the matter. He maintained that the Government were guilty of no little neglect in withholding any communication which should at once officially and completely exonerate these accused magistrates from the charges that had been brought against them, especially after their assailant had been summarily removed from his office. He asked the House to consider the position in which a number of gentlemen were placed, against whom were advanced charges so serious that, if founded in fact, they would instantly unfit them to hold the position of magistrates. He could not form the least idea as to the case the Government proposed to make out, or as to the nature of any new charges which they might prefer; but of this he was quite sure—and he would state it publicly—that the gentlemen whom he had the honour to represent were prepared to meet any charges that might be directed against them. In conclusion, he must apologise for having detained the House at so great a length, and he trusted that it would accept as his excuse the grave importance of the case.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That there be laid before this House, Copies of the Report of the Commissioners appointed by the Lord Lieutenant to hold an inquiry into the

  315
  charges preferred against the Dungannon Bench of Magistrates, the inquiry having terminated on the 24th of August last:
  And, of Correspondence that has passed between the Magistrates accused and the Government in reference to the charges made against them."—(Lord Claud Hamilton.)
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONcould have wished that the noble Lord had sacrificed a little more to brevity instead of putting his case in a speech of an hour and a-half before the House, for if he had done so he might have secured a better attendance on his own side than the half-dozen Members who had stayed to listen to him. He would refrain from following the noble Lord through the greater portion of his speech, and especially with regard to the case as affecting the magistrates themselves, which it was quite unnecessary to consider at present. He could not help thinking that the noble Lord's purpose would have been adequately answered had he put a Question to him on the subject, or asked the Librarian for a copy of the Report of the Commissioners, which was already on the Table, and which would be in the hands of hon. Members as soon as the arrangements of the House would admit. In that Report the noble Lord and the House would find stated, not at such length as the noble Lord had done, but more clearly and succinctly, the opinions of the Commissioners as to the conduct of the magistrates and the charges brought against them. He would ask hon. Members, therefore, to wait a little until the Report was in their hands. The only part of the noble Lord's speech as to which he thought it necessary to say anything was that in which the noble Lord imputed to the Government—first an indisposition to treat this matter with the serious attention it deserved; and, secondly, the delay, which he attributed to their fault. He entirely denied that there was any indisposition on the part of the Government to take the matter up. The noble Lord had spent much time in trying to prove that he (the Marquess of Hartington) was inclined from the very beginning to underrate the gravity of the allegations made against the gentlemen whom he was pleased to call his clients, and quoted an answer which he had given to the effect that the matters complained of were not charges by Captain Ball, but
  316
  merely statements. He did not intend to imply that the statements of Captain Ball did not contain grave imputations on the conduct of the magistrates. What he meant was that the charges had not been made by Captain Ball voluntarily, but in the course of inquiry upon his oath, and he drew the distinction between statements and charges in order to show that Captain Ball had not made any charges of his own accord. The noble Lord had said that there was great delay in having any inquiry at all. Now, speaking from memory, he could say that as far as the Lord Lieutenant and himself were concerned there was no unnecessary delay. As soon as it was determined that an inquiry should take place, no time was lost in appointing the Commission and giving instructions as to how it should act. The lapse between August and the present month certainly appeared long; but the noble Lord's surprise at this apparent delay would soon be diminished when he heard that the Report of the Commissioners was not received until the 28th of November. When the right hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) wrote to him on the subject he was informed that the Commissioners had not received from the shorthand writer the transcript of the evidence which they had to read over. When the Report was printed it was sent, as was customary in such cases, to the Lord Chancellor for his consideration. The Lord Chancellor read not only the Report, but the whole of the evidence, which took up about 200 closely-printed pages, and when the noble Lord (Lord Claud Hamilton) reflected that the Lord Chancellor had some other things to do besides reading Reports of that description, he would not feel surprised to hear that the letter which the Lord Chancellor thought it his duty to write upon reading the evidence was not received until the 21st of January. Since that letter was received by the Lord Lieutenant copies of it were prepared to be sent to the several persons concerned, and in the course of a day or two would be despatched to the magistrates. He would remind the House that although it sounded extremely touching to hear from the noble Lord that seven honourable gentlemen had been kept waiting all this time for the decision of the Government upon their conduct, the practical grievance was not so very great.

  317
  As had been proved by the speech of the noble Lord himself, the evidence received by the Commissioners had been already made public, and also the general decision to which the Commissioners had come. The magistrates were therefore aware that the only charge of a serious nature preferred against them had been completely and at once withdrawn, and also that the Commissioners were or opinion that the other charges had not been substantiated. It could not be said, therefore, that the magistrates were all this time resting under any imputation whatever. If the formal opinion of the Government had not yet been communicated to them, they must have felt that, based as it would be on the Report of the Commissioners, it would not be such as in any way to affect their character or honour. The noble Lord stated that the magistrates had complained over and over again of the delay; but he was not aware that any such complaint had been made, or if made, it certainly had not been received by him. The only letter he had received on that point was from the right hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry), and that was answered immediately. The Report of the Commissioners contained matter of very great interest quite apart from those personal concerns, and would be well worthy perusal. He quite concurred with the noble Lord that the character of the magistrates could never be an object of indifference to that House.
  MR. CORRYconsidered it quite unnecessary to add any observations to those which had been so fully made by his noble Friend (Lord Claud Hamilton) in reference to this transaction; but he could not help expressing the belief that the House was of opinion that the magistrates interested had been completely exonerated from the charges which were most unjustifiably brought against them by certain persons in the borough of Dungannon. It was, however, only fair to expect from the Government a declaration that no stain whatever rested upon their characters. If the Government had shown any unwillingness to exonerate the magistrates he would have joined his noble Friend in pressing for the production of the Papers. He was glad that his noble Friend had brought the case forward, because those gentlemen felt that they were labouring under a painful imputation. The magistrates
  318
  were engaged in preserving the public peace, and they knew that these unfortunate party demonstrations were the bane of the country. He was quite willing to accept the statement of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) as a complete exoneration of those gentlemen in the opinion of the Government from the charges of partiality which had been brought against them.
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsuggested that after the satisfactory exoneration of these gentlemen as conveyed in the explanation of the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland, his noble Friend (Lord Claud Hamilton) might withdraw this Motion from the Paper.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. CRAUFURD, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the further amendment and better consolidation of the Laws relating to the relief of the Poor in Scotland, said: I do not think I need at the present stage enter into any statement with regard to the provisions of this Bill. I think it is desirable that I should postpone that until the second reading, and I will take care to give ample time for their consideration before asking the House to come to any decision. I shall content myself now with simply stating that the Bill will be framed on the basis of the recommendations contained in the Report presented to the House last Session by the Committee on the Scotch Poor Law, over which I had the honour to preside, and which sat for three years to inquire into the subject. The Bill will not go beyond those recommendations, and it is possible that it may not include the whole of them. This matter is one of great importance, and so much did I feel the gravity and importance of the introduction of such a measure that it was my earnest desire that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate should undertake the task. I have conferred with him on the subject, and he seems to think that, on the whole, it is better that the matter should be left in the hands of the Chairman of the Committee. I have yielded to his suggestion; but I feel there are grave difficulties in the way. Among the recommendations in the Report there are demands for contributions

  319
  from public funds on several grounds, and such matters would, I think, have been dealt with better by the Government than by a private Member. Besides, I should have preferred to submit for discussion in the House the recommendations with regard to the incidence of local taxation which were not approved by the majority of the Committee. If I bring in the Bill as Chairman of the Committee, I am bound to represent the Committee only in the recommendations which are submitted for the adoption of Parliament. Feeling this difficulty—feeling that by introducing the Bill myself, I should lose the opportunity of urging on the attention of the House a grave question which was submitted to the Committee upstairs—I should have been glad if the Bill had been brought in by Her Majesty's Government, and I myself had, like other hon. Members, been left free to raise any question that I pleased beyond those included in the recommendations of the Committee. But, on the whole, I feel that the matter is too important for delay, and that many of the recommendations of the Committee are of a very valuable nature, and if adopted would lead to considerable improvement in the law and its administration, and I have, therefore, yielded willingly to the Lord Advocate's wish that I should undertake the task of introducing the Bill. I hope that, as many of the recommendations were passed without any division in Committee, I may look for the support of the Lord Advocate and Her Majesty's Government in carrying forward what is, indeed, no light undertaking.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill for the further amendment and better administration of the Laws relating to the relief of the Poor in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CRADFURD, Sir ROBERT ANSTHUTHER, and Mr. MILLER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 35.]

WEST COAST OF AFRICA (DUTCH SETTLEMENTS.)—RESOLUTION.
MR. SINCLAIR AYTOUN, in rising to call attention to the acquisition by the British Government of Territory on the West Coast of Africa from the Kingdom of Holland, and to move—
"That, in the opinion of this House, no further steps ought to be taken towards the conclusion of a Treaty with the Government of Holland, having
320
for its-object the extension of the British Colonial Territory on the West Coast of Africa, until this House shall have had an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the policy of such Treaty."
said, his information upon the subject of the Treaty was derived from a letter which had appeared in The Times a week ago from their correspondent at the Cape. The letter described the effect which had been produced upon the public mind in that country by the conclusion of a Treaty under which, in pursuance of advantages to be secured to Holland in another part of the world, and also of a certain money payment, all the possessions, rights, and obligations of the King of the Netherlands on the "West Coast of Africa were to be ceded to the Government of this country. The population about to be transferred in that manner amounted to 120,000, and it was stated that of these a great number were extremely dissatisfied, and had sent an envoy to Holland to protest against the arrangement, which even in Holland itself had excited considerable indignation. He also objected to the Treaty, and he did so on two grounds. He objected to such an exercise of the Prerogative, without its being first submitted to Parliament; and he further objected to it as one that would be likely to prove injurious to the interests of the country. Treaties were negotiated without any reference to that House. The House was afterwards told that if they disapproved the Treaty they could object to it. Did that afford any appreciable guarantee that that House would be able to prevent such an exercise of the Prerogative as might be injurious to the interests of the country? He maintained that it afforded no guarantee whatever. The House had no means of arresting the action of the Government in these matters. After the Treaty was concluded, all that could be done was to pass a Vote of Censure on the Government, for if the House disapproved of the Treaty, that amounted to a censure on the Government, and the result would be either a change of Ministers or a General Election. That was a state of things which ought not to be allowed to continue. It must strike everyone that there were two powers in the country which could only be rendered compatible with one another by the establishment of a customary constitutional law. The Prerogative of the Crown extended to

321
the making of treaties and imposing on the country obligations and burdens, which, if there was no check on that Prerogative, would render the power of the House of Commons in imposing taxation on the country perfectly illusory. And the right of making treaties apart from the knowledge and interference of Parliament, would, of course, be as absolute in the hands of a Government not having a majority either in the House or the country, as of the strongest Government that ever existed. During the Session of 1866 the Prerogative of the Crown was made use of to grant what was called a "Supplemental Charter" to the Queen's University in Ireland. That was an illustration of the manner in which the Prerogative of the Crown might be used in opposition to the wishes of the House. It was the opinion of those well informed on the point, that if the question of the grant of the Charter had been raised in the early part of 1866, the Government would have been defeated, but at the end of that Session, just about the time they left office, the Government granted this Supplemental Charter. He would just give an instance of a case in which a Treaty was submitted to the consideration of the House, and which he thought afforded a precedent which might be adopted in the case of all other treaties. He referred to the Commercial Treaty of 1860. In the Speech from the Throne at the commencement of that Session, reference was made to negotiations then being carried on for the purpose of concluding a Commercial Treaty. In answer to some Question from the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), Lord Palmerston said that, when ratified, the Convention would be laid before the House, but he would say then, as to what would be the function of the House of Commons with regard to that Convention, that the arrangements stipulated were made conditional to the assent of both Houses of Parliament. That appeared to him (Mr. Aytoun) to afford a precedent which ought to be strictly followed in the case of every treaty to which this country agreed. It might be said that as this Treaty dealt with customs duties, it was necessary to lay it before Parliament. But in treaties affecting territory, although they did not deal in express terms with questions of Revenue, still
322
they placed that House under the necessity of providing money for the completion of the treaties, and, therefore, he saw no reason why treaties or guarantees should not be laid before Parliament, as well as the Commercial Treaty of 1860. He understood that the sum of £24,000 was to be paid by this country as a part of the consideration for which the Government of Holland ceded their territory to this country. Perhaps some Member of the Government would kindly inform the House where this money was to come from. He had always imagined that no principle was better recognized than this—that the extent of their possessions, especially those in unhealthy and tropical countries, was a source of weakness, and that it was the interest of the country to diminish rather than extend the area of such possessions. The West Coast of Africa was unhealthy, and there was an immense country lying at the back of that colony, which afforded all kinds of facilities for a muddling Government to involve them in little wars. In 1865 a very important Committee sat and took evidence on the subject of their West Indian Colonies, and that Committee—comprising four Members of the late Conservative Government and four Members of the present Liberal Government, three of them being Cabinet Ministers—arrived at the conclusion that, all further extensions of territory, or assumptions of government, or new treaties affecting any protection of Native tribes, would be inexpedient, and that the object of their policy should be to encourage in the Natives the exercise of those qualities which might render it possible for them more and more to transfer to them the duties of government, with a view to their ultimate withdrawal from all those settlements, except, perhaps, Sierra Leone. But, instead of following up that policy of gradual withdrawal, instead of setting their faces against all meddling with the Natives, the Government were actually making a Treaty with the Dutch, by which their territories would be extended, their responsibilities increased, together with the pecuniary burdens on the people of the country. For those reasons, he trusted that the House would accept the Resolution of which he had given Notice, and which he now had the honour to present for their consideration.
MR. OSBORNE, in seconding the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Aytoun), expressed his regret that it had been necessary to bring it on at an hour (a quarter to 8 o'clock) when the House was necessarily thin. It was not necessary to go into the general question of treaties now, because the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) had given Notice of a Motion on that subject. There were, however, some points appertaining to the Treaty which he hoped the Government would be able satisfactorily to dispose of. It was asserted that the people of the Dutch Settlement of Elmina were favourable to the transfer; but if he was rightly informed, so little did they approve it, that they were preparing to resist the transfer; while the Dutch Government had made application to Her Majesty's Government for two or three ships of war with a force of troops on board to assist in handing over these people of Elmina to us. He hoped that a specific answer would be given to that allegation, not only for the sake of this country, but for the sake of the Gentleman—once occupying a very distinguished position in that House—who had been transferred from the government of the Bahamas to the Governorship of what he could not help thinking would prove the damnosa hæreditas of these Dutch colonies. Everything which could be effected by excellent conduct and wise resolutions would be accomplished, no doubt, by Mr. Pope Hennessy; but for Mr. Hennessy's own sake he (Mr. Osborne) was very sorry that he had been put into that position. The House ought to be distinctly informed how far the people themselves were favourable to the transfer, for, as far as was yet known, the people of Elmina had never been consulted. The Dutch, no doubt, were very anxious to get rid of them, but the people of Elmina seemed to be inclined to "Home Rule"—a principle which was apparently growing into fashion. It would be an awkward thing for the House to accept a Treaty, without receiving some distinct assurance from the Government that the application for ships of war and troops, if made, would not be complied with; and he sincerely trusted that the present system of making treaties, such as it was, would be no longer persevered in,
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, in the opinion of this House, no further steps ought to be taken towards the conclusion of a Treaty with the Government of Holland, having for its object the extension of the British Colonial Territory on the West Coast of Africa, until this House shall have had an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the policy of such Treaty."—(Mr. Sinclair Aytoun.)
MR. R. N. FOWLER, while observing that their connection with the Coast of Africa, though costly, was one of great honour to the country, expressed an opinion that the Treaty, inasmuch as we had maintained those colonies in order to suppress the slave trade which had been so much condemned, would be productive of great good. England entered on the Coast of West Africa to put an end to the slave trade, and for the advantage of the African race. Difficulties had been met with owing to the prevalence of rival jurisdictions; and it would be much better for the interests and increase of African civilization that there should be only one European power communicating with the Native tribes. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Aytoun) had said much on the subject of Prerogative. That was a wide question, and one into which he (Mr. Fowler) did not intend to follow him. It was one that would be much better debated on the general Motion on the subject which was to be brought forward by the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands). The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy also complained of the £24,000 to be paid by us for the acquisition of the territory; but, considering the sacrifices which England had made for the civilization of the African race, if the result of the negotiation should place England in a better position to promote that civilization, he thought she would not begrudge the small sum of £24,000. For his part, he was glad that the Government had entered into the Treaty; and he trusted that the result would be beneficial to the civilization of Africa. We had contracted duties towards the Native population in that quarter of the world, and to retire from our Colonies there would have a most injurious effect upon them.
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, it would be evident that two questions were involved in the Motion of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Aytoun)—the first having reference to the policy of this particular Treaty, and

325
the second to the system pursued by this country with regard to its treaties generally. As to the larger question, as a Notice had been given which could not fail to give rise to very full discussion, it would be most inconvenient, and injurious to the full discussion which was pending, to raise the broad issue now by a sidewind, and therefore it would be beyond his province to enter upon it. In this particular case the usual practice of the country had been strictly adhered to, and the Treaty would be laid upon the Table of the House so that it could be discussed at some future time upon its own merits. As to the policy of that particular Treaty, he had in the interests of the House itself a complaint to make against the hon. Gentleman who had brought the subject forward. He had warned that hon. Gentleman that the Papers on the subject would be delivered to hon. Members shortly, and he had suggested that it would be better to postpone a discussion until the Papers were produced; but the hon. Gentleman had chosen to take a different course, and in consequence he had fallen into one or two errors which he might have escaped from if he had only been a little more patient. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of a dangerous and mischievous interference with the affairs of the natives; but this was not a right or just application of phrases as to our connection with the native tribes on the West Coast of Africa. There was no acquisition of territory involved in the present Treaty at all in the sense understood by the hon. Gentleman. The possessions of Great Britain on the West Coast of Africa consisted of certain forts and settlements, and a voluntary protectorate exercised over a considerable number of native tribes. That protectorate was not very clearly defined. It appeared, from the only written document on the subject, that some native tribes agreed in times past to give up human sacrifice and various other degrading habits, and to allow cases of murder to be tried by British officials; and in return they were to be placed under the moral protection of this country—the object in view being to put a stop to frequent wars, and to promote civilization and Christianity. The original object of our settlement on the Coast was to carry on the slave trade; but that policy was happily
326
reversed, a more enlightened policy took its place, and we held the settlements for the purpose of putting down the slave trade, for the improvement of the condition of the native tribes, and the general development of the country. If Great Britain were now to withdraw, the probability would be that the most disastrous results would ensue—the slave trade would be renewed, and wars and bloodshed would succeed to peace and the spread of civilization. That was the view taken by Sir Arthur Kennedy, the very highest authority upon the subject, who had done so much for Western Africa. The arrangements between the Dutch and ourselves had been these—In 1867, a wise determination was come to, to make an exchange between the Dutch and English settlements, so that the settlements of the two nations could be more consolidated, the Dutch acquiring all the settlements on the west of the River Sweet, and the English on the east as far as the Volta. But while the natives transferred to the British flag came readily into the arrangement, those who were transferred to the Dutch flag did not, and large tribes of natives who had before been content to traffic under the English flag refused to submit to Dutch authority, whence arose considerable misunderstanding, and a state of warfare between the Dutch and the native tribes, on whose part a truce was now in existence only through the moral influence of British officials, and which would undoubtedly be broken if the present negotiations should unhappily fail. The alteration now proposed, however, was likely to have the most benecial result; but there was no intention of forcing our protectorate on any tribe whatever. The Dutch were about to leave the coast, and they would cede to us certain forts—for, in the interests of civilization, and of humanity, and of Christianity, they would rather leave the forts to a great civilized European Power than leave them to be fought for by the various tribes. At the same time, it was our hope that these tribes, hitherto occupied in fighting among themselves, would all come under our flag, which would give a better prospect of peace than having a divided authority, or leaving the unfortunate people to fight it out amongst them. The hon. Gentleman had read one of the Resolutions of the Select Committee of 1865; but he had

327
omitted to read the following which they also agreed to:—
"The policy of non-extension admits of no exception as regards new settlements, but cannot amount to an absolute prohibition of measures which, in peculiar cases, may be necessary for the more efficient and economic administration of the settlements we already possess."
The acquisition of these forts was precisely analogous to the case contemplated by these words, for we required them to make our administration more efficient and complete. The harbour was the only one between Sierra Leone and Fernando Po at which it was possible to coal without re-shipment. By the concentration of our establishments, it was estimated that we should gain £10,000 a-year. The £24,000 was to be paid exclusively for the fixtures and stores in the fort, which we could not expect the Dutch to leave without being paid for them. It was the intention of the Government not to employ any force; rather than do so they would decline to take the place at all. They believed that any dissatisfaction with the transfer, if it ever existed, had been removed, so far as regarded the small tribe of 14,000 or 15,000 living near Elmina, which alone had exhibited any signs of discontent. There were other adjacent small tribes; and beyond all were the Ashantees. Our presence had already moderated strife, and it was necessary to the peaceable government of the country. The propriety of our giving up certain portions of our territory on the "West Coast of Africa had been already discussed, and the feeling of the House was against our abandoning any of our possessions there. The time might come when some of them should be given up; if we looked only at the question of expense, it might have arrived already; but the country did not wish us to leave those settlements until they were fit for self-government, and we should do wrong if we did not avail ourselves of an opportunity to concentrate our possessions. We had created a growing trade; and there were English and Dutch merchants connected with Elmina who were prepared to do more than ever to develop its commerce if it came under the British flag. There was to be no territorial cession except the ground on which the forts stood, and the cession would give us no protectorate over anyone; but it was probable that our presence would
328
exercise a moral influence which would prevent bloodshed and wars, and promote peaceful pursuits. Not a sixpence of the £24,000 to be paid would come from this country; but the transfer would be paid for by the Gold Coast Colony, the resources of which exhibited great development. In 1864, the revenue of the colony was £4,000, and its expenditure £9,400. In 1868, including a Parliamentary grant of £2,392, the revenue was £15,404, and the expenditure £11,651. In 1869, the revenue was £24,127, and the expenditure £18,836. In 1870, the revenue was £30,851, and the expenditure £35,609; but this revenue included a special grant of £11,000 towards paying off the debt. The estimated revenue of the present year, without a Parliamentary grant, which had ceased entirely, was £27,000; the expenditure was estimated at £16,845; and the balance in the chest on the 31st of March was £12,421. While, then, this was the pecuniary aspect of the question, it must be borne in mind that Great Britain had contracted moral obligations towards the people of the West Coast of Africa, from which, he believed, public opinion in this country did not wish her to recede. She had put down the slave trade and the inhuman practice of sacrificing human life; she had extended civilization and Christianity amongst the native tribes, and her good hand ought not now to be stopped in this great work. He thought he had shown that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman was one which it would not be advisable to press.
MR. RYLANDSsuggested that, after the statement they had just received from the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Aytoun) should withdraw his Motion. He should regard any such arrangement as that made in this case with great jealousy; but, at the same time, he believed that when the Papers were before the House good reason would be found in them for the interference of Her Majesty's Government.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he most decidedly objected not to their acquiring, but to their abandoning territory; and wished to know what were the Treaty rights which they were to surrender in Sumatra in exchange for the advantages which they were to gain

329
on the coast of Africa? Some years ago they had a settlement called Bencoolen, on the West Coast of Sumatra, one of the most magnificent islands in the world, though cannibalism prevailed in the interior, and afterwards that was given up to the Dutch; but still they retained certain rights with regard to the trade of Sumatra, and he wished to know what rights in Sumatra they were now going to relinquish? He also wished to suggest, if they wore going to follow up the practice of extirpating the African slave trade, whether it would not be as well for them to increase their possessions on the East as well as on the West Coast of Africa, by making a lodgment at Zanzibar, which was far more healthy than the place under notice, and thus strike at the very root of that degrading traffic?
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENreplied that the only right possessed by this country was to protest against the Dutch acquiring any more territory in Sumatra. They had, however, acquired more territory, and England had done nothing more than to protest. She had now abandoned her right to protest, leaving the Dutch to acquire territory without any hindrance; and we had gained in return this advantage—that with regard to all territory acquired, and to be acquired, English traders were to be placed on the same footing as the Dutch.
MR. SINCLAIR AYTOUNsaid, he would accede to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands).
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

GAME LAWS BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. WHITEsaid, he rose, at the request of his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the abolition of the Corn Laws—[Laughter]—he begged pardon—the Game Laws. He was thinking of the question which had given him his first acquaintance with political life.
  MR. HERMONasked the hon. Member for Brighton to postpone his Motion, as the hon. Baronet the Member for Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had a Bill on the Table on the same subject.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that it was usual to allow a Member to bring in a Bill for another Member when there was no opposition, but not when opposition was expected.
  MR. WHITEsaid, he was willing, under such circumstances, to withdraw his Motion.
  MR. HERMONsaid, he would withdraw his opposition.
  Motion agreed to.
  On Motion of Mr. TAYLOR, Bill for the abolition of the Game Laws, ordered to be brought in by Mr. TAYLOR, Mr. DICKINSOS, Mr. JACOB BRIGHT, Mr. M'COMBII, and Mr. JAMES WHITE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 36.]

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. BEUCE, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the Prevention of certain Contagious Diseases, and for the better protection of Women, said, he rose in pursuance of the pledge given towards the end of last Session by Her Majesty's Government, to explain to the House what had been the result of the consideration they had given to the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the Contagious Diseases Act, and to propose a measure which seemed to them suited to meet the evils complained of. He need hardly say that the Government had entered on the subject with great anxiety. They were sensible of the serious responsibility which they incurred; whether, on the one hand, they opposed the wishes of a very large portion of the population, who, however unreasonable their opposition might have been, were backed by many persons of calm and serious habits of thought; or whether they proposed the repeal of the Acts, supported as they had been by far the largest part of the medical, naval, and military profession, as well as by a large part of the population—whatever part they took no doubt the Government felt they incurred a very serious responsibility. He thought he should facilitate explanation of the measure he proposed, if he took a short and rapid survey of the course of legislation on the subject. It was in 1864 that, for the first time, the Government, actuated by a desire to improve the efficiency of the naval and military forces, by removing one great source of disease and weakness, introduced a Bill which

  331
  had for its object the prevention of contagious diseases in certain naval and military stations. The Act was confined in its operation to eleven naval and military stations. Its main provision was, that on a declaration, not necessarily an oath, to the effect that a woman who was a common prostitute and suffering from contagious disease had been within 14 days within the limits of the district instituted by the Act for the purposes of prostitution, she should be examined, and might be detained three months in a certified hospital. The Act passed in July, 1864. In October the same year the two great military Departments appointed a committee of medical men to inquire into the best means of diminishing the effects of disease in the Navy and Army. In consequence of their Report the Act of 1866 was introduced, which was based on the principle that compulsory examination should be applied to all persons who were living the lives of prostitutes. In 1868 a Committee of the Lords again inquired into the subject, and examined a vast number of medical and other witnesses. Their Report recommended that power should be given by Order in Council to apply the Act of 1866, first to all naval and military stations, and secondly to any locality the inhabitants of which should apply for it, provided there was adequate hospital accommodation, with due provision for moral and religious instruction, and a sufficient police force to carry out the provisions of the Act. In consequence of that Report it fell to his lot to move in that House a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the Act of 1866, and in consequence of the Report of that Select Committee the Act of 1869 was introduced, which extended to further military stations the operations of the Act of 1866, but did not provide, as recommended by the Committee of the House of Lords, its extension to the civil population. There was no doubt that the proposed extension of the Acts to the civil population led to the agitation which, from that time almost to the present, raged throughout the length and breadth of the land. An association was formed, promoted by medical men, and having many branches all over the country, for the purpose of advocating the extension of these Acts to the civil districts of the country. Then the opposition
  332
  arose, founded first of all on the opinion that these Acts invaded private liberty; secondly, because they appeared to give legal sanction to prostitution; thirdly, because they tended to promote immorality among men; and lastly, because they had a tendency still further to harden and degrade fallen women themselves. There was no doubt but that these objections elicited the sympathies of large numbers of persons of serious and thoughtful habits, but it was equally certain that many who opposed the Acts dealt in exaggerations and appeals which were calculated to give a false impression as to the manner in which the law was carried out. Statements were made on the authority of persons entitled to little belief, impugning the conduct of those who were charged with the administration of the Acts, and he would appeal to anyone who had read those wild and random charges, and who knew the readiness with which they were received, as to whether he was going beyond the truth in saying that the agitation was due mainly to a monstrous system of perversion and exaggeration; whilst on the other hand no one who knew the facts of the case but would bear him out in saying that the Acts had worked in a most satisfactory manner. It was owing in a great degree, therefore, to that monstrous system of exaggeration and perversion which had prevailed, that popular indignation had been excited against these Acts. However, there could be no question whatever that the public mind had been very deeply moved, and the Government were anxious, on the one hand, not lightly to abandon a course of legislation which, in their opinion, was working very considerable good, and, on the other, that proper inquiry should be made into their operation. They therefore appointed a Commission in 1870, which reported towards the middle of the year 1871. It recommended, by a large majority, first of all, the repeal of the clauses which authorized the periodical examination of women; secondly, it recommended the re-enactment of the Act of 1864 which had been repealed, because its operations were extended by the Acts of 1866 and 1869; but such re-enactment would have returned to the principle of compulsory examination, which the Committee had already decided against; it also recommended

  333
  that other legislation should be passed—in fact, that the whole of this legislation should be such as might be rendered available by the civil districts throughout the country as well as the naval and military stations. A minority of 7, however, were in favour of preserving in its entirety the principle of examination, and not only of maintaining the Acts, but while amending them in some particulars, of gradually and cautiously extending the operation of the law throughout the country. This minority of 7, at the head of whom was the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) objected to the Report because they agreed with the medical profession that periodical examination was necessary, and that the Act of 1864 was more beneficial than the Acts of 1866 and 1869. He would say a few words as to the results. The Commissioners were called on to report not only on the physical results, but also on what appeared to them to be the moral effects of the Acts. On both points there had been, and still was, considerable difference of opinion. Not denying that there did exist grave objections to the Acts, some occasional incentives to immorality, and that the system of examination might have a hardening influence on women, he might say that the conclusion he arrived at was, that the effect in preventing women from entering on a life of prostitution was so great that the moral good prevailed over the moral evil. When he stated that as his own opinion, he must admit that many persons for whose opinion he had the greatest possible respect entertained a different opinion. Their objections to the Acts were not to be overcome by any advantages which might be pointed out as resulting from them, because they thought them morally wrong. But while there existed in the Commission itself, in the House, and throughout the country, that difference of opinion as to the moral effects of these Acts, he did not understand that there could be any difference of opinion as to the physical advantages they had produced. The evidence both of military and naval medical men was, he thought, conclusive. Since the Acts had been in operation, there had been among their soldiers and sailors a very great and remarkable diminution of disease. The evidence was equally clear that the effect had been greatly to reduce the amount
  334
  of prostitution; and one of the best, if not the very best, effects of the measure had been to almost entirely put a stop to that most horrible form of vice—juvenile prostitution. In Plymouth and Portsmouth, where a large number of poor children, from one cause or another, had been led into this miserable life, juvenile prostitution had entirely disappeared. In Portsmouth, where last year there had been upwards of 200 juvenile prostitutes, none were now to be found. A great effect had also been produced on public order throughout these districts. The scenes described in some of these seaport towns had been of the most disgraceful character; there was now a marked improvement; order and decency prevailed where there had been nothing but disorder. These facts were present to the mind of everyone, but, notwithstanding, the Commissioners recommended "that exclusive legislation for the purpose of preserving the health of our soldiers and sailors among a civil population was not desirable, and whatever regulations were made should be equally applicable to the whole country." After giving the subject the most attentive consideration the Government had arrived at the same conclusion. They thought it impossible to maintain in certain limited districts and with a large civil population, a system of law that was incapable of extension to other parts of the country. The Government were of opinion that the system of compulsory and periodical examination could not be made the basis of general legislation. He would now refer to the part taken by successive Governments in the matter. It was said over and over again that these Acts had been carried by surprise; but that affirmation was totally unfounded, and it was not the fault of the Government or of Parliament that these measures were not fully discussed. The subject was not of a character to invite discussion, and did not class itself among those more inviting subjects which occupied the minds of those who took an interest in deliberating upon public questions, and the consequence was that this important and stringent legislation passed through the House almost without notice, and without that salutary and beneficial purification which discussion and opposition supplied. That was a great misfortune, for they were most stringent Acts, introducing novel

  335
  principles, and they were introduced among a population utterly unprepared for their reception. That was the secret of the opposition they had met with. But although the Government were of opinion that the principle of these Acts could not be maintained in exceptional districts, they were of opinion that very much might be done towards the preservation of public decency and order, and for the protection of female innocence. The best results obtained by the operation of these Acts had been that they had cleared the streets of the more hardened and degraded women, and that they had, to a great extent, if not entirely, prevented the degradation of young children. With regard to the former class they did not come within the Vagrant Act, unless they behaved in a riotous and indecent manner; but the provisions of the Police Clauses Act in towns and the Metropolitan Police Act went somewhat further, because they authorized the punishment of those who importuned passers-by, provided it was such as to cause annoyance. Many magistrates held that unless the annoyance were proved by those who had been importuned, they were not justified in convicting; and owing to the reluctance of many persons to give evidence in such cases, that law in many instances became a dead letter. The Vagrant Act had also been interpreted in very different ways. In Liverpool lately it had been applied for the first time with very great vigour, and the result was of a very striking kind. He had before him a report recently issued by a committee of magistrates of the borough of Liverpool, which stated the steps they had taken to put down the more scandalous exhibitions of this kind. It was stated that the number of women convicted under the Vagrant Act up to 1870 varied from 65 to a maximum of 500; in 1871, however, the magistrates, acting on the direction of the stipendiary magistrate, Mr. Raffles, determined that the act of solicitation was in itself an act which justified the punishment of the offender, and the result was, that the number of women so charged amounted to no less than 3,388, and the change that had taken place in the appearance of the streets was very remarkable. It was proposed to enact by the Bill that any common prostitute who in any public street solicited or importuned persons
  336
  should be held to be an offender under the Act. The Vagrant Act for that purpose would be extended to Scotland and Ireland. For the first offence, a person convicted under that Act would be held to be a disorderly person, subject to three months' imprisonment; for the second offence, he was considered to be a rogue and vagabond, and was liable to six months' imprisonment; and for the third, he was held to be an incorrigible rogue, and was liable to be committed to the quarter sessions and to be sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. In the opinion of the Liverpool magistrates the power of committal for a longer period would be useful, as helping to break off the habits which had been formed. The next provision of the Bill was borrowed from a recent clause in the later Poor Law Acts, which enabled the guardians when any paupers within the workhouse were discovered to be labouring under contagious diseases, to detain them until they were cured, and if they escaped they were subject to be taken up and imprisoned again. The Bill proposed to apply the same rule to women of the class referred to when committed to gaol. All such women committed under the Vagrant Act, or generally as disorderly persons, would, if found to be suffering under contagious disease, be liable to be detained in the prison infirmary or in some certified hospital until they were cured, or for a maximum period of nine months. No compulsory examination would in that case be necessary. Besides those who were committed to prison summarily as disorderly women there was a considerable number of women committed to prison for other offences, where the evidence showed that they were leading an immoral life. It was, therefore, proposed that the committing magistrate, in all summary cases where he was satisfied a woman was leading a disorderly life, should certify the fact, and in the event of the prisoner being found to be suffering from contagious disease she would be detained in the same way as the class of prisoners last described. He was not certain that it might not be expedient to extend these provisions still further, and to put prisoners sent to gaol for offences of any kind in the same position with respect to contagious diseases as paupers in workhouses. It was, however, better to proceed cautiously. There were special

  337
  reasons why women of the class in question should not be permitted to return to their miserable calling while suffering from contagious disease, and, therefore, he limited his proposal to these two classes of cases. The prison surgeon would report the existence of disease, and the report would be sent by the gaoler to the justice, who would make an order for the detention of the patient. The woman thus detained in prison after the term of her sentence might by order of the justices be removed to a certified hospital, but if not sooner cured her detention would not exceed nine months. As an additional precaution, the chief medical officer of the prison infirmary or certified hospital would be required each month to transmit a certificate that further detention was necessary. The justice, however, would have the power of discharging a woman either from the prison infirmary or the certified hospital, although not cured, if he were satisfied she intended to abandon her former life. The expense of sending the woman from the prison to the infirmary, and from the infirmary to the hospital, and from the hospital to her home, would be borne by the prison authorities. He now came to that portion of the Bill specially devoted to the protection of women, the provisions dealing with which could be very briefly stated. The existing law made punishable with penal servitude for life offences of a certain description upon children under 10 years of age, and he proposed to extend the age from 10 to 12. The same offence committed upon a child between 10 and 12 was at present a misdemeanour punishable with penal servitude for 10 years, and he proposed to extend that protection to children under 14. At present the obtaining possession of a girl under 21 by false pretences or representations was a misdemeanour punishable by imprisonment for two years. He knew no reason for limiting these cases to women under 21, and he proposed that the punishment should equally apply when the offence was committed against women of any age. With regard to disorderly houses, the law at present was, that if the landlord of a disorderly house allowed women whom he had cause to believe diseased to frequent his house he was guilty of misdemeanour, and liable to a fine of £20 or six months' imprisonment. The recommendation of the Commissioners,
  338
  which he had adopted, was that whenever a woman was found in a disorderly house, the landlord, whether he knew it or not, should be liable to the same punishment. After referring to the number of children of tender years who in certain districts became the victims of an immoral traffic which he could only describe as the slave trade, he requested the support of the House in proposing measures of the utmost severity against those who harboured these children. He proposed that the harbouring of children under 16 should be declared a misdemeanour punishable summarily before a magistrate by six months' imprisonment, or, upon indictment, with two years' imprisonment, in each case with or without hard labour at the discretion of the Judge. He also proposed that the parochial authorities should be enabled to prosecute the keepers of disorderly houses without its being necessary that they should first be called upon to act by two ratepayers. He also proposed to make the landlord of a disorderly house liable if he knew it to be kept as such, although he might not be resident in it, and although he might take no part in the management. He proposed further to give the landlord power summarily to determine the tenancy of a disorderly house, whatever the terms of the lease might be. The last provision of the Bill referred to common lodging-houses, the keepers of which would be deprived of their licences and subjected to punishment if they knowingly permitted them to be frequented by persons of immoral life. The greater part of these provisions were founded upon the recommendations of the Commissioners, and some had been suggested by an examination of the general law. He was not without hope that the effect of this stringent legislation might be to prevent the corruption of young persons, and at the same time to provide guarantees which did not now exist for public order. It might be asked why he did not extend this legislation to the whole country without interfering with the operation of Acts which were admitted to be doing much good. His answer was, that it was impossible to maintain laws which had not the sanction of public opinion. There was no wiser maxim than that of Burke—that legislation should not force, but should follow public opinion. At

  339
  present public opinion had been rather forced than followed in this legislation. For his own part, he held that there could be hardly anything more mischievous than the continued agitation upon this subject. He passed no reflection upon anyone, but any good which might have been produced by these Acts could hardly counterbalance the demoralization and mischief which had been caused by the agitation against these Acts. The Government had seen with grief and sorrow how much the reserve and delicacy for which the women of our population were so distinguished had been broken through by these discussions, and a continuation of this agitation could not but produce the most disastrous results. If these evils were to be cured or greatly diminished, it could only be done by voluntary agency—by the active efforts and zeal of benevolent persons. These efforts, however, there could be no question, would be chilled and repressed so long as Acts of Parliament existed from which the public conscience revolted. These were the proposals of the Government. He confessed that for himself he had arrived at these conclusions with great reluctance; but he believed that if these Acts were passed they would form the basis of useful experience, and that if in the proposed Bill the meshes were made somewhat larger, the net itself would have a wider sweep. Nobody could for a moment suppose that if legislation such as was adopted in 1866 and 1869 were proposed at the present time, it would be accepted without objection in Parliament; and that being the case, and there also now being much, though unreasonable, opposition on the part of many good and excellent persons to legislation which then passed, it would not be wise to agitate the country by proposing similar enactments. It was now proposed to lay such a basis of legislation as would obtain the support of the country; and then, as they gained experience, they might make a strong endeavour to enlist a united action for the purpose of diminishing the evils of which they were all sensible. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
  MR. JACOB BRIGHTsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department ought to be the object of the sympathy of the
  340
  House, because it was his cruel fate to propose the repeal of Acts which he believed to have been highly successful. Fortunately for the British public the Commissioners appointed to investigate the matter did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, for they recommended the repeal of the Acts of 1866 and 1869, and although the Report recommended the continuance of the Act of 1864, yet the majority of the Commissioners dissented from what he (Mr. Bright) considered an infamous Act. The right hon. Gentleman said the great balance of medical testimony was in favour of the present Acts. He did not know on what authority the right hon. Gentleman made that statement. There was a memorial of some medical men of London, who moved in high society, and were a class not the most likely to be consulted as to what was the best legislation for the poor people of this country. The hon. Member for Liverpool had presented a Petition, signed by 107 medical men of that town, against these Acts; and he had in his hand a protest against the Acts, signed by 572 medical men of great respectability in their profession. The right hon. Gentleman commenced his speech by attacking those who advocated the repeal of the legislation referred to, by remarking that they had been guilty of great misrepresentation and exaggeration; but had its defenders not been guilty of exaggeration and misrepresentation also? There had been ridiculous stories from Devonport and other places, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had on a former occasion shown that the official statistics were erroneous. The right hon. Gentleman also spoke of the altered character of certain towns through the operation of the Acts, and of the diminution which had occurred in the number of young prostitutes; but were there no other means to effect those objects other than by legislation which caused great scandal? Though the right hon. Gentleman expressed an opinion that the time would come when public opinion would support that legislation, it was to be hoped that the time would never come when the women of England would submit to legislation of so degrading a character, which could only be passed by a Parliament in which women had no representation. He (Mr. Jacob Bright) admitted that the repeal of the existing Acts

  341
  would be a considerable gain, although a highly penal Act was to be substituted for them fraught with great injustice and inequality. There were provisions in reference to the behaviour of persons in the streets; but these provisions were to apply only to women, though it was well known that men also were guilty. The same observation applied likewise to diseased vagrants and paupers, and the power to detain them. That would apply to women only, whilst the men would not be interfered with. Although he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for proposing to alter the existing legislation, yet he could not conceal from himself that there would be considerable opposition to the present measure, owing to its one-sided character.
  MR. D. DALRYMPLEobserved that he had not expected to hear that no laws of any kind ought to be enacted to lessen a crying evil, lest they might infringe the liberty of those who practised it. He thought there was a defect in the proposed Bill, if it was intended that a diseased vagrant committed to prison should be liberated on giving evidence of an intention to relinquish her immoral life; and, in a sanitary point of view, he should protest against the liberation from prison or hospital of a person notoriously diseased. One strong fact, which was proved before the Committee of 1869, was, that when a ship came into harbour to be paid off, bevies of half-cured women at once left the hospital. The hon. Member who had spoken last (Mr. Jacob Bright) talked of the unfair difference which was made between the two sexes; but the parallel could scarcely be called a just one, until it was shown that men in the state to which he was referring were found plying for hire at the corners of the streets.
  DR. BREWERsaid, there was no denying that the Acts which it was proposed to repeal had been productive of the most beneficial results in checking the spread of a disease which, from time to time, had well nigh decimated the population. Indeed, the united efforts of the various religious societies throughout the country had not done so much good in that direction in ten years as had been effected by those Acts during the three years they had been in operation. In the borough he had the honour to represent, the only complaint which had been made was that a sufficient
  342
  opening was not afforded to those who were most anxious to return to profitable labour; and he must express his extreme regret that anything in the Bill under discussion should tend to a relaxation of the force of previous legislation, although in those provisions of it which would protect children against leading a life of prostitution he entirely concurred.
  MR. MITFORDsaid, that he looked with dread at the prospect of doing away with the wholesome legislation of recent years. Though he could not say that he perfectly understood the nature of the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, it was the earnest desire of himself and of those with whom he had been acting, that the Act of the present Session should be final—whether it was a satisfactory one or not. They intended to do their best to make it as satisfactory as possible; but be it what it might, it would be best that its effect should be ascertained by the experience of some years, rather than that this painful subject should still be kept as a subject of undesirable controversy before the public.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, having taken an active part on the Commission which sat on the subject, said, he could not help adverting to the impression which had been made on his mind by the evidence which had been given before it. He must do justice to the candour of his right hon. Friend's (Mr. Bruce's) speech, but he could not help, at the same time, sharing in the sympathy which was felt by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright) for the position of a Minister whose opinions lay one way, while the legislation which he proposed went another. The course adopted by the Government on a subject very painful in its details, but deeply important to the health and welfare of the people, was, he thought, at once timid and unworthy. He looked upon it as a triumph of prejudice and clamour over reason and truth; nor did he believe it possible for any one who had heard or read the evidence taken before the Commission to come to any other conclusion. Nobody could have sat on the Commission without seeing very clearly the influences which were brought to bear on its proceedings, and he might add that the results at which it arrived were very different from those

  343
  which were at the commencement of its deliberations intended. He must once more record his regret at the timid and unworthy course to which the House was now asked to assent.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he must also enter his emphatic protest against the course which the Government had thought proper to take on the subject. It was at once an irresolute and an unfortunate course. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright) was very fond of fine words, and he had not hesitated to speak of the Act of 1864 as an infamous measure—a sort of phrase which it was very much in fashion with rhetoricians to use when they did not understand what they were talking about. With such persons everything they did not approve was as black as his Satanic Majesty; but he was not one of those who chose to be considered a party to an infamous Act, for it was he (Sir John Trelawny) who in Committee of Supply had first asked whether it was not possible to do something in connection with the subject. And if the hon. Member would only take the pains of inquiring into the results of the Act which he condemned, he would find that it was perhaps one of the most beneficial measures which had ever passed through Parliament. The hon. Member could not have read the evidence, and the reports of the doctors, for if he had it was clear the highest class of evidence had no influence on his understanding. [Mr. JACOB BRIGHT: I have read them.] Then the hon. Member's case was so much the worse, for the hon. Member could learn—which it was clear he had not done—from those reports what lamentable results were brought about owing to women being allowed to leave the hospitals before they were cured. A witness was asked before the Commission whether she would not take charge of a miserable child, if she had the power of doing so, and endeavour to cure her; and the answer was, she thought she would; while to the question whether she would keep her till cured, the reply was also in the affirmative. If you detained any woman till she was cured there was to that extent an interference with the liberty of the subject, and you also made vice easy by discharging her cured. The persons, therefore, who took that line were out of court, and gave the lie to their own theory. If a woman
  344
  were charged with an offence against the law by soliciting in the streets, you had not only the right to cure her, if diseased, but in common humanity were bound to cure her. Yet the hon. Member dared to say that such legislation was infamous, and called its supporters the enemies of women. He began to think that this was one of the cases in which the Ballot was wanted in that House, to protect Members who were too timid to vote as they really thought upon this subject. There were six questions—he would not specify them—upon which it would be a good thing if secret voting prevailed in the House of Commons, and he regretted that the Government were adopting so weak and timid a course in proposing to repeal these Acts.
  MR. RYLANDS, as a Member of the Royal Commission, would venture to say to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) that he (Mr. Rylands) had given the most careful attention to the evidence of the Royal Commission, and that the conclusion he had come to was exactly the opposite to that of the right hon. Baronet. When the Commission met, the majority of the Members had a foregone conclusion in favour of the Acts as they at present existed. He (Mr. Rylands) had led the forlorn hope in the opposite direction, and in the end the large majority of the Members were compelled to own that their views had undergone a complete change. The truth was, that many of the facts supposed to be favourable to the Acts turned out to be no facts at all, when closely examined into; and advantages had been exclusively attributed to the Acts which were really owing to other and very different causes. Improved police orders and improved regulations in the Army and Navy had done more, in the five years preceding the Acts, to diminish the evil aimed at, than had been accomplished by the Acts themselves. He was convinced that the course taken by the Government would be fully supported by public opinion.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he must bear testimony to the beneficial effects of the operation of the Acts in the communities to which they applied. The case of the poor girls who were lured into houses of infamy was most pitiable before the Acts were passed. Once there, they seldom escaped from them, except to their graves. Those

  345
  ladies who took so much interest in their fate assumed a deep responsibility. They took these persons under their protection, placed them for some time perhaps in a reformatory, where they were left to ennui, and told if they did not reform, they would go to a place which he would not name. But how differently were they treated under these Acts. They were sent to an hospital, where they had the best medical attendance, received the kindest treatment, and frequently sent home to their friends. He believed it was a fact that 38 per cent of these unfortunate young women were rescued from a life of shame, and he considered the Acts in question Christian Acts. He strongly condemned the conduct of those persons who had endeavoured to inflame the passions of the people against Acts from which, in his opinion, so much benefit resulted. To yield to the agitation on this question would show the greatest cowardice on the part of the Government.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that the statements of the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) were calculated to mislead the House and the country; for it was an undoubted fact, derived from the Reports of Commissioners and Committees, that quite as many, if not more, fallen women were reclaimed in towns in which the Acts were not in operation, as in those in which they were.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, he shared in the views of the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Henley), and was surprised to have heard the unmeasured and indecent terms in which the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) attempted to malign those praiseworthy women who were devoting all their energies to obtain the repeal of Acts which they considered degrading to their sex. In the borough which he represented (Chatham), and where the Acts were in operation, their effect as a remedial measure was quite in opposition to the hon. Baronet's experience; and although the opinions of the boroughs were not unanimous, there was a great preponderance in favour of a repeal of the present Acts. They must remember that they were legislating for women who had no opportunity of making themselves heard, except through the disinterested efforts of those of their own sex who had taken
  346
  up their cause. When the Government were blamed for this measure, he asked whether no account was to be taken of the feelings of the country? It was undeniable that the working classes to a man were in favour of the repeal of these Acts; and, even in a sanitary point of view, he doubted their efficiency. He believed his right hon. Friend. (Mr. Bruce) would effect great good in repealing these Acts, and passing a Bill for the greater protection of women.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill for the Prevention of certain Contagious Diseases, and for the better protection of Women, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary BRUCE and Mr. WINTERBOTIIAM.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 42.]

STEAMSHIP "REDGAUNTLET."

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  MR. WHEELHOUSE, in rising to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to be graciously pleased to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the circumstances attending the seizure and sale of the steamship 'Redgauntlet,' then the property of one Charles Cameron, at the Island and Port of St. Thomas, in or about the month of August 1807; and that such Commission be directed to hold it sittings for the matter of such inquiry at the said Island of St. Thomas, in order to allow the said Charles Cameron to adduce evidence and give proof before such Royal Commission there of certain facts connected with such seizure and sale."
  said, that the ship was unjustly seized at the instance of the Spanish authorities, in consequence of a claim made with respect to a debt for £600 contracted at Cuba on a bottomry bond, and sold far below its value, being bought by a firm at St. Thomas, with which the acting Consul of Her Majesty's Government was connected. This transaction, which he contended was illegal, involved the master of the vessel in very heavy loss, and he accordingly wished that the Commission should sit at St. Thomas, and inquire into the whole circumstances of the case.
  MR. CRAUFURD, in seconding the Motion, said, he considered that Mr. Cameron had made out a case requiring an answer and redress for the grievance he complained of.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the circumstances attending the

  347
  seizure and sale of the steamship 'Redgauntlet,' then the property of one Charles Cameron, at the Island and Port of St. Thomas, in or about the month of August 1867; and that such Commission be directed to hold its sittings for the matter of such inquiry at the said Island of St. Thomas, in order to allow the said Charles Cameron to adduce evidence and give proof before such Royal Commission there of certain facts connected with such seizure and sale."—(Mr. Wheelhouse.)
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, this subject had occupied for a considerable time the attention of successive Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs. The circumstances extended over a period of five years, but all Her Majesty's Government had to do with the subject was in reference to Mr. Lamb's conduct as the Consul representing this country. The whole of the circumstances were referred by Lord Derby and the late Lord Clarendon, when Foreign Secretaries, to the Queen's Advocate, and he was of opinion that Mr. Lamb had acted legally and properly as Consul. That opinion had been forwarded to Mr. Cameron's legal representative in this country. The only other complaint against Mr. Lamb was that he was partner in the firm in Havannah, which had advanced £500 on a bottomry bond on the vessel. The proper notice for repayment was given, and as Mr. Cameron could not raise the money to pay that sum, the vessel was sold, and it was to be regretted that a vessel supposed by Mr. Cameron to be worth a considerable sum had not realized more than about £1,500. Mr. Lamb had acted strictly legal in detaining the register. There was nothing to prevent Mr. Cameron from enforcing any rights he might possess against Mr. Lamb for anything he might have done other than in his official capacity as Consul. The Queen's Advocate still maintained the opinion that Mr. Lamb, in his consular position, had done nothing to warrant censure; and concurring in that opinion, the Government must oppose the Motion for a Royal Commission to inquire into circumstances which took place so far back as 1867.
  Question put, and negatived.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS (1866 AND 1869) REPEAL BILL.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the Contagious Diseases Acts (1866 and 1869)."—(Mr. William Fowler.)
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES ABOLITION BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish certain restraints and disabilities now imposed on certain of Her Majesty's subjects on religious grounds.
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir COLMAN O'LOGBLEN, Mr. COGAN, Sir. JOHN GRAY, Mr. O'REILLT, and Mr. MATTHEWS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 31.]

  CHARITABLE TRUSTEES INCORPORATION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HINDE PALMER, Bill to facilitate the incorporation of Trustees of Charities for religious, educational, literary, scientific, and public charitable purposes, and the enrolment of certain Charitable Trust Deeds, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HINDE PALMBU, Mr. HEADLAM, and Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 38.]

  ADULTERATION OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. MUNTZ, Bill to amend the Law for preventing the adulteration of Food and Drugs, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MUNTZ, Mr. WHITWELL, and Mr. DIXON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 37.]

  JUSTICES' CLERKS (SALARIES) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir DAVID SALOMONS, Bill to improve the Administration of Justice at Petty Sessions, by providing for payment of Justices' Clerks by Salary, ordered to be brought in by Sir DAVID SALOMONS, Mr. JOHN GILBERT TALBOT, Mr. MAGNIAC, Viscount HOLMESDALE, and Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 39.]

  PUBLIC PARKS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. M'CLURE, Bill to amend the Public Parks (Ireland) Act, 1869, ordered to be brought in by Mr. M'CLURE and Mr. WILLIAM JOHNSTON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 41.]

  GAME LAW (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. M'LAGAN, Bill to amend the Laws relating to Game in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. M'LAGAN, Mr. FINNIE, and Mr. ORR EWING.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 40.]

  THANKSGIVING IN THE METROPOLITAN CATHEDRAL.
  Select Committee appointed, "to consider what means shall be adopted for the attendance of this House at the Thanksgiving in the Metropolitan Cathedral on the 27th instant."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  And, on February 14, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. GLADSTONE, Mr. AIRTON, Sir THOMAS BAZLET, Colonel FRENCH, Mr. ELLICE, Lord JOHN MANNERS, Viscount CRICBTON, Mr.

  349
  WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Mr. BERESFORD HOPE, Lord ERNEST BRUCE, and Sir GRAHAM MONTGOMERY:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at half after Eleven o'clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—First Report—Thanksgiving in the Metropolitan Cathedral. (No. 14.)
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Ecclesiastical Courts and Registries * (15); Ecclesiastical Procedure * (16).

NEW PEER.
The Right Honourable John Evelyn Denison, late Speaker of the House of Commons, having been created Viscount Ossington—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

PRIVATE BILLS.
Ordered, That this House will not receive any petition for a Private Bill after Thursday the 21 st day of March next, unless such Private Bill shall have been approved by the Court of Chancery; nor any petition for a Private Bill approved by the Court of Chancery after Friday the 10 th day of May next:
Ordered, That this House will not receive any report from the judges upon petitions presented to this House for Private Bills after Friday the 10 th day of May next:
Ordered, That the said Orders be printed and published, and affixed on the doors of this House and Westminster Hall. (No. 13.)

TREATY OF WASHINGTON—THE ALABAMA CLAIMS.—QUESTIONS.
LORD REDESDALEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the following Questions:—Whether, if A. and B. in partnership sue C. in a Court of Law for injury done to their firm by fraud or otherwise, and C. pleads and proves that B. was acting with him in all the matters complained of, such plea would not be a complete answer to the suit, and render any recovery of damages impossible? Why a plea which is good in law, and which common sense pronounces to be just, has not been considered by Her Majesty's Government applicable to a new case in international law, and urged against the Alabama claims made on this country by the United States of America, in which the North and South are now partners, inasmuch as all the acts for which this country is charged with being culpably responsible were done by the South, and that partner now joins in the application to be paid for having done them? He had put a similar Question to the noble Earl the Secretary of State on two occasions last year. On the first of those occasions the noble Earl replied that he was not aware whether the point had been previously raised, but certainly it had not suggested itself to the Legal Advisers of either the present Government or the late one, and it had not formed a portion of the instructions given to our Commissioners. Now, it appeared to him (Lord Redesdale) that

279
from the moment the North and the South concluded their differences it was an error to admit for a moment that the United States could claim damages for anything done by the Southern States, or in the interest of the Southern States, during the hostilities. By uniting with the Southern States after they had been recognized as belligerents the Northern States had condoned any offence of which the former might have been guilty, and we were entitled to say, "You have condoned the acts of the principal offender, and you cannot now have any claim against those who acted merely as their agents." He believed the only answer to this was what must be called a technical one. It was that the North and the South were not partners, the whole of the United States being one and indivisible. If this were the case now, certainly it was not the case while the war was going on, and when the South was acknowledged to be a belligerent. Having admitted that, no doubt the North had a right to insist that the South should pay the damages done to the North; but they took no such course, and having thus omitted to exact reparation from the party who had directly done the wrong, they could not now make any one else liable. Last year he asked the House to consider how the case would have stood if the result of the war had been different, and the Southern States had succeeded. Under such circumstances we should have had a right to recover from the South any damages which we might have paid to the North. He thought the question he had ventured to raise was well worthy of consideration, because we had to deal with a case which was entirely new in International Law. Whatever the technical answer might be, he held that what had been the Northern States and the Southern were practically partners, and that they could not justly ask compensation for acts done by one of the partners or in that partner's behalf before the present partnership. Of course, he did not admit that under any circumstances the Government of the United States had a cause of complaint against us; but he thought that the reasons he had adduced were a preliminary objection to any such demand as that which it had put forward, and he could not understand why it had not been made part of the English Case.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, during the debate last week on the Address an unanimous feeling seemed to be entertained on both sides of the House that it would be better not to discuss the Alabama claims in the present state of the negotiations on the subject. But I do not think that unanimous feeling applies to the point brought under your Lordships' notice by the noble Lord this evening in repeating Questions which he put to me on two occasions last Session—and which I admit he has done in a singularly calm, temperate, and businesslike manner. The noble Lord will, however, excuse me if, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, I do not answer questions on English law put on a hypothetical case. When the noble Lord asked his Question last Session, I told him that when the Case of this country came to be prepared, it would be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to consider every possible point that could fairly and honourably be urged against the United States claims. The suggestions of the noble Lord have been brought under the attention of those learned persons to whom had been intrusted the preparation of the British Case; but neither these nor any other arguments had been used; for it had been thought that in drawing up our original Case it would be better to confine it to a statement of the facts which had formed subjects of the correspondence, and which we could prove, reserving arguments for a future occasion. The point raised by the noble Lord is, with others, still under the consideration of those whose duty it is to advise the Government in reference to the arguments which it may be desirable to use in support of our Case. Under these circumstances, I am sure your Lordships will agree that it would be improper for me to go further on this occasion.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he must first reply to the remarks of the noble Earl (Earl Granville), that the House had agreed that at the present time it was inopportune to discuss the question, which, though made on the noble Lord's (Lord Redesdale's) previous Motion, was evidently intended to apply to the Questions he now asked. Last Session he had thought there were special reasons that made it his duty, with every deference to their Lordships, to ask the House to pass a Vote of Censure on the

281
Government for making the Treaty of Washington, and before he sat down he hoped he should show the House that there was an excellent reason for his now asking the Questions of which he had given Notice. He could not pretend to judge of what course it was expedient for those who sat on the front benches to take; but he must himself persevere in taking that which he believed the occasion required. He must first recall to their Lordships, as shortly as possible, what occurred last Session. Earl Russell, the Nestor of the Liberal Party, formed, an opinion so condemnatory of this Treaty that he moved an Address praying the Crown not to ratify it. In the course of the debate on that Motion, the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) recommended their Lordships not to agree to the Motion, because a similar one could not be passed in the other House; and the Motion was not pressed to a division, because it was agreed, on both sides of the House, that it was informal. Believing the Treaty "contrary to the honour and dignity of this country," he brought forward a Motion to that effect; and he submitted that, had their Lordships approved of it, the country would now have felt that their Lordships' House had shown both foresight and public spirit. In addition to which their Lordships, by passing such a vote, would have made it evident to the American people that the Treaty was disapproved by many in this country, and probably the Government of the United States might have put forward very modified claims to those now submitted. He felt, therefore, that these circumstances entirely justified the course he took last Session. Before going further, he must recall to their Lordships that last year the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs could hardly find terms sufficiently eulogistic to describe the conduct of those noblemen and gentlemen who negotiated this unfortunate Treaty; and, not satisfied with that, the Premier advised the Crown to bestow high honours on many of them. Now, all he would say was, that though they might have deserved those honours for other public services, it certainly was premature to bestow them for the benefits likely to accrue from this Treaty; but this was, in truth, a minor consideration, for the public cared little whether there was a Marquess more or less; but
282
they felt much aggrieved at having, by the language of the noble Earl (Earl Granville), and by the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, been misled into the belief that perfect goodwill had been cemented between this country and the United States, and on the faith of this they had invested millions of money in American securities, at a rate of purchase which now left them heavy losers. He considered, that if nothing had occurred since the debate in this House on the Address, Her Majesty's Government having accepted the view then laid down by the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), he did not think it would have been advisable to make any further remark at present; but utterances had been heard in "another place" that he thought demanded explanation, and these were the immediate cause of his Question. But before entering on these, he must ask their Lordships to remember that he last year called their attention to the fact that the difficulty American statesmen had in preserving good feeling between the two countries was the frequency of elections in the States, and the consequent necessity of both the Republican and Democratic parties bidding for the Irish vote, which, he was sorry to say, was always hostile to the Government and people of this country. He could intend no offence to the American Government or people in saying this; for, unfortunately, we knew what an ill effect that vote had on our own institutions, and he could not but think that it had much to do with the extraordinary Case lately presented by the American Government. On looking back, he did not think it at all difficult to see how the present misunderstanding arose. Last Session the noble Earl (Earl Granville) told their Lordships that he had not paid much attention "to points such as forms of expression;" whereas the whole of the present difficulty arose from what was included in "claims growing out." He thought that allowing an expression so indefinite in so serious a document must arise from childish simplicity or hopeless incompetency. It was a gross and palpable blunder, which had best be at once acknowledged and repudiated as loose phraseology; for to do the noble Earl (Earl Granville) justice, in his speech last year he most distinctly stated that

283
these very indirect claims were entirely excluded from the Treaty, and as that statement was made in the presence of a distinguished American statesman, who was one of the negotiators of the Treaty, and as it was telegraphed to America, and then published in all the papers, only a few hours after it was spoken, he did think that it would have been more creditable to the American Government if they then held the views they now put forward in the American Case, not to have allowed the ratifications of the Treaty to take place when there was so wide a difference in the interpretation put upon it. He thought, therefore, whatever might be said on the strict legal interpretation, he could not see that there was the least doubt that in equity there was no ground for the monstrous claims now put forward by the American Government. That Government had, by having the American Case published in many languages, appealed to the public opinion of Europe. He would, therefore, ask the consideration of the American people to the following extract from The Allgemeine Zeitung, a paper of the largest circulation in Germany:—
"The tribute which Germany draws from France after a complete victory is insignificant compared with the compensation that the American Government demands in virtue of a Treaty which enthusiasts describe as the inaugurator of a new era of peace and friendship. The most hostile and contemptuous despatches of Prince Bismarck to the French Government are courteous and friendly in comparison with the indictment for which the President and his Cabinet are responsible."
He would ask the American people to consider how great and just would be their indignation if it were possible for the Press to state that the English Government had addressed their Government in such terms; and he would ask them to be sure that though Englishmen were calmer under the circumstances, they were no less determined than were the people of America to defend their rights. He would also ask the Americans simply to consider the common-sense view of the matter, and ask themselves whether any Government could undertake to leave to arbitration whether their countrymen were to pay some hundreds of millions of money. He would now ask their Lordships' attention to the statement made in "another place" by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. He said—
284
"We do not mean merely to take our stand upon the ambiguity of the Treaty; we do not propose to allow in argument that it may bear two contradictory senses, either of which can with equal plausibility or with equal fairness be put forward. We have advised the Queen to state in Her Speech the construction which, as to certain claims, we put upon the documents. This construction, we believe, we can show to be the true and unambiguous meaning of the words, and therefore to be the only meaning admissible, whether tried by grammar, by reason, by policy, or by any other standard; and not one of several conflicting and competing meanings which can all alike attach to the Treaty, but the just meaning which it unequivocably bears.… But as far as we ourselves can judge, according to the best critical process we can apply to this document, we see no reason to admit that any fault in point of ambiguity has been committed, and we shall appeal to the direct and authentic sense of the document itself for confirmation."—[3 Hansard, ccix. 85.]
He concluded that this was another of those "messages of peace" which the right hon. Gentleman delighted to send. He conceived it was impossible to conceive language at the same time more arrogant, more irritating, and more bewildering. It seemed to him to say—"I'm all right and you're all wrong, and you've no sense if you don't see it." Well, he owned he had no sense, and did not see it, and he thought it highly improbable that the Americans would see it if the noble Earl (Earl Granville) couched his reply in such language; and he hoped, therefore, that in spite of the devotion which all knew the noble Earl had for his Chief, that he had replied rather in that extremely courteous tone which the noble Earl told their Lordships he always used in that House. He felt sure that the public would be glad to hear that while the noble Earl had replied in a tone which would show the determination of the Government no further to compromise the honour and dignity of this country, that nevertheless it was one to smooth down rather than excite angry passions. He hoped also that the noble Earl might be able to promise that in future the public might have earlier information afforded of documents which another Government had already published.
EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Lord has stated that he cannot understand why there should have been an unanimous agreement in this House not to discuss the subject of the Alabama claims and the Treaty of Washington at the present moment. I will not make the reply to the noble Lord which Lord Palmerston once made to a Member of

285
the other House of Parliament, who had made an observation similar to that which the noble Lord has addressed to your Lordships, because he might not think it courteous; but I acknowledge with satisfaction the admission of the noble Lord that it might not be desirable that the occupants of the leading benches should enter into such a discussion as that which he has opened. I have therefore the authority of the noble Lord, who does not often agree with the Government, as well as of the rest of your Lordships, that I had better not answer his remarks. If the noble Lord wishes to move for the English Case, it will be immediately laid upon the Table; but, as regards the American Case, a very proper explanation has been given in "another place." That Case has not yet been presented by the American Government to Congress; and though I am not sure that in strictness we should not have a right to produce it after it has been so extensively published, and when, I believe, it is even sold in this country, yet we think it desirable that we should not do anything which could be regarded as a breach of etiquette towards the United States, and for that reason there is an objection to its production at present.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary is right in saying that there was an unanimous feeling that not much should be said on this subject; but the statement made the other night to that effect must be taken cum grano salis, because, as my noble Friend must know, a question which more than any other that I ever recollect has raised a feeling of astonishment and anxiety throughout the whole of the Empire must engage the attention of the House of Lords on a future occasion. To go into the matter is, in fact, a duty which we owe to the country. Besides, the discretion or the wisdom—if it was discretion or wisdom—manifested by this House has not been shown in "another place." A different line of conduct has been taken there, not by the Opposition, but by the hon. Members who generally support Her Majesty's Government. Therefore I presume the Government have not felt obliged to observe the reticence in that other place which they consider themselves bound to in this House. However that may be, I think it right to say
286
that did Her Majesty's Government think a discussion of the subject here advisable, I am one who would give them my support on the question of the interpretation of the Treaty. I say that on this side of the Atlantic there can be no mistake as to the intention of the Treaty. There is not an Englishman who does not understand it as the noble Earl opposite understands it, and as its meaning was stated in the hearing of many Foreign Ministers who were present during the discussion of last Session, amongst whom was the Envoy of the United States. I am ready, therefore, to give my support to Her Majesty's Government as far as that goes. But I should be very sorry if it was supposed that our mouths were to be closed on the subject for any length of time; because there are other points in connection with the Treaty which must be discussed, and on which I must say I should be one of the first to attack Her Majesty's Government. One of those is the question of having sent out an Embassy at all. Next, without saying anything derogatory to the natural talents and natural abilities of the Commissioners, I must express my opinion that they were not sufficiently experienced in diplomacy.
EARL GRANVILLE: Sir Edward Thornton?
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: He is a man of great experience; but he was subordinate, and could not be considered as one of the principals. There are several men of experience in diplomacy who might have been sent and whose names will at once occur to your Lordships. I know there are two opinions on this point. One is that of those who would send on such missions only diplomatists of tried experience; the other that of those who would rather make use of impromptu diplomatists to take in hand the chief business of the mission. I think my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary has rather a leaning in the latter direction. I have always been against it; and during the two years I had the honour to be at the Foreign Office, I always made it a point of placing at the head of missions men who had been brought up in the diplomatic service. I am not referring to complimentary missions, but to missions in which diplomatic business has to be transacted. I hold that a man must be educated to diplomacy as to anything

287
else that requires great professional skill. I regret, therefore, that when negotiations of such importance were to be conducted at Washington men of that stamp were not sent out. Had they been, I do not think the errors which men of less experience might fall into were likely to have arisen.

HOUSE OF COMMONS PAPERS.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, That the Lists of Accounts and Papers printed by Order of the House of Commons, which are laid upon the Table with the Votes of that House, be printed and circulated with the Minutes of this House.
EARL GRANVILLEthought the proposition of the noble Marquess an excellent one.
EARL GREYsuggested that a means should be adopted whereby Peers who wished for certain Papers produced in the Commons might be able to procure them without moving for their production in their Lordships' House. It might be that only a very few Peers required a certain Paper issued to the Commons; but when a Motion was made for its production in the Lords, a sufficient number of copies had to be printed for all the Members of their Lordships' House.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the suggestion of his noble Friend should be considered by the Government.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That the Lists of Accounts and Papers printed by Order of the House of Commons, which are laid upon the Table with the Votes of that House, be printed and circulated with the Minutes of this House.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS AND REGISTRIES BILL [H.L.]
A Bill for better enforcing the Laws Ecclesiastical respecting the discipline of the clergy; amending the constitution and regulating the mode of procedure of the Ecclesiastical Courts; and regulating the government of the Ecclesiastical Registries in England—Was presented by The Lord CAIRNS; read 1a. (No. 15.)

ECCLESIASTICAL PROCEDURE BILL [H.L.]
A Bill for amending and declaring the Law as to the right of the laity to institute proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts, and for declaring by whom judgment may be pronounced for deposing Clerks in Holy Orders—Was presented by The Lord CAIRNS; read 1a. (No. 16.)
House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.