Sitting of 6 May 1875

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Security of the Person [155].
First Reading—County Courts * [156].
Second Reading—Metalliferous Mines* [120].
Committee—Sale of Food and Drugs (re-comm.) [168]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Peace Preservation (Ireland) [77–154].
Report—Metropolis Local Management Acts Amendment* [38–153].

ADULTERATION OF FOOD ACT, 1872—COSTS OF PROSECUTIONS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GRANTHAM (for Mr. MEREWETHER)asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the case of a grocer at Daventry, convicted for selling coffee adulterated with acorns to the extent of 50 per cent., upon the certificate of the analyst of an adjoining county; and whether, after notice of appeal given, the magistrates have received an admission from the analyst that there was no adulteration whatever; also to a similar case at Thrapston, in which the police withdrew from the prosecution, it being proved that, notwithstanding a certificate of the same analyst to the same effect, there was no percentage of adulteration at all; and, whether the costs of appeal in the first case, and £20 8s. the amount ordered to be paid to the defendant as costs in the second case, must be defrayed out of the county
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: Sir, my attention has been called both to the Daventry and Thrapston case, and the facts are as stated in the Question of my hon. and learned Friend. In both cases the costs will fall on the county rate, assuming always that the officer conducting the prosecution was the proper officer for that purpose. In case of the appeal to the quarter sessions, however, it will be within the discretion of the Court to award costs or otherwise as they may think proper.

ARMY MEDICAL SERVICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the fact
  156
  that Officers of the Army Medical Service, when first attached to a regiment, although not permitted to wear its uniform or to describe themselves as belonging to it, are compelled to pay fifty days' pay as contribution to its mess and band funds; and, whether it is his intention to take any steps to remedy such a state of facts, if they exist?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, that medical officers, when attached to regiments for five years, became, in fact, bonâ fide officers of the regiment, and paid just as the other officers did. They paid the following contributions in monthly instalments extending over a period of 10 months—not exceeding 30 days' pay (the sum being fixed by the commanding officer) for the mess, and for the band 20 days' pay. He might remark that under the present system the five years of service was not confined to medical officers, but extended to officers of all ranks. He did not think the fact of the Army medical officers having to contribute to these funds was a hardship, calling for interference by the War Office.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT—THE LONDON SCHOOL BOARD—CASE OF MRS. MARKS.—QUESTION.
  LORD ESLINGTONasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether his attention has been called to a reported tyrannical exercise of authority in the case of a Mrs. Marks, by an officer of the London School Board, in an attempt to compel the attendance at school of her eldest girl, aged eleven years, having charge of two infant children; and, whether the case, as reported, is true; and, if true, whether he can inform Parliament that steps have been taken by the Board to prevent the recurrence of similar acts of tyranny?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, the Education Department has no authority to interfere with the discretion of the school boards respecting the manner in which they exercise the powers conferred upon them by the Act of 1870, of compelling the attendance of children at school, when once the bye-laws have been sanctioned by the Committee of the Privy Council. Sir Charles Reed, the Chairman of the London School Board, has, however, been so good as to forward to

  157
  me a letter from one of the members of the Board in whose division the case occurred, showing that the matter was immediately investigated, and explaining the circumstances. As far as my present information goes, drawn from this source and from the letters which have appeared in The Times, I cannot see that there was any tyrannical exercise of authority on the part of the officer respecting Mrs. Marks, who was, at the time, in receipt of out-door relief. I would remind my noble Friend that, by the bye-laws of the School Board, all children beneficially and necessarily at work above 10 and under 13 years of age are obliged to attend school for 10 hours a-week, and not more; and that by the Act of 1873, passed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), the guardians are bound to make it a condition of continuous relief out of the House, that all children between five and 13 years of age attend school, unless they have passed a certain Standard, granting such additional relief—if any—as may be necessary for that purpose. In this case both bye-laws and Act were broken; and to show the extreme difficulty of making exceptions as to their enforcement, I may mention that a woman living near Mrs. Marks complained to the visitor of her children being compelled to go to school while some of Mrs. Marks's children were let off. The provision for the very serious money difficulties of these cases, beyond the school fees, rests with the guardians; but the School Board and their officers are bound to see that the law is obeyed. I have always expressed my opinion that great delicacy and consideration are needed in working the bye-laws for compelling attendance at school—and when you deal with the very poor, the class for whom the Education Act was specially needed, whose heroic efforts in many cases to keep themselves from pauperism no one who knows them can praise too highly, it is impossible not to be grieved to think of the distress and privation which, for the time, they must undergo under the Education Act, however confident we may feel that in the end it will be for their own and their children's benefit and for the advantage of the community. I am glad to have this opportunity of saying that I have no hesitation in affirming that, as far as I can ascertain,
  158
  these compulsory powers have, as a rule, been used by the London and the other school boards with remarkable judgment, care, and discretion. Unless, therefore, Parliament wishes to reverse its legislation respecting compulsory attendance, I venture to express an earnest hope that hon. Members in Parliament, and also magistrates on the Bench, will support the school boards and boards of guardians in the exercise of this most irksome, most difficult, and most laborious part of the duties which the Legislature has committed to their charge—namely, that of compelling the attendance at school of the unwilling children of unwilling parents.
  LORD ESLTNGTONsaid, he would, at the earliest opportunity, call the attention of the House to the case, because he believed it to be a specimen case.

INDIA—THE FACTORY SYSTEM.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he will inform the House what steps the Indian Government has taken for inquiry or for legislation regarding factories in India?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, we received a short time back a despatch from the Bombay Government, informing us that they had appointed a Commission, composed of Europeans and Natives, to inquire into and report upon the factory system in force in that Presidency.

AGRICULTURAL CHILDREN ACT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether he has considered the letter of "An Eastern Counties Farmer," in "The Times" of April 30, in which he complains that no steps are taken to enforce the provisions of the Agricultural Children Act, and states that, wishing to obey the Law, he refuses to employ those of his labourers' children whose employment would be contrary to the Act; but that his neighbours, finding that "there is nobody to see the Law carried out," do employ their labourers' young children, and that his own labourers declare that they will leave his service "to work for some

  159
  farmer who will break the Law and employ their children;" and, further, that his best men have already left him for this cause, and that he will be compelled to yield; and, whether, considering the inequality with which it appears that the Act presses upon those who obey and those who systematically ignore it, he will take the necessary measures to secure obedience to the Law?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, I have read the letter of "An Eastern Counties Farmer" in The Times on the subject of the Agricultural Children Act, and I consider that such statements from practical men of the working of the present law are very useful, and will assist us to arrive at a satisfactory mode of treatment of this grave matter. From various quarters we are receiving unofficially more and more information, and I gather that, while in some parts of the country the Act is at present practically inoperative, in others it has been really effective, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) has recently assured me that in his county, where the magistrates in quarter session determined to enforce the Act by means of the police, the law may be considered to be almost universally obeyed. I must remind my hon. Friend that the weak point of the Act—the absence of an enforcing authority—was patent to everyone in the House when this Bill was passed; but owing, I imagine, to the difficulty of fixing upon a satisfactory authority, the House, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), who was then responsible for the conduct of all educational legislation, determined that the experiment should be made without an enforcing authority. The Act has only been fully in operation for about four months, and it is the decided opinion of Her Majesty's Government that a wise solution of this difficult question is much more likely to be obtained after a year's experience of the working of the new law than by hasty and premature amendment of it. To enable the Government to form an opinion of the various ways in which the Act has been worked in every part of the country and of how it has operated, our information being at present very partial, full Reports will be received from Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools at the end of the year, and my right hon. Friend the
  160
  Secretary of State for the Home Department has requested the opinion of magistrates in quarter sessions upon it. I shall avail myself of every other source of information which is available respecting this important subject.

IMPORTATION OF CATTLE—ILL TREATMENT IN TRANSIT.

  QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been called to the second letter in "The Times" of Monday the 3rd inst., and signed by Captain Sloane Stanley, repeating and adding to his former statements respecting the brutal ill-treatment of cattle on board a vessel from Antwerp to Deptford, and especially on their being landed at Deptford; and, whether the Government will make further inquiries on this subject, and lay upon the Table of this House a Copy of any Report they may receive from their Inspectors, as to the conflicting statements made on this matter?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, our attention has been called to both the letters of Captain Sloane Stanley to The Times, on the supposed ill-treatment of cattle on board a vessel from Antwerp to Deptford. As soon as the first letter appeared full inquiries were directed to be made into the circumstances by one of the Inspectors of the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council, and a letter was also addressed by the Lord President's orders to the Secretary of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, asking for any information he might possess respecting the case. As much interest is felt in this matter, I propose to lay upon the Table of the House immediately the Report of the Inspector upon this matter, together with the letter from Mr. Colam, the able Secretary of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and I think the House will then see that all the inquiries have been made which are possible in this case. I need hardly assure my hon. Friend that the Lord President and myself are most anxious to do all in our power to prevent all unnecessary suffering to animals, a matter respecting which the public mind is happily very susceptible.

RIVERS POLLUTION COMMISSIONERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his predecessor in 1872 received replies from some eminent chemists, including Baron Liebig, Mons. Dumas, Dr. Hoffmann, Sir Benjamin Brodie, Dr. Williamson, Dr. Odling, and others, to the following (abbreviated) Questions put by the Rivers Pollution Commissioners, viz.:—1. Is it desirable in the interest both of manufacturers and the public that a definition of standards of polluting liquids should be fixed by Parliament; 2. Are the standards recommended by the Commissioners fair and reasonable; and, whether he has any objection to lay their letters before Parliament previous to this House being asked to consider the Rivers Pollution Bill?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,in reply, said, that the replies referred to in the right hon. Gentleman's Question had been addressed to his Predecessor in office, and the most important of them—namely, those of Baron von Liebig and M. Dumas—would be found in the fourth part of the Fourth Report of the Rivers Pollution Commissioners. With regard to the Reports in continuation laid on the Table of the House, but not yet distributed, he had to state that the last revise would be in the hands of the printers within a few days, and he hoped they would soon afterwards be in the hands of hon. Members.

NAVY—H.M. YACHT "OSBORNE."

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN PIMasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, when Her Majesty's ship "Osborne," the yacht of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, was docked at Portsmouth on Monday last, it was discovered that a number of the sheets of copper had disappeared from her bottom; whether those sheets of copper had been nailed on with nails of a new description called "phosphor bronze," not quite six months ago; whether any others, and, if so, which others, of Her Majesty's ships have been similarly coppered, who invented this "phosphor bronze," and whether any gratuity has been awarded to the inventor; and, if so, what
  162
  amount of gratuity; and, whether any steps will be promptly taken to place officers in command of any of Her Majesty's ships in which these "phosphor bronze" nails had been used on their guard against the danger to which their ships would be exposed through defects caused by the use of those nails?
  MR. HUNT,in reply, said, that when Her Majesty's yacht Osborne was docked it was found that there were several sheets of copper off her. The copper had been fastened with a new description of nail recommended by a Committee of Admiralty officers as an experiment designed to check the occasional rapid local corrosion of the sheets of copper. The material was not "phosphor bronze." There had been no payment made on account of it as a gratuity to inventors. Several vessels had been wholly or partially sheathed with this description of nail when the failure of the nails became apparent, and orders were given in September last that all such vessels should be docked at the earliest opportunity, and that the sheathing should be re-nailed.

  THE TICHBORNE TRIAL—CONTEMPT OF COURT—QUESTION.
  MR. WHALLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the numerous Petitions praying for inquiry as to the administration of the law as to Contempt of Court in the proceedings of the Tichborne Trial, Whether it is his intention to institute any inquiry relating thereto, or to take any steps for the protection of the public against new and arbitrary penalties under the name of Contempt of Court?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, it was not the intention of the Government to take any steps in reference to the subject referred to.
  MR. WHALLEYgave Notice that he would call attention to the subject on going into Committee of Supply.

PARLIAMENT—ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.

  THE ADJOURNED DEBATE ON PUBLICATION OF DEBATES AND EXCLUSION OF STRANGERS.—QUESTIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I believe it will be for the convenience

  163
  of the House, If the Prime Minister is able to state whether he can make arrangements for the resumption of the debate on the Publication of the Debates and the Exclusion of Strangers earlier than the time now fixed? I would also take this opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman, When it is his intention to take the debate upon the Budget Resolutions?
  MR. DISRAELI: I very much regret, Sir, that the debate should have terminated so unexpectedly and unsatisfactorily on Tuesday night, and that no conclusion was arrived at on the subject of the Resolutions which were then before the House. There certainly was an understanding—at least, on this side of the House, and I think a general understanding—that until the debate was concluded and the opinion of the House on the points in reference to Privilege which it involved had been taken, no hon. Member would avail himself of his individual privilege of "espying strangers." I beg to state most distinctly that I charge the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) with no malâ fide in the matter. From what I have seen of that hon. Gentleman and of his conduct in this House, I am quite sure he is totally incapable of taking such a step. But the hon. Member, who is of a disposition somewhat impetuous and excitable, arrived at a conclusion which, with a little more Parliamentary experience, he would find was not warranted. Now, Sir, the Motion of the noble Lord consisted of a series of Resolutions, and the opinion of the House was asked upon the first. Those who were interested in the matter might have spoken generally upon those Resolutions; but it is quite impossible that, after so short a debate and no vote having been taken upon the first Resolution, the subject could be considered as exhausted, or the opinion of the House expressed upon a matter which is, probably, more complicated than some hon. Gentlemen seem to imagine. I remember when I was first asked to conduct the Business of the House nearly a quarter of a century ago, I declined on the ground that I had never been in an official position, and, therefore, did not feel myself equal to the discharge of its duties. I afterwards consulted the late Lord Lyndhurst upon the matter, and he told me that, although it
  164
  was a fact that, with the exception of my own case, there was only one in the history of the country in which an offer of the Leadership of the House had been made to a Member who had had no previous official experience whatever, he still advised me to accept the office. "But," he said, "there is one thing I would impress upon you. Do not let anything induce you to define in writing the unwritten law of Parliament. If you refrain from doing that," he said, "you will keep out of many difficulties; but if you once attempt it you will, as manager of the House, find yourself in inextricable confusion." I confess that the opinion of such a man—perhaps one of the most sagacious of this century—had great influence with me; and although I am not myself unprepared, under certain circumstance, to refuse to yield to it, I am still of opinion that it requires on the part of the House the utmost caution before they can arrive at any satisfactory solution of a subject so difficult as that to which I have referred, although some hon. Gentlemen think it so easy to do so, and for this reason—that in dealing with one part of the unwritten law of Parliament you are making precedents for dealing with other parts which are absolutely necessary for the defence of the rights of the minority and of the liberties of England. I should, therefore, have been glad if the debate had come to a conclusion on Tuesday night. I think we might have arrived at some solution, if only of a temporary character, which would have allowed the House gravely and completely to consider the question. I am not going to conclude with a Motion, because I believe that, under such circumstances as the present, it is not unusual for the House to extend its indulgence to one in my position when speaking of the conduct of Public Business and of circumstances connected with that Public Business. But there can be no doubt that the unfortunate interposition of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) prevented that debate from being concluded, and that there is no immediate prospect of its being resumed. I admit that it is impossible, after what has occurred, to leave matters, even for a very short time, as they are; and, therefore, I am going to put a Notice on the Table of the House which I will move to-morrow if I have an op-

  165
  portunity of doing so, to the following effect:—
  "That if, at any sitting of the House, or in Committee, any Member shall take notice that strangers are present, the Speaker, or the Chairman (as the ease may be) shall forthwith put the question that strangers be ordered to withdraw, without permitting any debate or amendment."
  I wish, Sir, now to make a few observations upon the state of the Business of the House, with regard to what has occurred and what might occur, and what prospects we have in this Session of dealing with the Bills before the House. Charges have been made against the Government—it is easy to make charges—as to its management of the Public Business and the wasting of so much time upon Privilege debates, which it is said have caused such an obstruction to the conduct of business and the prosecution of Government measures. Now, the fact is that the Privilege debates have not wasted an hour of the public time so far, and they have been no obstruction to the prosecution of Government measures. I have been furnished with an abstract of what has been done, and what I find is this. The House met on the 5th of February. Including Morning Sittings, there have been 26 Government days since that date. Two days in the first week were occupied in bringing in Bills, four since with the Regimental Exchanges Bill, nine with the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill, four with the Artizans Dwellings Bill, three with Supply, and one each with the Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment Bill, the Friendly Societies Bill, and the Budget. Therefore, in fact, the Privilege debates have not interfered with the conduct of the Public Business. What has interfered, and what is likely to interfere with the conduct of the Public Business, is a question which I wish to bring under the consideration of the House in order that we may have clear ideas in reference to it. The great obstacle to the prosecution of the Government business has been the opposition which has been offered to the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill. But in mentioning that fact, which is shown by the table I have just read to the House, from which it appears that nine days have been occupied by that opposition, I wish it to be clearly understood that I make no charge whatever
  166
  against any hon. Members for having offered that opposition to the Bill. They were in their Parliamentary right in taking the course they have done with regard to it. It has been said that some hon. Members have used that right excessively; but I do not bring such a charge against them. I believe that, on the whole, taking into consideration the fact that they were determined to offer an unflinching opposition to the Bill, they have not exceeded their Parliamentary right, although I cannot help regretting that, in opposing that measure, they did not take into consideration the fact that the Bill was a modified one, drawn in a conciliatory spirit. But, while I admit the full Parliamentary right of those hon. Members to oppose that Bill, I hope they will not deny the full Parliamentary right of myself and my Colleagues to pass it, and I may state that to pass that Bill is our intention, and that we shall not relax our efforts until we have accomplished that object. Do not, however, let the House suppose that there has been any mismanagement on this question which has retarded the prosecution and the progress of any measure of great importance to the welfare of the country. It has been alleged that it is owing to the want of firmness on the part of the Government that this opposition—which I admit to be constitutional and Parliamentary—to the Peace Preservation Bill has been protracted. I can only say in reply that I have offered to that opposition an unbroken front, and I must take this opportunity of thanking my hon. Friends around me for their constant attendance, and for the gallant manner in which they have supported Her Majesty's Government throughout. It should be remembered that there is nothing unusual in a Peace Preservation Bill for Ireland being opposed in this manner. I will not advert to the discussion that may have occurred on an Arms Act at a time when the House of Commons was broken into fierce parties, and when factious manœuvres were resorted to; but I will take a period which is often referred to, as one when the conduct of Public Business was such as maintained the high character of the House. I will take the year 1843, when Sir Robert Peel was at the height of his power and prosperity, and when his policy was not questioned by any one in

  167
  this House except with regard to the passing of a Peace Preservation Bill, and when even as regard its majority his Government was more powerful than that of the Ministers who now sit on these benches. Let me show what occurred at that time with regard to a measure almost identical with the present. On the 28th of April, 1843, leave was given to bring in an Arms Bill, not so complicated in its character as the present. On the 26th of May Lord Clements made a Motion against the Bill. The second reading of the Bill came on on the 29th of May, and the discussion upon it occupied three days. Our difficulties in connection with the present Bill have been much greater.
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is now entering into matters of argument and he is therefore out of Order.
  MR. DISRAELI: It is not my intention to offer any argument on the subject at the present moment. I will confine myself to stating facts, and if the House desires that I should do so I will conclude with a Motion. I was about to show that the Bill went into Committee on the 15th of June, and that it was in Committee for nine days. The Report was brought up on the 24th of July, and it was not agreed to until the 27th of July. The third reading took place on the 9th of August. The House will, therefore, see that what has occurred in the present instance is not unusual in Parliament with regard to Peace Preservation Acts for Ireland, and that it is totally out of the power of any Minister to restrict fair discussion upon such a question. I will say no more upon that point; but perhaps the House would wish me to make some statement as to the measures which are now upon the Table, and the progress of which has been arrested by the opposition which has been offered to the Peace Preservation Bill. There are a great many measures which the Government have introduced, either in the House of Lords or House of Commons, and the principle of which has been approved by their having been read a second time. We believe it is of the highest importance to the country that these measures should be carried. I have ascertained, so far as I can do so by investigation, and by those estimates which one makes on paper, the manner in which the time of the House will be dis-
  168
  posed of during the next three months, and it appears to me that all these measures may be carried—if there be only fair opposition to be encountered—and that the Business of the House may be virtually closed by the end of July. At the same time, however, I think it but fair to say that, from a sense of duty, it is the determination of Her Majesty's Government to carry all those measures, and that we shall adhere to that resolution, even if we feel it our duty to advise Her Majesty not to prorogue Parliament until these measures have received the Royal sanction. I beg to move that this House do now adjourn. Being on my legs I ought to give Notice that it is our intention to proceed with the Budget Resolutions to-morrow morning.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Disraeli.)
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I do not intend to avail myself of the opportunity offered by the Motion with which the right hon. Gentleman has concluded to follow him through the statement which he has thought it necessary to make on the subject of questions of Privilege of the House, and also on that of the state of Public Business. But I should like to take the opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman one further question, and to premise that question by a very short statement. The House will recollect that the immediate cause or origin of the question of Privilege with which it has been called on to deal was a Motion made by the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry (Mr. C. Lewis) with respect to the publication of certain proceedings of a Committee upstairs. After a not very satisfactory discussion upon that subject the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) asked the right hon. Gentleman whether it was his intention to make to the House any proposals on the subject of the relation between this House and the Press arising out of the publication of our debates; and the right hon. Gentleman having stated that such was not his intention, the hon. Member for Louth said he would avail himself of another privilege of Members of this House in order to force upon the attention of the House and of the Government what he considered to be an unsatisfactory condition of affairs with

  169
  reference to the publication of our debates. The Motion which the right hon. Gentleman intends to make with regard to the exclusion of Strangers may be—and I am not prepared to say it is not—a satisfactory settlement of this question; but I think it will not be satisfactory to a majority of the House that this question should be officially disposed of without the House having an opportunity of fully considering that other question which led in the first instance to this particular exercise of Privilege. The question, therefore, which I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman is, whether he will undertake that within some reasonable time—I do not ask for an early day—an opportunity shall be given for the resumption of the adjourned debate on the first Resolution which I moved, in order that the opinion of the House may be taken upon the relations that exist between the Press and the House with regard to the publication of the debates. In fact, the point might arise whether that Resolution being now upon the Table of the House it would be competent for the right hon. Gentleman to move another affecting the exclusion of Strangers until the Order of the Day for the discussion of my Resolution has been discharged or determined upon by the House. At all events, the House will feel that this question of the rule bearing upon the publication of our debates should be settled. Of course, it is impossible for me as a private Member to secure any opportunity for the renewal of the debate on my Resolution without the assistance of the Government. I have no observations to make in reference to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to the position of Public Business, except that it appears to me a somewhat unusual and inconvenient course that the right hon. Gentleman should take the opportunity afforded him on a Motion for the adjournment of the House of answering, so far as I can understand, an article which appeared in The Times of yesterday. I am not aware that any imputation has been thrown upon Her Majesty's Government in this House for the length to which the discussion upon the Peace Preservation Act has been carried; but I have observed that certain observations to that effect have been made in the leading journal to which I have referred. I do not think that this is a
  170
  convenient time for the discussion of that question, and I merely wish to observe that the right hon. Gentleman has, both on this and on former occasions, told the House that he is a stickler for preserving the precedents of the House, and to ask whether there is any precedent for the course he proposes to take of dealing with the Budget Resolutions at a Morning Sitting? I cannot help thinking that if persisted in there would be very considerable inconvenience in taking an important discussion of that character at a Morning Sitting. If the state of Public Business is such that it cannot be conducted without an interference with the privileges of private Members, I would submit to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be more convenient if he would ask for to-morrow evening instead of to-morrow morning. We all know what is the position of hon. Members who have Motions down on the Paper for Friday if the House has a Morning Sitting and has to re-assemble at 9 o'clock; and I feel sure the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke) would just as soon give up his right to bring forward his Motion at all as that it should be interfered with by the Budget Resolutions being taken at 2 o'clock tomorrow afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government has made a very strong statement with regard to the intentions of the Government, to carry all the measures which they have placed upon the Table of the House. I had imagined that that was a matter which rested rather with the House than with the right hon. Gentleman. But I am sure that several hon. Members, who have thought that there has been some want of energy on the part of the right hon. Gentleman in conducting the affairs of the Government in this House up to the present time, will certainly have no cause to complain of that in the future.
  MR. DISRAELI: With respect to the remarks of the noble Lord, I may say that in regard to the Budget it would, of course, be more agreeable to us that it should come on on Friday evening. That evening, however, is appropriated to hon. Members over whom I have no influence, but whom the noble Lord is in a position to advise. If the course of Business can be so arranged that the Budget discussion shall come on in the

  171
  evening, and not in the afternoon, the wish of the Government will be fully met. [Mr. GLADSTONE: But we ought to know definitely.] So far as we can say at present it must be taken at a Morning Sitting. With regard to the debate on the Motion of the noble Lord, I must confess that—feeling I was intruding rather on the attention of the House—I did not sufficiently notice that point. I think the 25th—the day which I first mentioned to the noble Lord—would be a very convenient day for the resumption of the discussion, and I believe no difficulty would stand in the way. If it be not practicable to obtain that day, I shall certainly feel bound to use my utmost endeavours to secure to the noble Lord the continuance of a debate which I myself believe would be highly advantageous to the House.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am bound to say that in the course of the many years since I first entered Parliament I have rarely listened to a statement from the Leader of the House with greater regret than I have just done to the statement we have now heard from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. As my noble Friend has just observed, besides the unwritten law of Parliament, there are precedents of Parliament; and there is one precedent—one rule—which above all is important, and that is that due respect should be paid by the Ministers of the Crown, and by the Leaders of the House, to the liberties of hon. Members. I never within my recollection heard an approximation even to the statement we have just heard from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. I am sorry to feel it incumbent upon me to take notice of it; but the right hon. Gentleman states that the Government have introduced a number of measures, and he did not even condescend to specify what those measures were. Speaking of them in the gross and wholesale, he told the House that if they thought fit to confine themselves to what he considered the proper limits of time for discussion, Parliament might be prorogued in July. He nevertheless failed to specify any one of that mass and bundle of measures which he said it was the intention of the Government to carry, and with respect to which he stated that he must keep the House sitting until all those measures were dis-
  172
  posed of. Now, Sir, in no heat of language or use of epithets, but in all seriousness and earnestness, I would appeal not less to Gentlemen on that side than to Gentlemen on this side of the House to know whether this is a becoming tone and method of proceeding on the part of the First Minister of the Crown. I do not wish to use any epithet beyond this; but I do feel it necessary to follow my noble Friend in entering his protest against such a cause; and I claim for my own liberty to say, that if such a tone should be again adopted, even by a person holding the high station of the First Minister of the Crown, I will reserve to myself the right to take such steps as I may see cause for. I have a word or two to say with respect to the Budget. I own it is with great surprise that I hear the right hon. Gentleman state on a Thursday afternoon "it is our intention to proceed with the Budget to-morrow at 2 o'clock." Well. Sir, in the first place, as has been stated by my noble Friend, it is entirely without precedent to bring forward the Budget—the principal discussion of the Budget and its general character and features—at a Morning Sitting, and this for the most obvious reasons. It is upon that subject, more even than upon any other, that we desire the advantage of the presence of those amongst our Members who have experience in finance, and whose necessary business requires their presence in the City at that hour. I must, therefore, say that if, under very great pressure, the right hon. Gentleman had thought fit to make an appeal to the House, and to say that, if no objection was taken, he wished, under the circumstances, with regard to Private Business, the Budget should be taken at 2 o'clock, that undoubtedly would have been the way to secure favourable acceptance of the proposal, though possibly not without serious inconvenience. But I must say that it is most objectionable at this short Notice, in defiance of all precedent, to announce positively, on the part of the Government, and not on the part of the House—no Morning Sitting having, so far as I am aware, been appointed for to-morrow—that the Government would proceed at 2 o'clock with that Business, in total disregard, apparently, of the convenience or inconvenience of those Gentlemen to whose usual and necessary detention in the

  173
  City I have already adverted. With reference to the Budget I am sorry to say for myself that it will be necessary for me to make observations—perhaps rather more detailed observations than I should wish—upon many points that have been raised on the Financial Statement for the year. As far as I am concerned, I will make no difficulty whatever; but, at the same time, I own that if the meeting is to be held, and for that purpose, I should have acceded to the proposal with infinitely greater satisfaction had the right hon. Gentleman, in the tone he used and the language he adopted, been a little more considerate with regard to the Rules of the House, and with regard to the convenience of Members, as well as the right and title of the House to fix the time and method of its own proceedings.
  MR. DISRAELI: When I mentioned a Morning Sitting I was of opinion that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had sounded the feeling of right hon. Gentlemen opposite in this matter. Otherwise, I should not so rudely have announced the intention of the Government with respect to bringing forward the Budget at a Morning Sitting to-morrow. I see the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke) in his place, and if he would make an arrangement so as not to bring forward his Motion to-morrow night, we could then take the Budget. But we are in the hands of the hon. Gentleman.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I should not dream of standing in the way of the House with regard to bringing forward the Budget Resolutions to-morrow night. I would, however, ask, not on my own behalf, but in the interests of private Members generally, that some means should be afforded them for bringing forward the Motions which stand in their names, and for this reason—that hon. Members having given way before without a definite promise from the Government have been disappointed in not finding another opportunity of submitting their propositions. On a recent occasion the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government made an appeal to the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) not to bring forward a Motion which he had on the Paper. Ultimately it happened that the noble Lord did not give way, whilst the hon. and learned Member for Lon-
  174
  donderry (Mr. C. Lewis) and myself did give way, without asking for a day, and I think in the circumstances it is better that I should ask for a day on this occasion.
  MR. DISRAELI: If the hon. Baronet will communicate with me I will endeavour to make a satisfactory arrangement.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: I confess that I have heard the statement of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government with some disappointment. I was the first Member of the House this Session to call attention to the confusion of matters in the Order Book with reference to the opportunities afforded to non-official Members for bringing on their Motions. It appears to me that there was ample reason for the appointment of a Committee to consider the questions which have arisen with respect to the state of Public Business and the Privileges of non-official Members of the House. I had entertaimed the hope that some such Committee would be suggested or sanctioned by the First Minister of the Crown; but, on the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman has clearly informed us that, so far as he is concerned, he will do nothing towards remedying that confusion to which I have alluded, and he has announced his intention of taking Government measures from day to day, claiming to himself the power obtained under the Resolutions of 1869 of appointing Morning Sittings, and thus aggravating the difficulties which we all feel in regard to bringing forward any Motions we may desire to submit to the consideration of the House. With regard to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman as to the position of the Irish Coercion Bill, I think the precedent the right hon. Gentleman cited—that of the Arms Act of 1844—was a very unfortunate one. It is the first instance I remember of the gross abuse of debate in Committee, by debates not on details, but repeated debates on principle. I little expected to hear the First Minister of the Crown applaud such a transgression of the rules of legitimate debate. I am sorry to say that the practice of opposition in Committee has been sanctioned by the conduct of the Conservative Party during the last Parliament. I lamented that circumstance at the time, and I lament it now; because it is the means by which, more

  175
  than by any other, the debates of this House become unduly protracted. It is now almost impossible to prevent repeated allusions to the principle of a Bill in Committee—a thing which is contrary to the former and better custom of this House. No one can doubt that these repetitions and irrelevancies tend to degrade the debates of this great Assembly and to lower their standard.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I do not know that it is quite understood on this side of the House whether the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government intends to make his Motion to-morrow respecting the exclusion of Strangers.
  MR. DISRAELI: I should like to put my Motion on the Paper; but as the Budget is fixed for to-morrow, it may be more convenient to take that Motion on another day.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BOSTON ELECTION.

  HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
  Answer to Address reported, as follows:—
  "I have received the joint Address of the two Houses of Parliament in reference to the Report made by the Judge selected to try a Petition in respect of the Election and Return for the Borough of Boston; and I have given directions accordingly for the appointment of the Gentlemen named in the Address to he Commissioners for the purpose of making the Inquiry prayed for."

THE QUEEN v. CASTRO—THE TRIAL AT BAR—THE DEBATE OF APRIL 23.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. WHALLEY: I have wished, Sir, to make a personal explanation, in accordance with a Notice I gave on a previous day. I have, however, deferred mention of the subject until the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) should be in his place and have an opportunity of replying; but I have received from the right hon. Baronet a letter, by which I presume he is not present. [Sir ROBERT PEEL here entered the House.] I am very happy to see the right hon. Gentleman in his place, and therefore I need not read the letter, the receipt of which led me to suppose he would not be here.
  176
  It will be in the recollection of the House that, in the course of the debate which took place on the 23rd of April, the hon. Member for Stoke read a paper in the form of a memorandum, said to have been left behind him by the person whom I may refer to, with the permission of the House, as the Claimant, stating substantially that he had been told by me that the right hon. Baronet had informed me that Sir Alexander Cockburn had told him that the Claimant would be convicted and sentenced to 15 years' penal servitude. The right hon. Baronet was not in his place on that occasion; but on the following Monday he rose, as I rise now, and said that there was not, in that statement, the shadow of a shade of truth, making use of other expressions of that kind; and going especially into the features of the memorandum, it appeared to the right hon. Baronet a palpable absurdity that a person in the position of the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench should have penned such a communication to him as he was represented to have made. I beg leave to say that I greatly sympathized with the right hon. Baronet in what he said on that occasion, as to being dragged before the House on such a subject; and also, to a certain extent, I sympathized with the right hon. Gentleman in what he said with regard to the hon. Member for Stoke reading the memorandum, and with respect to any question of veracity—though I should hardly call it that—between the right hon. Baronet and myself. I shall speak with the utmost possible reservation, or mitigation, as to my own recollection on any point which comes into collision with the recollection of the right hon. Baronet. With respect to the memorandum, I am sure that the right hon. Baronet will, at any rate, give me credit for having stated only what I believed to be true. What I stated to the Claimant was what I believed the right hon. Baronet to have said—and I take the liberty to say that my recollection still holds good that it was what the right hon. Baronet said—and, in justice to the unhappy man in prison, he has, to the best of my recollection, also accurately recorded in the memorandum what was read by the hon. Member for Stoke. With regard to the "palpable absurdity" of the statement, I would recall to the recollection of the

  177
  right hon. Baronet this circumstance, that the communication was made by him to me—not in a casual conversation merely, not in a mere gossiping tone, but in a formal appeal to me for information on the subject; that I did myself suggest to him how exceedingly improbable it was that the right hon. Baronet should have been mistaken in what he repeated to me as the statement of the Lord Chief Justice. But, as I have said, I desire to keep my recollection in subjection to the right hon. Baronet's recollection in the matter—and I hope he will not forget that when I heard of the intention of the hon. Member for Stoke to make public that memorandum, I took the first opportunity of writing to the right hon. Baronet expressing my regret that his name should thus be brought before the public, and stating that it was not at all with my consent, but in fact, so far as I could make any protest to the hon. Member for Stoke, that it was against my protest that that was to be done. I certainly did understand that the right hon. Baronet accepted my explanation in the spirit in which I gave it; and I think he will exonerate me from all further responsibility in the matter. I have no doubt whatever, if the opportunity were offered for further discussion between the right hon. Baronet and myself, and if the House were to grant the inquiry which it has so emphatically refused, then all differences as to recollection between him and myself would be reconciled. Rather than impute anything to the right hon. Baronet or bring myself into collision with him, I would plead some deficiency of recollection on my part; but what I would say is that it was not at the time "palpably absurd" that the Lord Chief Justice should make such a communication to the right hon. Baronet. It was not absurd then, because it was only a few weeks before that unhappy man, the Claimant—["Order, order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that he is going beyond the bounds of personal explanation.
  MR. WHALLEY: I hope that what I am about to say will be more agreeable to the House than the point I have just referred to. What I am about to say raises the question of the accuracy of statements which have passed between
  178
  two or three Members of the House. I quite concurred in the remark which has been made as to the unmannerly proceeding of hon. Members, directly or indirectly, allowing private conversation to be repeated and made use of for public purposes; and if the House considers that I have erred in this matter, and that I was not justified in repeating what I had heard to the Claimant, I will at once throw myself on the indulgence of the House. Recognizing the force of the observations to which I have just adverted, I will merely say that the communication in question was not made to me in a gossiping form at all, but in a tone of—["Order, order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I have to suggest to the hon. Member that he is drawing too much on the indulgence of the House in repeating observations which he has made more than once.
  MR. WHALLEY: I think I have entered upon a topic which, if I could be permitted to exhaust it, would raise this personal question into one of public importance. Therefore, I shall beg leave to conclude with a Motion, for it seems to me that nothing could be more important than the question raised by the remark as to the use that should not be made of casual conservations, and I hope the House will be pleased to listen to a statement of the circumstances. ["No, no!"] I defer at once to the feeling manifested by the House on that subject. In conclusion, I can only say that I now certify to the accuracy of the memorandum as containing to the best of my recollection that which the right hon. Baronet stated to me, and which I conveyed to the Claimant.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: I wish, Sir, to say only one word with respect to the statement of the hon. Member for Peterborough. In common with the House, I have listened with great satisfaction to the statement just made; for, as far as I could gather from it, the hon. Member has completely exonerated me from having said what there is no doubt that he incorrectly reported to the person to whom he alludes as the Claimant. The hon. Gentleman has distinctly stated in the hearing of the House that he subjected his recollection and his opinion in this matter entirely to mine. I can only assure the hon. Member, as I assured him in the letter to which he has referred, that I did not and could not have

  179
  said what I was reported in the Orton Diary to have said, and which the hon. Member for Stoke brought before the notice of the House. What does the thing really amount to? Why, that the Claimant told his counsel, Dr. Kenealy—[Mr. WHALIEY: No, no!]—I am only stating what the charge was. It was that the Claimant told his counsel that he, the Claimant, had heard from Mr. Whalley, who had heard from Sir Robert Peel, who had heard from the Lord Chief Justice, who had been informed by the other Judges, that before the jury had decided in a criminal case which they were trying, they, the Judges, had come to the determination to convict the prisoner! That statement bore its own refutation. I am glad the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity of confirming the subjection in which he has placed his own views to mine, and I assure him that he must have been mistaken; and I have nothing to retract from or to add to the statement which the House, with its usual courtesy and kindness, permitted me to make the other evening.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 77.]
  (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, The Solicitor General for Ireland.)

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 4th May.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 5 (Continuance of certain parts of Protection of Life and Property in certain Parts of Ireland Act.)
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUproposed to leave out the clause, which re-enacted the Westmeath Act. He contended that as this Bill applied to the whole of Ireland it was unnecessary to have a special Act for three of the counties, placing them on a different footing from the rest of Ireland. The powers given under the clauses already agreed to, and the re-enactment of the Unlawful Oaths Act, were amply sufficient to repress any amount of Ribbonism or disaffection in Ireland without adding any further coercive clauses. The 5th clause provided that the Protection of Life and Property Act should continue for two years—which was equivalent to saying that any person who was suspected—and a whisper from a magistrate, a policeman, or a personal
  180
  enemy was a sufficient cause of suspicion—of being guilty of misdemeanour, of being accessory to a felony, or of being a Ribbonman, might be arrested and sent to prison; and when in prison not even a Judge could bail that suspected person out, because the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended. At no previous time since the days of Runnymede had the Habeas Corpus Act been suspended for a longer period than one year, and he trusted that the Committee would not again sanction its being suspended for a period of two years. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) announced in 1871 that it was unconstitutional to pass such an Act as that applied to Westmeath unless it was justified by necessity; and he now called upon the noble Lord to vote against the 5th clause on the ground that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had denied its necessity, and had challenged the Committee to be very careful how they should re-enact the Westmeath Act. If Ribbonism existed, the Chief Secretary said it was sleeping, and, in the words of the adage, he (Lord Robert Montagu) said, "Let the sleeping dog lie." He had been assured by persons of the highest authority that the Ribbon conspiracy did not exist, except in the imagination of policemen and magistrates who desired to magnify their office. Bishops and priests, who had nothing to gain one way or the other, asserted its non-existence. If it did exist, then there was a curious fact—Why did the Government release Captain Duffy, the man who was said to have organized it? This man was released because he was powerless, as there was no Ribbon conspiracy. From a Return issued that morning he found that only 16 persons had been arrested under the Westmeath Act, and unless there was a necessity proved and shown for its continuance, they had no right to renew such an unconstitutional measure. He called upon the noble Marquess to abide by the principle he enunciated in 1871, and again in 1873, and to assist him in negativing the 5th clause, the omission of which he now moved.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 5.—(Lord Robert Montagu.)
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHtrusted the Committee would pardon him if he did not enter at length into

  181
  the arguments of the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath, who had told them that he believed the provisions of this Bill with regard to the restrictions on the possession of arms, and the renewal of the Unlawful Oaths Act for five years, were sufficient to deal with the Ribbon conspiracy. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) could only say that those restrictions and that Act existed in 1871, when they proved to be utterly inefficient to deal with the Ribbon conspiracy, and it was found necessary to ask the House to give the power which it was now sought to renew. Not only did the restrictions on the possession of arms then exist, but far stronger provisions were contained in the law at that time relating to the arrest of persons suspected of being mixed up with agrarian crime. The Government proposed to renew the Westmeath Act, because it had been found an instrument efficient for its purpose. It did not hurt anyone who did not properly fall within the scope of its provisions, and no orderly person in Westmeath or King's County was or had been in the slightest degree affected by the existence of the Act, which was a terror only to evil-doers. The noble Lord had more than once accused him of having stated to the House that the Ribbon conspiracy no longer existed. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) denied ever having made such a statement. It was usual, when words were attributed to a Member of that House, and when he denied having used those words, that the Member who charged him with having used them should take that denial as truth. What he said in his opening speech on this Bill was this—that it might be argued by the noble Lord and others who held the same opinions that the Ribbon conspiracy no longer existed, because there were no outward signs of it, and he proceeded to show the reasons which would justify the House in considering that it did still exist, but that it was dormant, and was kept so by the operation of those provisions which the Committee were now asked to renew.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he quoted the Chief Secretary's own words, which he took down at the time, to the effect that "the Ribbon conspiracy was dormant."
  MR. P. J. SMYTHconfirmed all that had been said by the noble Lord opposite
  182
  (Lord Robert Montagu), and repeated the protest which he entered against a continuance of this Act on the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. BUTTobserved, that this was by far the most important part of the Bill. He thought that the renewal of the Westmeath Act ought never to have been proposed, for it was, in truth, reviving in another form the practice, which they had protested against last year, of passing important measures in one general continuing Bill. He complained that the Chief Secretary, in introducing this Bill, had stated that the Government had confidentially consulted the magistrates of Westmeath and the adjacent districts, but had not given that information to the House. At a meeting of the clergy and people, presided over by the Roman Catholic Bishop of the district, a resolution was unanimously carried, declaring that, after careful inquiry and mature deliberation, they came to the conclusion that Ribbon organization did not exist in their country. That, at least, was as strong and reliable information as the unproduced and secret information of police officers. That, in point of fact, was all the Government had. The great majority of the Irish Members came forward and protested against this Westmeath Act, and did the Government suppose for one moment that on their part there would be any complicity with assassins? The two Members for Westmeath themselves protested against the measure, and declared it to be altogether unnecessary. It was to the representations of the Members sent to Parliament, and not to the reports of police officers, that the Government ought to seek for information. Under the Act no less than 16 men had been arrested, and were, untried, sent to gaol for long periods of imprisonment, but not the slightest particle of information was elicited as to the existence of a Ribbon conspiracy. If there were any such confederacy, it existed in defiance of the Act, which was not likely to be operative in future. The Chief Secretary for Ireland told them that murder was only in abeyance by reason of the operation of this Act. Police officers had written to Dublin Castle to that effect. Well, if the information were correct, why were not the intended murderers arrested, and the supposed victims warned of their

  183
  presumably pre-arranged fate? It was obviously the duty of the Government to have the man arrested. What reliance was there to be placed on the reports of police officers under the circumstances which required them to be supplied? There was no Ribbon conspirator now in gaol; but Captain Duffy walked abroad, and in the opinion of the Roman Catholic Bishops and clergy he was released from prison on the memorial of certain magistrates, who desired to use him for their own protection, when they intended their own tenants should be evicted. Was it right, he would ask, that on a system of reports made behind men's backs the liberties of Ireland should be taken away? This part of the Bill was a novelty even in coercion, for it was not only the first time that the Habeas Corpus Act had been suspended for more than one year, but the suspension had never before been applied to persons who were not accused of treason. A more objectionable mode of legislation was never adopted than that which proposed to revive such an Act as the Westmeath Act at the end of a Bill without repealing any of its clauses. However careful the right hon. Gentleman might be in the administration of the law, he (Mr. Butt) objected to trusting him. It was not the principle of the Constitution to ask for extraordinary powers, and then to say that no person would be imprisoned who did not deserve to be so dealt with. He should certainly support the Amendment of the noble Lord, and he hoped the clause would be omitted from the Bill.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAentered his protest against the law which this Bill intended to re-enact. That law was founded on the evidence obtained in 1871, and was passed under a sense of panic. He had known Westmeath for the last 25 years, and he could speak as to the state of the county with the confidence of one who had property there, and was in the habit of collecting his own rents. He was as convinced as he was of his own existence that there was no vestige of Ribbonism active in Westmeath, or merely held in abeyance there by the fear of this Act. The Captain Duffy—who, by the way, was no Captain at all—of whom they had heard so much, conspired, no doubt, if it be possible for a man to conspire, with himself alone. Like any other ruffian who was roaming
  184
  about at the time, he was made use of occasionally to carry out some indefensible design. They had no satisfactory statement of the circumstances' under which Duffy had been released from durance. He believed the Westmeath Committee had been grossly imposed upon by their credence in the printed paper, which purported to set forth the Ribbon oath, but as he had already dealt with that subject, he would not now go into it.
  MR. CONOLLYobjected to the Amendment. It was quite evident that if these powers were entrusted to the Government the parties suspected would be under the necessity of obeying the law. He did not concede that there was any reasonable ground for excluding from the operation of the Bill either Meath or Westmeath. He did not wish that any man should be in gaol, and it was quite right that every portion of this Bill should be strictly examined; but he did not think these restrictive measures could at present be dispensed with. There was one person particularly connected with journals in Ireland who had vilified him for his conduct in this House. Now, he was always ready to answer any Gentleman who might call him in question for any expression he might have used in the course of debate; but he thought it hardly manly that one having a seat in the House should take advantage of his journal in Ireland to vilify him.
  THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Member that he was not addressing himself to the question before the Committee.
  MR. CONOLLYmerely wished to add that but for that vilification it would not have been necessary for him to have taken such an active part in favour of the Bill. As to the statement made by Dr. Nulty, the Catholic Bishop, that Ribbonism did not exist in Westmeath, he knew that excellent Bishop well. He was a most amiable man, and believed that the fact was so; but the Committee had the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the contrary; and on that account he saw no reason why the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath should be adopted.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, that by the Amendment it was not intended to exclude Westmeath from parts of the Act, but merely to repeal the

  185
  old Act passed in reference to that county, and to leave that county to the same law as was applicable to the whole of Ireland. The Bill was avowedly one for the purpose of putting down agrarian crime in Westmeath; but it was admitted that there was no crime of that kind in that county. Still, they were asked, without any reasons being given, to pass the measure, and to leave to the responsibility of the Government the mode of carrying it out.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that this was not a clause relating to that ordinary coercion which they had debated day after day, but one of a severely stringent and unconstitutional nature, for it gave to the Lord Lieutenant power to imprison for a certain time any man whom the police might say was suspected of being a member of a Ribbon society, but how was the Lord Lieutenant to know whether the suspicions of the police were well founded? He was firmly convinced that no Ribbonism existed in Westmeath, and for that reason it was not fair to apply an Act to it involving the suspension of the habeas corpus. The hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Conolly) seemed indignant at the assertion being made that such was the case; but they had the evidence of the highest authorities that Ribbonism did not exist.
  MR. FAYcontended that the arguments of the Chief Secretary for Ireland were inconsistent, for one day he relied upon the statements of the magistrates in Ireland and the next day he said that he did not. He (Mr. Fay) believed that upwards of 30,000 Irish were in the Infantry of the British Army, so that if the assertions made with regard to the existence of Ribbonism were true it found its way even there. He did not believe it, and should therefore support the Amendment.
  MR GOLDNEYwould take the liberty of reminding hon. Gentlemen, Members from Ireland, that the Act itself directed that Returns of the number of arrests made, specifying the circumstances, should be laid before the House within 14 days, so that if anything irregular occurred they would always have an opportunity of calling attention to it.
  MR. WHITWELLpointed out that this clause would enlarge the area of those persons who would be subject to the operation of the Act, for it would
  186
  embrace all those who were suspected through living in a proscribed district in 1871.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, the habeas corpus was proposed to be suspended in Westmeath, on the ground that Ribbonism existed there; but having carefully read the evidence given before the Committee, he could see no ground for such an assumption. There was not a person in gaol, and therefore there was no pretence for passing this Bill.
  MR. RONAYNE,in answer to what had been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite about Returns of persons arrested being laid before the House, said, that cases had occurred in Ireland where persons had been arrested under a warrant signed by the Lord Lieutenant, and imprisoned no one knew where. In many other cases their friends were denied access to them. A man was arrested as having been accessory before a murder—a case not of suspicion, but, as stated in the Returns, of fact. Now, that man ought to have been tried, or else brought up by habeas corpus; but instead of taking either process, he was imprisoned and allowed to remain so.
  Question put, "That Clause 5 stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 305; Noes 68: Majority 237.
  CAPTAIN NOLANproposed the following clause:—
  (Possession of fowling-pieces.)
  "Provided always, anything in the original or amending Acts to the contrary notwithstanding, it shall be lawful for any barrister-at-law, for any surgeon or doctor of medicine, or any attorney or solicitor, or any clergyman in orders belonging to any denomination, or any person who pays county cess or poor rates on an annual valuation of not less than twelve pounds, to keep and to use, by himself or through his servant, one double or single barrelled fowling-piece; this, however, not to save such person from any prosecution on the part of the Excise for not having taken out a game licence or for not having paid gun tax."
  All the large proprietors in Ireland were allowed the possession of such arms; and he thought that those occupiers who paid county cess or poor rates on an annual valuation of £12 should be privileged to keep a fowling-piece. He did not bind himself to a payment of county cess or poor rates on a valuation of £12, and he had no objection to the sum being larger; but he thought it was not right that the privilege to possess such arms

  187
  should be conceded to the upper classes only, and withheld from the class he had named. He, therefore, hoped the Committee would adopt the clause.
  New Clause—(Captain Nolan,)—brougt up, and read the first time.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the Committee had already decided that licences must be taken out for fowling-pieces as for other arms. The Committee had also acceded, on his own proposal and on the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), to certain alterations which would tend materially to facilitate the possession of fowling-pieces. He had, therefore, hoped that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not think it necessary to move this clause. The exemptions from the necessity of obtaining licences were confined to magistrates and to other officials, such as members of the Coastguard or the Constabulary, or persons engaged in military service whose duty required them to carry arms. The proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman would make an invidious distinction.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY,in supporting the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend, said, he always went back to the principle which the right hon. Baronet and the Solicitor General laid down—namely, that the Bill should be tempered with mercy in cases where no need of coercion was alleged to exist. The object of his hon. and gallant Friend was that the middle classes, who were known not to be mixed up with any unlawful societies, should be exempted from the stringency of the proposed Act, and he thought it came within the principle on which he relied.
  MR. CALLANsaid, that there were hon. Members in that House who would not have the power of carrying arms as the Bill stood; and surely the Government could not think that such persons were disentitled to the privilege.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought the Government could only be making a reasonable concession if they assented to the Amendment as it stood.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that if the Government helped to reject the clause, they would declare that not only had they no faith in the loyalty of the lower classes, but that they also distrusted the upper classes.
  MR. MELDON,as a professional man, did not ask to be treated differently from the lower order of his countrymen, and would now vote against the new clause, were it not that the Government had itself made an exception in favour of the magistrates. He did not see why, if magistrates were allowed to carry arms, a barrister should not also be allowed to do so. Indeed, such at the present moment was the horror of the Irish people at agrarian crimes, that it became necessary that the counsel who undertook to defend those accused of it should carry arms in self-defence.
  MR. BULWERsaid, he could not see why the clause should fix the qualification at a rating of £12 rather than £6, or why a person living in lodgings should be excluded under the clause. He could not see how the Government could accept it.
  MR. FAYsaid, he did not like to see exclusive privileges granted to professional men. He thought that farmers with moderate holdings might be regarded as men having, in his sense of the word, strong "Conservative" instincts, and as being men not forward to violate the law.
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, he hoped that farmers would not be seized for carrying croquet-boxes. He knew an instance of an hon. Gentleman who was seized for carrying a croquet-box because it was so like a gun-box.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 45; Noes 157: Majority 112.
  CAPTAIN NOLANthen moved the insertion of the following clause:—
  "Any occupier of land in Ireland may apply by Petition of Eight to be indemnified for any damage done to his crops by wild birds, hares, or rabbits, provided he proves such damage has accrued by reason of the operation of this Act, and all the provisions of the Statutes in force in Ireland in respect to the said Petition, and the procedure thereon, and the granting of costs of the Petition, shall extend and be applicable to any Petition so presented by such occupier."
  If he were addressing a committee of English farmers they would not hesitate to insert in the Bill a provision such as he submitted for the consideration of the Committee. The damage done might, in most instances, be small; but the Com-

  189
  mittee should remember that the small margin of, say 5 per cent, was all the farmer had to live upon. It might be said that they might use poison to get rid of hares and rabbits; but it was clear that the extensive use of poison might lead to the occurrence of serious accidents, and poison, if used to keep down rabbits or birds, might also be used to kill foxes. The Bill contained a precedent for the granting of compensation, and there existed the further precedent of compensation to farmers for the injury done to crops by reason of the movement of troops over cultivated land. If it were found that the amount of compensation to be paid for damage really arising from a want of guns in a particular district was unduly large, steps would be taken to relax the stringency of the rule to suit the necessities of the case.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHcould not adopt a clause which appeared to be based on a principle on all fours with one which would give manufacturers compensation for losses which accrued from the operation of the Factory Acts. If a farmer had the right of destroying these animals on his farm, he could do so in other ways than by shooting them. Hares were very few in Ireland, and rabbits could be snared, so that there was no necessity for farmers to have guns in order to protect themselves against them, and therefore no necessity for them to be compensated for losses which would not be consequent upon their being deprived of guns.
  MR. BIGGARpointed out that wild birds could not be easily snared.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he thought that there was nothing unreasonable in the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member; but he asked him to withdraw his clause on the ground that not only the Committee, but public opinion also, was not quite ripe for doing strict justice in the matter.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MELDONmoved to insert the following clause:—
  (Number of divisions for holding sessions for trying offences under this Act not to be reduced.)
  "During the continuance of this Act, or any Act or part of an Act hereby continued, the number of divisions or districts for the holding of sessions in any county or riding now existing
  190
  for the transaction of any criminal business recognisable or determinable at any general or quarter sessions of the peace shall not be reduced, but all criminal business shall continue to be transacted in the division or district where such criminal business is now transacted."
  The hon. Member explained that steps were now being taken to have all the criminal and civil business of quarter sessions transacted in one town for each county. It would work injustice if men, arrested for trifling offences under this Act, were taken out of the district in which they were known and tried in a place where they were not known.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET)said, that, in the event of there being any change in the mode of conducting criminal business, it would be a change made generally, and for the convenience of the counties, and would not have special reference to this Act. He hoped that the Amendment would not be pressed.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule A.
  MR. BUTTmoved the repeal of the 13th section of the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1870, which enabled magistrates to hold inquiries into charges against suspected persons in their absence and in private, but he declined to press it to a division. He next moved the repeal of section 14, which gave power to magistrates to arrest witnesses supposed to be about to abscond at refusal to bail without the assent of the committing magistrate.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET)said, he could not assent to the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. BUTTthen moved an Amendment, the object of which was to repeal a provision enabling a magistrate, whenever a person was suspected of sending a threatening letter, to issue his warrant authorizing a search to be made of that person's house, and of all his private papers, in order to find evidence to convict him of that offence. That was a most odious power, and one entirely inconsistent with English law. It was, moreover, very liable to be abused, and in one instance of that kind a remedy was given in the shape of damages in an action, but only on the ground of some technical informality. He might have to

  191
  take the sense of the Committee on that provision on the Report; but he hoped that in the meantime the Chief Secretary would seriously consider whether it might not be safely dispensed with. He acknowledged that the right hon. Baronet had made most important concessions, both in bringing in the Bill and also during its progress. He valued the latter class of concessions most, because they had been made without fear of any taunt that the Government had yielded to pressure. The right hon. Baronet, he was sure, was not influenced by any such unworthy feeling, the only pressure to which he yielded being that of reason and argument. Threatening letters were often ludicrous, and he had himself received several at which he only laughed.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, it was not without very careful consideration that the Government had proposed to re-enact that clause. Threatening letters really deserving the name, and which were too often followed by outrages that created terror, still continued in Ireland. The police had reported that three times as many threatening letters had been sent this year as in 1866, but far less than in 1870, when the clause was introduced. There still appeared to be sufficient grounds for retaining that provision, the operation of which was very carefully guarded. Cases had been brought under his notice where the power conferred by the clause had proved most valuable; and in no instance but the one to which the hon. and learned Member had referred, and in which there had been a legal remedy, had the Government any knowledge of its having been abused.
  MR. RONAYNE,as an employer of labour, had frequently received anonymous threatening letters, but had always thrown them into the waste-paper basket and taken no further notice of them. He believed that one-half of the persons who received such letters acted under a feeling of cowardice in making reports respecting them to the police. He mentioned that, as regarded experts in questions of handwriting, an instance occurred at a trial of a Mr. O'Brien, at Cork, in which the handwriting was a written receipt, and certain bankers and their clerks swore that the handwriting was that of O'Brien, and he was sentenced to be hanged, and two years after the Crown required a jury to find that
  192
  the same receipt was written by a Captain Mackay. So that after the conviction of one man the Crown produced the same receipt, and tried to hang another upon it. He thought, therefore, no reliance could be placed on the evidence of experts given in secret, and upon which the police acted.
  Amendment negatived.
  On the Preamble,
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUmoved to add to line 19 the following words, which had been rendered necessary by the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), and to which, he understood, the Government offered no opposition—
  "And whereas various persons have, by reason of neglect or otherwise, not complied with the provisions of the said Acts."
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING (in the absence of Mr. BUTT)said, before the duties of the Committee were discharged he must acknowledge the fair consideration which the Irish Members generally had received from both sides of the House; that in the discussion of national and constitutional questions of great importance, the English and Scotch Members had given them a large support, and, on the whole, he thought the majority of the Irish Members would be satisfied with the manner in which they had been met by the Government with regard to the proposals they had brought forward.
  MR. HERMONsaid, the Members on that side of the House—the Government side—had given a consistent support to the Government in the discussions on this measure, knowing it was as distasteful to them to bring it forward as it was to the hon. Gentlemen opposite. Nothing but a stern sense of duty had induced them to bring it forward, and therefore he felt bound to support them. He was very glad to hear what had fallen from the hon. Member (Mr. Downing), and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would convey those sentiments to his friends in Ireland.
  MR. RONAYNEobjected to the conduct of the hon. Gentlemen on the other side on the ground that they had not discussed this Bill, and had thrown all the burden of discussion on Members on his own side. He hoped and believed that the hearts and sentiments of hon. Members opposite were not with this

  193
  Bill, and that they simply acted on the responsibility of the Chief Secretary for Ireland; but he thought they ought not to have done so merely on the authority of secret letters written by police officers to Dublin Castle, without requiring that proof which would have given satisfaction.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYappealed to the Government to have the Bill reprinted before the Report was brought up. Being a highly penal measure it should be made as clear as possible. Various concessions, as the Government thought, had been made, whilst many others had been refused, and it would add to a clear understanding of the subject if the Bill could be reprinted. He would undertake to assure the Government that no advantage would be taken of it if that course were adopted.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the Amendment had been proposed by the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath, and that a general discussion on the Bill would be more appropriate on the third reading.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On Question, "That the Preamble stand part of the Bill,"
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTwished to bear testimony to the patience and forbearance shown by Her Majesty's Government to everybody in that House during the discussions on this Bill, and also to the courage, honourable resolution, and ability evinced by the Irish Members on both sides of the House in the defence of what they no doubt conscientiously considered to be an unjust interference with the liberties of their country. He never felt greater pain and sorrow than in being obliged to assent to a restriction of the liberties of any portion of his countrymen. He should have been glad to limit the operation of the Bill to two years instead of five. He was one of those Members who had left the House when the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) proposed his Amendment, and he would explain why he did so—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Question before the Committee is that this be the Preamble of the Bill. That Question raised all the general points embodied in the Bill; but the hon. Baronet appeared to be making a personal explanation instead of discussing the Bill.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, that what he was proposing to do was to show that Clause 5 of the Bill was not in accordance with his feelings, and he wished to tell the Committee why he objected to it. ["Oh, oh!"] He would undertake to show on another occasion, why he objected to a person being arbitrarily imprisoned for more than 12 months.
  MR. CHARLEYcongratulated the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the repeal of the odious Press Laws, imposed upon Ireland by Lord Carlingford. He protested against the imposition of those laws in 1871; his voice was drowned in clamour; but he had the satisfaction of recording his vote with the small minority, who opposed them. The nation which was denied the freedom of the Press, was denied the first rudiments of Constitutional Government. Freedom of the Press was as essential to Constitutional Government as the air we breathe was to our existence.
  MR. BUTTsuggested that the Bill, with the many Amendments which had been made, should now be thrown into a clear, intelligible, and definite shape, so as to form one body of consistent legislation. It could easily be done; and no advantage—he could promise—would be taken of its altered form to re-discuss any portion of the measure.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the Amendments made in the Bill had not been numerous. As a matter of course, the Bill would be reprinted with the Amendments; but the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member went a good deal further. It would necessitate the re-committal of the Bill, and was certainly not in accordance with the ordinary practice of the House. He had to thank the Committee for the fair and candid manner in which a protracted discussion had been conducted. He had not complained—and did not now complain—of the mode in which the Irish Members had thought it their duty, as it was their undoubted right, to discuss the provisions of a Bill to which many of them naturally objected. The task which it had been his duty to perform had not only been wearisome, but painful in the extreme, and he fervently trusted that he would never be called upon to repeat it. He had endeavoured to treat every hon. Member who had any Amendment to move with courtesy and

  195
  attention, and to deal with the subject in a fair and straightforward manner.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he thought at the end of the Committee he ought to remark that the Irish Members had nothing whatever to complain of as to the manner in which the Chief Secretary had conducted it. He had met them often with great fairness, although at times they might have considered the points he was sustaining were too severe. They had nothing to complain of in the way they had been received by the House, and the manner in which their objections had been met would have some effect in mitigating the effect these coercive measures would have upon the minds of the Irish people. He hoped the House would not take objection to the manner in which the opposition had been conducted. The Bill was unconstitutional, it vitally affected the liberties of the people, and its provisions were multifarious, and had it been applied to England it would not have passed with even so little discussion. He, however, believed it had been discussed fairly, and much as they regretted the re-enactment of these laws it could not be said an ample opportunity had not been given for the consideration of the question.
  MR. DISRAELI: I merely, Sir, rise to say that I think this is the best Message of Peace which we have had for a long period.
  MR. RONAYNE: I, for one, will not be any party to accept from the English Government chains, however gilded, or however accompanied by courtesy, politeness, or good manners.
  MR. BIGGAR: This is not, in my judgment, an occasion on which we ought to bandy compliments. I am not going to blame the House for the want of courtesy shown to myself; but I must protest against a Bill being forced on us unsupported by reason, argument, or common sense.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he did not think that was a proper occasion for bandying compliments. He thought the question was really too serious. He intimated that the Bill would be strongly opposed on the third reading.
  Preamble agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be consdered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 154.]
  MR. BUTTasked when the Government proposed to take the Report?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the Bill should be printed with the Amendments without delay, and the Report would be taken on Monday next.
  MR. BUTTintimated that on the Report he should certainly raise again some of the questions which had been decided against him in Committee.

  SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS (re-committed) BILL—THE [Bill 83.]
  (Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Clare Read.)

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 19th April.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  Description of Offences.
  Clause 6 (Provision for the sale of compounded articles of food and compounded drugs) amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Protection from offences by giving of label.)
  MR. A. H. BROWNmoved, in page 3, at end, to add—
  "Or if he shall supply such article from any box, vessel, package, or other receptacle which is clearly marked in such a way as to signify that the article is mixed, and is so placed that the purchaser of such article may he able to read what is marked thereon."
  His object was to remove the necessity of wrapping up small quantities of an article in a paper marked "mixed," as that would entail in the case of small sales over the counter a good deal of unnecessary trouble on the seller.
  MR. BRISTOWEpointed out that the clause as it stood was very good, and that the Amendment, if adopted, would open the door to fraud.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. SANDFORDmoved, in page 3, line 19, at end to add, "and stating the nature of the mixture," with a view that purchasers should know what they were buying.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he thought the Amendment would tend to the manufacture of inferior goods.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHalso opposed the Amendment. No information of value would be given by it to the purchaser, who would know nothing as to the quality of the materials used.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to,
  Clause 8 (Prohibition of the abstraction of any part of an article of food before sale, and selling without notice).
  MR. HENLEYwished to know whether the clause would relate to the case of flour? Every miller in dressing flour took out of it some of the fine flour. What he wanted to know was, whether that would render him liable to a penalty?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that this point was provided for by the 5th clause, which enacted that the purchaser was to be furnished with a description of the quality of the flour which he demanded.
  Clause agreed to.
  Appointment and Duties of Analysts, and Proceedings to obtain Analysis.
  Clause 9 (Appointment of analysts.)
  MR. SANDFORDsaid, that one of the strongest points which had been made out before the Select Committee was the incompetency of the local analysts. The Bill would not remove this grievance, but would leave it as it was. He contended that in many small boroughs it was impossible to find men possessed of sufficient skill to qualify them as analysts. "Why, in certain of the small boroughs the very worst sinners, as far as adulteration was concerned, were the town councillors. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen might cry "No, no," but he said "Yes, yes." It would conduce both to economy and efficiency if analysts were appointed by the county, and he therefore moved to leave out from "beginning," to "or boroughs," inclusive, in page 4, line 3, and insert—
  "In England the magistrates for each county shall, as soon as possible after the passing of this Act, appoint for each county one or more persons possessing competent knowledge, skill, and experience as analysts of all articles of food or drugs sold within such county."
  SIR HENRY PEEKprotested against any analysts whatsoever being appointed. It had been proved before the Select Committee that there were not a dozen men in England who were fit to be analysts. He had no desire in saying that to screen the mal-practices of the trade, or to throw any obstacle in the way of the Bill; but he was persuaded the latter could best be carried into effect without analysts. There was a
  198
  laboratory at Somerset House which would, if it were taken advantage of, answer all the purposes of analyses. All that was there wanted was to strengthen the staff by the addition of three or four men, at about as many hundreds per annum. He said unhesitatingly that analysts had been a complete failure over the whole country. As an instance, he alluded to the recent case of the Northamptonshire widow, who was fined for selling adulterated coffee, but two persons accused of the same offence at the same time, in the same place, and by the same local analyst sent the coffee to London to be analysed, when it was proved to be pure, whereupon the analyst, who, by the way, acted for three counties, merely said he was sorry that his apparatus being out of order he had been led into a mistake.
  MR. PEASEsaid, he could not agree with the proposal to transfer these appointments of analysts from the boroughs to the county magistrates. He thought the former were as capable of judging in the matter as the latter, and hoped the clause would be allowed to stand pretty much in its present form.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he thought the Committee would not be prepared to accept the Amendment, which would, in the first place, swamp the small boroughs, and then give them an advantage by relieving them from contributions towards the salaries of the analysts. So far as he was aware the boroughs had acted quite as well as the counties, if not better. He could quote cases of boroughs in which the Act was excellently put in force. There was no occasion at present, whatever future experience might prove, for the whole analytical work to devolve upon a central establishment, and the Government was not prepared to assent to such a scheme.
  MR. PELLagreed in the opinion that a sufficient body of competent men could not be found from whom to select analysts for the whole of the country. In his own county convictions had been obtained by an analyst, who, on one of the articles of which he complained being sent for examination in London, had been shown to be unfit for his office. Again, in Scotland, a person fined for selling adulterated milk sent the analysis on which he had been convicted to a competent chemist in London, and it was declared to be an accurate description of

  199
  unadulterated milk. This was a melancholy state of things. He was a farmer, and would like to have his manure analyzed, but he would not ask a country analyst to analyze it. If he sent it to London, he would be quite satisfied with the analysis of Dr. Hassell. They were authorizing uninformed local authorities to convict upon the statements of men who had received no training for the duties which they had to perform, and there was danger that they would allow magistrates who did not represent the ratepayers to throw upon the rates the enormous expences which these prosecutions would involve.
  MR. WYKEHAM MARTINsaid, that in the county with which he was connected great care was taken in the appointment of an analyst, and he thought borough magistrates were quite as competent as county magistrates to appoint analysts.
  An hon. Member thought the appointment of analysts should be subject to the approval of the Local Government Board, with a view of securing the entire efficiency of the gentlemen appointed.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, there could be no doubt that some incompetent analysts had been appointed, who had produced analyses unfortunate for themselves and for traders. But that was very much the fault of Parliament, which provided no safeguards for the selection of competent men. Even this Bill contained no proper security that the analysts should be competent. It was important that the Local Government Board should lay down rules as to the qualifications to be required, and then both boroughs and counties might be trusted to appoint proper men. But he would say one word for the analysts who had been appointed under all the difficulties of the present system, and suddenly called upon to make analyses without preparation. Before the Adulteration Act was passed Dr. Hassell made 2,000 analyses of articles and found that 76 per cent of them were adulterated. Since the Act was passed 17,000 analyses had been made by the public analyst, and only 26 per cent of the articles were found adulterated, of which 13 were in milk alone. Much as we might lament the ignorance on the part of analysts suddenly called upon, as a whole, the work had been performed
  200
  to the satisfaction and for the benefit of the public. He could not support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman because he thought London and the large boroughs were quite able to find efficient analysts.
  MR. HARDCASTLEsaid, the great object was to secure a really competent analyst. If we had a large number of analysts, it was probable that they would all be very inadequately paid, and probably be inefficient; but if we had one superior analyst appointed for a more extended district, we could afford to pay him well for his work, and thus secure a superior man. Practically, these analysts were placed in the position of Judges, for on their decision, rather than on the decision of magistrates, rested the question whether or not those persons who were accused of adulteration should be subjected to a penalty. Under these circumstances, he felt it his duty to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Sandford), although at the same time, he thought the City of London was competent to appoint its own analyst.
  MR. EVANSsaid, he hoped that some provision would be introduced to avoid for the future such gross injustice as had been inflicted on those tradesmen who, through the incompetence of analysts, had been groundlessly accused of adulteration. He believed the best course to adopt would be to appoint for the work of analysis a competent authority who would give general satisfaction.
  MR. ALDERMAN COTTONobserved, that the analyst was all-important in the Bill. He believed that the Analytical Board of Somerset House was all-sufficient for analytical purposes. Although the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair) might treat the faults of analysts very lightly, their faults might ruin the reputation of innocent tradesmen. He was inclined to think that this discussion would make analysts more careful in the future.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, it would be inconsistent with previous legislation to leave the appointment of analysts in boroughs with the county magistrates, who would have to go to the large towns and cities for the persons to be appointed. He should vote against the Amendment.
  MR. VILLIERSsaid, he thought there was a great deal to be said in justification of the Amendment, because it had in view the interests of the community independently of the trader. It appeared that only 24 boroughs out of 171 had appointed analysts; whereas the county magistrates had appointed analysts in 30 cases out of 54. Now, there must be some reasons why the towns and boroughs did not appoint analysts, and if the Committee were really in earnest in preventing the enormous evils of adulteration of food, they should take care that their legislation should be effective, compulsory, and general. At present nothing could be more capricious than the operation of the existing law. It had been two years in operation, yet while in some places the law against adulteration was rigorously enforced, in others no analysts were appointed, and the law became a dead letter. The consequence was, that the unscrupulous traders sent their adulterated goods to the latter places, and enormous injury was inflicted on the community. The analysts had been condemned, but had they had a fair trial? He did not know why it should be said that they had done no good. How could it be said that persons capable of analyzing adulteration were not competent authorities? They did not exist in sufficient numbers at first; but during the last two years a sufficient number of them had come forward. The House ought to remember that wherever analysts had been appointed great public advantage had accrued. Nothing could be more ridiculous than the statements sometimes made in the House that there was now no adulteration of food. Lectures were being delivered in the the metropolis which proved that all the evils that ever existed in regard to adulteration were still rampant. It had been stated, indeed, on good authority, that much of the savage ferocity displayed in recent cases of drunken assaults was attributable to the noxious ingredients with which the liquor of the lower classes was adulterated. There never was a time when, on sanitary grounds, an effective measure was more required. For 50 years such an Act had been demanded, and in 1860 an Act was passed, but no analysts were appointed, because the appointment was placed in the hands of those who took care not to appoint them.
  202
  The Act of 1872 was passed by something like an accident. The present Bill was, in his mind, no improvement on the Act of 1872, because it would dimmish the protection of the consumer, and offer facilities to the traders who practised adulteration. He hoped that the Committee would receive an assurance that the Bill would not be merely permissive, but that the word "may" in regard to the appointment of an analyst should be changed to "shall appoint an analyst."
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman could have given very little attention to the language of the Bill. The real difficulty was to insist on the appointment of analysts, when they were told that a sufficient number of competent persons could not be found. The Bill, however, extended the facilities for the joint appointment of analysts by boroughs and counties. There was, unfortunately, no School of Analytical Chemistry in this country; but, in a subsequent clause, it would be proposed to refer the analyses in certain cases to the Board of Inland Revenue, the effect of which might be that plenty of competent analysts would be found in a few years. When it was stated that county magistrates might be relied upon to carry out the Act, he would remind the Committee that the magistrates of two midland counties had appointed an analyst who was thoroughly incompetent. There were many difficulties in the way of working the Act in counties, while in several boroughs it was very well worked. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair) had borne testimony to the general diminution of adulteration, and he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) believed that if powers were given to the Inland Revenue still greater improvements might be made.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought it would be very invidious and almost unconstitutional to say that boroughs having quarter sessions which were competent to try criminals were not to be trusted to appoint analysts. It would be invidious to particularize, but he might say that the analysts were not infallible. The country had had accounts in the newspapers of a great mistake committed by one learned man, and of another learned man correcting it. He should be sorry to see any change made in the direction of the Amendment.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid that, as a borough Member, he must protest against the appointment of the local analysts being taken out of the hands of the borough authorities. He did not see why such towns as Leeds and Sheffield should not appoint their own analysts. Where were they to get the analysts unless they went to the large towns for them?
  SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, he was ready to admit that the case of the City of London was peculiar, and therefore he did not object, so far as the City proper was concerned, to the appointment being vested in the Commissioners of Sewers; but, with respect to the other portion of the metropolis, he objected to the appointment being vested in the local vestries. The ratepayers would not be satisfied with such an arrangement.
  MR. COLEcould only say that, as a vestryman, he thought the vestries were the very best possible bodies to be entrusted with the appointment of analysts. The only difficulty was as regarded expense, which disinclined those bodies to appoint analysts at all; but that difficulty would vanish if the appointment were made compulsory, and if that was done, they would take care to appoint the best men who could be obtained.
  MR. SANDFORDdid not deny that the large towns would appoint able and competent men, but his object in wishing to vest the appointment in the hands of the county magistrates was to secure economy in spreading the cost over a wider area. He objected to the language of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Local Government Board in describing what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) as irrelevant. That right hon. Gentleman's observations were perfectly relevant, and he would venture to say that he knew more about the subject than the right hon. Gentleman himself. On the whole, he would not trouble the Committee to divide, because he found that, at a subsequent period, some amelioration of the clause might be effected.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SANDFORDmoved the postponement of the clause, expressing his concurrence in the view which had been submitted to the Committee by the hon.
  204
  Member for Mid-Surrey (Sir Henry Peek), that it would be more satisfactory that things should be sent up to Somerset House to be analyzed.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY,in supporting the proposal for the postponement of the clause, gave it as his opinion that it was one of the most important in the Bill. He thought the public generally were of opinion that the analyzing of these things was a much easier process than it really was. He approved of the idea of making Somerset House a final Court of Appeal; but it was to be remembered that there were some articles which would not keep to be sent there, and some special provision might have to be made in regard to them. Among other reasons he had for thinking analyses should be done at Somerset House was this—that there was an impression that the analyses of local chemists depended very much on the interest of the person sending the articles, and, whether it was well or ill-founded, its existence would have a very prejudicial effect on the operation of the Act. If the analyses were made in London they would gain the respect and confidence of the whole community. Another reason he had for supporting this proposal was that hitherto, in Scotland, at all events, local authorities had not shown any disposition to pay such sums of money as would command the services of good analysts.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid, the postponement of the clause would be equivalent to the postponement of the consideration of the Bill, and if the hon. Member desired to raise the question it ought to be done by a direct and substantive Amendment.
  MR. WHITWELLopposed the Amendment. There was no reason why the countries and boroughs should not combine and appoint an analyst.
  MR. RODWELLsaid, the clause provided for the appointment of an analyst who resided in London, if one could not be found in the county or borough of competent experience. It appeared to him almost a libel to say that in our large boroughs competent men could not be found. The clause would meet almost every possible case—it was partly permissive, and partly compulsory.
  DR. C. CAMERONsaid that to refer all the analyses from the country to London would destroy the principle of the Bill. Somerset House had not the means

  205
  of undertaking the whole analyses of the country.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that the clause would carry out with certainty the amendments required in the existing law. He hoped the Committee would not agree to the Amendment. The Government were not prepared to set up a great Government establishment to take charge of the different localities, the expenses of which would have to be defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. PELLmoved, in page 3, line 33, after "borough," to insert—
  "Containing, according to the last published census, for the time being, a population of twenty-five thousand and upwards."
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHopposed the Amendment. If the matter was left to the discretion of the local authorities, he did not think that would limit the number of analysts, as anticipated. It was an attempt to restrain the action of the local authorities.
  MR. WYKEHAM MARTINsaid, the Amendment would preclude the city of Canterbury and the corporate town of Leamington from appointing their own analysts. He thought it would be dealing hardly with towns containing perhaps only 1,000 less in population than the limit proposed that they should be handed over to the discretion of the county bench.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRmoved, in page 4, line 3, after "boroughs," to insert—
  "Provided that such analysts he not engaged in the trade of buying or selling any article of food or drugs."
  Chemists frequently sold articles of food and drink besides drugs. Now, this was objectionable, because it gave them an unfair advantage over their competitors in trade, and was calculated to produce an impression on the traders that they were not fairly dealt with. There was no necessity to have traders any longer as analysts, as a sufficient number of professional chemists could easily be obtained, especially when the Bill gave power to districts to combine.
  MR. COLEargued that if chemists and druggists were excluded there would be many localities deprived altogether of the services of an analyst. Persons
  206
  selling drugs in country towns were often highly skilled chemists and analysts, and it was often of the greatest importance that an analysis should be made promptly, which could not be done if the thing to be analyzed had to be sent to London.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHapproved of the intention of the Mover of the Amendment, but could not accept the proposal, because local analysts were, of necessity, persons engaged in trade. The Local Government Board always preferred that persons not engaged in the sale of food and drugs should be appointed analysts; but in some very important boroughs most excellent analysts had been appointed who would be disqualified by this Amendment. He believed that, in some cases, the Amendment would operate injuriously.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman could not accept the Amendment. It did not seem a reasonable thing to put one tradesman in the position of having to deal with the articles of another tradesman who was his competitor in business. No practical evil could arise from the adoption of the Amendment, considering that there was the power of uniting towns together, and that the supply of professional chemists was much greater now than it was formerly.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, that it was very rarely that persons engaged in manufactures were analysts. What was wanted was professional analysts thoroughly acquainted with chemistry, and he felt so strongly on the point that he must divide the Committee on the subject.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsupported the Amendment as an independent Member. It was not right that persons who dealt in particular articles should be called in to analyze them. They should appoint men who were properly qualified to perform the very important duty cast upon them.
  MR. WYKEHAM MARTINpointed out that, in some counties, a medical man in private practice was the analyst.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHbelieved that when a sample of an article went to be analyzed it was sent in cipher, without the analyst knowing from whom it was obtained. Those gentlemen who had already been appointed could not well now be disestablished. Although

  207
  it might not be a matter on which it could rely, he assured the Committee that he would endeavour to see that proper persons were appointed for those duties.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he thought a man should not he a judge in his own case, and therefore he would support the Amendment on that ground.
  MR. CAWLEYsuggested that the Amendment should be confined to the special trade in which the analyst might be engaged.
  MR. SANDFORDalso recommended that it should be modified so as only to exclude a man who sold the articles in question within the district for which he was appointed as analyst.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he would introduce some words on the Report to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Town Council of a borough may engage the analyst of another borough or of the county) agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Power to purchaser of an article of food to have it analysed).
  DR. C. CAMERONmoved, in page 4, line 34, after "to," insert" the inspector or inspectors appointed under this Act, or where there is no such inspector to." The object was to ensure secrecy on the part of the analyst.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Officer named to obtain a sample of food or drug to submit to analyst) agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Provision for dealing with the sample when purchased).
  DR. C. CAMERONmoved, in page 5, line 18, after "parts," insert "after it shall have been marked and sealed by the analyst."
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHbelieved the Amendment entirely unnecessary.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Provision where sample is not divided) agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Provision for sending article to the analyst through the post office) agreed to.
  Clause 16 (Person refusing to sell any article to any officer liable to penalty).
  MR. EARPmoved, in page 5, line 38, after "sale," to insert "or on sale by retail on any premises or in any shop or stores."
  DR. C. CAMERONmoved an Amendment that the penalty of £5, imposed upon a person refusing to give a sample of his goods—known to be adulterated—should be increased to £20.
  After a few words from Mr. SCLATERBOOTH, it was agreed to increase the penalty, in case of refusal by the seller to submit his goods for analysis, to £10.
  Clause 17 (Form of the certificate) agreed to.
  Clause 18 (Quarterly report of the analyst).
  MR. PELLmoved, in page 6, at end of clause, add—
  "And every such authority shall annually transmit to the Local Government Board, at such time and in such form as the Board shall direct, a certified copy of the number of articles analyzed, and shall he entitled to receive the sum of five shillings, out of moneys to he provided by Parliament, in respect of every analysis, to he applied towards the expense of executing this Act."
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHaccepted the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Proceedings against Offenders.
  Clause 19 (Proceedings against offenders).
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHmoved, in page 6, line 31, leave out from "and" to "same," in line 33, both inclusive, and insert—
  "In Ireland such penalties and proceedings shall be recoverable, and may be taken with respect to the police district of Dublin metropolis, subject and according to the provisions of any Act regulating the powers and duties of justices of the peace for such district, or of the police of such district; and with respect to other parts of Ireland, before a justice or justices of the peace sitting in petty sessions, subject and according to the provisions of 'The Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851,' and any Act amending the same."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 20 (Certificate of analyst primâ facie evidence for the prosecution. Analyst to be produced if required. Defendant and his wife may be examined) agreed to.
  Clause 21 (Power to justices to have articles of food and drugs analysed).
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he had a very important Amendment to move in this clause, on which he had a great deal to say; but at that late hour—a quarter to 1—the matter was too important to be discussed. He therefore moved that the Chairman report Progress.
  Motion agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

SECURITY OF THE PERSON BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the further security of the persons of Her Majesty's subjects from personal violence, said, it was evident that some further provision was necessary for dealing with cases of brutal assault. With that view he proposed, in some measure, to extend the power given to magistrates with regard to binding over persons guilty of aggravated assaults to keep the peace. It was also proposed to do something in the direction of flogging by giving the power of flogging to Courts of Oyer and Terminer in cases of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm, if such intent should be found by a jury, and in cases of aggravated assault on women and children, but the number of lashes was to be reduced from 50 to 25.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman must be prepared to expect a determined opposition to that part of the Bill which proposed to inflict the torture of flogging.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill for the further security of the persons of Her Majesty's subjects from personal violence, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary CROSS, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, and Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 155.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.