Sitting of 1 August 1876

MINUTES.
Supply—considered in Committee—Civil Service Estimates.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Expiring Laws Continuance* [281].
First Reading—Waste Lands and Peasants Dwellings (Ireland)* [280].
Referred to Select Committee—Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Artizans and Labourers Dwellings* [260].
Considered as amended—Pollution of Rivers [276].
Third Reading—Bishopric of Truro* [185]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Bingley, &c.)* [255]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Chelmsford, &c.)* [256], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

POOR LAW—BATH BOARD OF GUARDIANS.—QUESTION.
DR. LUSHasked the President of the Local Government Board, If the scheme lately adopted by the Bath Board of Guardians with reference to the salary and duties of the workhouse medical officer has been submitted to him; and, if that portion of it by which the duties of supplying wine and brandy to the sick pauper inmates for an annual sum of £30 is imposed upon the medical officer (the recent annual cost having been stated to be £70) has received his approval?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,in reply, said, that the portion of the scheme to which the hon. Member referred had not received his approval; and that since it was submitted to the Local Government Board, he had received information from the Guardians to the effect that they had rescinded that part of the scheme.

ARMY MEDICAL REPORTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Why copies of the last (the 16th) volume of the Army Medical Reports have not been presented to the Army Medical Officers; whether it has not hitherto been the invariable practice to supply the said Reports on publication to the Army Medical Officers; and, whether there is any, and, if so, what reason for a change in the practice heretofore observed?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that the supply of these Reports had been stopped on the suggestion of the Army Medical Controller. Copies were now sent to all the general hospital stations, where they would be preserved for consultation.

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE.—QUESTION.
MR. SMYTH (for General SIR GEORGE BALFOUR)asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, under 23 and 24 Vic. c. 51, the penalty

255
of £20 for default for non-rendering Returns of Rates, Taxes, Tolls, and Dues, and Accounts of the Expenditure has ever been enforced against the various authorities, Corporations, Boards, Inspectors, and others who have neglected to render their accounts; and, whether, in future Abstracts of Local Rates, &c. required by that Act to be laid before Parliament, a list of all defaulting authorities will be published, with a statement of the penalties enforced?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, the penalty had never been enforced since the duty of collection was transferred to the Local Government office four years ago. A threat of legal proceedings had always been sufficient to secure a Return.

FIJI—THE EPIDEMIC.—QUESTIONS.
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he has concurred in the opinion expressed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in a letter to the Admiralty dated December 3, 1875, as to the share of the responsibility of the captain and medical officer of H.M.S. "Dido" for the introduction of measles into the Fijian Islands, and the consequent loss of life in those Islands; and, if so, what course has been taken by the Admiralty with reference to those officers?
MR. HUNT, in reply, said, his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies had stated, in the letter referred to, that he was unable to arrive at any decided conclusion as to the proportion in which the blame for the grave neglect incurred in this lamentable affair should be divided as between the naval and the colonial officers, though he could not admit that the captain and medical officer of the Dido had cleared themselves of the charge of having failed to give the fullest notice by the ordinary means of warning of the fact that there was an outbreak of measles on board the vessel. His noble Friend then went on to say that it the was an unfortunate omission not to fly the yellow flag while the ship was in the harbour. With regard to the share of the responsibility, he could not concur with his noble Friend. He was of opinion that the greater portion of the responsibility rested upon the colonial authorities. In reference to flying the
256
yellow flag, that was not required by the regulations, when a vessel with measles on board came into a home port, unless there was a special Order in Council that the yellow flag should be hoisted. Nor was it required in a foreign port, unless the quarantine regulations prescribed it. He was not aware that there were any such regulations in Fiji. Directly the Dido came into harbour she was boarded by Mr. Layard, the Administrator. The captain was on the watch for him, and informed him, as he came up to the ship's side, that the doctor wished to see him. The Administrator went down into the cabin, and the doctor informed him that there were measles on board. So that the captain and the doctor took steps to inform the colonial authorities of that fact; but, unfortunately, none of the parties concerned seemed to be aware of the serious nature of the disease when imported fresh among the Natives. The Admiralty had informed the doctor and captain that they disapproved of their conduct in not having treated the matter more seriously. The disease was treated on board as merely a child's disease. No proper precautions were taken to prevent its communication with the shore, and the consequence was a lamentable loss of life among the Natives of the Fiji Islands. The mischief seemed to have arisen in a great degree from ignorance rather than inattention or neglect; and therefore the Board had not thought it their duty to take more serious notice of the case than by the letter which had been written to the parties.
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, referring to the difference of opinion between the First Lord and the Colonial Secretary, asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would lay on the Table any communications he made on the subject to the officers of the Dido?
MR. HUNT said, he had no objection to lay on the Table certain Papers relating to the subject.

THE KEYNSHAM CASE.—QUESTION.
MR. W. E. FORSTERasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, If he can inform the House what is the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown with respect to the Keynsham case?
VISCOUNT SANDON:We have referred the question of the right hon. Gentleman, as to the legality of the action of the Department in this case, as he desired, to the Law Officers of the Crown, and they report that the Education Department, in refusing an annual grant to the Keynsham British School, have not acted illegally. But as doubts have been raised respecting the propriety of the action we have taken, without a special provision in the Code to that effect, the Government is of opinion that the Education Department, in administering the Parliamentary grant, ought to be distinctly empowered to exercise its discretion in order to prevent the multiplication of unnecessary schools, with a view to secure both economy and efficiency, especially in cases where a locality has already, at the bidding of the Department, put itself to the expense of providing the necessary school accommodation. We propose, therefore, to follow the precedent of the provision already made in the Scotch Code (Article 7. B);and we shall lay upon the Table of both Houses a Minute, which, in accordance with the rule which Section 98 of the Act of 1870 lays down with regard to school board districts, will secure that the practice of the Education Department shall be made uniform throughout the country in the case of schools where annual grants have not previously been made.
MR. W. E. FORSTER inquired, whether the noble Lord would have any objection to lay on the Table the Copy of the case sent tithe Law Officers of the Crown, and of their opinion upon it? With regard to the proposed Minute, he supposed that if it were laid on the Table now it would have no legal power unless the House continued to sit for another month.
VISCOUNT SANDONdeclined to produce a Copy of the Opinion of the Law Officers, because to do so would be contrary to custom. He was aware that the Minute could not become law till after it had been on the Table a month.

SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

EDUCATION—TEACHERS OF PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERrose to call the attention of the House to the alteration made this year in the Education Code, by which young, untrained teachers of Public Elementary Schools were enabled to obtain a certificate without examination. He could not very well have objected to the Code earlier, because it was laid on the Table only 10 days before it came into operation, instead of a month, as required by the Act. When the Act of 1870 was passed, it was foreseen that there would be a great demand for teachers, and arrangements were made that teachers above 35 years of age, of good character, and who had been teaching for 10 years, should be admitted to a third class certificate. Many men and women, who were very good teachers, could hardly at that age be expected to submit to an examination, and a concession was made in favour of admitting such persons to the third class. This concession was looked upon at the time with great doubt. The noble Lord (Viscount Sandon) in 1874 made a further concession. He admitted males at 35 and females at 30 to the third class. He (MR. W. E. Forster) had not objected to that alteration. But a further extension was made by the code of this year, by which teachers of 25 years of age, who had worked for five years, were admitted to the third class, and became certificated teachers. His principal objection to the change was that it would strike serious blow at the certificate system. The supply of teachers now was much more satisfactory than it was in 1870, and certainly did not, as had been stated, fall short of the demand. There was one certificated teacher to every 83 children, and a prospect of a still greater supply. The increase of assistant teachers was 96 per cent. The great source of supply of teachers was the pupil-teachers. These had increased 127 per cent. The principle of payment by results was open to the abuse of cramming in the hands of incompetent teachers, and the certificate system was their only security against that abuse. There could be no doubt that, as a general rule, the same results would be attained more satisfactorily by

  259
  trained and certificated teachers than by teachers obtaining their certificates in this way. He hoped, at all events, care would be taken to guard against the temptation to conduct large schools by two or more of this class of teachers instead of by duly certificated teachers with a proper staff of pupil-teachers. Assuming that the change was designed to meet the necessities of poor schools, he confessed he would rather have met them by a direct grant.
  VISCOUNT SANDONadmitted the importance of allowing the Code to lie on the Table for a month before it came into operation, and reminded the right hon. Gentleman that this year he had said he would not object to any opposition of which Notice was given within a month of the time that the Code was issued. The position in the Code of these third class teachers was only a temporary one, and would be re-considered in 1879. The Department was here in only following a precedent set by the Marquess of Ripon for the sake of the teachers, but now followed for the sake of the schools and scholars. Whatever might be the figures with regard to the supply of teachers, the Department were practically face to face with the fact that persons often advertised for teachers, and that no teachers were forthcoming; and, as more hamlet schools were coming forward for the Government grant a still greater want of teachers was likely to be felt. He fully admitted that it was undesirable to strike a blow at the certificated teachers, and he had always said that the key to educational progress was our having an adequate supply of thoroughly efficient teachers. The question was whether these teachers were fit for the work or not, and it was to be remembered that they would only teach in very small schools. He had been told by Her Majesty's Inspectors that they knew of better teachers for this purpose than the certificated teachers, and they would come in under this rule. The question of their efficiency would be entirely in the hands of Her Majesty's Inspectors, who would have to certify that the teachers were efficient, and the whole question of what class of teachers should be admitted rested with the Inspectors. It was the decided wish of the Department—and of this the Inspectors were fully aware—that no teachers should be admitted
  260
  for these third class certificates unless they were thoroughly efficient. No doubt the certificated teachers complained of the rule as an invasion of their privileges, and he had received representations from them to this effect. He could not admit the principle upon which these representations were founded. The certificated teachers had received a very large amount of State aid as pupil-teachers and in Training Colleges, and when they had obtained the certificate the male teachers earned £80 a-year and the women £60 a-year. He could by no means admit that these teachers had anything in the nature of a vested right which entitled them to shut out others from the profession. The Department were bound to look at the matter from the point of view of the schools and the scholars, of course taking care that no injustice was done to the teachers. The new rule was adopted with a view to a distinct emergency, and the Inspectors would take very good care not to admit persons who were not thoroughly up to their work. It was, moreover, intended to confine the new third class certificates to the teachers in schools of less than 60 scholars.

  SUPPLY.—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.—VOTE 1.—PUBLIC EDUCATION.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £1,107,055, to complete the sum for Public Education in England and Wales.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, that hon. Members had heard so much about education this Session that he would not trespass upon the time of the Committee by going into the general question of education. He had, in fact, on bringing in the Education Bill, given a review of the condition of education in this country. He would, therefore, only trouble the House with a few figures in order to explain the Vote. The Committee would see that the Education Estimate for England for 1876–7—namely, the year ending April, 1877—was £158,492 in excess of that for 1875–6. The Vote for the present year was £1,707,055, while that for last year was £1,548,563. With regard to the

  261
  cause of the excess, the real increase had been in the annual grants to day and evening schools, which amounted to £166,976. On the other hand, there had been a decrease in the building grants of £24,000, and these grants, he was happy to say, were very rapidly coming to an end. There had been an important increase in the number of Her Majesty's Inspectors; but he was certain the Committee would share the satisfaction he felt at provision having been made for 15 additional Inspectors and 15 Inspectors' assistants. It was important that the inspection of our schools should be well done, and the country now possessed a very remarkable staff of Inspectors—men of great intellectual power and high capacity. He was most anxious that the character of the Inspectors should be kept up, and that there should be a sufficient number, so that they might not hurry over their inspection, and might give the schools the benefit of their oversight and experience. He was also anxious that in all cases, if possible, a second visit in the year should be paid to each school. This visit was made without notice, so that the Inspector might see the school in its normal state, and it was to be regarded as a visit of encouragement, and not undertaken for the purpose of routing out irregularities. The teachers themselves highly appreciated this second visit in the year, because it enabled them to talk over matters with the Inspector, and the increase in the number of Inspectors would enable many more of these second visits to be paid. The grants were estimated to be paid upon 2,071,997 children, being 109,000 more than last year, or 5·5 per cent increase above last year. The rate of grant for 1875–6 was 12 s. 9d. per head; the estimated grant for 1876–7 was 13 s. 8d., being an increase of 11 d., which would accrue partly from general progress and partly from changes in the Code. The Committee might feel interested in knowing the rate of progress—During the five years up to the 31st of August, 1870, the scholars' register had increased 36·5 per cent, or 453,000, while for the five years up to August 31, 1875, it had increased 62 per cent, or 1,051,000. This was a very satisfactory increase so far as the register went. He now came to the average attendance—For the five years ending August 31,1870, the average
  262
  attendance had increased 35·9 per cent, or 304,000, while for the five years up to August 31, 1875, it had increased 59·4 per cent, or 684,000. The ratio of average attendance to the numbers on the register was in 1870 68·06 per cent; in 1875 it was 66·9 per cent, being a decrease in 1875 of 1·16 per cent. That was accounted for by the number of rough children who were swept into the schools by the action of the school boards. The number of day schools inspected for annual grants was in 1870 8,279; in 1875, 13,217, being an increase in five years of 4,938 schools, while the increase in the five years preceding 1870 was only 1,912. That was certainly a very satisfactory result. There were now 17,323 voluntary schools, being an increase of 966 over last year, and they afforded accommodation for over 2,772,000 children, being an increase of 145,000 over last year. Of board schools they had 1,922, being an increase of 663 over last year, and they afforded accommodation for 387,000 children, being an increase over last year of 141,000. Altogether the general advance was as much as they could possibly hope for, and he trusted that next year they would have a still greater advance to show. With respect to teachers, they had now got 20,940, being an increase of 2,226 as compared with last year, and the pupil-teachers numbered 29,940, being an increase of 2,636. With respect to evening schools, he regretted to say there was a slight falling off in their number. He could not account for the decrease in schools to which personally he attached very great importance, more especially as he had hoped by a relaxation of the number of days they were obliged to be open, and allowing another class of teachers to come in, to secure an increase in their number. He assured the Committee that he would watch the matter with anxiety, and he trusted they would have a better account to give in the coming year. The work, he thought, was now in a satisfactory position, and by keeping everyone up to the mark—teachers, Inspectors, and scholars—he hoped that each year would show increasingly good results. In conclusion, he would be happy to answer any questions that might be asked of him.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) £226,673, to complete the sum for the Science and Art Department.
  In reply to MR. BERESFORD HOPE,
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, that it was proposed to remove some of the temporary bindings at South Kensington and to erect buildings which would cost about £80,000, thus enabling them to provide an Art Library and Art Reading Room.
  Vote agreed, to.
  (3.) £80,447, to complete the sum for the British Museum (including Furniture, &c).
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, it had hitherto been customary for one of the Trustees of the Museum to move the Vote, which had always appeared in a separate item on the Estimates, and in the absence of his right hon. Colleague (MR. Walpole) he wished to call the attention of the Committee to one or two points. There was a long-standing grievance on the part of the officials of the British Museum which had now been under consideration since the year 1836. In that year a Resolution was passed by the Trustees to the effect that the salaries of the officers were miserably inadequate for the remuneration of eminent men, and in 1859 a statement was made that it was necessary to increase the number of attendants, and the number had been increased three-fold. Everything had been increased but the amount of remuneration. In 1873 a sub-committee of finance was appointed by the Trustees, and the result was the recommendation of an immediate increase in the amount of the salaries. The Lords of the Treasury, however, stated that they did not feel justified in acceding to the increase recommended. Since that time an inquiry into the subject, amongst others, had been made by the Civil Service Commissioners, who stated that the salaries of the staff appointed were very small in comparison with the importance of the work performed, and that such a scale of remuneration ought to be fixed as would attract the services of men of eminence. Up to the present time, however, nothing had been done, and he trusted that this year would be the last of the existence of such a scandal.
  LORD ELCHOcomplained that the salaries of the officials in the British Museum had not been increased during
  264
  the last 40 years, notwithstanding the fact that the work had increased considerably, and that the necessary expenditure of persons engaged in the occupation had been largely enhanced. He hoped that before the Estimate for next year was laid before Parliament, the matter would be carefully considered by the Treasury, in the interest alike of the individuals concerned, of art, and of the British Museum.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEexpressed his regret that he had not been able to arrive in sufficient time to move the Vote. He observed that when the Report was made by the Commissioners of which the right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (MR. Lyon Playfair) was Chairman, the Treasury in the case of the British Museum reserved to itself the power of considering in what way the officers and assistants in that institution should be appointed and paid under the new regulations. It was represented to the Treasury that the Museum officers ought not to be paid in the same way as the clerks in other Departments, seeing that special qualifications of a peculiar character would necessarily be required for such officers and assistants. The Trustees recommended that an inquiry should be instituted by the Treasury officers, and that they should meet some of the officers of the British Museum to consider the question of the salaries to be awarded to the Staff, and if that inquiry were instituted he hoped that it would be completed during the autumn. He did not think there were any special circumstances to which it was necessary for him to call the attention of the Committee, except to state that in consequence of certain complaints of the delay which sometimes took place in the production of books. The Trustees had caused new arrangements to be made which would prevent such delays in future. The average time for the delivery of books did not now exceed 20 minutes.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, that after the strong expression of opinion in the House last year he was certainly disappointed that the matter remained in the same unsatisfactory state. Another strong point was the difference between the salaries of those gentlemen and gentlemen in other Departments. The country wanted the very best men that

  265
  could be had for the British Museum, and the present scale of salaries was certainly very low.
  LORD ELCHOexpressed a hope that some effectual means would be taken to make the Museum fire-proof.
  MR. WHITWELLwould be glad if the Secretary to the Treasury could give the Committee some assurance as to the salaries of the officials.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that any advance which would be made in the salaries of those officials would be of a discriminating character. The Treasury were at perfect accord with the Trustees on the subject. The Treasury desired to do justice to gentlemen than whom there was probably not a more able or better qualified staff in the world for the duties they discharged; but the Treasury were also conscious of the responsibility which rested upon them not to give greater salaries than the just claims of the officers might entitle them to receive. A most careful inquiry would be made into the claims of those gentlemen, the work they undertook, and the duties they performed, and it was proposed to adjust the salaries according to the information thus collected and submitted to the Treasury. The Trustees would appoint a Committee of their own Body to meet one or two gentlemen from the Treasury, and the whole case would be judged according to its merits.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £1,400, to complete the sum for the National Portrait Gallery.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPE, as one of the Trustees, begged to express their sense of obligation to the Treasury for having granted them so much additional room. That additional room would be ample for the collection for many years to come. The new galleries were very good in many respects, but they were frightfully combustible. They were only shanties, having the faces of whited sepulchres, and though the Trustees would do their best not to burn the collections down, they were looking forward with confidence to the time when they would not be haunted any longer by a perpetual apprehension.
  Vote agreed to.
  (5.) £7,610, to complete the sum for the University of London.
  (6.) £288,227, to complete the sum for Public Education in Scotland.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, the Education Estimates for Scotland up to April, 1877, were £438,227, or an excess of £81,817 over the Vote of last year, which was £356,410. That increase was principally caused by the increase of the annual grants to day and evening schools, which represented £44,723. There was also an increase in the building grants of £32,000, but these, he hoped, would soon come to an end, because, as hon. Gentlemen knew, there was a good deal of building to do before the supply was satisfactory. The increase in the average attendance was so far satisfactory, as it was 40,000 over the previous year—an encouraging result of the labours in Scotland in the cause of education. The Department had been happy to get two additional Inspectors and five additional assistant Inspectors. From that addition it was hoped there would be a considerable advantage to the schools. Grants were estimated, to be paid for 346,842 children, or 22,000 more than last year, an increase of 6·8 per cent. The rate of grant per child for 1875–6 was 13 s. 1d.; it was estimated for 1876–7 at 14 s. 6d., which he thought was encouraging, as showing that the Scotch schools were doing their very best to earn the Government grant, and also as telling a story of considerable intellectual advance over the previous year. He was sorry, for the sake of England, to see that the Scotch children, by their exertions, were able to get larger aid from the Treasury than English children. As to the rate of progress, in the three years up to August 31, 1872, the scholars on the register increased 17 per cent, or 38,800; in the three years up to August 31, 1875, they increased 50·8 per cent, or 135,600. The average attendance up to August 31, 1872, had increased 17·3 per cent, or 31,500; up to August, 1875, it had increased 42·2 per cent, or 90,000. In 1872, out of every 100 on the register, 79·9 were in average attendance; in 1875 only 75·3 were. That decreased percentage, of course, was to be accounted for by the extra pressure all over Scotland which had driven into the schools a number of unruly and unwilling children; but that would mend itself as time went on, and he did not think it should make them uneasy.

  267
  There was quite sufficient to show that there was a great deal of educational zeal still in Scotland, and he hoped it would not slacken. We were very much indebted to those who took the lead in Scotland; and by improving the standard and by the increased number of Inspectors, every year would, he hoped, bring us nearer to the conclusion of the great work in Scotland as well as in England—namely, getting the children into the schools, having them well taught there, and sending them out into the world better able to fight the battle of life.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, he would point out that the provisions of the Elementary Education Bill which was before the House were in some respects more favourable to poor districts in England than were the corresponding provisions which were contained in the Education Code for Scotland, and he would ask the noble Lord whether there was any intention on his part to make the provisions of the Scottish Code equally favourable to the poor districts in Scotland as they were proposed to be made in regard to school districts in England? There could be no question that in many districts of Scotland the poverty was more intense than that to be found in any district of England; and he therefore trusted that the noble Lord might be willing to intimate that he would-be prepared in the course of next Session to make the provisions as regarded poor districts as favourable to the people of Scotland as the provisions of the Elementary Education Bill were to the people of England.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that he approved of what his hon. Friend said about the desirability of placing the two countries on terms of perfect equality; but he (MR. M'Laren) objected to wait for another year. He wanted to have it done this year, and he had therefore given Notice of a clause to be proposed on the Report of the English Education Bill, to the effect that Clause 47 of that Bill should be extended to Scotland so as to allow the children to earn 17 s. 1d., and small parishes to obtain all the pecuniary benefits which similar parishes in England would enjoy under the Bill. The noble Lord had stated that the children in Scotland earned 13 s. 1d. last year, and that he estimated they would earn 14 s. 6d. during the next
  268
  year; but he had put down the English children to earn 17 s. 6d., and he (MR. M'Laren) must object to the question of equal treatment to Scotland being postponed for another year.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEobserved, that he was not in the House when the noble Lord made his statement, and therefore he did not know how far the noble Lord had taken notice of the points referred to by the Board of Education in Scotland. He was happy to be able to bear his testimony, so far as his experience went, to the generally satisfactory working of the school board, system; but there were two or three points in which the Act passed for Scotland might with advantage be amended. There were matters connected with the election of the school boards which were capable of improvement. There should be a means of gradual change. He trusted that the Government had the subject under their consideration, and that the Lord Advocate would be prepared to bring in a Bill next Session.
  SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYwished to ask his noble Friend the Vice President whether he could give the Committee any information as to the cost of the late school board elections throughout the whole of Scotland? He believed that the first school board elections cost the country £28,000, and it seemed to him that a great deal of this money was thrown away. He hoped that they might find that the elections had not cost near so much on the last occasion. Perhaps the noble Lord would be able to give them some information on that point. He cordially concurred with what had fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke). He (Sir Graham Montgomery) thought that the time had come when they might profitably have an amendment of the Scotch Education Act. The English Education Act was being amended in the present Session, and he thought that there were many important points in which the Scotch Education Act might also be amended. He would be glad to know if it was the intention of the Government to deal with that matter next Session?
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, that with regard to what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Falkirk (MR. Ramsay) stated as to putting the two Codes on

  269
  the same footing, he need hardly assure him that when the matter was settled he would take care that Scotland was placed upon the same footing as England. It was obvious that in the matter of grants the two countries should run in the same groove. Of course, the hon. Member was aware that the proposals of the Government Education Bill would not come into operation until next April, so that there would be ample time to put into the Codes any provisions that were necessary to effect the object that he had in view. The hon. Baronet the Member for Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke) had alluded to the cost of school buildings in the small Scotch places. The Government had endeavoured since they had been in office to diminish, if possible, the cost of school buildings in some of those places by trying to adapt their plans in concert with hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House to the peculiar requirements of these remote districts. He did not know that they could do much more in that direction; but of course any suggestion which the hon. Baronet might make on the subject would receive their attention. As to the teachers, they had shown in the Code that they quite appreciated the difficulty of a supply of teachers for the poor districts, and provided that they were thoroughly good schools, they had made some relaxation in that direction. He might say as to the question which had been raised by his hon. Friend near him (Sir Graham Montgomery), in regard to the cost of school board elections, that he did not know at present what had been the cost of the Scotch elections. He did not think that he had any figures that would show it. He had no doubt that in time they would be able to get these figures, and they would then be at the service of the House.
  Vote agreed to.

  (7.) £4,207, to complete the sum for the Board of Education for Scotland.

  (8.) £13,754, to complete the sum for Universities, &c, Scotland.

  (9.) £1,500, to complete the sum for the National Gallery, &c., Scotland.

  (10.) £420,949, to complete the sum for Public Education, Ireland.

  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in rising to move the Vote, said, that the
  270
  details of the present year's Estimates did not differ much from those of last year. There was an increase in the Estimate of £12,810for principal and assistant teachers, due mainly to the expansion of the system of assistant teachers, and to increased expenditure in the way of results for teaching. There was also an increase of £8,000 for paid monitors, which he thought would not be grudged by the Committee, these monitors being very useful in schools where the average attendance was just below the number which was necessary to obtain assistant teachers. There was another increase of £1,000 by way of retiring annuities to teachers. On the other hand, there were certain reductions in the Estimates as compared with last year. There was a reduction of £5,000 owing to the relinquishment of school farms. The subject had been carefully considered, and it was found that those school farms had been worked at considerable annual loss to the country, and that education in agriculture could practically be given equally well in other schools at comparatively little cost. It had therefore been decided to relinquish a certain number of these school farms. There was also a decrease of £5,000 in the amount voted for books and school apparatus, owing to the prices charged to parents for these articles having been raised, so as more nearly to cover the cost of their production. Under the head of Teachers' Residences there was a decrease of £4,250 as compared with the Supplementary Estimate of last year (£5,000), representing a moiety of the annuities payable for loans advanced for the erection of teachers' non-vested residences. The Estimate of £5,000 for grants towards the erection of residences for teachers of vested schools had been transferred to the Vote for the Board of Works. Attention had been already called this Session by the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) to the failure of the Act of last Session to improve the position of teachers in non-contributory Unions. Although their position was not worse, but was upon the whole slightly better than in the previous year, still he could not say that there had been any material improvement in it. It was suggested that the Act of 1875 might be made compulsory, on the basis of a limited national rate; but it was evident that this would

  271
  meet with so much opposition that even if the Government had thought it right make such a proposal, it could not have become law during the present Session. He had, therefore, undertaken to endeavour, as far as possible, to meet the difficulty without any recourse to legislation. The subject, he was bound to say, had been discussed by those who had spoken as representatives of the teachers, in a spirit which he did not think was likely to conduce to a settlement of the question. A considerable number of Irish Unions declined to avail themselves of the Act of 1875, and in those Unions the teachers were not in receipt of the contingent result fees. The question was, how to place them in the same position as their brethren in the contributory Unions without departing from the principle of the Act of 1875. He saw no mode in which it could be done, except by placing the managers of those schools in the same position as the Guardians of contributory Unions, and accepting voluntary payments by the managers in place of payment from the rates by the Guardians of contributory Unions. If managers of schools did not avail themselves of this proposal it would not be for want of ability to do so, for there were few places in the present circumstances of Ireland in which the managers of schools might not, if they chose, raise so small a sum as was required for this purpose. If these proposals were not accepted, and many Unions, as was very possible, became non-contributory before next spring, it might be necessary for the Government to propose that the National School Teachers Act of 1875 should be made compulsory on the basis of a limited national rate. Had the amount of £60,000 required by the Act of 1875 been universally voted by the Unions the position of the teachers, receiving £180,000 by way of results besides a considerable sum in addition to their salaries, would have been satisfactory, and so far as Parliament was concerned the national teachers of Ireland would have had no fairgrounds for application for increased payments from national funds. The subject of pensions had been for some time under consideration; it was surrounded with difficulties, and it must be considered with reference to the position and claims of teachers in England and Scotland. Teachers in Ireland were not Civil
  272
  Servants; they were appointed by the managers, and they were subject to dismissal by the managers at three months' notice. The teachers were prepared to submit to very small percentage deductions from their incomes in order to provide a superannuation fund, and yet their expectations of pensions were extremely high, including retirement on full pay at 55 and corresponding advantages at younger ages, which went far beyond the system of pensions enjoyed by Civil Servants. These expectations rendered it less possible than ever to make any proposal to Parliament on what must, in any event, be a very difficult subject. If the Act of 1875 were put in force throughout Ireland the teachers, so far as their incomes from Government were concerned, would have been in a satisfactory position; but he was bound to say that they had a fair claim to an increase of income from other resources. It appeared from the accounts of the National Board of Education that the total income of the teaching staff from all sources in the year had been £571,648 18 s. 11 d. Of this amount 19·7 per cent was locally provided, and 80·3 per cent was derived from funds placed at the disposal of the Commissioners by the State. These figures showed that if there was any deficiency in the incomes of the teachers, it was not due to Parliament, but to the failure of local contributions as compared with those of England and Scotland. That deficiency was not contemplated in the original theory of Irish Education. The late Lord Derby, in his well-known letter, laid down the principle that the National Board of Education before making grants were invariably to require that local funds should be raised, and that they were to refuse all applications in which a salary for the master was not locally provided. That rule had not been carried into effect, while the proportion of State aid had gradually increased until it now formed the main portion of the income of the Irish teachers. The Royal Commission on Primary Education in Ireland in 1870 recommended that the school fees of all children should either be paid for by themselves or out of local rates. In the rules of the National Board of Education it was laid down that before aid was granted the Commissioners were to be satisfied that some

  273
  provision, was made for the payment of the teacher's salary. So far as theory was concerned, it had always been supposed that the State payments were not to be in lieu of local contributions, but in aid of them. The practice had, however, been in the contrary direction, and there was now no rule which secured the payment of any definite amount from local sources or school fees. That was not a satisfactory condition of things. Looking back at the past state of Ireland, there might formerly have been sufficient reasons for not insisting upon a larger proportion of local aid. Circumstances had, however, greatly changed. The National system had spread throughout Ireland, and, in the opinion of the Government, the time had come when a definite effort should be made to secure that those locally interested should bear a certain share of the cost of Irish education. We could not expect the same amount of voluntary local contributions from Ireland as from England and Scotland, nor did he think it possible to require from the managers of an Irish school the same expenditure as in other parts of the Kingdom. The time had, however, come, for insisting on the payment of proper school fees. In the last Report of the Commissioners of National Education a statement was given of the average annual payment per pupil in the schools in various Irish counties, and the difference was somewhat remarkable. In the county of Cavan the average sum paid per pupil for the year was 2s. 6¾d., including subscriptions and local payments, while the sum paid in school fees was only 1s. 7½d. Was that a fair payment by pupils? Again, in Longford, 1s. 3¼d. was the average amount in school fees, and 10¾d. the average local contribution. And in Leitrim the amount of fees per scholar was 1s. 1d., and the local subscription 10¾d. An effort should be made to change this system, and the Government proposed to make an early communication to the Commissioners with regard to the payment of school fees by pupils in 1877. An increase of school fees would add to the income of teachers, but it would, he hoped, exercise a still better effect upon parents and the pupils themselves. There was at present a great discrepancy between the number of children on the rolls and the average attendance, and
  274
  there was reason to believe that this was due to an opinion on the part of the parents that the education for which they paid nothing could not be worth very much. And although an increase in the school fees might cause at first a considerable decrease in the number on the rolls, yet it was probable it would produce very little effect upon the average attendance, and might even increase it. It should be required of the manager of every school to find a certain proportion of the cost of the school from local sources, and that proportion should be not less a sum than would be produced by an annual payment of 1d. per week for each child. There were many cases of parents, principally in Ulster, who willingly paid a higher fee, but he thought 1d. ought to be the minimum; and if the manager declined to require that fee, then he should find the necessary contribution from some other source. He did not say that there could be no exception made to this rule. There were outlying districts so poor that they could not expect even this fee to be paid, as might be the case in the Western Islands; but the exception should in no case be made without local inquiry and the issuing of a special Minute by the National Education Board, showing the grounds upon which it was made; for it ought to be very rare. With respect to the payment of contingent result fees, his proposition, briefly stated, was this. The Government were willing so far to modify the operation of the National School Teachers Act of last year in favour of the teachers, as to allow for this year the payment of those fees to the teachers of schools in. non-contributory Unions where a sum was provided from any source by the managers of the school, amounting to not less than would be produced by a fee of 1d. per week per child, and equal to that which would have been voted by the Guardians for the benefit of such school if they had agreed to become contributory under the National School Teachers Act—in a word, they would accept a local contribution bonâ fide provided from any source in lieu of that from the rates. He might be told that the effect of the enforced payment of a minimum fee of 1d. per week would be to close a great many schools. He did not think such would be the case. For his part, he believed that it would do as much

  275
  to improve the condition of education in Ireland and the feeling of the people as to their responsibility towards their children as anything which had been attempted for the advancement of Irish education since the foundation of the system. The change ought doubtless to be worked with care and prudence and with the desire to avoid inflicting hardships; and if it were he had no doubt that it would be of the utmost benefit to all concerned—parents, children, and teachers. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Vote.
  MR. MELDONsaid, the course pursued by the Government had materially injured the teachers ever since 1874, and had also injuriously affected education. Many of the teachers were very much worse off than they were before the Government interfered. Attention had been called to these facts in the month of March last, and now they were at the end of the Session treated to a general disquisition instead of a practical plan for redressing what was a real grievance. As to a national rate for national purposes, the teachers had not expressed any opinion as to the source whence the funds should be drawn; but they did claim that as the Government had put them in a worse position than they were two years ago, they had a right to look to the Government for compensation. He hoped the Chief Secretary would explain his plan rather more fully as to the contributions.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he proposed that the Government should accept contributions from the managers, or any one locally interested in a school.
  MR. MELDONobserved, that he understood that if the managers subscribed one-third the Government would then subscribe two-thirds. That might at first sight be a fair arrangement; but the case of Ireland was very different from that of England, because the Roman Catholics had been in many cases compelled to erect training schools for themselves, and a large proportion of the schools were entirely supported by voluntary contributions, without any aid whatever from the Government, yet at the same time the teachers were not liable to be dismissed by the managers, but were in fact the servants of the
  276
  National Board of Education. On the subject of pensions to teachers, he could not help thinking that scant justice had been done. Some little time back a deputation of Irish national school teachers waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ask his favourable consideration of the whole subject of pensions to be granted to members of their body; but the Government had chosen to regard the representations made to them as a demand for more than could possibly be given, and had, therefore, declined to make any proposal on the subject. As to the question of residences, he gave the right hon. Gentleman credit for having redeemed his pledge, but he wished to see a further alteration of the rules with the view of conferring greater benefit on the teachers. He urged that no grants should be made to schools unless proper residences were provided, residences being, in his point of view, as important as school buildings. Another point in connection with the system of education was, he was informed, the abolition of the Roman Catholic Secretary to the Board of Education. That was a distinct breach of faith. The Roman Catholic Secretary of the Board was appointed because Roman Catholic managers could communicate more freely with that officer than with the Protestant Secretary, whose salary was now to be increased in consequence of the abolition of the other office. He wished also to observe that last year the Reports of Inspectors of National Education had been omitted from the Blue Book furnished to Members. In previous years the Reports were given, and as these afforded the only means by which hon. Gentlemen could judge of the efficiency of the teaching staffs, he hoped that next year these Reports would be printed, as they had been heretofore.
  THE O'CONOR DONgave his most hearty approval to the scheme of the right hon. Baronet to accept local contributions from any source in lieu of rates. There was no better way to improve education in Ireland than to exact certain payments from the parents, as thus they would be taught to value education more. If not only the school fees, but the amount of the Government grant, depended on the attendance of the children, the teachers would be induced to exert themselves, and before

  277
  long we should find not only that there would be greater regularity of attendance, but that the number of children in attendance would be increased. On the whole, the statement of the right hon. Baronet was one which should commend itself to the approval of Irish Members, and his only regret was that it had been made so late in the Session, because he believed, if made earlier, it would have given general satisfaction. He hoped there was no intention to abolish the Commissioners' second secretary ship in Dublin. He did not think it would be justifiable to keep up a larger number of officers than there was work for them to do, and he would not justify the retention of the two secretaries merely on the ground of religion; but the work of the Department was increasing every year, and the number of schools was being largely added to, and he believed two secretaries were required.
  MR. ERRINGTONfelt grateful to the Chief Secretary for the statement he had made, and for the proposals he had placed before the Committee. Very much depended on raising the salaries and positions of the masters, and the improvement would depend on the manner in which these changes were to be made. The principles that ought to be followed were those raised by the right hon. Baronet—namely, payment by results fees and local contributions. He hoped, as was proposed in the Bill of last year, that the workhouse teachers would be allowed to share in the benefits of the results fees system.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORDwas sorry the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (MR. Butt) was not in his place, because the Motion in his name would have raised the question whether the Board system or the denominational system was best. The right hon. Baronet, he thought, was rather feeling for denominational education, because if schools were supported by local contributions it would lead to a denominational system eventually. He himself was decidedly for denominational education. He had been lately in Ceylon, where Roman Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, and Mahomedans had each schools of their own, and he went over them with the Governor, Sir William Gregory, who expressed great satisfaction with the working of the system.
  278
  He did not believe in the religious difficulty. He had no doubt that the Buddhist, the Mahomedan, the Protestant, and the Roman Catholic would all in the end go to the same "happy hunting-ground" if they did what they believed to be right.
  Dr. WARDexpressed his opinion that the national system in Ireland had been an entire failure.
  MR. M. BROOKSsuggested that if compulsory payment was enforced it should be fixed at as low a rate as possible, because of the general poverty of the parents, many of whom could not afford to pay 1d. a-week.
  CAPTAIN NOLANthought the plans proposed would press rather hardly; would scarcely remove the evils complained of, and would raise the salaries very little. He accepted the principle of a national rate for the support of education in Ireland. Indeed, that was one of the first things that he would vote for had the Irish the control of their own affairs; but he insisted upon this, that a majority of the Irish Members should settle what the national system of education should be. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would state whether he regarded the provision of residences as local contributions.
  MR. GIBSONhoped the Government would direct their attention to the system of local inspection before the commencement of the next Session. The duties of the Inspectors were most arduous and important. They were men of great ability, but were labouring under great disadvantages as compared with the Inspectors in England, whose salaries exceeded theirs by hundreds a-year. He thought as the duties of the Inspectors in both countries greatly resembled each other, there ought to be something like similarity in their position.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYentirely concurred in the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, and said he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take the matter into consideration.
  THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, that in his opinion a compulsory national rate, provided it were moderate in amount and not liable to vary, would not be unpopular with Boards of Guardians in Ireland. The cause of its unpopularity was that it was uneven in its pressure.

  279
  and that there seemed to be no possibility of fixing a limit to it.
  MR. M'CARTHYagreed with, the hon. Member for Dublin (MR. Brooks) that some provision should be made for remitting some portion of the fees required from parents with large families.
  MR. SWANSTONthought the Chief Secretary had gone the right way to work to stimulate national education in Ireland, because parents took a greater interest in the education of their children when they had to contribute something towards it.
  MR. MELDONcomplained of the disparity between the numbers of Catholic and Protestant Inspectors, and urged that teachers should be relieved from the enforcement of the payment of fees—a duty which made them unpopular, and which ought to be undertaken by the managers. He also desired to know whether it was the intention to abolish one of the secretaryships, and to appoint an assistant secretary, who would discharge the duties at a much lower salary?
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYcontended that as the Roman Catholics were in a majority in Ireland they should, of course, have the majority of the official appointments, but beyond that they ought not to go, for it would be undoing all the heroic measures of the right hon. Member for Greenwich (MR. Gladstone), by which he thought that the question of a man's religion in these matters had been settled once and for ever.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, the proposal of the hon. Member for Kildare (MR. Meldon) that the system of lending money for the building of teachers' residences to the managers of non-vested schools should be applied also to vested schools had been suggested to him a short time ago by the teachers. He thought it a matter well deserving of consideration, and hoped that next Session he might be able to propose the necessary change in the law. The manager, and not the teacher, would be responsible for the collection of the school fees, and precautions would be taken that the teacher should receive from the manager the proper amount of fees, according to the number of pupils. The reason the Reports of the Inspectors had not been included this year in the annual Report
  280
  of the Commissioners was that it had been decided, mainly on considerations of expense, to publish the Inspectors' Reports trienially instead of annually. The arrangement proposed by the Treasury respecting the Secretaryships to the Board was simply that the senior Secretary should retire and the junior Secretary become senior Secretary; that another officer should be appointed as Junior Secretary and Accountant, and the office of accountant be abolished. The position of the Inspectors of Irish national schools had been materially improved within the last two years, and any fair claim they might have in the future for any increase of salary would at the proper time receive due consideration. He thanked the Committee for the reception which they had given the proposal as to the enforcement of school fees.
  CAPTAIN NOLANobjected to the principle of making school managers responsible for the collection of school pence. The effect would be that clergymen who had two or three schools under their control would every year be let in for about £30 worth of bad debts, in addition to the cost of collection.
  MR. MELDONcomplained that a sum of £2,500 a-year had been spent in Post Office orders for the payment of the salaries of the teachers.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the reason for this charge was that the system pursued in Ireland was different from that in England. In Ireland the Commissioners paid the salaries direct; but in England and Scotland the payments were made by grants to the managers of the schools, and were not given as salaries, but simply as the contribution of the State towards the total cost of the schools. He should cause inquiry to be made as to whether any other system than that of Post Office orders could be adopted by which the payment of the salaries with equal regularity would be secured.
  Vote agreed to.

  (11.) £430, to complete the sum for the Commissioners of Education (Endowed Schools), Ireland.

  (12.) £1,739, to complete the sum for the National Gallery, Ireland.

  (13.) £1,731, to complete the sum for the Royal Irish Academy.

  (14.) £3,587, to complete the sum for the Queen's University, Ireland.

  (15.) £8,822, to complete the sum for the Queen's Colleges, Ireland.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

POLLUTION OF RIVERS BILL.
(Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Salt.)
[BILL 186.] CONSIDERATION.
Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."—(Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
MR. LYON PLAYFAIR:I have placed an Amendment against proceeding with this Bill, because it has such important bearings to the public, that it ought to be brought on at reasonable hours, when the public can learn what we are doing in regard to it. That hitherto has not been the case. It was brought on for a second reading at 1 o'clock one morning and then was not discussed, for all the speaking was, as to whether we should then proceed with it. But on the assurances that ample opportunity would be given for its discussion on going into Committee we allowed the second reading to be taken. Nevertheless, the Committee came upon us by surprise on Saturday morning, again at 1 o'clock, when several of those most interested in the Bill were absent. So far as the public were concerned, the only information which they received, through the newspapers, was that the Bill had passed two stages. The Bill originally was not a strong one. Two Commissions and a Select Committee of the Lords had inquired into the Pollution of Rivers, and had given full recommendations as to the course of legislation. Very few of these are embodied in this Bill. Still the Bill, as introduced, tried to deal in a simple way with certain kinds of pollution. It prohibited solid refuse from being thrown into rivers; it dealt with sewage pollutions: and, in a vague sort of way, it treated of pollutions caused by manufactories and mines. It was very tender to past sinners, but future sinners it did not tolerate. Pollution generally was not considered an offence, if the old polluters had used the best practicable and available means to render their
282
polluting liquids harmless. Prosecutions were not to be undertaken, except with the consent of the Local Government Board, and every possible precaution was taken to protect the interests of manufacturers, while the interests of the public were very subordinate even in the eyes of the framers of the first Bill. But now the Bill is so altered that public interests seemed to have vanished altogether in the background, and the interests of the manufacturers are pushed into prominence in every clause of the Bill. Manufacturers are now ardent supporters of the Bill, and well they may be. In Scotland, at least, it interprets the law entirely in their favour. Our common-law was intolerant of pollution, and thought the interests of the public were of more importance than the interests of polluters. But this Bill, in the whole of its spirit, tells the Scotch Judges that they have been mistaken in their view of the law, and that they must always consider the interests of polluters, if engaged in mines or manufactures, as of more importance than the interests of the public. Take, for example, the 8th clause, which forbids even the Local Government Board to give consent to proceedings under the Act, if it will inflict injury on the interests of any manufacturing industry. In the first edition that prohibition was not there at all, then in the second edition the Bill threw its mantle of protection over the textile industries, and now by the third edition the Local Government Board is to protect all industries whatever against the public rights to have rivers free from pollution. No wonder that manufacturers highly approve this Bill of the President of the Local Government Board, and urge that it should be passed with a singular unanimity. Every operative clause in the Bill has thus had its force taken out of it as a means of protecting manufacturing interests against the assaults of public prosecution. But a Bill against pollution was not required at all in the interests of manufacturers, though it was much desired in the interests of the public. And for these interests, at least so far as Scotland is concerned, the Bill had far better not have been brought in. It does, in England, better the law as regards solid refuse and sewage, but for polluting liquids of mines and manufactories it is worth very little. I object

283
also to the Bill because it immensely increases central as against local authority. The powers of the Local Government Inspectors are marvellous. There is no security given in the Bill that the Inspector need be a qualified man, and yet he is to be the sole judge whether a town, village, or manufactory may pollute rivers, for he may give a certificate that they may continue to pollute streams for five years more. He may declare that an old manufactory has no practicable means for preventing pollution, and yet a new manufactory must do what it is said to be impossible, according to the Inspector's judgment, for the old manufactory to perform. The Bill, as a whole, is so little in the interests of the public and so vastly in the interests of polluters, that I see little advantage in passing it. And it so greatly increases central power that I think it is a dangerous encroachment on our principles of local government. But I know how useless it is to divide the House against a Bill at this stage of its progress, and at this period of the Session; and having thus delivered my protest against it, and my refusal to accept it as any efficient measure for preventing the pollution of rivers, I do not intend to trouble the House by taking a division on the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was quite wrong in supposing that anything that fell from him did not deserve, and would not receive the attention of the House. At the same time, the right hon. Member would be saving time if he had gone into Committee and moved his Amendments. The difficulties of the question were immense, and the enormous capital at stake was not to be lightly dealt with. It was true that the Scotch Members supported the Bill; but it was only just to them to say that their support was given before any of the alterations said to be so particularly favourable to manufacturers as against the public had been made in its clauses. He hoped that in the future a good deal of the centralization complained of would be removed. He agreed that it was desirable that the administration of the Bill should be placed in the hands of the local authorities; but if it was proposed to do so at first there would be a great outcry against it. As to the third part of the
284
Bill which the right hon. Gentleman complained of, all he could say was that the clause to which he referred was but an amplification of language which already stood in the Bill. He denied that the Amendments introduced through his agency would have the effect of destroying the original intention of the Bill.
COLONEL MUREremarked, that although no Bill had ever been so much condemned, there had not been a single Amendment placed on the Paper except by manufacturers. If the interests of the public were so much concerned, surely some one would have announced an Amendment. In the interests of the public as wells the proprietors he was anxious to see the question settled. It was because other Scotch Members were in their places, and the right hon. Member for Edinburgh University was not, that he had not an opportunity of discussing the Bill on the occasion in question.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEthought some explanation ought to have been given of the introduction the other day in the House of Lords of a Suspensory Bill which would have the effect of preventing any pollutions for the ensuing year. He thought a case had been made out for not passing the Bill this Session. He moved that the debate be now adjourned.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
MR. M'LARENtrusted the House would proceed with the Bill, as nine-tenths of the public, in addition to the manufacturers, were in favour of the measure.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTexpressed a hope that the hon. Member for Chelsea would not press his Motion. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Lyon Play-fair) did not persevere with his Amendment, not liking to take the responsibility of doing so. What the House ought to consider was whether the Bill was not better than nothing. He recognized the force of what the President of the Local Government Board said the other night—that it was a great thing to get the framework of the Bill.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed, to.
Bill considered.
Clause (Application of this Act to Ireland,)—(MR. Gibson,)—added.
Amendments made.
Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 13, to leave out the words "at a reasonable cost."—(Mr. Lyon Playfair.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
Debate arising.
And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Debate was adjourned till this day.
The House suspended its sitting at five minutes to Seven of the clock.
The House resumed its sitting at Nine of the clock.

IRISH POLITICAL PRISONERS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERrose to call the attention of the House to the subject of the Irish political prisoners; and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the time has come when Her Majesty's gracious pardon may be advantageously extended to the prisoners, whether convicted before the civil tribunals or by courts martial, who are and have been for many years undergoing punishment for offences arising out of insurrectionary movements connected with Ireland."
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present—
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER continued: The subject of the Resolution had engaged the attention of many Members of the House since the opening of the Session, and he was only endeavouring to fulfil an expectation which was general in submitting forth consideration of the House the Motion which he had read. The terms of the Motion were substantially the same as those forming the declaration in favour of amnesty to the Irish political prisoners, which had received the signatures of 136 Members of the House, excluding the names of the hon. and learned Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Waddy), and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Briggs), who claimed to have signed, the declaration under a misconception. With respect to the
  286
  different classes of the prisoners whose liberation he advocated, he had from the first contended that all those mentioned in the Return furnished by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Home Department should be regarded as political prisoners. Of the 18 prisoners whose names were in the Home Secretary's Return three had been liberated by the expiration of their terms of imprisonment; and while during the existence of the present Ministry not one political prisoner had been released by the clemency of the Crown, no less than six had been rescued from the penal settlement of Western Australia in defiance of the Crown. There were, however, nine prisoners still in custody. He reminded the House of this affair of the rescue, because to his mind it afforded conclusive proof that the penal settlement in question was not the pleasant abode which the Prime Minister had represented it to be. If it was, he could not imagine why those six men should have risked their lives to escape from it. He had given the number of political prisoners as nine, but there were three others whose cases might come under the same category, the offences of which they were convicted having undoubtedly arisen out of the insurrectionary movement in Ireland. The attention of the Government had been repeatedly drawn to the case of Michael Davitt; but it had been urged against his release that there must have been some aggravating circumstances in his case, because the Judge sentenced him to 15 years' penal servitude while awarding only seven years to Wilson, who was tried for the same offence at the same time. He did not find in the report of the trial any circumstances but those which ought to create for Davitt the greatest possible sympathy. The testimony of a perjured informer named Corydon was accepted against him, but an English jury could hardly have been acquainted with the character of that infamous witness, or they would have hesitated before convicting any one on his evidence. The convictions of the political prisoners generally were obtained by similar evidence and by a system of disgraceful jury packing, which, he rejoiced to say, Lord O'Hagan's Act would render impossible, or at least very difficult, in future. It would scarcely be credited that a police officer was sent down from

  287
  Dublin Castle to Clonmel for the purpose of entrapping the young men of the locality, and inducing them to join the conspiracy; but it was, nevertheless, the fact, which was brought to light in the progress of the trials. The modus operandi of this official was almost too disgusting for recital. His name was Talbot. He was a member of the Protestant Church, but while engaged in the nominal duties of a water bailiff in Clonmel no one was more conspicuous in attendance at Mass on the Sunday morning. He simulated Catholicism to the extent of partaking of the Communion at the altar, thus crowning his hypocrisy by an act of unblushing sacrilege. Having thus wormed himself into the confidence of the peasantry, he succeeded in persuading them to join the conspiracy. Then he denounced them to the Government, and finally turned up against them to swear away their liberties or their lives. It was with the aid of creatures like this sacrilegious and perjured wretch, Talbot, that Irish patriots were made felons and innocent victims of tyranny and misgovernment. With reference to Davitt, it was right to remind the House again that the Judge before whom he was tried bore testimony to the uprightness of character which he exhibited during the progress of the trial. Davitt offered to bear, in addition to his own sentence, the punishment which was to be awarded to an associate of his, whom he declared to be perfectly innocent; but he (Mr. O'Connor Power) trusted that when the question of the release of those prisoners came again for consideration before the Cabinet, Davitt's action in that respect would not be regarded as an aggravating circumstance, which should justify his further imprisonment. Besides Davitt, there were still in prison two of the men who were convicted of having been concerned in the rescue of Colonel Kelly and Captain Deasy, or the shooting of Serjeant Brett, at Manchester, and six soldiers convicted of various breaches of the Articles of War were still in custody. Now, with respect to these Manchester men, he denied that they were guilty of murder. They did not take life. They did not attempt to take life. They did not even contemplate the taking of life. The truth was that at a time of panic a technical point of law was strained against them, and a terrified Manchester jury
  288
  sacrificed them to political prejudice and national excitement. He asked for the release of those prisoners, because the law had been more than sufficiently vindicated—three Irishmen had perished on the scaffold, one more Irishman had died in prison, and six other Irishmen had undergone five years of penal servitude each. He submitted that further punishment would not increase respect for the law, but rather produce the belief that there was a vindictive spirit in its administration. With reference to the soldiers, some of whom had been in prison for the last 10 years, he went at some length into their cases last year. He showed how they were but a portion of the rank and file of the Confederacy—detained, although their leaders were some years ago set at liberty. They believed that the obligations of patriotism were more binding than the obligations of a military oath, and they did what some of the great historical characters whom England delighted to honour had done before under similar circumstances—they disregarded their oaths, and entered what they believed to be the service of their country, determined to sacrifice their lives, if necessary, in her emancipation. They might denounce their conduct as illegal and revolutionary, but there was nothing sordid or mean about it. It was conduct such as they were accustomed to applaud in foreign countries, and which they regarded as courageous, magnanimous, and disinterested everywhere but in Ireland. A Commission had recommended a separation between political and other prisoners in regard to their treatment; but that recommendation had not been adopted by the Government. The hon. Member then read the letters which had passed between himself and the Home Secretary on the subject of his request for permission to visit the Fenian prisoners in our convict prisons. From this correspondence it appeared that on the 22nd of May last the hon. Gentleman applied for an order to visit the prisoners, and on the 26th received a reply refusing him the order because a full inquiry had been made in 1871 by a Government Commission into the treatment of the prisoners, and also because no good reason was shown why their treatment should now be investigated by a Member of the House of Commons. On the 1st of June he renewed his re-

  289
  quest to the Home Secretary, stating the grounds on which the Report of the Commission in question had, in his opinion, failed to give satisfaction to the public and to those most interested in the matter; and on the 10th he received another refusal, accompanied by the remark that if the prisoners themselves desired to see him they might do so at the regular times. In the last letter he received from the right hon. Gentleman, if it was meant to be a reply to his own letter, that letter, he should think, had never been seen by him, since it contained no sort of answer to his request for a private interview with the prisoners. He asked that of the right hon. Gentleman, because if anyone wished to know anything of the treatment to which a prisoner was subject, he might as well hold a conversation with the man in the moon for anything he could learn from a prisoner at an ordinary interview in a prison. The rules of the prisons forbad any conversation in relation to his treatment in prison. He argued that the conduct of England towards her political prisoners was without parallel in any civilized nation. He asked on what ground of justice or even State policy the Irish political prisoners were treated like the most desperate felons? In America the proclaimed amnesty had produced a universal feeling of loyalty towards the great Republic; and in France Marshal M'Mahon had pardoned 200 Communists, while those who were detained in prison were not treated as ordinary prisoners. If the "integrity of the Empire" required that those prisoners should remain for some time longer in prison—which he did not at all admit—surely some relaxation might be made of the punishment inflicted upon them. If they were victims of English policy, English policy did not require that they should be tortured to death. They were honest, disinterested, and brave men, and every hour of their incarceration now, after all they had suffered, must bring disgrace and discredit on the English name. He had been so often indebted to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government for the indulgence with which he had treated him that he should say no more, but conclude.
  MR. KENELM DIGBY, in seconding the Resolution, hoped that the House
  290
  would assent to the liberation of these nine political prisoners. He wished especially to refer to the case of one of them—James Condon—who was an American citizen, whose father was dying of a broken heart, and in whose favour Petitions had been sent to our Government from the Senate and Congress of the United States of America, from Chief Justice Chase, from General Sherman, and from the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cincinnati, all praying that Her Majesty's gracious clemency might be extended towards him. Chief Justice Chase did not question the decision of the jury in his case, but thought that the time had come when, the majesty of the law having been fully vindicated, the prisoner might be released. He might remark that it had been proved in evidence that the prisoner had had no deadly weapon in his hand; yet, having been originally condemned to death, his sentence had been commuted to penal servitude for life. The other prisoners who had been arrested as bystanders had got off with much less severe punishments, it being the misfortune of this man that he had been among the first batch tried, and, therefore, had come in for the heavier share of punishment. He believed that in seconding this Resolution he was only echoing the wish of the people of Ireland, who wished to appeal to the clemency of Her Majesty and of the House. Seeing what these men had undergone, he did not think that any man could wish to make political capital out of their case. Doubtless there were a few, a very few, persons who endeavoured to make a trade of the agitation; but that was not the feeling of the Irish people generally. Wherever there was a public meeting in Ireland bands and processions in favour of an amnesty to the political prisoners were met with. All Irish Members who sat in that House firmly believed that there was no possibility of a recurrence of such a foolish and senseless outbreak as that in which these men had taken part; and they hoped and prayed that by this wise act of clemency one of the last causes of disaffection in Ireland would be removed, and they were sure that the thanks of the whole Irish nation would be received in return for it.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the time has come when Her Majesty's gracious

  291
  pardon may be advantageously extended to the prisoners, whether convicted before the civil tribunals or by courts martial, who are and have been for many years undergoing punishment for offences arising out of insurrectionary movements connected with Ireland."—(Mr. O'Connor Power.)
  GENERAL SHUTE: was somewhat sorry to be led into this debate, because it was never pleasant to oppose those who were the advocates of mercy. He regretted that the civilians who had been punished for the part they had taken in the Fenian outbreak had ever been designated as political prisoners, of which title they were proud. His own opinion was that they had been misled, and he thought it hard on the taxpayers of the country that they should have to feed and clothe and house, as convicts, a number of miserable, despicable men, who ought to be treated in a more economical manner. If they had been simply whipped like children, and at the cart's, tail, in the market-places of their respective towns, they would never have been heard of again. With regard to the military offenders, they could not be regarded as political prisoners. They were perjured traitors to their Crown and country; they had disgraced the Army to which they had belonged, and if any Government were weak enough to release them, it would be most prejudicial to military discipline. Soldiers could never be regarded as "political prisoners." It was the pride of the British Army that, as an Army, they had no politics, and were ready to support the Government of the day, whether led by the present Prime Minister, or even by the hon. and learned Gentleman who commanded the left flank of Opposition (Mr. Butt). He had acted as President of the General Court Martial which tried some of these Fenian prisoners; but his hon. Friends opposite must not suppose that he was in any way prejudiced. On the contrary, he had a letter in his possession from the legal adviser of the prisoners, and who defended them on their trials, complimenting him upon the manner in which the Court was conducted. As a Cavalry officer he had commanded two Irish regiments, and felt sure that the Queen had no more loyal soldiers, and had reason to be proud of her Irish soldiers. He had no prejudices, national or religious, and though he hoped he was a good member of the Church of England himself, he agreed entirely with the spirit
  292
  of the lines, though he did not know who wrote them—
  "For forms of faith let angry bigots fight,
  He can't be wrong whose life is in the right!"
  He opposed the release of these prisoners from no unkindly feeling, but because he believed that to pardon these men would be to subvert military discipline and make our Army a less safe one than it had hitherto been.
  MR. J. COWENsaid, he had not intended to take any part in the discussion, but the extraordinary and heartless speech they had just heard from the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (General Shut) demanded some reply from an English Member. It was not sufficient that the only protest against his almost brutal expressions should come from Irish Representatives. He supported the Resolution of his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo, not so much out of consideration for the prisoners whose cause he so ably pleaded, as out of regard to what he considered to be the honour and interests of England. While he sympathized sincerely with these unfortunate men in their prolonged imprisonment, it was only right for them to recollect, as the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton had so pointedly reminded them, that the men whose ease they were considering were members of the Fenian society; that the aim of that organization was to promote the dismemberment of the United Kingdom; and that they sought to achieve their object by force of arms. When these men committed themselves to that enterprise they knew—or at least they ought to have known—that they imperilled their property, their liberty, and their lives. If they had been successful, they would have been hailed by their adherents as heroes. If they had failed, they would have been treated by their enemies as outlaws. A hundred years ago George Washington led an insurrection against British rule, and was successful. Shortly after Robert Emmett attempted to do for Ireland what Washington had done for the United States, but he failed. Emmett was as able a man as Washington, and, in all the moral qualities that went to make up a noble native, the Irish leader was the equal, if not the superior, of the American. Yet the world for the last century had described Washington as a

  293
  patriot, and "sung his praise in song and story." It had described Emmett as a traitor. The English Government strangled him, and his remains still lay in an "unnamed and unhonoured grave." In the popular regard shown to these two men, they saw the way in which the world treated successful and unsuccessful treason. The Fenians must have known the terrible risks they ran when they lent themselves to the daring project of making Ireland an independent State. Any argument, therefore, founded merely upon personal consideration for the men, he could easily conceive the Government would treat with indifference. But strong and, to his mind, irresistible reasons, could be found, arising out of British considerations alone, why these poor men should be released. It was a settled principle with all modern and civilized Governments that when the excitement occasioned by insurrectionary movements had subsided, generous consideration should be extended to the parties who had engaged in them. All European Governments had acknowledged that such a course of action was judicious. The late Administration admitted the soundness of that policy when they released in two batches, some years ago, the bulk of the Fenian prisoners. But the manner in which they made this partial amnesty was somewhat extraordinary. They freed the captains and the officers of the Fenian Association, and they retained the private soldiers. He considered this course not only unwise but unfair. He did not know that such was the case, but it was easy to conceive that some of the men who were now in prison were victims, and some dupes. Under any circumstances, if there were to be degrees of punishment, the men who had fomented, fostered, and directed the insurrection, were clearly greater offenders than those who had been simply followers. He knew that the ground on which this strange apportionment of guilt was fixed was that the men who were released were civilians, and those who were retained soldiers. It was alleged that soldiers were under exceptional bonds to be loyal to the nation and the Crown—it was said that military men took a special oath, and that the breach of that oath ought to entail upon them special punishment. He denied entirely that an ordinary citizen was
  294
  under less obligation to be loyal and orderly than a soldier. But admitting, for argument's sake, that the position of the Government in this matter was correct, he begged to call their attention to the fact that if these military men were exceptionally guilty, they had been exceptionally punished. The most of the Fenian prisoners were arrested in 1865–6–7. In 1869, and again in 1870, the civilian prisoners were released. The soldiers had thus really been double the length of time in penal servitude. If the contention of the Government was that these men, in consequence of their connection with the Army, should have a special and severe punishment, that end had been attained by their being confined twice as long as their brother insurgents. But, he repeated, he did not admit that soldiers were under any special bond as to their loyalty; and he challenged the Government, or any hon. Gentleman on the opposite side, to show that in any instance in this country soldiers were treated differently by the Government when found guilty of being connected with political risings. No one would contend that a soldier was under a stronger oath than a Member of Parliament, and yet Mr. Smith O'Brien came to that Table, took the oath as a Member of the House of Commons, went back to Ireland, and attempted to do identically the same thing as the Fenians had done. He was arrested, tried, found guilty, and transported; yet he was not treated more severely than his brother exiles, the late Mr. Martin, Mr. Mitchel, Mr. M'Manus, and others, who were not members of that Assembly. Last year his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo had referred to the case of the Duke of Marlborough, who one week was in the pay and service of King James, and the next was in the camp and under the orders of the Prince of Orange. He would not, however, cite individual instances, but he appealed to hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House if it was not a fact that from the battle of Edgehill to the battle of Culloden there were not scores, but hundreds of men, who at different times took the oath of allegiance to the Stuarts, to the Puritans, to the partizans of the Rebellion of 1688, and to the Hanoverians; and that those oaths when broken did not bring upon those who had taken

  295
  them any special punishment in consequence of the persons being connected with the Army. Indeed, the very opposite was the practice, and soldiers were treated with more consideration than civilians. Then they had the case of the present President of the French Republic. That antique specimen of Royalist chivalry, the Count de Chambord, had declared that Marshal MacMahon was a modern Bayard, "without fear and without reproach." Yet it was notorious that this same soldier had taken the oath of allegiance to every known dynasty in France, and broken them all in turn. He had been Legitimist, Orleanist, Bonapartist, and Republican in succession, and yet he was recognized, and justly, as one of the most trusted Rulers in Europe. But he would not enumerate personal instances, nor would he go back 100 years to find illustrations. He would quote a case that came down to the present day, to the present Parliament, and to the present Government. He asked the special attention of the Home Secretary to the facts he was going to recite. In 1831 an insurrection took place in Poland. The Polish patriots attempted to do for their country what the Fenians attempted to do for Ireland. The Poles strove to throw off the Russian yoke, as the Fenians strove to disconnect their country with England. A secret political society was formed in Warsaw. Out of that society the insurrection took place. For a time success attended the efforts of the insurgents, but in the end they were compelled to submit to the crushing power of numbers, and—
  "Sarmatia fell, unwept, without a crime."
  After the suppression of the rebellion many of the Poles sought and obtained refuge in France, in Switzerland, and in this country. The French Government voted for their relief £100,000; the Swiss Republic gave them help proportionate to their means; and the English House of Commons, to its credit, on the Motion of the late Lord Dudley Stuart and the present Earl of Harrow by, voted sums of money for the maintenance of the destitute Polish exiles. In the course of three or four years the sum of £87,000 was voted by this country for these men. At first the money was given temporarily. Ultimately it was settled as permanent pensions on the refugees. During the last 42 years
  296
  England, to its honour, had paid no less than £300,000 in aid of the Polish exiles. This year £1,100 was voted for the purpose. What he wished to point out to them was this—Polish refugees, for the most part, were men who had been in the service of Russia, and many of them—the leaders especially—had been Russian soldiers. They had taken the oath of allegiance to the Emperor of Russia in the same way as the Fenian soldiers had taken the oath of allegiance to Queen Victoria. They had broken their oath to the Czar, and had led an insurrection against his authority. He asked how the Government could with any consistency patronize and pension rebellious Russian soldiers, and at the same time punish with such merciless severity a handful of Irish soldiers who had done identically the same things their brother-rebels from Poland? If the Home Secretary could explain the difference of treatment, it was more than he could do. There were two reasons alleged for still detaining these unhappy men in captivity. It was said by some that they were kept in slavery in consequence of the fear that their release would produce a renewal of riotous proceedings in Ireland. This was the reason alleged by the late Prime Minister for not granting a complete amnesty in 1869. He (Mr. Cowen) did not think, however, it could have any force now, as, according to the repeated declarations of the Government, Ireland was at this moment in a state of exceptional peace and prosperity. Surely the British Empire that had recently made such a powerful display of naval force in Besika Bay, could not be frightened by a dozen obscure and unknown Irish soldiers. He dismissed this reason for their detention, therefore, as unworthy of consideration. He knew there was a general—he had almost said universal—belief amongst persons in this country, who sympathized with the amnesty movement, that these men were detained in penal servitude by a power—a Ducal and a military power—that was supposed to exist behind the Government. He did not credit the statement, and he made it simply for the purpose of expressing his disbelief in it. There had been times in the history of this country when Princes, Royal Dukes, and Court favourites had been able to send men into exile, to prison, and to the scaffold, to gratify

  297
  personal dislike or private animosity. That period, however, was past, and he believed that the only persons who were responsible for the retention of these men were Her Majesty's constitutional Advisers—the Government. He had read within these last few days, in a respectable and influential American newspaper, that some of the Ministers had feelings of personal dislike towards Irish politicians, and that their harsh action in this matter was attributed to these vindictive motives. He totally discredited such charges. Whatever might be said of the present Prime Minister, no one could with justice accuse him of cruelty. Indeed, few men in political life had shown so much consideration for his opponents, or had been so little disposed to press heavily upon beaten men. And with respect to the Home Secretary, who had these prisoners under his special charge, he might say with truth that he was a Gentleman who would not consciously set his foot upon a worm. The only real ground why these men were kept in prison was, he had no doubt, because the Government thought that by so doing they might deter others from engaging in such dangerous and hazardous enter-prizes as they had been connected with. In the interests of the State, the Government doubtless considered that a prolonged incarceration was required. While he freely admitted that this was the opinion of the Cabinet, he at the same time entirely dissented from their policy and procedure. Legitimate and moderate punishment acted as a warning and corrective; but when punishment was carried beyond reasonable dimensions it became persecution, and prisoners became martyrs. This was certainly the case with these unfortunate Fenians. The Irish people believed—and he thought justly—that any offence they had committed against the State had been fully expiated, and the longer they remained in penal servitude the stronger and more fervent would become the demand for their release. If the Government wished to conciliate Irish, political feeling, he knew of no course they could take to accomplish that end better than by the release of these poor men. The Irish were a generous, an impulsive, and sympathetic race. He appealed to the Ministers to act mercifully and generously in this sad case, and he felt satisfied that their conces-
  298
  sion would be repaid by increased regard for the Constitution and by added attachment to England. When Hamlet told Polonius to see that the players were well cared for and properly bestowed, the garrulous old courtier replied that he would treat them "according to their desert." The Prince of Denmark exclaimed in answer, "Use every man after his desert, and who shall 'scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity; the less they deserve the more merit there is in your bounty." He commended the political philosophy conveyed in that quotation to the consideration of Her Majesty's Ministers, and he hoped they would be able to see their way to assent to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, the last speaker, when he called these men political prisoners, and treated their offence as a political one, really begged the whole question. If it could be shown that they were political prisoners he should be at one with his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (MR. Cowen); but he had himself a year ago publicly questioned the Prime Minister and Home Secretary on the subject, and had been assured that even then no merely political prisoner was left among them. Two of the prisoners had been connected with the Manchester murder. They were murderers, and were, therefore, not entitled to receive any compassion whatever. Another of the prisoners, a colour-sergeant in his regiment—["Name!"]—he did not remember it just at present, but the fact was well-known, and the name was well-known to those hon. Members who called "Name!" and it was not necessary for him to tell hon. Members that the colour-sergeant was probably one of the most trusted man in the regiment next to the colonel. ["No, no!"] Well, at any rate the colour-sergeant in each company came in on all occasions between the officers and men, and occupied a highly confidential position. This colour-sergeant entered into a conspiracy to deliver up the arms of his regiment and to murder his officers. Men who did such things as these were not entitled to any kind of mercy or compassion. If, however, it could be shown that there was any one who was a political prisoner and nothing more, or who could be shown to be a military prisoner and no-

  299
  thing more, who had been duped by greater knaves than himself, let him off by all means; but when they had men like the three he mentioned to deal with, he said unhesitatingly they were not entitled to any mercy. He understood that all the men who were in the position of political prisoners, and to whom he himself had asked the Prime Minister to extend mercy, had now made their escape from Western Australia; therefore there was no reason for hon. Members to trouble themselves about them. Mercy might well be extended to other prisoners of the same class, if there were any, but not to criminals of the worst type.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYcomplained that the hon. Member for Glasgow had treated this subject in the most aggravating and disagreeable manner, throwing every obstacle in the way of mercy being shown to certain misguided men. The hon. Gentleman said he had in that House appealed to the Prime Minister to release certain classes of persons whom he, in his graciousness, was pleased to dignify with the title of political prisoners. Everyone who knew the circumstances was well aware that when the hon. Member interfered in this question he did so with the express purpose of preventing the action he asked for. The hon. Member brought forward the subject at an inopportune moment against the earnest expostulations and entreaties of those who felt that an appeal to the clemency of the Crown ought to be made on rational grounds, in a Christian spirit, and at a well-chosen moment. The hon. Gentleman chose, however, to intrude himself into this question, and did these men the greatest injury he could inflict on them by an injudicious and insincere advocacy. He would now bring back the attention of the House to the circumstances which had been alluded to that evening by his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo (MR. O'Connor Power). It never entered into the minds of any of the men concerned in the Manchester outrage to murder the policeman Brett in putting a pistol to the lock of the door and endeavouring to force it open. They did not know an individual stood at the back of it. He hoped, in the interests of our common humanity, and especially in the interests of our common kingdom, that
  300
  the right hon. Gentleman would not be too ready to brand with the name of murderers those unhappy persons who were still remaining in prison on account of what was called the Manchester outrage. The real murderers—if they were murderers—had been hanged, and the individuals now in prison only formed part of the crowd, and were identified at the trial by women of bad character. As to the soldiers, he would ask the House what would have become of our liberties if there had not at times been men in the Army who had broken their oaths? He did not, in saying that, wish to excuse the conduct of the men to whom he was referring, for he fully admitted that they ought to have been subjected to a severe penalty for the offence. They had, however, already gone through twice the amount of punishment of others; and he believed there never was an act of mercy done by the Sovereign of these Realms which would redound more to the honour of the Crown than the release of these misguided men. They were tried by a court-martial, and it would be creditable to the officers of that Court if they would come forward and recommend those unhappy men to mercy. In Ireland, at the present moment, there was no subject more interesting to the people than the sufferings of these prisoners. Anyone who wished to speak on the subject would soon be surrounded by a crowd of sympathizers. The same was the case in Australia and America. Seeing that these Fenian prisoners were continually escaping, he asked the Home Secretary whether the time had not come for the extension of Her Majesty's clemency to the nine unfortunate prisoners who still remained in custody?
  MR. CALLAN, although he had not been in favour of having the present Motion brought forward in the absence of the acknowledged and trusted leader of the Irish people, yet was now glad that it had been made, seeing that it had evoked such eloquent support from the chivalrous and high-minded representative of, he believed he might say, the North of England (MR. Cowen). Neither was he sorry that the hon. Member for Glasgow (MR. Anderson), and the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (General Shute), should again have been afforded an opportunity of

  301
  displaying what he might term, if the phrase was not un-Parliamentary, the truculence of their language. It was all very well to speak of these unfortunate men as murderers and conspirators, but they had not brought ruin upon thousands, as those who were engaged in the Emma Mine conspiracy, with which no honourable man would like to have been connected. The hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (General Shute) talked of whipping people at the cart's tail. Well, similar chivalric sentiments were held in former years by another military officer, known as "The Walking Gallows," which now seemed to permeate the mind of the retired General. ["No, no!"] He was sorry he was not retired.
  MAJOR DICKSONrose to Order, and asked if that was a proper way for one hon. Member to speak of another?
  MR. CALLANsaid, if he had said something un-Parliamentary it was in error, but the sentiment in his mind remained the same. The Member for Brighton spoke of these men as a set of traitors.
  GENERAL SHUTErose to make an explanation, but the hon. Member declined to give way.
  MR. SPEAKER:According to the strict rules of debate, the hon. Member in possession of the House is entitled to proceed with his observations until he has concluded. If, at their termination, the hon. and gallant Member desires to offer an explanation, no doubt he will, with the indulgence of the House, be at liberty to do so.
  MR. CALLAN: I would have yielded, but I wished to extend the same courtesy to the Member for Brighton which he wishes to extend to the Irish political prisoners.
  MR. SPEAKER:I must point out out that, according to the ordinary courtesies of debate, Members are spoken of as "hon. Members."
  MR. CALLANsaid, he would, then, in accordance with ordinary courtesy, speak of the hon. Member as an "hon. Member." He thanked the Home Secretary for having allowed him to visit a prisoner who was no more guilty of murder than of putting nuggets into the Emma Mine.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that although certainly the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) used strong
  302
  language, he was not at all certain that it was too strong. These men committed an offence which could not be allowed to pass without condign punishment.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHT:I think such Members as are now present who do not come from Ireland will admit that it is not at all unreasonable that, considering the state of public opinion in Ireland with regard to this question, the hon. Member is fully justified in bringing it before the House; and I think, too, with the exception of a few words that have been uttered, we shall all agree that hon. Gentlemen from Ireland who have addressed the House have done it in a manner and with a feeling entirely befitting the subject which is before the House. I have regretted that on a former occasion when this matter was before us, I did not take the opportunity of saying what I have long thought with regard to the case which is called "The Manchester Outrage." There was in that case one man killed—one man shot—one fatal shot fired, and therefore it may be urged positively that only one man, in a certain sense, was guilty of murder. Three persons were hanged for that murder. I had, living in that neighbourhood, a very painful interview with the relatives of one of the three men who were hanged, and they were not willing to lay the blame upon either of the other two, but they felt very confidently that there were no sufficient grounds for believing that the prisoner in whose fate they were particularly interested was the one who fired the fatal shot. One of the three, I presume, was the guilty person, but the three were hanged. Now, it always appeared to me that the course pursued by the Home Office on that occasion was an unwise one. I am averse to capital punishment, as most Members of the House know; but in a case of this kind I think to hang three men for one fatal shot was a mistake—a mistake according to the order and practice of our law, and a great mistake when we look at it in its political aspect. On the occasion I have alluded to, when representations were made, it was denied that this was strictly a political case, or that any severity was resorted to because it was a political case; but I have always held the opinion that I held then, and hold now, that it was solely because it was a poli-

  303
  tical case, that three men were hanged for the murder of one man. I recollect urging it in this way. If these three men had been out on a poaching expedition, and in the conflict that took place one keeper was killed by one shot, and three men were tried for it, I believe there is no Judge who would have sentenced, and no Home Secretary who would have thought it his duty to advise that these three men should be hanged for the offence. I believe that the three men were hanged because it was a political offence, and not because it was an ordinary murder of one man committed by one man and by one shot. The other day there was a case in my neighbourhood of an outrage committed by persons connected with a trade union in the neighbourhood of Bolton. Unfortunately a man was attacked by a number of his fellow-workmen and was killed. No doubt all who were present and maltreated the man were guilty of an illegal act, but it is difficult to say who it was that was guilty of the offence of destroying that man's life. Three, I think, were convicted, not of murder, but of manslaughter. It was an illegal act, and they were punished by various terms of imprisonment—from, I think, three to 15 years. Unless this was a political offence the evidence of murder was not very much different from the case I am now describing. I believe it was a great mistake. I said it then, and say it now, and I have, I say, always believed that the extremity of the law was put in force against three men, only one of whom—supposing the one who committed the offence was captured—caused the death of the unfortunate and lamented policeman. I would ask the House—I need not ask the hon. Members who come from Ireland, but I would ask those from England—whether they do not think that the punishment inflicted on these men, no one of whom, it is clear, actually fired the shot which killed that policeman, whether the punishment now suffered is not of itself sufficient; and whether the law, having avenged the murder of that man by the public execution of three men, has not been sufficiently satisfied; and whether the sympathies and the justice of the House might not be given with the proposition now before it for any further punishment to be withdrawn? I come
  304
  to the other question—the question of the soldiers. I agree very much with the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (MR. Cowen). Let us consider from what class it is that the great bulk of your private soldiers are taken. Although soldiers take an oath—unhappily in all countries—I believe that is of very little avail. I think the time will come when oaths will be abolished. I believe that nothing has tended so much to destroy a regard for truth as the taking of oaths. A man may say many things when he is not on oath that he will not say when he is upon oath; but then it makes a difference in his mind as to the nature of truth, and I have always held the view that nothing has tended so much to destroy a regard for truth in this country and in all countries, as the constant and frequent imposition of oaths. I do not think, therefore, very much of the soldier's oath. The soldier's oath is not more important than the oath of any other man. To say a man is to be kept in perpetual imprisonment, or something approaching to it, because he breaks an oath is singular when men break oaths every day. I have heard men swear falsely—the House knows—upstairs, and the Committees knew they were swearing falsely. I think in this case too much importance should not be attributed to the fact that these men had taken an oath. You will bear in mind that there was great excitement in Ireland. There are a great number of men who do things during a time of excitement which, in times of no excitement, they would not do, and which afterwards they will regret. There was not only excitement in Ireland, but great excitement amongst the Irish population in the United States, and the excitement in Ireland was fired by the excitement in the United States. Many Irishmen, some native and some born in America, came home to this country, and they stirred up as much excitement as possible. It is within our knowledge that soldiers, like other men, are actuated by feelings and excitement of this nature, and are led into transactions which they afterwards greatly regret. Yet it is not necessary that the Government should year after year, and for many years, continue punishment when punishment seems to be no longer required by the changed condition of the country.

  305
  Many years have passed—I suppose 8 or 10—since this unfortunate event took place, and since that time a good deal has been done for Ireland. There can be no doubt that the material prosperity of that part of the United Kingdom is greater than it ever was at any former period in its history. There is excitement occasionally now, and there is political agitation. Some hon. Members in this House are the representatives of that agitation. Still, we must be glad to find that the agitation no longer takes the character of violence and insurrection, but that of the constitutional action which they have a perfect right to do. I think the House ought to congratulate itself that the time of insurrection and violence—as I hope it is—has passed away in Ireland. The speech, I think, of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Kenelm Digby) was one calculated to have a great effect upon every Member of the House who heard it; and nothing could be more moderate, more reasonable, or more just than the tone in which he appealed to the Government and the House on behalf of the prisoners. It cannot but have had some effect on the right hon. Gentleman at the Home Office. He can have no object in keeping these men as prisoners. No Home Secretary has any personal object in dispensing the law in any way hardly or cruelly to those who happen to come under his notice; but perhaps the Home Office may act upon the policy that with regard to the broken oaths of soldiers mercy is a thing not to be thought of. I disagree with that altogether. I think there is nothing grander in a Monarchy, nothing nobler in a Government than mercy. I must say for myself—I say it as an Englishman, and I am not actuated by violent feeling, which I am sorry to say some persons in Ireland still show in their enthusiasm in favour of these men; but I think that, looking altogether to the number of years since this transaction took place, I am quite certain it would redound to the honour of the Crown, and that it would be a very just act on the part of the present Government if the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues could see their way to advise the Crown in favour of the liberation of these prisoners. I cannot think that such an act would be without its effect in Ireland. The Irish people are very different from all other
  306
  people if they would not be favourably influenced by a merciful consideration of this case. I think the way in which it has been discussed to-night—the unanimity of the Irish Members, the certainty we have that in speaking as they do they represent the vast majority of the people of Ireland, have vindicated their right to bring this question before the House; and I should be extremely glad if the right hon. Gentleman could give them some hope that the Government would consider their ease. If it should be necessary for the House to go to a division, I should feel it my duty to vote for the Motion.
  MR. STACPOOLEsupported the Motion, which he hoped would be adopted as an act of clemency. It would be received by the people of Ireland with gratitude.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright) had alluded to a proceeding in which he (Mr. Hardy)had the misfortune to hear a considerable part. The right hon. Gentleman had thought right to say that the Home Secretary at the time of the Manchester outrage took upon himself to hang three men. Now that seemed to him a most unreasonable and improper statement of the duties of the Home Secretary. That Minister never took upon himself anything in the nature of an execution. His duty was simply to advise the exercise of the prerogative of mercy if he thought there were grounds for it. The force of law was absolute in itself, and he had nothing whatever to do with it. But that was not the only part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement to which he felt it his duty to refer. On the subject of the murder itself the right hon. Gentleman had laid down principles which were of an absolutely dangerous character. It was perfectly true that at Manchester only one man was killed and that three men were hanged, and that some perished who did not fire the shot; but was it to be maintained for a moment in an Assembly of men of sense and judgment that the aiders and abettors in a murder who had gone to a certain place armed and determined to shed blood, rather than forego the object they had in view, were not equally guilty with, the man who actually did the deed? The man who fired the shot in the Manchester outrage might possibly have been the least guilty of those concerned in it. No one

  307
  who had any acquaintance with the proceedings of our criminal Courts could fail to be aware that the actual agent in a crime was often a person employed by the real culprits—a mere instrument in their hands, so to speak; and the right hon. Gentleman certainly seemed to him to be putting forth a most dangerous doctrine when he contended that the persons who on the occasion of the Manchester outrage went about with and used loaded revolvers were absolutely guiltless simply because from no self-constraint on their part, but simply by good fortune, they had escaped shedding blood. Shots were fired which endangered life, and although only one took effect, the persons who that day went out armed and prepared for murder were all in the eye of justice and common sense equally guilty. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he was the advocate of the abolition of capital punishment, and he (Mr. Hardy) thought that had a prejudicial influence upon the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, for he looked at the matter not in the light of law, but in that of sentiment. He (Mr. Hardy) did not say that that was not an honour to him; but a man should not allow himself to be prejudiced so as to go against the law, not only of this country, but of every civilized country, that all those who went to carry out an object at the cost of life were every one guilty. As the Home Secretary at the time referred to, he (Mr. Hardy) felt that to a certain extent the right hon. Gentleman's observations affected him personally. But his opinion then, as now, was that in the case of the men convicted for murder there was no call for his interference. The prerogative of mercy was exercised towards some who were present on that occasion; but with regard to the others, neither the Judges, nor those who were engaged in the trial, had any doubt as to the guilt which attached to each and all of them. It was to be remembered that the crime was characterized by an amount of audacity which was happily uncommon in this country. An armed party went forth with the avowed object of effecting the rescue of a prisoner from custody, and did not hesitate for the accomplishment of their ends to kill an officer against whom personally they entertained no animosity whatever. Had he not allowed the law to take its course in such a case he felt that he should have
  308
  been betraying his duty both to the Crown and to the country. There was another point on which it was necessary to touch. The right hon. Gentleman, with a strong sentimental feeling, said he thought lightly of a soldier's oath. Again, he (Mr. Hardy) had to say that was a most dangerous statement. A soldier's oath had been regarded in all times as of special solemnity and importance. It was quite true they were all bound by allegiance to the Sovereign; but was it to be said that a man who broke a special trust and obligation which he had undertaken was not more guilty than one who had not so bound himself? A Member of that House who broke his sworn allegiance was no doubt in as bad a position as the soldier; but, at the same time, it could not be said that the soldier was in any better position than such a Member would be. In the particular instance mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) there was the greatest possible aggravation of the soldier's offence. He did not believe the case of the soldiers was one which would have been treated differently in any civilized country, except, perhaps, in this respect—that death would have been substituted for imprisonment. Well, the right hon. Gentleman formed part of the late Government. He (Mr. Hardy) did not say that the right hon. Gentleman did not urge upon the Members of that Government the views he had expressed that night. But, at all events, he did not then express those views publicly. In respect to the treatment of these prisoners the late Government did not see fit to take the step which hon. Members on the other side of the House were now advocating; and he could say that the present Government had not followed their example without seeing what they deemed good cause.
  CAPTAIN NOLANdid not understand that the right hon. Member for Birmingham sought to accuse the right hon. Gentleman opposite of being a cruel Home Secretary. The contention of the right hon. Gentleman simply was that the punishment inflicted showed that the crime was regarded as a political and not as an ordinary one. With reference to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (General Shute), he might remark that he was well known as an excellent officer. The hon. and

  309
  gallant Member for Brighton was a strict disciplinarian, and it was not surprising if he was in favour of flogging; but if we were to have a system of short service, under which our soldiers were to be thrown back upon the people and to mix with them, it would be found necessary, as well as politic, for us to be merciful and liberal. It was but a small favour that was now asked of a great country that could afford to be generous. There was no valid reason to be urged why these men should not have mercy extended to them. The people of Ireland were bound to use every legitimate effort to get these men released, and if their appeals for mercy were rejected, could it be expected that they would act generously in time of need? That discussion had shown the supporters of the Motion who were their friends and who were their foes, and the House might rest assured that that question could not pass away from the minds of the Irish constituencies or be without its effect on the Irish vote in the English constituencies until these men had been released. They were bound to use every constitutional means to get them out of prison.
  GENERAL SHUTEexpressed his astonishment at finding himself described by the last speaker as an advocate of flogging. He had always detested corporal punishment, and when he had used the phrase "whipped like a child at the cart's tail," he had only wished to convey to the House that he looked upon Irish insurrections as mere burlesques.
  CAPTAIN NOLANretracted what he had said about the hon. and gallant Gentleman in connection with flogging.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, nobody would advocate forgiveness or leniency to murderers; but although these persons were engaged in an offence which the law technically called murder, the result of the trial was to send those men to penal servitude, instead of subjecting them to capital punishment; and why? because the Judges who tried them did not consider that the offence which they actually committed made them amenable to the punishment for murder. At the present moment Ireland was in a peaceful condition, and there was no reason to expect that any other outbreak would occur. Under these circumstances, if the hon. Member divided the House, he
  310
  should vote in favour of the Resolution..
  MR. MARTENsaid, there was great inconvenience in discussing in that House questions which involved the Prerogative of mercy, and no hon. Member, whether English or Irish, could approach the subject without considerable difficulty. A great portion of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman (MR. Bright), was not addressed directly to the particular question now before them; for it was directed rather against the infliction of capital punishment, and against imposing oaths for judicial or military purposes. The discussion, also, as to those who suffered capital punishment for the Manchester outrage was not pertinent to the present question. It wasn't the fact that the nine persons who were now in prison were confined as political prisoners. Two were connected with the Manchester outrage, and had been sentenced to death for the crime of murder, but their sentence had been commuted into the punishment they were now undergoing. Five of them had been convicted of military offences under the Articles of War which were of a very grave character. With regard to the observations of the right hon. Member for Birmingham on the subject of the sanctity of an oath, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman would admit that, at all events, an oath was entitled to the same respect as a solemn affirmation. The soldier took upon himself in the most solemn form known to the law an obligation which in this case had been violated, and he was punishable, therefore, under the Mutiny Act, which was passed by that House every year. The other two prisoners had been tried for treason-felony, and therefore it would appear that the majority of the prisoners now in gaol had been tried either for military offences or for crimes ordinarily known to the law, and were therefore in no sense political offenders. He altogether denied that the men who had been convicted of murder had been punished as political offenders. They would in all probability have been punished in the same manner if the outrage of which they were guilty had been one without any political aspect. He was most reluctant to say one word which might seem harsh to hon. Members on the opposite benches; but when a Resolution of this kind was forced upon the

  311
  House, and supported by such speeches as that of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) it was a duty to speak out. The hon. Member had compared Washington and Emmett—the one rebel became a hero, a patriot, who commanded universal admiration; the other died, a political martyr, for the crime of treason. He would remind the hon. Member of the lines—
  "Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
  Why, when it prospers, none dare call it treason."
  Those who disturbed the peace of the country and sought to overthrow the Government must, when they failed, pay the penalty of treason, even although, had they succeeded, they would have occupied a different position. A Resolution of this kind was not, he thought, calculated to benefit the prisoners or to facilitate the exercise of the Prerogative. The grounds on which it had been brought forward were certainly not such as to recommend it to his support, and if pressed to a division he would vote against it.
  DR. WARD said, that the Government were asked to be generous and merciful towards a few unfortunate men who in a sense foolishly had loved their country "not wisely, but too well." Was it wise or politic for the sake of keeping these nine men in prison to keep up a spirit of revolt in Ireland? They had liberated the men who had fostered the Fenian conspiracy, and surely they could not with reason keep in those who had been misled by them. In continuing to punish these persons the Government were guilty of the most impolitic conduct in respect to a people who were disposed to be loyal, but who were prevented being so by the conduct of the Government.
  MR. MELDONcould not accept the doctrine laid down by the Secretary of State for War as to the law in the present case. What was the crime these men committed? There was not a tittle of evidence to show that they went into that crowd with the intention to commit murder. If it had not been for the excitement existing in this country at the time, and in which the Judge and jury shared, he believed that not one of those three men would have been hanged. The people of Ireland felt that these men were martyrs, and in keeping up
  312
  their imprisonment the Government were establishing a nucleus of conspiracy and disorder. He maintained that the law had been amply vindicated; while the release of the Fenian prisoners would do more than any other measure to put an end to agitation, and give satisfaction to Ireland.
  MR. B. WHITWORTH, as an Englishman who had a large interest in the material prosperity of the country, could safely say that the Government would do a great service to that prosperity if they granted the request, which was almost unanimous, of the Irish people. He happened to be one of the jurymen in the case of the Manchester murder. No doubt, a great crime was committed; but he did not think it was a wise thing to have hanged more than the man Allen, who fired the shot. When he (Mr. Whitworth) stood for the borough of Kilkenny some 18 months ago, he was represented as the "Manchester hangman." The Fenian element called a meeting to denounce him; but the bulk of the people of Kilkenny would not listen to what they had to say, thus showing they had no sympathy with Fenians. He was satisfied that mercy might be safely extended to the Fenian prisoners still in confinement. He believed Fenianism was comparatively a dead letter in Ireland, and the only thing that could revive it was a refusal on the part of the Government to adopt a policy of clemency and mercy.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR, IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET)observed, that although Her Majesty's Government were in this matter only pursuing the course marked out by their Predecessors, yet it was not on that ground he desired to defend the conclusion at which they had arrived. The ground on which the release of these prisoners was demanded before the expiration of their sentences was that they were political prisoners; but he was prepared to show that not one of the prisoners now undergoing imprisonment came under that category. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion (Mr. Kenelm Digby) did not put his case on that ground, but contended that, now that all excitement and danger had passed away, the time had come when the Government might safely act as those who preceded them had done. But the late Government had arrived at the same

  313
  conclusion with reference to the very same men. The individuals now in prison were the same as those who were not released, and on the ground that they were not political prisoners. He need not trouble the House at any length in reference to the history of the men whose release was sought by the present Motion. They were eight in number; five were soldiers, all of whom were convicted not of treason-felony or of treasonable offences, but of breaches of the Articles of War. M'Carthy was convicted because, having knowledge of a mutiny, he did not give information of it to his commanding officer. The next two were convicted of mutinous conduct and desertion, and the others for similar offences. Two of the other prisoners were engaged in the murder of the policeman Brett at Manchester, and, having been condemned to death, were subsequently reprieved and let off with sentences of penal servitude. It must be clear, therefore, that the offences committed by those persons who were released and those who still remained in prison were widely different, and called for different treatment. With regard to the legal argument with regard to the cases of the Manchester murderers, as urged by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), he must observe it was altogether inconsistent with the law of England, that because only one life was lost in a murderous outrage, he only who was party to the actual killing of the man by striking the fatal blow should be punished for it. The only other of the prisoners whose case it was necessary for him particularly to refer to was Davitt, who was convicted of treason-felony for having, in conjunction with another person named Wilson, who had been let out upon licence (in consequence of the evidence against him not being of so damaging a character) supplied arms to the Fenians throughout the country. It was impossible that a deliberate offence of this character could be visited with anything less than severe punishment, especially when it was remembered that it was committed after the great excitement had passed away and the outbreaks had almost come to an end. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), in reply to a Question, had stated on the 25th of July, 1873, that this man could not be regarded as a
  314
  political prisoner. The right hon. Member for Greenwich said—
  "In ordinary convictions for political offences we can positively and confidently say that when once public excitement and hazard have passed away, it may be well to stretch a point on the side of mercy; but we are not able to do so in this case."—[3 Hansard, ccxvii. 998.]
  The contemptible character of an outbreak did not necessarily lessen the gravity of the offence; and the hopelessness of such an enterprize ought to enter into the calculations of a man who deliberately aimed at the overthrow of an established Government. But, however that might be, it was impossible to conceive of a more wanton and reckless proceeding, or one more dangerous to society, than that of a man who, after the excitement which accompanied the Fenian outbreak had passed away, and when there was not the shadow of a hope or a possibility of success, and when even the clemency of the Crown had been asked for and granted to those who had been engaged in a previous attempt of the same kind, had been preparing for a renewal of the outbreak. There were also two unfortunate men now in prison who had been convicted of murder according to the law of the land. In conclusion, he would express his conviction that if the true character of the offences committed by those persons was understood throughout the country he believed that the sympathy felt towards them would take a different direction, and that many who now asked for their release would see that that was not an urgent demand founded either in justice or in policy, and would leave to the Executive Government the function which undoubtedly belonged to it of considering when, if at all, the Prerogative of clemency should be exercised.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHTexplained that he had not called in question the state of the law.
  THE O'CONOR DONpointed out that whatever might be the legal and military technicalities connected with the case of the soldiers in question, they were guilty of exactly the same offence in a political point of view as their civilian fellow-prisoners, and they would never be looked upon by the Irish people as having been sentenced for any other offence but the same political offence for which those very civilians had been pardoned. He did not know whether the hon. Member

  315
  for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) meant to press his Motion to a division; but whether he did or not, he had done good service by bringing the subject before the House and eliciting such an expression of opinion as that which was conveyed in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright). It was now utterly impossible that those men could be detained much longer in prison, and their being set at liberty was only a question of time.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was unwilling that the debate should close without a few words from himself, because he could assure the House, without the slightest reserve, that he always felt the deep responsibility of matters connected with life and death—and he hoped the House would always hesitate to interfere with the individual act of the Minister advising the Crown on such matters. Nothing could be more dangerous to the liberty of the subject than the interference of the House under such circumstances. This was not the case of the responsibility of an individual Minister; it was not the case so much of an individual Government as of many Governments. It was not this Government alone which had refused to take action in this matter; all it had done was to follow the precedent set it by the last Government. One thing he had observed for several years, and he still observed it that night—namely, that in the mind of a great many of the Irish people there was no difference or distinction between those whose sentences had been remitted already and those who still remained in prison, and they did not see any difference between those who had been found guilty of murder and those found guilty of other offences. What alone would content Ireland, it appeared, was the release of the whole of the prisoners. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, let that be clearly understood. It was not the release of one or two prisoners, but it was the release of the whole of them, whether they had been found guilty of murder or any other offence. [MR. Mitchell HENRY: We will take half a slice if we cannot get the whole.] But he (Mr. Assheton Cross) was stating the case of the Irish people. The late Government as well as the present Government had totally denied that there were any political offenders now in prison.
  316
  As regarded the soldiers in prison, although he quite admitted that every citizen of this country was bound by his high allegiance to the service of the Queen and State, yet when a soldier had taken the oath of allegiance he was bound by a higher duty, if he might so say. To allow the soldiers out would imply that other soldiers who were in prison for like offences should also be liberated, and, in the minds of those who had expiated kindred crimes, there would be the feeling that they had been wronged. One observation made in the course of that debate would, he hoped, never again be uttered within those walls. An hon. Gentleman opposite had said it was owing to some Princely influence that these prisoners were not set at liberty. He wished distinctly to assert that he alone was responsible in the matter. And now he would refer to what he must call the Manchester murder. That was not a political offence. If it had been, he should have been the first to advise the Crown to set the men at liberty. The doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bright) was that those men were not guilty of murder, because they did not fire the actual shot. [MR. JOHN BRIGHT, interposing, remarked that he had never said anything of the sort.] He (Mr. Assheton Cross) had understood the right hon. Gentleman blamed his right hon. Friend (Mr. Hardy), who was then Home Secretary, because three men were executed for the murder, although only one of them had fired the shot. That was a doctrine which would not bear examination or the test of common sense.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHTexplained that he had not contested the law at all. What he said was, that if it had not been a political case, or if there had been no political complication connected with it, three men would not have been hanged. In the case of a poaching affray, he was sure that the course of the Home Office had been different, and he used that argument to show that this was really a political case; but he did not contest the law, or the fairness of the trial, or the legality of the sentence, or the legality of what the Home Secretary did.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman blamed his right hon. Friend for having allowed the three men to hanged. The right hon. Gentleman did not question the legality of it,

  317
  because he could not do so; but he blamed the way in which his right hon. Friend had exercised his discretion in the matter. His contention was that if three or more men went out with a common intent to do an unlawful act, with a predetermination to carry out their common purpose at all hazards, even at risk of life, or of a number of lives, although only one might fire the shot, all the others were equally guilty. In the case of the Manchester murder the jury distinctly found that the prisoners had a common intent to effect their unlawful purpose at all hazards, and consequently they were justly found guilty of murder. It was owing to the clemency of the Crown, exercised through the discretion of his right hon. Friend, that the two men now in prison were not executed. He did not understand how it was that those who guided Irish feeling could not point out to the Irish people, that if these men, irrespective of a political offence, did attack the van with murderous intent, they were guilty, in the eye of the law of England, of murder, and must suffer for it. It now only remained for him to allude to the case of Michael Davitt, whose companion Wilson had been discharged from custody, having worked out his sentence in the ordinary course. When he became Home Secretary the case of Davitt caused him considerable anxiety; but on inquiry he found that the difference between the offences of the two prisoners had been carefully considered by the Judge who tried them. The reason why one was sentenced to seven and the other to 15 years' penal servitude was that there was in the mind of Davitt a direct intention of private assassination which could not possibly be referred to the question of a political offence. With reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), he would observe that the treatment of these prisoners was as lenient as that of any other convicts who were in confinement at the present time. The application for permission to visit them was refused because it would interfere with the discipline of the prison, and deprive the prisoners of the visits of those who were entitled to see them at the proper season. If these men were political prisoners they would have been let out, as other political offenders had been let out. As the late Government
  318
  decided, so the present Government had decided, that there was no reason why the prisoners should be set at liberty.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER, after the debate which had taken place, asked leave to withdraw the Motion. ["No!"]
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 117: Majority 66.

  POLLUTION OF RIVERS BILL— [BILL 186.]
  (Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Salt.)
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment [1st August] proposed on Consideration of the Bill, as amended; and which Amendment was, in page 3, line 13, to leave out the words "at a reasonable cost."—(Mr. Lyon Playfair.)
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  Debate resumed.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Another Amendment made.
  Another Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 42, to leave out from the word "locality," to the word "manufacture," in page 4, line 8."—(Mr. Lyon Playfair.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 14, to leave out from the word "proceedings," to the word "offence," in line 16, both inclusive.—(Mr. Serjeant Simon.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Other Amendments made.
  Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. William Henry Smith, Bill to continue various Expiring Laws, ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Henry Smith and Mr. Secretary Cross.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 281.]
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Bishopric of Truro* (201).
Second Reading—Winter Assizes (200).
Committee—Report—Parochial Records* (194).
Third Reading—Notices to Quit (Ireland)* (188), and passed.

SAT FIRST IN PARLIAMENT.
William Richard Lord Harlech—Was introduced by virtue of a special limitation in the patent dated 14th January 1876, and sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother John Ralph Lord Harlech, and took the Oath.

WINTER ASSIZES BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
(NO. 200.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read the
226
second time, said, it had been passed in the other House for the purpose of meeting an evil which had been seriously felt in one or two recent cases where a prisoner had been committed for trial immediately after the Summer Assizes, and in consequence of no Winter Assizes being held in the county his trial had not come on till the following March. In one case, which attracted public attention very recently, a prisoner was acquitted after having been in gaol for six or seven months. The rule was that a Winter Assize should not be held for a county unless a certain number of prisoners—six, he believed—were awaiting trial. The object of the present Bill was simply to enable an Order in Council to be made, which for the purpose of Winter Assizes would unite certain adjacent counties. In conclusion, he moved the second reading of the Bill.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

ARMY—MOBILIZATION.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD WAVENEY: My Lords, in rising to call the attention of your Lord ships to the system of mobilization recently introduced into this country, and to ask the noble Earl the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether it is proposed to mobilize any additional corps during the present drill season, I will begin by assuring Her Majesty's Government that, although I shall be obliged in the course of my observations to notice what I consider to be some deficiencies in our system and endeavour to suggest other means for carrying out the great object in view, I have no desire to cast any reflections upon them. With regard to this moblization principle so general on the Continent, it has there a double meaning. It was originally intended for the purpose of organizing expeditionary forces, but subsequently it has been used there, and especially as I apprehend it is used in the German Empire, for the purpose of distribution of troops. In our own country, according to the arrangement in The Army List, it is intended for the purposes of defence; but by that arrangement there is only one purely military

  227
  corps as exemplified in Her Majesty's regular forces, and that is the first army corps, or the Army Corps of Colchester, which is composed exclusively of battalions of the Line, Artillery of the Regular service, and, with the exception of two Corps of Yeomanry, of Regular Cavalry. In the other army corps there is a much larger infusion of the Militia service. The first division is almost entirely composed, as regards the Infantry, of Regiments of the Line; but the other division is supplemented from the Militia of England, of Ireland, and of Scotland. There are six army corps provided for the defence of this country, one for Ireland, and one for Scotland. I am not disposed, by any means, to find fault with a system that brings the local soldier from one part of the Kingdom to another, because it gives him the opportunity of studying the customs and habits of his fellow-subjects, and of obtaining information which he would not otherwise have an opportunity of doing. And I may remark, in passing, that in the new Kingdom of Italy, where affairs are administered with a sagacity that gives an example to the older Monarchies of Europe, that the movement of troops from one point of the Italian peninsula to another is mainly relied upon for the purpose of welding theme from the different provinces into one harmonious and congruous force. With regard to the operations of the army corps this year, I have no fault to find. I remember that last year when I brought the subject generally before your Lordships I rather regretted that a larger system of manœuvring had not been adopted than that attained, and I was told that the system had only been in existence for three years, and that the time for extended operations had not returned: still, I do not find fault with the experiment that has been made this year, and that the movement of the troops on a large scale has been postponed, because, under all circumstances, a great gain has been achieved in the military system of this country, and we have learnt much that we should not have known unless this plan of mobilization had been put in force and carried out. I do not complain of the change of system; but it seems to me that the mobilization, so far as it has gone, has not been altogether so complete as it might have been; and I would
  228
  suggest that a remedy should be found for our shortcomings in the mobilization of our troops, so as to be able to assemble the largest possible number of men and matériel in the shortest time at some given point, from which the expeditionary forces might prepare for ulterior movements. To such an extent is this carried on on the Continent, that I have seen a table in which the time is calculated with sufficient accuracy for the information of a Government in which it is possible to assemble a corps from all the points of a district, and the time that would elapse for their further movement in any given direction to the frontier. This principle has been, to a certain extent, overlooked at Aldershot; but at Salisbury a happy accident has given the Commander of the district a practical opportunity of seeing how soon an army corps can be concentrated on a given point. There is no official Report of the circumstance; but we may trust implicitly in the statements of the military correspondents of the Press as to what occurred. Some outlying regiments beyond Salisbury were assembled simply for the purpose, as they believed, of returning home. They were called upon late in the evening to prepare to march to the railway from their camping ground on one side of Salisbury. I know the ground well, and the difficulties of moving troops over it. The movement was rapidly executed, and subsequently received, the approval of the General commanding. That is one point to be gained in mobilization. There is another point about which a great deal has been said—and I think rather unnecessarily—in disparagement in the training and teaching afforded to the army corps. It has been said that the troops were inconvenienced from the want of food, and in this country I am afraid it must occasionally be the case, because we have to depend upon contractors to furnish the troops with food. In Prussia it is done by requisition. That, however, is not our position, and we are obliged to depend upon contractors to a very great extent. But with regard to transport, it would seem that a very considerable improvement can be effected. I believe that for the transport both of men and heavy matériel some very different system from that now in use is required. For instance, it is matter of notoriety to all con-

  229
  cerned in the movement of heavy stores that a large cart with two wheels is far superior to a large waggon with four wheels. There is another point which is of some importance. I am now going to speak of the force as assembled at particular points. I took occasion last year to request a Return of the troops under arms on a particular day in July, in order that I might compare them with the establishment of the regiments from which they were drawn. The result is somewhat remarkable. It should be an object in our Service to bring the force upon paper, as near as possible, in accord with the force in array; but I find, from the Return, that there is a considerable discrepancy between the strength and the establishment. I find, for instance, that the strength of troops of all arms at Aldershot on the 12th of July last year was 21,762, and that there was absent from the colours on the establishment at Aldershot 5,683. Your Lordships will observe that this is one-fifth, or nearly so, of the strength of the establishment. If we were to permit this to escape our notice, and to overlook the consequences which it might have on our defensive strength, I need scarcely tell your Lord ships that calamitous results might arise. Some of these reductions from the strength are, however, inevitable. I find from another Return, which was moved for in the other House of Parliament, as regards the strength of the Infantry regiments at head-quarters, that there were present 12,447, and that there were absent 814 sick, or convalescent, 552 engaged on recruiting service, and 464 the cause of whose absence was not clearly defined, and others were detached on special duty. That shows an aggravation of the discrepancy of which I have spoken. Now, as regards the results of these manœuvres, we were anxious to see how the troops mobilized could perform their duties. There can be no doubt that the training drill and appointments of all branches of the Regular Service were very complete. I do not know whether any of your Lordships were present at the march past at Aldershot on the 22nd of July; but the guns, Cavalry, and Infantry of the Line were what we have ever seen them, and I hope always will continue to see them. The Militia attracted the observation and praise, as I believe, of
  230
  all who were competent to pronounce an opinion. Those who saw what were the nature of the movements, and saw how they were performed, will admit that the Militia were not unworthy comrades of the Line. After the first march past, the column, headed by three battalions of regular Infantry, was massed on a hill, which may be familiar to some of your Lordships. The Scotch and Irish regiments belonged to General M'Murdo's brigade; but so limited was the ground on which they had to move, that being desirous of communicating with General M'Murdo, I had great difficulty in passing my horse between the columns of soldiers. I remained to see the reverse march; and I can assure your Lordships—and I am certain that if the illustrious Duke who was present on that occasion were here to-day he would confirm what I say—that the Militia disentangled themselves from that dense, but not confused, mass with the steadiness of old soldiers. There was this also to remark—that the Infantry of the Line showed that though young soldiers, not in their discipline but in their youthful form, they gave promise of what they would come to. The Militia regiments were remarked as being stout and active. But there was one element of power which was absent on that day. By some arrangement, which I will not question, the soldiers of the Reserve which had been attached to the division had been dismissed; but from other persons I heard only one opinion of these men—first, of their personal and physical qualities; second, of their readiness to be attached to any regiment where their services were required; thirdly, of the facility with which they resumed their old habits; and fourthly, as I have learned from the Returns, that of those who were summoned the number which accepted the summons was almost complete. In the preceding year the men belonging to the first class Army Reserve were invited to attend the manœuvres. From 15 of the military districts there was no result; and from the remaining districts there were only 84 volunteers, of which 62 were present. I think that the time has now come when the country may be congratulated on the possession of a Reserve force. I myself looked with considerable apprehension on the substitution of the short-service for the long-

  231
  service system. In many quarters the change was viewed with disfavour, and, to a considerable extent, with apprehension; but the risk was encountered, and the country may be congratulated on the result. Year after year probably this Force will increase, and eventually give us such a force as on an emergency will be sufficient to bring up the peace establishments of our Cavalry and Infantry to the war complement. There are some points on which it seems to me improvement may be effected. In the Yeomanry, for example, I think that some alterations may well be made. Where large and powerful regiments are formed it may be easy to maintain the organization of the Cavalry of the Line; but I cannot help thinking that an organization somewhat similar to that of the irregular forces in India would be better suited to the smaller regiments of Yeomanry. In many counties, owing to the alterations in the system of agriculture, it is not so easy now as it was years ago to find the description of trooper which is especially required. The men whom it would be desirable to bring into the Yeomanry service are the sons and relatives of the Yeomanry class of farmers; and therefore I take leave to suggest, whether it would not be wise to form provisional regiments of Yeomanry in the same way as provisional battalions of Volunteers are formed, of different strength, according to circumstances. I now come to what I may call the second phase of the question—the army corps system. I would consider it not inadvisable to establish one army corps as an absolute body complete in all its strength. If it be desirable to establish such a body, it should be in a central position, and that central position has already been indicated by the establishment at Aldershot. The principle of which I am speaking has, to a certain extent, been justified by the way in which the troops have been connected during this last mobilization at Aldershot. One army corps was completely made up of troops of the Line, Cavalry, and Artillery; and if an expeditionary force were to be sent abroad, it would be at once available for this purpose. I am afraid that I have trespassed too long on your Lordships in calling attention to the mobilization of these two corps, and I now proceed to the Question of which I have given Notice. The
  232
  Question is, Whether it is proposed to mobilize any additional corps during the present drill season? I am not aware whether there be any Militia regiments still to be called out for training; and if there be no regiments, there is the marching-out season for the Line Regiments, which may be always well employed. It might, therefore, be possible for generals commanding in one district to place themselves in communication with troops occupying the next district. There would be no great difficulty in one corps placing itself in military relations with a neighbouring corps. The Chester army corps, for instance, might find itself in military relations with the North of England army corps. In such eases the marchings would not be of a very severe nature. The troops might be expected to cover, without difficulty, some 25 miles of ground, and 25 miles of ground on the one side would bring them into tactical communication with corps that had marched the same distance from another quarter. I have only now to express a hope that the remarks which I have made will induce the Government to give us their views—especially on the question of the mobilization of additional army corps.
  EARL CADOGAN: said, he had heard with satisfaction the favourable opinion which the noble Lord had expressed of the scheme for the mobilization of the Army, for he was aware that not only was the noble Lord eminently qualified to give an opinion on the subject, but that he had satisfied himself by personal inspection of the various matters to which he had referred. The scheme for the defence of the country to which the name of mobilization had been given, had, perhaps, from its novelty, given rise to considerable misunderstanding, and he might be allowed to offer a few remarks in the hope that he might be able to clear up some misapprehensions existing on the subject. In the first place, the scheme of mobilization was entirely one for the defence of the country. The noble Lord had said that there were two phases of the question—one was for the defence of the country, and the other was an organization of a force for expeditionary purposes. As the scheme for the defence of the country was the only one recognized by the military authorities, he must be ex-

  233
  cused if he did not follow the noble Lord into the second phase. The object of the mobilization scheme was not to re-construct, or, directly speaking, to increase our Army—its object waste organize that which they had, and to make arrangements to use to the best of their power their military strength in case of immediate necessity. With that object it was divided into army corps, divisions, and brigades; various points in the country were chosen to which the various army corps would be sent, and at which head-quarters and divisional quarters were to be situated; and routes were issued which would enable commanding officers to reach with facility the destinations to which they were sent. It was only the first part of the scheme which had been tested this year. No doubt in time of war their work would not end there. It would not be sufficient to bring the army corps to the various posts assigned to them—it would be necessary that they should be moved forward according to the exigency of the moment or of the movements of the enemy they had to meet. That did not occur this year. Having brought the men forward and placed them in standing camps, advantage was taken of the situation to drill the Militia during the period of their annual training; and that done, the troops returned to the quarters from whence they came. The fact that it was only the first part of the scheme which had been carried out might account for the various objections which had been made by the noble Lord and by others as to what had been done. The noble Lord alluded, as he understood, to the drills, and said they were not sufficient; he also objected to the transport. The authorities might be excused if they did not go into extravagance in that direction. Their Lordships no doubt knew that in the case of transport waggons they might be divided into two classes—"technical" waggons and ordinary waggons. He did not attempt to conceal any deficiencies, and he admitted they were not adequately provided with technical waggons. It was stated that the mobilization was not practical. In making this experiment of mobilization it was necessary to select a convenient time and place, and thus various difficulties had been encountered, which in the case of a sudden emergency would
  234
  not exist. He was authorized to state, and he did so with confidence, that should war or invasion threaten this country the mobilization of the troops could be effected much more expeditiously than in the present instance. As to the number of Reserves which attended the manœuvres, the Returns now being prepared would be found highly satisfactory. He believed he might state that of those summoned to attend the manœpuvres, the absentees did not amount to more than 2 per cent; and in connection with this fact it was gratifying to observe that the men had been universally praised for their good conduct and soldierly bearing, and for their general excellence in the discharge of their duties. With regard to the disposition of the troops under the mobilization scheme—something had been said as to bringing Scotch and Irish Militia regiments such a distance to join in the exercises: but he was sure their Lord ships would see on reflection that it was advisable to give Scotland and Ireland a share in the defence of the country at those strategic points which were deemed by qualified judges to be the most liable to attack. Having now touched on the principal objections urged against the mobilization scheme, it only remained for him to state, in answer to the noble Lord's inquiry, that it was not intended to mobilize any additional corps during the present drill season. The noble Lord would recollect that an Act of Parliament would be required for such a step to be taken. Besides, the necessary funds had not been voted. The extent to which such operations might be carried in future necessarily depended on the will of Parliament. With regard to the time at which these manœuvres were to be held, he believed he was right in saying that last year he did not give any distinct pledge, but merely stated in a general way the intentions of the Government.
  VISCOUNT CARDWELLcongratulated the noble Earl (Earl Cadogan) not only on the satisfactory statement which he had had to make, but also on the lucid and interesting manner in which he had made it. He regarded these experiments in the mobilization of the Army as of great importance, because they were the natural outcome of the Intelligence Department which had been recently established, and which had been

  235
  found to be one of the greatest wants of our Army administration. The noble Earl had rightly said that if we had to organize an expedition to a foreign country it could not be carried out by means of a system of local mobilization. Of course the system of local mobilization was purely defensive. A continental Power might make it the means of invading a neighbouring country; but with this country the circumstances were entirely different. In our insular position the first thing to be done in organizing an expedition to foreign parts was to provide means of transporting the troops, and the next to find a base of operations in the country where they landed—matters with which local mobilization had nothing whatever to do. Another thing to be noticed was that in case of war it would not be in small local bodies that the Army and Auxiliary Forces would be employed. It might be very proper to assemble them in that way in the first instance, but the chief step would be to aggregate them into a manœuvring Army. And here, again, the present experiment would have no bearing. Local mobilization, in fact, was only a part of our system of defence; for on emergency it would be necessary to employ the railway system of the country for the transport of troops to the point of danger. With regard to the present experiment, he could not refrain from expressing his great satisfaction at the General Order recently issued by His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief in reference to the recent manœuvres. His Royal Highness expressed his entire satisfaction with his inspection of the several regiments both of the Regulars and of the Reserves. One remarkable feature of the experiment was the large turn-out of the Reserves, inasmuch as it demonstrated the falsity of the prediction that that branch of our Forces would be found unsatisfactory. The absence of pensions, it was thought, would deter men from joining the Army; but he found that up to the year 1875 no fewer than 57,700 men had enlisted for short service. These Returns showed that when the choice was given men preferred short service and the Reserve to long service and a pension. If anybody had told him four years ago that the deficiency of those summoned in time of peace would not exceed 2 per cent he should have
  236
  thought him a sanguine prophet. And what had been their character? His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief expressed his gratification at the satisfactory condition and the exemplary conduct while under training of such portions of the first class Army Reserve as had been called out; adding that their efficiency was such that unless special circumstances should arise they would not have to be called out again. It was right to put them to a severe test, and to ascertain whether they were paper men only or men who could be relied upon; but it was not desirable to call them out unnecessarily to the disturbance of their civil employment, and any apprehension had been dispelled by the course pursued:—it had been thought proper to call away only a proportion of the men from their civil employments, and the results had been eminently satisfactory. That being the state of the case, he rejoiced that he was able to congratulate his noble Friend opposite on the statement he had made, and he could only hope that all the experiments of his Department would be attended with equal success.

  BARBADOES.—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON, in calling attention to the Parliamentary Papers relating to the recent disturbances in Barbadoes, said: I regret very much that my noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley), on whose account the statement which I am about to make was postponed the other night, is still so far from well as to be unable to be in his place this evening. Since then an hon. Friend of mine in "another place" (Mr. J. Lowther) has made a statement on the subject of which I have given Notice, which in many respects has traversed the ground that I had intended to take, and that relieves me from the necessity of entering at any length upon it. I shall therefore confine myself to adding one or two points that seem to me of importance, and to reminding your Lordships of the general bearings of the case. I refrain from reciting the history of these transactions in Barbadoes—they are still sufficiently fresh in your Lordships' minds to dispense me from that task. The Blue Book on this subject may be roughly said to contain, first, the statement of the facts; secondly, the com-

  237
  plaints which, various parties in Barbadoes have made either directly or indirectly as regards the action of Her Majesty's Government; and thirdly, and most important of all, the charges that have been brought against Governor Hennessy. With respect to the statement of the facts, those facts are so well known that I need not trouble you with them. As to the complaints, they substantially divide themselves into two heads—there is more or less complaint with reference to the subject of Confederation; there are also complaints with regard to certain changes which have been made in the Executive Council, and which the Assembly of Barbadoes seem to resent as a great innovation on the Constitution. With respect to the third, I shall have more to say before I sit down. As regards Confederation, I need not go into the whole of its history. Successive Secretaries of State have endorsed it, and it may, therefore, be fairly assumed that their opinion is in favour of such a measure. But I would point out what Confederation really means. Confederation in Canada means one thing; it might mean at the Capo of Good Hope another; it certainly means a very different tiling in the West India Islands, where the scale and measure of things are smaller than in either of the other colonies I have named. What did Confederation in the West India Islands mean? What did it mean specially in Barbadoes? I might take the six points, as they are called, of Governor Hennessy. They comprise the appointment of an Auditor General, the transport of prisoners from one island to another, one common lazaretto, the re-modelling of the judicial system, and one police force common to the whole of the Islands. There is nothing very grand or very formidable in these proposals. It is, perhaps, in some respects a misnomer to speak of them as Confederation—it is rather an amalgamation of some municipal arrangements. At the same time I do not underrate the importance of such a change. It has been admitted, as I have said, by successive Secretaries of State to be important and desirable. At present there is a multiplication of offices in these Islands—a separate Judicial Staff for each, a Chief Justice, an Attorney General, and so forth. There is also, by consequence, a great waste of public money
  238
  and very frequent inefficiency; and with a multiplication of offices, a waste of public money, and inefficiency, there follow a whole train of evils which I need not specify, because they will easily suggest themselves to your Lord ships, but evils demoralizing to the public life of these communities, and such as it is the duty of the Government, if possible, to check. When I wrote my despatch on this so-called Confederation, I was well aware that an unfriendly feeling might be entertained in Barbadoes on the subject. There had, no doubt, been a good deal of local prejudice. Even before Governor Hennessy arrived there a public meeting had been held at which very violent language had been used. At the same time I thought it was not consistent with my duty to avoid bringing the question before the Legislature. I did not see that there was any more cause for apprehension than in former years; and on reading these Papers I think your Lordships will admit that I exercised all the caution and forbearance in the matter which a Minister ought to exercise. I desired not to press the proposal, but that it should grow from the spontaneous action of the Legislature, and I was at least entitled to suppose that the Legislature would give a fair and patient hearing to any proposals which the Governor, as the Representative of the Queen, might make. I will only add on this part of the subject that there is a point which, perhaps your Lordships would do well to bear in mind—namely, that this question has never been discussed by the Legislature of Barbadoes. There has been a great deal of violent language used in public meetings and otherwise with respect to it, but there has never been any discussion in the Legislature. Passing from this, I would allude to the changes which have been made in the Executive Council—reference to them will be found all through the Blue Book, and they have been made a great matter of complaint. I desire to explain what the change really amounts to, and how little foundation there is for the charges that are based upon it. Until within the last year or so the Executive Council and the Legislative Council were composed of identically the same persons; they sat at a different time and in a different place, but they were identically the same

  239
  body discharging different functions. But that being so, and part of the body being composed of unofficial members, there could be none of that un reserve and that confidential communication passing between the Governor as the head of the Executive and the Ministers who had to carry out his measures which are essential to the conduct of any Government at all. I am not aware of any other single colony or of any civilized State in which such an arrangement exists, as that the members of the Governor's Cabinet should be other than those who are his confidential advisers and persons whom he trusts. I am bound to add the exceptional system adopted in Barbadoes had worked badly and had led to many difficulties and evils; and, therefore, when a new Governor went out to that island I thought that provision should be made to secure that the Executive Council should henceforth be composed exclusively of his confidential advisers. That is the sum total of the change which has been made, and the whole of the offence which I have given. I pass now to the charges which have been brought against Governor Hennessy. The first charge against him was that he addressed violent and intemperate language to the House of Assembly on the 3rd of March; the second was that he, having received my instructions as Secretary of State, and knowing that it was my desire that Federation should not be forced upon the inhabitants of Barbadoes, had in defiance of those instructions sent secret emissaries through the island to scatter abroad among the negro population his views respecting Federation; and the third was that, not content with these means of spreading his views, he had resorted to extraordinary methods of propagating them by presiding at negro meetings and giving dinners to negro deputations. It would, perhaps, have been well had Mr. Hennessy remembered the old maxim about—
  "Spargere voces
  In vulgum ambiguas."
  With regard to the first charge, I think that Mr. Hennessy is open to some blame. I candidly confess that I think his language to the Assembly was somewhat indiscreet. No doubt he used words which might be construed by an excitable negro population in a very different sense from that in the mind of
  240
  the speaker. It is quite true that other Governors who had preceded Mr. Hennessy had used equally objectionable language; but that is no excuse for his having followed their example. It is not because one man has committed an indiscretion that his successor should make a similar mistake. The effect of language is altered also by time and place. Thus, what may be uttered without any ill effects in Pall Mall may have grave results when spoken in the West Indies in the hearing of a negro population. I think, therefore, that had Mr. Hennessy more carefully measured his words on the occasion referred to, he would have shown more discretion than he did. But, at the same time, having said this much, I think that I have stated all that can be substantiated against Mr. Hennessy. And I wish once more to repeat that, so far as the actual language goes, I do not think it was in excess of much that had been uttered by his predecessors in the government of the island. When, however, I come to the second charge—namely, that he sent emissaries throughout the country in order to propagate his own opinions, that involves a totally different question. I must say at once that I do not see in these Papers one particle of reasonable evidence in support of it. On the contrary, I see more than once a flat and an absolute contradiction of it. What are the words which Mr. Hennessy himself uses with regard to it? He says, in his despatch of the 30th of May—
  "I have never employed, directly or indirectly, any paid or unpaid emissaries in favour of Confederation. I never attended a meeting about Confederation in any part of the Island, or in any way encouraged or countenanced agitation on the subject. I have never made any criticism on the Legislature or institutions of Barbadoes, or delivered addresses on that or any other subject that Have not, in due course, laid before your Lordship in official despatches."
  I deem it due to Mr. Hennessy that I should read to your Lordships the flat contradiction which he has given to the charge; and no one can reasonably doubt, there being no evidence in support of the charge and there being this flat contradiction of it that Mr. Hennessy stands entirely acquitted with regard to it. Referring to the third charge—that he entertained negroes at banquets and presided over negro meetings—your Lordships will find in Mr. Hennessy's

  241
  despatches very careful and elaborate answers to it, which seem to reduce it to a complete absurdity. It appears from those despatches that on one occasion he directed his butler to give a few negroes who had called at his house as a deputation some little refreshment, and that he had on one occasion addressed a few words to a single negro in his own grounds. Under these circumstances, therefore, Mr. Hennessy stands entirely absolved from the two latter charges. This is how the matter stands with regard to his conduct before the riots occurred; but now let me ask your Lordships to consider what was Mr. Hennessy's conduct during the riots. Your Lordships will remember that he had been denounced with violence in the public newspapers and at public meetings, and that charges had been made against him by agents sent home to denounce him to the Secretary of State, and that he had been constantly threatened with assassination. On the other hand, it should be remembered that he had been continually urged by excited persons to shoot and hang and to proclaim martial law, and thus to revive a state of panic and terror, which the noble Lord opposite will remember was an unfortunate incident in the Jamaica disturbances. Mr. Hennessy, however, kept his head clear and cool throughout. He declined to be a party to such acts—and he even refused permission to the special constables to carry fire-arms. During the whole of the disturbances not one shot was fired by the troops, and whatever lives were lost were lost through the action of the police. In other matters also he acted with the utmost impartiality. He allowed the Crown officers to vote against him on the question of Federation; he gave leave of absence to the persons who were delegated to visit this country to denounce his conduct to the Secretary of State, and he gave leave to the Assembly to discuss the question of his recall. An Assembly debating the question of the recall of their Governor is a case almost without precedent in colonial history. Probably there are not many Governors who would have shown equal coolness and forbearance with Mr. Hennessy in such a matter. Further than that, he discountenanced all Petitions which were presented in favour of his particular views; and throughout a
  242
  long period his conduct was uniformly courteous and conciliatory, though that was not the characteristic of the language of his opponents. On this part of the case, therefore, not only do I acquit Mr. Hennessy of all blame, but I think that he is entitled to very great praise. The next question that arises is as to the course which Her Majesty's Government have thought proper to take in the matter. The Assembly passed a resolution a short time since, in which they prayed for two things—first for the recall of Mr. Hennessy, and, secondly, for the issuing of a Commission. Now, after what I have said with regard to Mr. Hennessy, your Lordships will agree with me that to recall Mr. Hennessy is simply out of the question. It would be a base and monstrous injustice to him. I do not deny—although I admit it with great pain—that the relations between Mr. Hennessy and the Assembly and some other classes of people in Barbadoes have become greatly strained; and of this there is one instance in the Blue Book, which certainly is without precedent. It appears that on the occasion of the Queen's Birthday, Mr. Hennessy, according to the ordinary custom, gave a formal banquet, to which he invited the leading persons in the colony; but I regret to say that with two exceptions the leading members of the Assembly declined to accept the invitations they received, and fixed another day, on which they gave a dinner on their own account. I think that in doing this they acted in deplorable taste, to say the least of it. If the Assembly or any other political Body in Barbadoes desired to put themselves at variance with the Governor, they should have adopted the ordinary political means of doing so, without dragging Her Majesty's name into the controversy, and should have acted in political warfare like political men and not in the fractious temper of mere children. Looking to the extreme tension of the relations between Mr. Hennessy and the Assembly, I have been urged, both by the opponents and friends of Mr. Hennessy, that his removal from the colony would be desirable. I think that tension of feeling is very much to be regretted; but surely at such a moment as this, I am precluded from, entertaining this suggestion. Whatever may be done hereafter, I cannot consent to remove Mr. Hennessy now. To

  243
  do so would be to pass an indirect censure upon him; and it would seem as though Her Majesty's Government had accorded a victory to those who have carried on this warfare in a manner which I think they, upon reflection, will be the first to regret. A second point urged by the Assembly is, that a Commission should be issued. Now, there are two kinds of Commissions. There is a Commission such as was issued in the case of Jamaica, and there is a kind of Commission appointed in the ease of the Mauritius. The first was a Commission issued to inquire into the disturbances in Jamaica, and the amount of blame which might attach to one side or the other in connection with them. Now, I see no reason why we should incur the expense of raking up these causes of quarrel in Barbadoes and in provoking recriminations of the bitterest kind, and in keeping alive that state of feeling that has prevailed. Let the storm which has been raging subside, and then it will be full time to think of any further steps. There is a second class of Commission—namely, a Commission to inquire into the condition of classes, the interests of the Island, and the best way of promoting them; the question of the franchise, the labour question, emigration, and many other matters which make for the welfare of Barbadoes; and I do not say that hereafter it may not be desirable and may not be the duty of the Government to issue such a Commission. At this moment, however, I do not think it would be needed; and as regards the first kind of Commission I think it would be highly objectionable. My Lords, I can hardly bring these remarks to an end without adding some expression of opinion as to that which has been brought indirectly to light by those disturbances—namely, the present state of the colony. I am quite aware that in entering upon this subject, however briefly, I walk upon delicate ground as far as the feelings of the Barbadians are concerned. I am not insensible to many points which may be urged in their favour—their attachment to their ancient Constitution, their loyalty to the Crown, and other estimable qualities. At the same time I should be untrue to the facts if I were not to state that, in my opinion, the present condition of the Island as revealed by these Papers is one by no means satisfactory. The condition of the
  244
  peasantry is in itself an unsatisfactory, and, I venture to say, an unsound condition. The population is, no doubt, redundant. It is consequently paid in very low wages, and even these wages, I suspect, are sometimes liable to various stoppages and deductions. I doubt whether the law in some instances does not press with a certain amount of severity upon the peasantry. All these points have at different times been pressed not merely by Mr. Hennessy in these despatches, but by successive Governors—some of them men whose affection for the Barbadian Constitution cannot for one moment be questioned. I go a step further, and I doubt whether many public institutions of the colony are in at all a satisfactory condition. Take the case of the prisons. In some of those Papers will be found a despatch written in 1872 by my noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley). I cite it as an illustration and nothing more. A statement as to the deplorable condition of the gaols in Barbadoes had been sent to my noble Friend, who forwarded it to the Governor for the time being for a report. The answer was that, though, no doubt, more or less coloured, there was a good deal to complain of. In 1867, SIR James Walker, who certainly had no prejudice against Barbadians or Barbadian institutions, twice called the attention of the Legislature to the state of the prisons. No notice was taken of his Message, and he made some very severe comments upon the subject. All through 1871–2 the late Governor, Sir Rawson Rawson, called attention to the same subject. In 1873 a Commission of both Houses was appointed. In 1874 a Vote for a sum of money was read a first time; but delays occurred, the whole question was shelved, and the gaols remained very much in the same condition. Take another case—that of prison discipline, and the punishments inflicted for prison offences. It is impossible not to be startled by their character and number. On the average of the last six years the floggings in the Barbadian prisons appeared to be 20 times as numerous as those of all the prisons of Jamaica. During the first 10 months of 1875, 50 persons were flogged in Barbadian prisons—while on the other hand, not one single case was recorded in St. Lucia. Grenada, or St. Vincent: and the total prison punishments in Barbadoes during

  245
  last year, including other punishments than flogging, amount to the enormous figure of 2,197. I can only say that either the population of Barbadoes is of a very much worse character than that of any other of the West India islands, or the fault is in the system, and many more prison floggings are inflicted than are necessary. I do not say that the Assembly or any class of persons in Barbadoes is responsible for this state of things. I merely say it indicates—wherever the fault may lie—an amount of unsoundness which requires the best attention of the Barbadian Legislature. One more case will be enough. It shall be the case of some public institutions. Feeling uneasy, for some reason, as to the provision for idiots and imbeciles, I requested an explanation from Mr. Hennessy as to the character and amount of such provision. I am told there is none. I do not think this is creditable to a colony. Further I find there is an institution for that great scourge of the West Indies, leprosy, and this institution is administered by a Board, if I mistake not, appointed by the Assembly. Now, official evidence shows that during a space of five or six years—I am speaking from memory, but I believe I am correct—this institution was never visited by the members of that Board, and that, in fact, no one ever visited it excepting the chaplain and the surgeon. There again, I say, though individuals, perhaps, are not liable to blame, the public institutions of the Colony require very careful reconsideration by the Governing Body. I wish that in recent transactions the Assembly could have brought itself to believe that co-operation with the Executive Government upon questions of this sort was not only its duty, but was also expedient. There have been two or three cases, however, which have forced painfully upon me a different conclusion. Since these disturbances the Governor has pressed most earnestly upon the Assembly the necessity of increasing the police force; and no one can doubt for a moment the reasonableness or the necessity of such a proposal. But the Bill for this purpose has been practically ignored by the Assembly. I myself felt the subject to be of such importance that I telegraphed to the Governor, and requested that it might be brought before the Assembly; but I believe that up to this time all the proposals for in-
  246
  creasing the police force have been in vain. Meanwhile, your Lordships will remember that the troops in the colony are still quartered about in the different plantations to maintain peace and order. In 1867 the Governor of that day attributed a great part of the disturbances, and the most serious part, to the absence of an active police force, and I consider I should have been wanting in my duty if I had refrained from urging the Assembly to take the same course now. There are other matters which the Assembly will do well to consider. Its not worthy of the Legislature of any British colony to refuse to pay a Bill for telegraphs passing between the colony and the Imperial Government upon their own domestic concerns. It is not worthy of them to spend their time in personal discussions and recriminations when questions of grave importance are still to be dealt with. The House will observe that throughout the despatches stress is laid on the importance of maintaining the Constitution. I am not insensible of the value of the colonial Constitution; but when they say it is identical in fundamental principles with the English Constitution, I feel bound to point out how absolutely they misapprehend the case. In fact, the principles of their Constitution are practically the reverse of ours. The Executive Government is separate from and generally, I am sorry to say—of late years, at all events—at variance with, the Legislative Power. When a Money Vote is proposed, so far from its being proposed simply on the responsibility of a Minister, it is proposed on the responsibility really of a private Member. The greater part of the business of the colony is conducted by means of Committees or Boards formed out of the Assembly, who spend the money and appropriate it as they think right. That is a fusion of legislative and executive duties such as we have no notion of in this country. Again, the franchise in Barbadoes is of a most limited character. Out of a population of 160,000 or more, there are only something like 1,200 or 1,300 electors; and, to crown all, the Dissolution, instead of occurring at intervals of seven years, must, as a matter of necessity, occur annually at Barbadoes. Under these circumstances it seems idle to say that the principles of the Barbadoes Constitution, whatever value they may

  247
  have in an historical point of view, are similar or analogous to those of the Constitution of this country. I have now gone through the different points which I have thought necessary to touch upon. I have certainly no wish to seem to press hardly on the Legislature or Constitution of Barbadoes, but I should be wrong were I to refrain from saying that I do feel considerable anxiety. If the present state of things were to continue, I foresee trouble in the future. I certainly am not one who would in any way desire unnecessarily to interfere with an ancient Constitution in which the colonists take a pride. I have always objected to such interference, and I conceive it can only be sanctioned by the facts and necessities of the case. As far as possible I would trust to the good sense and the patriotic feeling of the Legislature of the Colony. Possibly, one of the reasons why they took the view which they unfortunately have taken is that they were hardly aware of what the feeling of Her Majesty's successive Governments has been on the subject, and how strong has been the opinion of the public here in England. My Lords, the mere form of Constitution seems to me to be a secondary matter. An anomalous Constitution, such as, I am bound to say the Barbadoes Constitution is, may be worked, and even worked admirably, by men of good sense, right feeling, and patriotic impulse. On the other hand, if the Constitution were perfect, it might be badly worked. I take it to be of the substance of a good Constitution that there should be good government; that there should be equality for all in the eye of the law, and that all the securities for the well-being of all classes of the community should be fully provided for as far as a Constitution can provide them. I trust that the Barbadoes Legislature will accept this view of the matter; that they will co-operate with Her Majesty's Government, as Her Majesty's Government are most truly and sincerely desirous to co-operate with them; and that they will address themselves with all their patriotic feeling, with all the ability they possess, and with all their earnestness to the task, and the very responsible task, which, I need not for one moment attempt to conceal, lies before them.
  VISCOUNT CARDWELL: I am sorry my noble Friend the late Secretary of
  248
  State for the Colonies (the Earl of Kimberley) is quite unable to appear here to-night. I have had some communication with him, and I come here to express on his part, and on my own, sentiments very much in accordance with those stated by the noble Earl opposite. With regard to the proposed alteration of the Legislative Council, so that it shall not be the exact correspondent of the Executive Council, I think it is absolutely necessary that you should not have in the deliberative Council the very same persons who compose the Executive Council—that the Executive Council should contain only one confidential adviser of the Governor, and that you should have in the Executive Council the opponents of the Governor, and that the government should be carried on by them is an evidently impracticable arrangement. With regard to Governor Hennessy, the policy of which he has been the advocate was first, I think, distinctly laid down in a despatch by my noble Friend the Earl of Kimberley. The time of bringing it forward and the person by whom it was to be brought forward were the choice of my noble Friend opposite; and I bear in mind that he pointed out to Governor Hennessy that he ought not to press a change in the position of Barbadoes and the other Islands against the wish of the people of Barbadoes themselves. I am disposed to agree with what has been said by my noble Friend opposite in regard to Governor Hennessy. It was unfortunate that that gentleman used the phrases and assumed the tone which he appears to have done in the first instance; but with regard to his subsequent conduct I am ready to admit all that has been said about him by my noble Friend opposite; and certainly I have not the slightest inclination to apologize for or extenuate in any degree the violent opposition shown to him by many who have taken part in the government of Barbadoes, and who showed disrespect to the Sovereign in order to express their disapproval of the Governor's conduct. I have listened with considerable surprise to the scheme just propounded by the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon), because I should have thought that it would have come more naturally in the form of a despatch from the Secretary of State to be laid on the

  249
  Table of Parliament and considered by the constituted authorities in Barbadoes, rather than in a speech delivered by the Secretary of State at the close of the Session, and, as far as I am aware, not in the presence of any individual who has a personal knowledge of the state of Barbadoes, or the views which any of these people might wish to lay before your Lordships. Therefore the proposal must be taken as a grave censure of all the authorities in Barbadoes made by the Secretary of State, who has given them no opportunity whatever of expressing anything, either in disproof of any facts which have been stated, or in mitigation of any blame laid upon them; or, in short, of exercising the common right of Englishmen to be heard in their own defence.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My noble Friend will remember that almost every, if not every, word of what I said on that subject is to be found in these Blue Books to which I desire to call attention.
  VISCOUNT CARDWELL:I am not sure that that alters the case very much. We have been lectured during the last few days for bringing forward Questions before this House without having a Motion before it; and if the rule is to be observed by those who sit on this side of the House, and are not burdened by any special responsibility, I think it ought also to be observed by those who sit on the other side, and are charged with all the responsibilties of the Executive Government. For myself, I have not the slightest desire to take the part of any of these gentlemen in Barbadoes—of whom I happen to know nothing. If one-tenth of the impeachment made against them by the Secretary of State is founded on fact, all I can say is, whether it be in the form of Confederation or not, some change in the government of Barbadoes is absolutely necessary, and must be forced upon them without much delay. Such a state of things as has been described by the noble Earl cannot be permitted to continue. With regard to Governor Hennessy, it is of course impossible that my noble Friend can recall him after the verdict which he has arrived at on his conduct. It is intended, however, I presume, to provide some other position for Governor Hennessy without any protracted delay—for I think he is, at present, in a position
  250
  which must be very unsatisfactory to himself. To recall him would be to imply blame which it is not intended to imply; but I think there should be a separation between Governor Hennessy and Barbadoes on the ground of incompatibility of temper. There is no cause in this instance for such a Commission as we were compelled to send out to Jamaica. A Constitution which might be suited to a great and powerful country might be utterly unfitted for a small island, over-populated and in a condition of great poverty, and the Government might be quite right in not appointing such a Commission as in the case of Jamaica; but after the statement of my noble Friend as to the condition of the colony, it is quite clear that that condition cannot be allowed to continue many months, and I therefore earnestly hope that when Parliament again assembles my noble Friend will be in a position to lay some proposal before the House for immediately putting an end to it.
  LORD STANLEY of ALDERLEY: said, that whilst the planters attributed the agitation in Barbadoes to the Governor, and the Anti-Slavery Society believed it was attributable to tortuous proceedings on the part of the planters, he believed that it was chiefly caused by the discussions of the Anti-Confederation Defence Association—it being a fact that the colonial newspapers had lowered their prices with the avowed object of convincing the lower classes that confederation would not be a benefit. The West Indian was a very fair and moderate paper, and it contained so many letters taking a view opposed to its own, that it would increase the excitement; whilst The Globe and Agricultural Reporter were very exaggerated. The unseemly conduct of the Assembly in carrying their disputes into the celebration of the Queen's birthday, and their debating the recall of the Governor, reminded him of those Levantine Consuls who used to haul down their flags and break off their relations with the local authorities without orders from their Embassies. But there was some excuse for the Barbadian colonists in the bad precedents which they had; for he found in Sir Robert Schomburgk's History of Barbadoes that, about 80 years ago, a man of colour named Denny had shot a poor white man and was found

  251
  guilty by the jury. The Chief Justice Gibbes who tried him animadverted on the bias shown by the jury, and made representations on behalf of the prisoner to the Governor. The King's pleasure was taken, and the sentence commuted to perpetual banishment. The prisoner was sent on board a Government brig which got under weigh, when a band of colonists, many of them of the more respectable class, rushed to Rickett's battery and fired upon the brig, and got possession of the prisoner; the tumult was appeased by reading the letter of the Duke of Portland. But a committee of the colonists called upon the Governor to suspend Mr. Gibbes from all his official employments. Mr. Gibbes went to England and obtained a mandamus for his restoration to office, shortly after which he resigned. In his judgment the noble Earl the Secretary of State had exercised a wise discretion in refusing to send a Royal Commission to Barbadoes, notwithstanding that both the West Indian Committee and the Anti-Slavery Society had expressed the wish that he should do so; because such a Commission would have the effect of re-opening the late discussion and reviving the excitement, by taking evidence with regard to the recent disturbances. But he would ask his noble Friend to give his favourable consideration as to whether it would not be desirable that he should send a clerk of the Colonial Office in whose department Barbadoes was situated to acquire some local knowledge of that colony, and whether it might not be desirable for the Secretary of State to take the same measures whenever any colony was in difficulties?—following in thistle example of the Foreign Office, which frequently sent one of its clerks to assist one of Her Majesty's Legations abroad, to the mutual benefit of the Legation thus assisted and the Staff of the Foreign Office, which thereby acquired useful experience and local knowledge. The conflicting statements as to pauperism in Barbadoes showed the difficulty of estimating the value of reports without local knowledge. The project of Confederation might well be dropped for the present, since most of the advantages of this scheme had been already secured, as had been pointed out by Governor Hennessy, in his despatch to the Secretary of State, which he communicated
  252
  to the Barbadoes Legislature on the 1st of February last. The word "intercolonial" had already been adopted by the Barbadians, and would cover all that they objected to under the word Confederation. He would suggest that free passages should be given to labourers from Barbadoes going to the neighbouring islands, half the cost to be borne by Barbadoes and half by the Colony receiving the labourers. Emigration Acts had been passed in Barbadoes, and sums voted for this purpose, but not with sufficient system; this course was not open to the objections which were made to promoting coolie immigration by votes out of West Indian taxation, since in this case the poorer class of taxpayers would profit by it. The same measure of free passages might also be advantageously applied to the students of the Windward Islands who might come to the schools and colleges of Barbadoes, which were better than any that existed or that would be likely to be established in the other islands, and in that manner the inhabitants of the Windward Islands would not feel so much jealousy of the educational advantages possessed by Barbadoes. There was also a suggestion which Mr. Duffield, a gentleman who had long resided in the Colonies, was very anxious should be made to the Secretary of State, and the favourable consideration which his noble Friend had given to the plan of a proposed Colonial Museum emboldened him to make it—namely, that the Secretary of State should send out an inexpensive scientific Commission of one or two persons to report upon the vegetable products of the West Indies, of which many valuable kinds were unknown, and. which might be usefully exported to Canada and to England. The mission of Mr. Markham by the India Office to South America to obtain cinchona plants formed a precedent for this suggestion.
  LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I cannot refrain from expressing my entire approval of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, and the great pleasure with which I have heard the characteristically just and generous statement of the noble Earl, the Secretary for the Colonies. Of his general policy in relation to Barbadoes enough has been said by the noble Lords who have preceded me. But I desire to add one word, on behalf of Mr. Hennessy, in

  253
  whose proceedings I have not taken less interest, and in whose vindication I have not felt less satisfaction, because, whilst I sat with him in the House of Commons, he was the active and often the troublesome opponent of the Party and the principles to which I am attached. He may, as was said by the noble Earl, have spoken indiscreetly; but he was placed in circumstances of extreme difficulty, in which few men could have hoped for a perfect immunity from error, and, looking to the Correspondence before us, I think it affords the strongest evidence that he possessed throughout the serious trials to which he was subjected a cool head, a brave heart, and an honest purpose. He refused to permit any of those acts of violence and cruelty to which panic has so often urged individuals and masses of men. He resisted a powerful combination, acting too much in the spirit of ascendancy, which has shown itself equally reckless in its accusations and indifferent to the interests of humanity and justice. He deliberately declined to allow his Executive Council to adopt the unconstitutional courses which had been pursued in a neighbouring island, and to his fairness and moderation it is directly attributable that the scenes of blood and terror which disgraced Jamaica were not enacted in Barbadoes. I sincerely rejoice that the Government, in spite of unscrupulous and persistent calumny, has recognized his merit, and preserved to the public service an able administrator, whose career will be one of usefulness and honour.
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.