Sitting of 3 August 1877

MINUTES.
—NEW MEMBER SWOHN—Alfred Mellor Watkin, esquire, for Great Grimsby.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Colonial Stock [228].
Committee discharged—Referred to the Committee of Selection—Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Atherton, &c.) * [265].
Committee — Report — Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) * [252]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Joint Boards) (re-comm.) * [269]; County Officers and Courts (Ireland) (re-comm.) [254]; Prisons (Ireland) (re-comm.) * [219]; Prisons (Scotland) (re-comm.) [124]; Sale of Food and Drugs Act Amendment* [264].
Considered as amended—South Africa [195].
Third Reading—Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland)* [260]; Canal Boats* [247], and passed.
Withdrawn — Ecclesiastical Offices and Fees (re-comm.) * [130]; Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices * [163]; Ancient Monuments (re-comm.) * [240].
The House met at Two of the clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREmoved to amend the Standing Orders, Part 2,
  388
  section 4, line 7, by inserting, after " situate,"
  " and where any common or commonable land is intended to be taken, such notice shall contain the name of such common or commonable land (if any), and the name of any parish or township in which such land is situate, together with an estimate of the quantity of such common or commonable land proposed to be taken."
  His object was to insure that the commoners and the public should receive due notice of what was proposed to be done.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsupported the Motion.
  MR. RAIKESthought the alteration would be a great improvement.
  Standing Order, Part 2, No. 30, was read, and amended by inserting in line 3, after the word "therein," the words "or where power is sought to take any common or commonable land as the case may be:"—And by inserting in line 6, after the word "cemetery," the words " common or commonable land."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
  Amendment agreed to.

QUESTIONS.
  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— DISMISSAL OF JOHN M'GOVAN—AN "HONOURABLE" ACQUITTAL.

    QUESTION.
    MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is true that John M'Govan was dismissed from his position as teacher of Conimas National School, county Cavan, in February 1875, on a charge of writing a threatening letter; whether, at Summer Assizes, in same year, the Attorney General refused to prosecute on the ground that the letter was not of a threatening nature; whether the National Board refused to confirm his appointment to Derryral National School, on the charge of his having sent the threatening letter, although he had been honourably acquitted of the charge; and, if these facts are true, whether he will recommend any compensation to John M'Govan, seeing he was fifteen years a teacher under the National Board?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I have made inquiry into the facts of this

    389
    case, and I find that John M'Govan was arrested in February, 1875, on a charge of having written a threatening letter. In the first instance he was admitted to bail, but he was again arrested on notice being given by his surety that he had reason to think he was going to leave the district. The then Attorney General did not direct a prosecution, being of opinion that the terms of the letter itself were not sufficient to sustain one. But although this was technically the case, the letter was obviously of a menacing character, and was followed by a grave outrage on the person to whom it was written; and M'Govan admitted that he had written it. Under these circumstances, he was dismissed from his office of teacher, and the National Board have since refused to confirm his appointment to another school. It does not seem to me a case for compensation, nor can it properly be said that he was "honourably acquitted of the charge" against him. His misconduct was sufficient to establish his disqualification for the office of a National teacher, though it was considered not to amount to a legal crime.

  SCOTLAND—SHEEP KILLED BY DOGS.

    QUESTION.
    SIR GEORGE DOUGLASasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in consequence of the large increase within the last ten years in the number of dogs in Great Britain, and the great injury and loss occasioned by ownerless dogs wandering about the country, as proved by Returns Nos. 308 and 309, recently presented to the House, showing the destruction of upwards of 2,000 sheep, by dogs, within the last three years, in the southern counties of Scotland, he will take into consideration what means can be adopted for the purpose of affording greater protection to farmers from disturbance and injury to their sheep and other stock by stray dogs?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, he had not overlooked these Returns. He very much regretted the loss which had occurred in the manner described; but at the present moment he could not see his way to further legislation on the subject, although he should be glad to receive any communication from the hon. Member in regard to it.
    390
    Meanwhile, he suggested it would be extremely interesting if local authorities would furnish him with anything like a Return showing the number of dogs on which the tax was paid, as distinguished from the number that were not taxed. He believed it would be found that there were a large number on which the tax had not been paid. He might remind the hon. Member that two acts of Parliament were already in existence, one relating to England, and the other to Scotland alone. A great deal might be done under those Acts, and the local authorities might well be called upon to act under them.

    SEWAGE —THE LIERNUR SYSTEM-REPORT OF COMMITTEE.—QUESTION.
    MR. E. JENKINSasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether any proper examination has been made, under the direction of the Local Government Board, of the Liernur system of sewage; and, if he will lay upon the Table of the House, Copies of the following Correspondence:—A. Scott to the Committee, 25th September 1875, and E. Rawlinson's reply thereto; A. Scott to E. Rawlinson, 26th October 1876; E. Rawlinson to A. Scott, 27th October 1876; A. Scott to Local Government Board, 3rd January 1877; Reply to ditto; A. Scott to E. Rawlinson, 2nd May 1877; Reply to ditto: A. Scott to E. Rawlinson, 13th June 1877; Letter of Dr. Egeling and A. Scott on Public Health, 1st June 1877?
    MR. SCLATEE-BOOTH: About two years ago I caused a general inquiry to be made into existing systems of sewage disposal in respect of which money had been borrowed with sanction of the Government. The inquiry was undertaken by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), then Parliamentary Secretary, and Mr. Rawlinson, Chief Engineering Inspector, of the Local Government Board. In the course of their proceedings incidental to the inquiry they examined, with, I think, sufficient minuteness, into the Liernur system, and the result of their examination will be found in the Report which has been presented to both Houses of Parliament. The letters specified in the Question of the hon. Member were neither addressed to nor written by the

    391
    Local Government Board or myself, and I cannot therefore undertake to lay them on the Table of the House.

    THE BRUSSELS INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION, 1876.—QUESTION.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, "Whether it is true that Her Majesty's Government have declined to make any contribution towards the expenses incurred at the late Bruxelles International Exhibition, although the Government exhibits sent to Bruxelles entailed an extra expense on the Executive Committee of £738 14 s. 5d.; whether they are aware that every other European Government which sent exhibits to Bruxelles has defrayed the costs and expenses attending thereon; whether it is not the fact that upon the report of the Special Commissioners sent to Bruxelles by Her Majesty's Government, the inventions there exhibited for the relief of the wounded in war, have been introduced into the Ambulance Department of the British Army; and, whether the Government are aware that, in consequence of their refusal to make any contribution towards the expenses, the executive of the Bruxelles International Exhibition have been called upon to discharge the remaining liability amounting to nearly £700?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: In answer to the first Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman, it is true that the Government have declined to make any contribution towards the expenses incurred at the late Brussels International Exhibition. With regard to the other Questions, I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the facts stated in the Question; but I do not know that I have any official information to give with regard to the cost incurred or the amount of the liability which may have fallen on the Executive Committee. It is the fact that some of the inventions that were exhibited for the relief of the wounded in war have been introduced into the ambulance department of the British Army; but I have not thought it necessary to make any minute inquiries into these matters for this reason— the first request made to the Treasury as to the proposed Vote towards the expenses of the Exhibition was made in January, 1876, and it was then distinctly declined. The Treasury stated that
    392
    they could not undertake to propose a Vote for such a purpose. In May the same year the Committee made a further application to the Treasury that provision might be made for exhibits connected with the means of saving lives and other matters to be sent to Brussels and exhibited by the Government. The request was considered and distinctly declined. The Treasury expressed their regret to find it necessary to lay down such a rule; but they could not propose a Vote except at the distinct request of the Government where the Exhibition was held. The Committee were clearly given to understand that they must not expect any pecuniary aid even in respect of those articles which were sent from a Government Department. If after so distinct an arrangement, the Committee chose to send any articles in respect of which expenses were incurred, they must be considered to have done so at their own risk.

    PARLIAMENT—OBSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC BUSINESS—THE SITTING OF JULY 31—AUGUST 1.—QUESTION.
    MR. NEWDEGATE: Sir, I have a Question on the Paper on which I have to offer a word of explanation. I beg to refer to what occurred on the 2nd and 3rd of July—to the number of divisions which were taken on the Motion for Adjournment. There is no necessity of referring at length to what occurred so recently as this week. I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is his intention, as Leader of this House, to propose any means by which this House may mark and record its sense of the great inconvenience to which this House was on Tuesday and Wednesday last put by the obstructive conduct of a very small minority of its Members?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: So far as I have been able to collect the opinion of the House, I think it is in favour of making no formal record of the proceedings to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I think, on the whole, the impression—which is entirely my own impression—is that it will be more dignified and altogether better that we should leave the record which stands upon the Journals of the House to speak for itself. I trust we shall have no repetition of such scenes as those

    393
    that have lately occurred. But if, unfortunately, any attempts to repeat them should occur, the House will know how to deal with them.

  INDIA—THE GARRISON OF PERIM.

    QUESTION.
    THE O'DONOGHUEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it was owing to the paucity of subaltern officers in the Native Indian Army, a field officer was recently deputed to the island of Perim in the Red Sea to command the detachment there, the said detachment consisting of about forty Sepoys, and therefore only a subaltern's command; and, if so, whether such a paucity of officers necessitating the employment of superior officers on minor duties is under the consideration of the Government?
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The India Office is not kept informed of the officers employed on detachment duties in India. In this case, however, the regiment which furnished the Perim garrison had, it appears from the last quarterly Army List, three field officers and four captains and subalterns present, with 16 Native commissioned officers, which is the normal organization of a Native Infantry regiment. If, therefore, a field officer was sent to Perim, it was probably due either to ordinary regimental arrangements or to the desire of the brigadier-general in command to have for special reasons an officer of special experience in command at the island of Perim, a post which, though small, is exceptionally important.

    TURKEY—BRITISH REFUGEES AT CONSTANTINOPLE.—QUESTION.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question of which I have not been able until within the last minute or so to give him private Notice. I received this morning from Constantinople a telegram to this effect—sent by a gentleman in whom I have every reason to repose much confidence, and I think the Government would be disposed to concur with me were I to mention his name. I will now read the telegram exactly as it stands—
    "Desirable to ask Government whether any steps taken for assisting destitute British sub-
    394
    jects in Constantinople or elsewhere, who in considerable numbers are arriving."
    The telegram is not quite clear, but we see what it means—that this gentleman is of opinion that many distressed British subjects are arriving at Constantinople who are in need of assistance. Considering the urgency of the matter, the right hon. Gentleman will excuse my asking whether the Government have taken any steps to assist destitute British subjects; and, if it be inconvenient to answer the Question now, I will repeat it to-morrow.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: As far as I am aware the Government has no information at present on the subject; but if the right hon. Gentleman will give Notice of his Question, I will make inquiries and answer it to-morrow.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    SOUTH AFRICA BILL.— [Lords.]
    (Mr. J. Lowther.)
    CONSIDERATION. [BILLS 195, 271.]
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."—(Mr. J. Lowther.)
    MR. O'DONNELLrose to move, according to Notice, that the Bill be considered this day three months. A great many Amendments had been introduced into the Bill which were wholly unnecessary, and 30 or 40 clauses struck out, and a few had been amended in a direction which seemed to supply some more guarantee for Constitutional government and the protection of the Native races than was originally provided; but still further and better guarantees were required for Constitutional government of the different States than the proposed Confederation would afford. Most of the objections to the Bill still remained unanswered. No answer had been made to the objection that the Bill was unasked for by those mainly concerned. Government had been repeatedly asked for the evidence of the convenience or necessity of this measure; but Government had adduced no proof that this or any similar Bill was or would be required by the States affected, either now

    395
    or for some time to come. By clinging to the period named for the carrying out of the clauses of the Bill the Government tacitly admitted that a Bill which had been pushed forward with so much vehemence was not really required. The Cape Colony desired to have nothing to with it unless it could be worked so as to carry out the policy of the Colony; and he feared that, in spite of the appearance that the policy adopted was that of the Colonial Office, it would really be that of the Cape Colony, which was in favour, not of federal, but of legislative union. If we desired to win the support of the Cape Colony, we should have to assent to legislative union; and in that case the greater part of the time spent upon the Bill would have been wasted. The Colony of Griqualand West, which up to yesterday was as free a State as Natal, had not asked for it. Besides all those objections, the Bill was so studiously vague, being unasked for, that it was framed either for federal union or legislative union, and it contained no provisions for protection of the Colonists and Native races from mutual injuries. It was known from all recent news that had reached this country from the Cape that the Kaffir population and the European Colonists were not safe. Murders were committed. The Kaffir King declared that he had been deceived by Her Majesty's Government, and that instead of receiving the Transvaal, which he expected would be given to him, this legislation was proposed. Her Majesty's Government, with singular reticence, had kept back their project for federation until towards the end of the Session; but the project would prove a disturbing cause in the South African Colonies, and he would refer, as a proof of that, that one of the Native Chiefs was going about among his kinsmen, and arousing their passions to excitement and alarm. The matter was most serious, and the Native population interpret the legislation as a combination of the White men against the Black men. The Chiefs, according to Sir Henry Barkly, were combining for the protection of their race, and the European population, on their part, were full of apprehension as to the consequences that might result from this legislation. This Bill would be a danger to the Native population, because it took away liberties to it with
    396
    one hand which it gave with the other. These Colonies were not ripe for confederation. The Colony of the Cape could alone pretend to anything like civilization. In Natal, for instance, there were 20,000 Whites who were mere adventurers, and 150,000 polygamous savages; and yet it was proposed to confer on these 20,000 diamond-dust washers and miners the power to override the Native races. He moved that the consideration of the Bill be deferred for three months—if it were deferred for 33 months he believed no one would be harmed—it would remain a dead letter from the day of its enactment.
    MR. PARNELL, in seconding the Motion, said, that in framing the Bill the Government had left out of sight the principles which ought to direct federation, and had equally disregarded the feelings of the people of the Colonies. The Bill was a parody on federation, and the manner in which it had been discussed in Committee was a parody upon legislation. It was worse, for it formed a precedent which might be acted upon most disastrously hereafter, whenever a tyrant majority desired to override the rights of a minority. They had shown that, practically speaking, there was no limit to the power of the majority to alter their Rules, and, having altered them, there was no limit to their power of abusing them. The hon. Member was proceeding to comment on the clauses of the Bill, when—
    MR. WHALLEYrose to Order, amid some expressions of disapproval, and asked Mr. Speaker whether the hon. Member, at that stage of the Bill, was at liberty to refer to separate clauses of it?
    MR. SPEAKER: A reference in detail to the several clauses of the Bill is, at this stage of it, no doubt out of Order; but a reference to one particular clause of it, as an illustration of the argument, is in Order, and the hon. Member is therefore in Order in taking that course.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he was very much obliged to Mr. Speaker for his protection. The hon. Member proceeded to say that the magnitude of the Bill was greatly in excess of the apparent requirements of the occasion. What was actually wanted was simply an enabling Bill to authorize Her Majesty's Government to do whatever they pleased

    397
    in the matter. Instead of being a Bill to give certain options to these States, it was rather a Bill to enable an Order in Council to override the authority of Parliament, to take away from these Colonies, with the exception of Cape Colony, all their legislative power, and to join them together in any way the Crown might see fit. The Cape Colony had a representative system, but what of the unfortunate Transvaal Republic, which had been annexed? What of the Orange Free State, whose forcible annexation they contemplated? and what of Natal? These Colonies, he maintained, would be perfectly helpless under the arrangements which the Bill made. With half the Members of the Legislative Chamber nominated by the Government, it would be easy to procure a vote that would override the wishes of the people and decide peremptorily on the question of federation or of union. It would have been far better if the Government had plainly avowed their object, and given to the Bill a title more in conformity with it. In that case the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) would have been spared many anxious moments, and the House itself much contention, and a great deal of bad language. ["Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is not in Order in saying that bad language is used in the House by other hon. Members, and I must call upon him to withdraw the expression.
    MR. PARNELLwould at once withdraw the expression. He had, of late, been accustomed to read so much bad language in the newspapers, that he hoped that would be accepted in excuse for his transgression. The policy of the Government had tended in the direction of creating a system which should be under the direct control of the Cabinet at home, without reference to the true interest of the Colonies. If this had not been the case, the House of Commons would not have lost its character as a deliberative Assembly. [Cries of "Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKERcalled the hon. Member to Order, remarking that imputations of the kind could not be permitted in the House.
    MR. PARNELLat once withdrew the observation. The Bill was not one calculated to effect the object for which it was nominally introduced. The Bill
    398
    proposed completely to destroy the functions of the existing Colonial Legislatures, to destroy the existing boundaries of the Colonies, to cut up the Colonies into what were called Provinces, and to give to the Provinces what were called Provincial Councils. But these Provincial Councils would be but poor and paltry substitutes for the local Legislatures of which these Colonies would be deprived. The Provincial Councils would not be representative of the opinion of the people, inasmuch as they were to remain in existence for such time as Her Majesty in Council should appoint. Why did not this Bill follow the example of the Canada Confederation Bill, and make provision for the continuance of the Legislative Assemblies of these Colonies? The result of such a measure would be to preclude Cape Colony from joining the Confederation, because she could not do so without surrendering her Legislative Assembly. And how had we treated the Transvaal? We had seized the opportunity of conquering that brave little Colony at the moment when she was engaged fighting with numerous enemies on the other side—and then annexed her. The ground upon which we had annexed that Colony was that slavery existed, and that the Natives were badly treated in it. But slavery did not now exist there; and if the fact that the Natives were badly treated was a ground for annexing the Colony, we should be laying down a rule that would justify any stronger Power than ourselves in annexing our Colonies. We were told, and that by persons who were thoroughly conversant with the subject, that a far worse form of slavery than that which prevailed in the Transvaal existed in one of England's own Colonies at the present moment—a Colony in which the Natives were said to have been as badly treated as those in the Transvaal had been. The fact was that we were simply setting up the doctrine of the strong hand. He had thought that this England was an enlightened and a civilized country, and that we had laid aside all the principles of spoliation and of conquest. In this case, however, we had marched troops into this Colony where they had no business to be, and had annexed a braver people than we were ourselves, and one far more worthy of liberty than a people who did not know what liberty meant. ["Question!"] This was very much to

    399
    the Question. All that we knew about the Transvaal was that Sir Theophilus Shepstone, backed by 1,300 British soldiers, was ruling this Colony, about the Government of which we were entirely ignorant; and that we were asked to pay £100,000 for this act of spoliation. The rights of the Colony of Natal, instead of being respected, had been placed at the mercy of an Order in Council by this Bill, and those of the Transvaal had been equally disregarded. In fact, there never was such a parody upon legislation and confederation as this measure presented to us. The Government had never yet told the House what their object in passing this Bill was, and day after day had been wasted in endeavours to get at the bottom of the Government designs in the matter. It would appear from this measure that the Government intended to give these South African Colonies no rights or privileges whatever, but to place them completely at the mercy, not of that House, but of Orders in Council. So far from thinking that he had gone sufficiently far in his opposition to this Bill, he was convinced that he had not gone half far enough. He was glad to have had an opportunity of stating his opinion upon this measure; because, owing to the multitude of subjects which had engaged the attention of Parliament this Session, he had not been able to make himself fully acquainted with the provisions of the Bill in time for its second reading. He was not then aware of the enormous scope of this Bill, and, in common with most other hon. Members, he had been deceived as to the intentions of the Government on the subject. The hon. Gentleman who had charge of this Bill had shown how well he was able to oppose by dilatory means the passage of Bills, such as the Ballot Bill and the Army Purchase Bill, which were supposed to infringe on the privileges of his class. The hon. Gentleman had shown, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown, that while they knew how to protect the interests of their own class, they knew also how to prevent others from protecting the interests of those who lay at their mercy.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that he could not allow the speech to which they had just listened to pass without remark. The hon. Member who had just sat down had intimated that no adequate opportunity had been afforded to hon. Members to address the House on the subject. [Mr. PARNELL: In Committee on the clauses.] He (Mr. Lowther), on the other hand, ventured to say that the Bill had been amply discussed at every one of its stages. The principle of the Bill had been fully discussed on the second reading. The Bill was set down, as the First Order of the Day, and the whole time up to the termination of the sitting of the House was left at the disposal of those hon. Gentlemen who chose to address it. If hon. Members who had devoted attention to the question had not addressed the House, it was not the fault of the Government. A whole night was devoted to the Question that the Speaker do leave the Chair, another night to the 3rd clause, and a day and night, prolonged after a fashion for a parallel to which we must look back to the early period of Scripture History, to the other clauses of the Bill. Taking into account the long period devoted to the consideration of the principles of the Bill and the discussions recurring in such a manner as to afford any hon. Gentleman who might have been absent at one time an opportunity of hearing all that could be said upon the subject at another, and thus fully compensating him for what he might have lost, he might fairly say that the principles of the Bill had been discussed ad nauseum. He should only disobey the general wish of the House if he were to enter once more on the question of the annexation of the Transvaal. He had already treated that question very fully, and, notwithstanding what had been said, he still adhered to the opinion that he was right in devoting a large portion of his attention to a subject of great importance and interest to the House of Commons. All he would say now was that he could not accept the allegation that the annexation of the Transvaal was the result of the alleged oppression of the Native races by the Boers. As long as the people of the Transvaal confined themselves simply to those matters which concerned themselves only, and with which we had nothing to do, we should not have interfered. He had

    401
    stated positively that they were entitled to govern themselves as they pleased, provided always that they did not act in any way to the prejudice or injury of Her Majesty's Colonies. That was the policy he laid down, and he entirely repudiated anything of a humanitarian character in the matter. The action of Her Majesty's Government was solely, expressly, and avowedly caused by the imminent danger to Her Majesty's subjects, brought about by the external policy of the Transvaal. And with regard to the Orange Free State, he most distinctly repudiated any idea that its "forcible annexation" was contemplated by the Government. On the contrary, it was the desire of Her Majesty's Government to continue those friendly relations with the Orange Free State which had characterized the intercourse between them up to the present time. The hon. Gentleman had talked of 19 or 20 clauses having been struck out of the Bill; but if the hon. Gentleman could have spared from some of his multifarious occupations time to examine the Bill more closely, he would have seen that only 13 clauses had been struck out—all, except one, being matters of the purest detail. He hoped the House would excuse him for not entering into further details.
    Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered.
    Clause 3 (Declaration of union and provision for its completion).
    MR. O'DONNELLproposed, in page 2, line 3, after "Council," to insert "issued within two years from the passing of this Act." He said that his object was that a vague measure like this should not be left for an indefinite time to beat about the four corners of the world. In the course of five years the whole history of Europe might be changed, and the Government might be perplexed to find that they had this business of the Confederation on their hands. He hoped the Government would be able to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 3, after the word "Council," to insert the words "issued within two years from the passing of this Act."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
    MR. J. LOWTHERopposed the Amendment.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    MR. O'DONNELLproposed, in the same clause, line 5, after "legislatures," to insert "after the constituencies have been consulted." He thought that before the formation of any union the constituencies had a right to be consulted as well as the Legislature. It would not be fair to press on the people a Confederation to which they might object—particularly when the nominee element prevailed to such an extent.
    MR. BIGGARseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 5, after the word "Legislatures," to insert the words "after the constituencies have been consulted."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that five years would not pass without an appeal to the electors in the Colonies possessing Representative Assemblies; but if the scheme were handicapped with this Amendment, it was possible that the very object in view might be defeated.
    MR. COURTNEYurged that the Bill as it stood would leave it possible for a Legislature to vote one way and its electors immediately after to vote another—a danger which had occurred in Canada, and which it was desirable to guard against in this case. The second argument of the Under Secretary was most remarkable, for it implied that the danger was that the constituencies would reject Confederation. He should have been glad to hear from a Member of the Cabinet some sort of reason for objecting to so Constitutional a proviso. An Order in Council might be issued before an election could take place; and he submitted that the Legislature should not have power to effect Confederation if the constituencies were opposed to it.
    MR. GORSTsaid, the idea of the Under Secretary was that the electors were now in favour of confederation, and it would be a misfortune if this House were to say that their Repre-

    403
    sentatives should not vote for it without subjecting the constituencies to a penal dissolution.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The House divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 173: Majority 155.—(Div. List, No. 296.)

    AYES —

    Barclay, J. W.

    W. Briggs, W. E.

    Burt, T.

    Butt, I.

    Courtney, L. H.

    Cowen, J.

    Fawcett, H.

    Ferguson, R.

    Gray, E. D.

    Havelock, Sir H.

    James, W. H.

    Jenkins, E.

    Lawson, Sir W.

    Nolan, Captain

    O'Beirne, Capt.

    Parnell, C. S.

    Power, J. O'C.

    Richard, H.

    TELLERS—Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. Biggar.
    MR. O'DONNELLmoved, in page 2, line 6, to leave out "Union" and insert "Confederation." The effect of his Amendment would be that the new Union would be called the South African "Confederation," and it could not then be mixed up with the Canadian "Dominion" or the United States.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 6, to leave out the word " Union,' and insert the word "Confederation,"— (Mr. O'Donnell,)—instead thereof.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that if the word "Union" were retained, it would enable the Colonies to choose either a closer or a looser title, as they might prefer the word "Union" or "Confederation." The clause gave power to Her Majesty to declare the Confederation "with name and designation as to Her Majesty may seem fit."
    Question, "That the word 'Union' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Provinces).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 36, before the word "The," to insert the words "Before the first assembling of the Union Parliament."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
    MR. BIGGARsupported the Amendment.
    MR. J. LOWTHERpointed out that the sub-section of the 3rd clause rendered the Amendment unnecessary.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    Clause 9 (Constitution of Privy Council of the Union).
    MR. O'DONNELLmoved an Amendment providing that all alterations in the Members of such Privy Council should be effected on the advice of Ministers responsible to the Union Parliament.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 16, after the word "general," to insert the words "always providing that such additions to and such removals from the said Privy Council shall take place by the advice of ministers responsible to the Union Parliament."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    Clause 16 (Privileges, &c, of Houses).
    MR. COURTNEYmoved, as an Amendment, in page 4, line 30, at end, to add—
    "And until the passing of such Act the said privileges, immunities, and powers shall be the same as those at the time of the passing of this Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and by the Members thereof."
    Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 19 (Constitution of House of Assembly).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 5, line 5, after the word "Parliament," to insert the words "acting in conjunction with the Provincial Councils or Parliaments."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    MR. O'DONNELLmoved a proposal, that Members of the Union Parliament should be paid for their services.
    MR. BIGGARseconded the Motion.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 5, line 9, after the word "qualifications," to insert the words "and the members shall be remunerated for their services at such rates."— (Mr. O'Donnell.)
    After some observations from Mr. E. JENKINS in opposition to, and from Mr. PARNELL in support of, the Amendment,
    MR. J. LOWTHERopposed the Amendment on behalf of the Government.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The House divided:—Ayes 6; Noes 194: Majority 188.—(Div. List, No.297.)

    AYES —

    Burt, T.

    Cowen, J.

    Macdonald, A.

    Nolan, Capt.

    Parnell, C. S.

    Power, J. O'C.

    TELLERS—Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. Biggar.
    Clause 20 (Summoning of House of Assembly).
    On the Motion of Mr. O'DONNELL, Amendment made, in page 5, line 17, before "in," insert "but at least once a-year."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 21 (Decennial re-adjustment of representation).
    MR. COURTNEYmoved an Amendment to the effect that changes brought to light by the decennial census should operate in producing re-adjustments both in the Legislative Council and in the House of Assembly.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 23, after the word "provinces," to insert the words "whether in the Legislative Council or in the House of Assembly."—(Mr. Courtney.)
    MR. J. LOWTHERpointed out that ample power was given by Clauses 33 and 56 to alter the composition of the Councils as might be thought expedient.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    Clause 26 (Disallowance by Order in Council of Act assented to by Governor General).
    MR. O'DONNELLmoved that the clause be struck out. The provisions of the clause were extremely unsatisfactory. The clause permitted that an Act passed by the Colonial Legislature, and sent home to this country, might be pigeon-holed for two years in the Colonial Office, and then be disallowed by the Crown. Thus delay might entail very serious pain and loss on Her Majesty's subjects in South Africa, where interests might have grown up under a belief in the efficacy of the local Act.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 26.—(Mr. O' Donnell.)
    MR. J. LOWTHERopposed the Motion on the ground that the clause was in the usual form, and that the words used were formal words.
    Question, "That Clause 26 stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Clause 32 (Council for each province).
    MR. PARNELLmoved an Amendment, providing that the Members of the Provincial Legislatures and the House of Assembly be elected by the British male subjects of the age of 21 and upwards, and that due representation of the Natives be also provided for by leave of Her Majesty, and without endangering the Government. His object was to determine how the Provincial Legislatures were to be elected, which was in no way determined by the Bill.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 10, after the word "such," to insert the words "councillors or councillors and members of assembly elected, until the Provincial Council concerned otherwise directs, by the vote of every male British subject aged twenty-one years or upwards being a householder in such province, and of such number, and elected for such term, as the Queen may direct: Provided always, That provision shall be made for the due representation of the natives in the Provincial Councils, in such manner as shall be deemed by Her Majesty without danger to the stability of the government."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    MR. J. LOWTHERopposed the Amendment.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The House divided:—Ayes 5; Noes 188: Majority 183.—(Div. List, No. 298.)

    AYES —

    Biggar, J. G.

    Cameron, C.

    Nolan, Capt.

    Power, J. O'C.

    Trevelyan, G. O.

    TELLERS—Mr. Parnell and Mr. O'Donnell.
    Clause 37 (Distribution of powers may be varied).
    MR. O'DONNELLmoved the omission of the clause. It was impossible to permit the Home Government to abrogate the action of the Legislature of the Union they were now creating.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 37, as amended.—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, the clause did no more than embody the principles of an Act which had been in operation for the past century, and which it was absolutely necessary to maintain.
    Mr. PARNELLsaid, he must differ from the right hon. Gentleman. If the Act was to be varied by Order in Council he failed to see what use the Act would be. It only showed that the Bill was a mere sham from beginning to end, that it did not respect the rights of the Colonies and States concerned, and that no real scheme of Confederation could possibly be carried out by the Imperial Government. It was a pity that time had been wasted over this Bill. The Government might have been satisfied with passing the first three clauses; those which followed would only plunge the Government into difficulties. But it was futile for him to urge anything. The result of the last division was sufficient to show that it was perfectly absurd— useless for a few Members to contend against the drift of opinion which prevailed in the House upon this question. It would, however, be regretted that the Bill had been hurried through the House in the way it had been. He supported his hon. Friend's proposal to omit the clause.
    Amendment negatived.
    Question, "That Clause 37, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Clause 47 (Articles duty free within Union).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 11, line 33, after the word "provinces," to insert the words "unless otherwise provided in the articles of Union of any province or Confederated State."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
    Question, " That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    Clause 55 (Laws respecting natives to be reserved).
    Amendment proposed, in page 13, to leave out from the word "thereon," in line 13, to the word " opportunity," in line 16, inclusive.—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
    Question, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Clause 58 (Power to Her Majesty to authorize annexation to Cape or Natal of certain territories.)
    Mr. O'DONNELLmoved, in page 13, line 38, the omission of the words " or of Natal." He objected to giving
    408
    the Governor of Natal power to annex anything. The Colony had practically no constitution, and consisted of 20,000 nondescript Whites and one of the worst Native populations in the whole of Africa.
    Mr. J. LOWTHER,on the part of the Government, accepted the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

    COLONIAL STOCK BILL.— [Bill 228.]
    (Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. James Lowther.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. W. H. SMITH,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its clauses had been most carefully considered, and that it would render great benefit to the Colonies. It proposed to authorize the Colonies to issue stock in this country under very carefully-considered regulations, and to en- . able a register of these stocks to be kept in London. It was a measure which was very earnestly desired by the Colonists.
    In reply to Questions from Mr. Monk, Sir Andrew Lusk, and Mr. Parnell,
    Mr. W. H. SMITHsaid, the Bill would involve no charge on the Imperial revenue. Provision was made that the holders of the stock should have the most complete notice that it was to be issued on the security of the Colonies only, and that the Imperial Government would be in no way responsible for it. The provisions of the Bill were limited solely to stock issued on the responsibility of the Colonial Government.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. W. S. Smith.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
    The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

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

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CASE OF MR. P. LAVERY.

    MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
    Mr. BIGGARrose to call attention to the case of Mr. P. Lavery, who, at the Crumlin Petty Sessions, charged certain persons with wilful and corrupt perjury, said to have been committed with reference to a charge of assault which had been brought against him in the same Court, and which had been sent for trial to the Antrim Quarter Sessions, where, however, it was not allowed to go to the jury. Owing to repeated adjournments the hearing of the charge of perjury extended over 14 months and involved Lavery in expenses to the amount of £120. Ultimately the case was dismissed, although, in his opinion, it was clearly proved that the witnesses who had appeared against Lavery were guilty of perjury. The hon. Member contended that in these circumstances the magistrates—Messrs. Lyons, Douglas, and M'Clintock—had failed to do their duty. He therefore moved for a Select Committee to inquire into their conduct.
    Mr. O'CONNOR POWERseconded the Motion.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the conduct of Messrs. Lyons, Douglas, and M'Clintock, at Crumlin petty sessions, regarding Mr. P. Lavery,"—(Mr. Biggar,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    The ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Gibson)said, a few words would satisfy the House that there was no necessity of appointing a Select Committee to consider this case. He did not know these three magistrates, and the proper course would be to bring their conduct, if it had been improper, before the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. The ques-
    410
    tion raised now was whether these gentlemen had acted wrongly in not sending certain persons to be tried for perjury before a jury; but no case was made out for doing that. Mr. Lavery was rightly acquitted; but the learned Judge who tried the case did not recommend that the witnesses should be indicted for perjury. Naturally feeling aggrieved he took steps to prosecute the witnesses; but the magistrates, after careful consideration, came to the conclusion that they would not be justified in committing the parties for trial. He thought it would be a grave injustice to say that the House should, upon the statement of the hon. Member for Cavan, agree to the high prerogative process against these magistrates which was now proposed. He had himself to consider many cases of persons who, having been acquitted of crimes, wished to prosecute the witnesses who had given evidence against them; but in most cases he assumed that those witnesses were simply mistaken, and always thought that it required grave consideration before directing a criminal prosecution against parties who might have acted bonâ fide, though erroneously.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Committee deferred till Monday next.

    COUNTY OFFICERS AND COUTS (IRELAND) (re-committed) BILL.— [Bill 254.]
    (Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
    COMMITTEE. [Progress 24th July.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 68 to 82, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 83 (Fixing and collection of fees and stamp duties).
    Mr. O'CONNOR POWER(for the O'Conor Don) moved in page 34, line 36, at end, to add—
    "Provided always, That all Stamp Duties levied under the authority of this, or any of the other aforesaid Acts, shall be regulated on the ad valorem principle and in proportion to the value of the property sought to be recovered, or for which a civil bill decree is granted."
    The ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Gibson)said, he could not accept the precise words of the Amendment, but he should accept it substantially on the Report.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clauses 84 and 85 agreed to.
    Clause 86 (Recorders).
    Mr. LAWmoved, in page 38, line 19, to leave out "two thousand five hundred," and insert "three thousand."
    The ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Gibson)asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clauses 87 and 88 agreed to.
    Clause 89 (Transfer of chairmen).
    Mr. M'CARTHY DOWNINGmoved the omission of the Clause.
    Motion agreed to.
    Clause struck out.
    Clause 90, 91, and 92 agreed to.
    Clause 93 (Certain chairmen not to practise).
    Mr. MELDONmoved to omit the clause, which provided that—
    "No person who after the passing of this Act shall be appointed chairman of any county or of any permanent union of counties shall practise at the bar, or as a special pleader, or equity draftsman, or be directly or indirectly concerned as a conveyancer, notary public, solicitor, or attorney.
    The Civil Bill Courts in Ireland commanded public esteem, and he ascribed their success to the fact that the Judges of the Court were practising barristers, and were never withdrawn from their practice. Those who sought to establish a new system relied upon the fact that the Courts had worked badly up to the present time. It would be very injurious if these gentlemen were taken away from access to the Four Courts Library, and from influence of the Bar in these Courts. The check of the opinion of the Bar was a most valuable one upon the decisions of the Chairman of Quarter Sessions. Nor was that all. It was most desirable that a Judge should keep up his legal reading, and that he should not go down to the country entirely isolated from contact with his own Profession to administer a sort of rough-and-ready justice
    412
    amongst the laymen. Moreover, a large number of cases coming before their Courts were land cases, and it was impossible for the Chairmen to command the confidence of the poor if they were seen to be living and familiarly associating with the gentry of the county. Of course, if they lived in the county and associated with the upper classes, as they would do if dissociated from practice and their Profession, their impartiality would command far less confidence than at present. He thought it most undesirable that they should be thus dissociated and be thus exposed to local influences, and for that reason he moved the omission of the clause.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 93.—(Mr. Meldon.)
    Mr. LAWsaid, he had never found that any inconvenience had arisen from Irish County Chairmen, he would not say practising, but continuing in attendance on the Four Courts. No doubt, the English County Court Judges were prohibited from practice; but the sheriffs depute of Scotland retained their practice, and it was even made a condition of their tenure of office that they should continue in attendance on the Courts of Session in Edinburgh. The analogy of Scotland was much more pertinent to Ireland than that of England, because in England there were no land cases, nor were there any criminal cases coming before the English County Court Judges, as there were before the Irish Chairmen and the sheriffs depute in Scotland. What sort of confidence, he might ask, would tenants feel in the decisions of Judges who had dined the day before with the landlord? Or how could they be sure that proper confidence would be felt in the decision of a Judge resident in a district and exposed to local influence in the case of a party riot, which would unfortunately happen again as it had happened before? Let the Judge go, as now, into the country to do his work, and when that was done, let him return to his usual practice in Dublin. He would support the Motion for the rejection of the clause.
    Mr. BRUENsaid, that he trusted the Government would assent to the omission of the clause. He thought that it was desirable to protect the Judges in Ireland as much as possible from the suspicion of being influenced by local

    413
    circumstances. And as the result of this clause would be to expose them to that suspicion, he trusted that the Government would consent to its omission.
    Mr. M'LARENsaid, that although the Scotch sheriffs and their substitutes were at one time required to attend the Courts in Edinburgh, this obligation was no longer imposed on them.
    Mr. CHARLES LEWISsupported the clause. He contended that the true analogy for the Irish Chairmen was the English County Court Judges, who were prohibited from private practice.
    Mr. A. MOOREobserved that if the principle of the clause were carried out, there would be nothing to prevent the Judge of one Superior Court practising in another.
    Mr. MACARTNEYhoped the Government would abide by the clause, and ridiculed the idea that an assistant barrister could be bribed by a dinner given to him by a country gentleman.
    Mr. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, these gentlemen were not getting one single penny in addition to their salaries, but were getting a very large amount of additional labour. The Chairman in the West Riding of Cork dined with no man, and he did so upon the ground that he felt he ought to be above suspicion. He had asked him to dine with him, and the Chairman had invariably refused, his feeling being that he ought to be above suspicion of taking a bribe. That was the feeling of the Chairmen in Ireland themselves, and the majority of the Chairmen in Ireland would not dine with any country gentleman. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) seemed to think that that was an argument in favour of the clause. He also said that when County Court Judges sat at table, they sat with the magistrates among whom they were working. They were sitting with them, acting with them, deciding with them, and passing judgment with them. Was that the case in England? The county Court Judge of England made acquaintance with the gentlemen in the county, and that was also the case in Ireland. He, however, supported the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kildare upon different grounds. If this Bill became law, he defied any first-class Chairman to discharge the duties of the county and also practise. He thought the effect of the clause
    414
    would be that if they excluded the County Court Chairman from practising it would come to this—they would be dissociated altogether from the Bar. He thought the Attorney General for Ireland would do well if he would eliminate the clause from the Bill.
    Mr. KING-HARMANcould not see the force of the arguments adduced by the hon. Member who had last spoken. The Chairmen must live somewhere and dine somewhere; if they did not keep houses and did not dine with the landed proprietors, then they must dine at hotels, where they would meet with the farmer class, and the same objection might be taken with equal justice against their dining with the farmers.
    Mr. STACPOOLEobserved that the greatest dressing he ever received in respect to his duties as a landlord was from the Chairman of his own county, and yet that gentleman had frequently dined with him,
    Mr. MURPHYcould not see why the clause should be retained.
    Mr. SERJEANT SHEELOCKthought it of considerable importance that the County Chairmen should be kept au courant with the changes of the law.
    Captain NOLANpointed out that the Chairmen ought to be above the suspicion of taking a bribe. The adoption of the clause would have the effect of cutting off, or rather preventing, the Chairmen from having any association with each other, or consulting together over points of importance certain to spring up in the course of their jurisdiction.
    Mr. SHAWhoped the Government would not accept the Amendment. There was little fear that a Chairman would cut himself off entirely from legal opinions; but the habits of the Bar were certainly not those to bring on to the Bench. If these gentlemen, though sitting on the Bench at other times, were in the habit of receiving large fees from parties, it would be impossible for them altogether to free themselves from the influence of pounds, shillings, and pence.
    Mr. CALLANargued against any change in the existing system. There were many gentlemen whose decisions were accepted and generally quoted with the greatest confidence, and carried as much weight as the decisions of any Judge on the Bench.
    The ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Gibson),in supporting the clause, said, much had been said on both sides for and against it, and had been well said; but the best course the Committee could adopt was to retain the clause. They were now trying to establish a new system of Judicature in Ireland, and by the provisions of the Bill the Chairmen of the County Courts would receive £1,400 a-year each. In his opinion there need not be any apprehension that the Judges, in associating with the magistrates and country gentlemen, would in any way be influenced by their decisions.
    Mr. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, the clause meant this—It was proposed that eight Judges should retire on pensions of £1,050 a-year, and that new Judges should be appointed at £1,400 a-year each. He considered the arrangement bad, and he hoped the clause would be rejected.
    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 105; Noes 32: Majority 73.—(Div. List, No. 299.)
    Mr. MELDONmoved the following clauses:—
    (Extension of jurisdiction of sec. 5 of Act 22 Vic. c. 14.)
    "The fifth section of the Act twenty-second Victoria, chapter fourteen, shall be read and construed as if the words ten pounds were therein substituted for the words two pounds, wherever the words two pounds occur therein, and the jurisdictions thereby conferred shall be extended accordingly."
    Under the Act he had mentioned the jurisdiction of the petty sessions was extended to the recovery of small debts not exceeding £2, and to the extent of £10 in certain cases of dispute between master and servant, and of £5 in sales in markets or fairs. The extension of the jurisdiction to £10 would be a great convenience and saving of expense to both debtors and creditors in the small towns of Ireland.
    MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGopposed the clause, remarking that he believed a more disastrous change in the law was never proposed. If his hon. Friend who had moved the clause only looked at the Returns which had been made to the House he would see that
    416
    it was a remarkable fact that the people of Ireland did not make use of the jurisdiction which was now vested in the Petty Sessions Courts. Was it to be expected that unpaid magistrates would give their time to do the work for which the County Chairman were now paid?
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Schedule D.
    Mr. LAWmoved, in page 46, line 5, to leave out " £1,200," and insert "£1,300." Page 46, line 6, to leave out " £1,100," and insert " £1,200."
    Mr. BIGGARhoped the Committee would not agree to increase the salaries of those gentlemen. Their offices were sinecures, the little work there was to do being done by deputies.
    Mr. BUTTsaid, that this was the largest creation of new places that had taken place for some time, even in Ireland. He thought it would have been better to have abolished the office of Clerk of the Crown and Peace and substituted the officer who did the duty in England—namely, the Clerk of Arraigns. He would not vote for any increase in any of those Votes.
    Mr. A. MOOREsaid, the duty of the Clerk of the Peace in Tipperary was performed by deputy.
    Mr. MACARTNEYhoped the Government would stand by their Schedule.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. CHARLES LEWIS Mr. CHARLES LEWIS moved, in page 46, line 19, to leave out "900," and insert "1,000."
    The ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Gibson)said he could not accept the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. CALLANmoved in page 46, line 34, to to leave out "£600" and insert "£700."
    Amendment negatived.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Schedule E agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

    PRISONS (SCOTLAND) (re-committed) BILL.
    (The lord Advocate, Mr. Assheton Cross.)

    [BILLS 4–124.] COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
    Clause 7 (Appointment of Prison Commissioners).
    Mr. M'LARENbegged to suggest an Amendment to which he should like to call the attention of the Lord Advocate and the Home Secretary. There were three Commissioners to be appointed, one by the Crown, and the other two to be ex-officio Commissioners. The two Commissioners appointed by the Crown were to be retained, and one of the Commissioners was also to be retained, who was the Crown agent. There would be, three paid officers, and the only unpaid officer would be the sheriff. Now, his Amendment was that, in addition to the sheriff of Perth, the sheriff of Mid-Lothian should be appointed, and he proposed this for two reasons. The sheriff of Mid-Lothian had always been included in Acts of Parliament as the chief man, although the sheriff of Perth was just now on the Prison Board. The reason why he was on the Board was that there was a prison at Perth for Government prisoners, and nothing was more natural than that under the old system the sheriff of Perth should be on the Board. It was then the only prison in Scotland in charge of the Government. Under this Bill all the prisons in Scotland were placed under the charge of the Government, and there was no reason why the sheriff of Perth should have any pre-eminence. The county of Mid-Lothian was far more populous than the county of Perth, and while the county of Mid-Lothian was increasing in population, the county of Perth was decreasing, and had been decreasing for many years. He should wish the sheriff of Mid-Lothian to go along with him. He thought it was only right as a matter of arrangement to have another neutral man on the Board; and he begged therefore to move, in page 3, line 2, after "of," to insert "Mid-Lothian, and the sheriffs of the county of."
    The LORD ADVOCATEsaid, it was deemed expedient that the new Board
    418
    of Commissioners should be composed of not more than three paid officials and two ex-officio officials, and he thought it right that the sheriff of Perth should be continued in the same position as heretofore, instead of appointing to the office the sheriff of Lanarkshire or the sheriff of Mid-Lothian. The sheriff of Perth, since the passing of the Act of 1860 had been one of the general managers of the prisons in Scotland. The convict prison at Perth had been more especially under his charge, but he had also the general superintendence of all prisons in Scotland. He would continue to report annually to the Secretary of State, not only on the prison of Perth, but on the prisons of Scotland. He did not see, therefore, why he should be deprived of office. No doubt the county of Mid-Lothian was increasing in population; but the kind of population prison managers had to look after was much more numerous in Perth than in Lanarkshire or Mid-Lothian. The time of the sheriffs of Lanarkshire and Mid-Lothian was occupied largely in judicial business, and they had no time to do the administrative work that was done by the sheriff of Perth, where the prison contained from 900 to 1,200 prisoners.
    Mr. M'LARENsaid, the sheriff of Perth did not take charge of the prisoners. The sheriff of Perth might live next door to the sheriff of Edinburgh, and was in no sense or way connected by residence with the county of Perth, except in name. He did not wish the sheriff of Perth to be superseded, but the sheriff of Mid-Lothian to be added.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 10 (Duties of Prison Commissioners).
    Mr. REDMONDmoved in page 3, line 32, to leave out from "prisons," to "such," in line 33. The Secretary of State had power to appoint the chaplains under this Bill, but these must be ministers of the Church of Scotland—that was, of one denomination, notwithstanding that the prisoners might be in considerable numbers of other denominations. He proposed that the Secretary of State should not be precluded from appointing Roman Catholic chaplains in those prisons in

    419
    which Roman Catholic prisoners were confined, or from making like provision for people of Episcopalian, Free Church, or any other persuasion. The number of Roman Catholic prisoners in the prisons in Scotland was unfortunately considerable—about a third, it appeared. The number of Irish, mostly of the labouring classes, in Scotland was about a fourth of a million. Many of them were relieved from the restraints and influences of home, and were exposed for the first time to the temptations of large cities. In these circumstances it was not only a measure of fairness, but of economy, to use every influence they could bring to bear upon them, especially of a religious kind, in order to prevent them again becoming chargeable on the country. He did not mean to reproach the Government, or to make any charge of intolerance against the authorities of Scotland; but he thought the fact must be admitted that at present the provision for the Roman Catholic prisoners in Scotland was inadequate. He compared this state of things with the equal provision made in Ireland for Roman Catholic and Protestant prisoners alike, and concluded by hoping the Lord Advocate would consent to the Amendment.
    The LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the object of the Bill was to maintain the similarity between the laws of England and Scotland. After the Act passed, the administration of the law would be entrusted to the Home Secretary, instead of being vested in the Local Board. As to the religious services, the Home Secretary at present had no control over the matter; but the clause in question was inserted in the Bill because in order to get rid of a certain complication it was thought proper to repeal the Act of 1860, which at present regulated the administration of the prisons in Scotland. It was necessary, having repealed that, to re-enact certain of its provisions, which it was thought desirable to retain. The second clause of Section 10 of the Bill was precisely the same thing as that which was contained in Section 15 of the English Act. The law of the two countries would be made precisely the same. He trusted that this explanation would be satisfactory, and that an Amendment would not be introduced into the Bill making the law of Scotland different from that of England.
    Mr. M'LARENthought that the Scotch Members had a right to complain of the Government discussing a clause to change what had been the practice in Scotland from time immemorial, after 1 o'clock in the morning, when there were only 12 Scotch Members in the House. If the matter was to be gone into, it would be much better to report Progress now, and to proceed with the measure when the House was fuller. If the Home Secretary was to exercise the authority which it was now proposed to confer on him under the Act, it would excite an amount of hostility in Scotland, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary could have no conception. He (Mr. M'Laren) had heard a Question asked the other day with regard to Roman Catholics chaplains; but the Home Secretary in reply did not commit himself. He (Mr. M'Laren) could have supplemented the information given if the Forms of the House would have allowed it. There had been entire freedom to visit prisoners in Scotland. The proposal now made implied that the Roman Catholic priests would not take the trouble to look after their co-religionists who were in prison unless they were paid for it. He would remind the Committee that the Presbyterian dissenters had never sought such a thing as a paid prison chaplain.
    Mr. ASSHETON GROSShoped the discussion would not continue, for the reason that it was at present unnecessary. The Bill before the Committee was simply re-enacting the law of 1863.
    Mr. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsupported the Amendment.
    The LORD ADVOCATEpointed out that under a general clause there were powers giving the Home Secretary to appoint all prison officers according to the Act of 1860.
    Mr. CALLANagreed with the hon. Member for Edinburgh that this hour of the night was not the proper one to discuss this question, and moved to report Progress.
    Mr. ASSHETON GROSShoped the Motion would not be persisted in. The law in Scotland was precisely the same as in England. Being Protestant countries the chaplain appointed would be a member of the Established Church, but there was a power of appointment of others.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment (Mr. Redmond), by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. LEITH(for Mr. LAING) moved in Clause 23, page 10, line 21, add—
    "Provided, That having regard to the exceptional circumstances of Orkney and Zetland, these counties shall as regards the prisons just built or being built at Kirkwall and Lerwick be entiled to borrow from the Public Works Loan Commissioners the amounts expended by them in the erection and furnishing of such prisons, as if the said amounts had been moneys authorised to be borrowed by the commissioners of supply of the said counties for the purposes of this Act."
    Proviso agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
    House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.

Preamble
MINUTES.]—PUBLIC Bins—First Reading— Board of Education (Scotland) Continuance * (171); Superannuation (Mercantile Marine Fund Officers) * (172); Treasury Chest Fund * (173).
Second Reading—Building Societies Act (1874) Amendment* (163); Saint Catherine's Harbour, Jersey * (158).
Committee—Legal Practitioners * [142]; Solway Salmon Fisheries* (162).
Their Lordships met;—And having gone through the Business on the Paper, without debate—
House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, One o'clock.