Sitting of 6 July 1877

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report— Public Offices and Buildings (Metropolis) [No. 312].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES—Resolutions [July 2 and 5] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Considered as amended—Factors Act Amendment* [168].
Withdrawn—Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act (1870) Amendment* [51].
The House met at Two of the clock.

QUESTIONS.

  BOILER EXPLOSIONS.—QUESTION.
  MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been directed to the account of a boiler explosion at the Ravensdale Forge, near Tunstall, North Stafford, on the 26th ult., and by which ten persons lost their lives and thirty-five others were seriously injured; and, whether he will direct that some eminent legal gentleman be sent down to see that a complete and searching inquiry may take place into the cause of that disaster?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, he had received two or three deputations from one of the most valuable voluntary institutions in the country—the Manchester Steam Users Association—and that these deputations had pointed out to him the causes of various boiler explosions, and how it was that coroners' inquests in such cases were very often not satisfactory. He felt bound to take this opportunity of bearing his testimony to the extreme value of that Association. In the course of the last six months its chief engineer had examined no less than 3,500 boilers, and had discovered 748 defects, 34 of which were dangerous; and the number of accidents which this voluntary Association had prevented was, he believed, enormous. On the occasion of the last deputation, he promised that as soon as he received information of any serious boiler explosion he would send counsel to represent the Home Office
  886
  at the coroner's inquest, and this promise he had fulfilled in connection with the explosion referred to by the hon. Member.

  THE MEDITEBRANEAN FLEET—BESIKA BAY.—QUESTION.
  SIR WLLFRID LAWSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has any objection to inform the House with what object Her Majesty's Government have ordered the Fleet to Besika Bay?
  MR. GOURLEYsaid, he had a Question to put on the same subject—namely, to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will be good enough to inform the House the number and names of the vessels belonging to the Mediterranean Squadron ordered from the Piræus to Besika Bay; and, why they have been sent there in place of the Suez Canal? He wished to add, that if the Answer was not satisfactory, he would bring the Question forward on the Motion for going into Committee on the Navy Estimates.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the object with which the Fleet has been sent to Besika Bay is that it should be at a convenient station. The position of Besika Bay is a central one, which enables the Admiralty to communicate with rapidity, if necessary, with Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, and with the British Government, and it is thought, therefore, to be a most convenient position for the Fleet. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) asks for the number and names of the vessels which have been sent there. Of course, there can be no objection, if he likes to move for a Return, to give him any particulars regarding them; but I may say generally that there are eight vessels, of which seven are iron-clads and one an unarmoured frigate. The iron-clads are the Alexandra, the Swiftsure, the Pallas, the Sultan, the Devastation, the Rupert, and the Hotspur, and the unarmoured frigate is the Raleigh. The hon. Gentleman asks why they have been sent there in place of the Suez Canal. The answer is, that Besika Bay is a convenient and central station, and that the Suez Canal is not equally central. Moreover, there is no particular reason why any vessel should be sent to the Suez Canal beyond

  887
  the one already stationed there, which I believe is the Research, which has taken the place of the Hotspur.

  PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—REFLECTIONS ON THE SPEAKER OF THIS HOUSE.—EXPLANATION.
  MR. PULESTONsaid, that after consultation with various hon. Members, and after hearing the satisfactory statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, he had determined not to proceed this Session with the Motion of which he had given Notice, as to altering the Rule which enabled a Member, in Committee of the Whole House, to move any number of times that "the Chairman do report Progress," or that "the Chairman do leave the Chair."
  MR. PARNELLsaid, it would be in the recollection of the House that yesterday, when the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Blake) proposed on a question of Privilege to call attention to certain reports of speeches he (Mr. Parnell) had elsewhere made, he expressed his willingness to make an explanation, if the Speaker and the House so desired. As the House had not accepted the suggestion of the hon. Member for Leominster that his Motion should be treated as a question of Privilege, and as, from the position of the Motion on the Notice Paper, there was no immediate prospect of the hon. Member being able to bring the matter before the House, he thought it right to explain, in reference to a report of the expressions he used at a meeting on the 21st of April, that it was an inaccurate report, as he himself stated in the House shortly after the meeting was held. Perhaps he might be permitted also to remind the House, in reference to that report, that he had always, publicly and privately, in Ireland as well as England, repudiated any intention of obstructing the conduct of Public Business. Any obstruction which he might seem to the House to have committed had happened after half-past 12, when he thought Business of importance should cease. With regard to the report which purported to give an abstract of a lecture delivered by him on June 17, he wished to say that he had not intended to use words, nor did he think he had used words, calculated to give any offence either
  888
  to the Speaker or to any hon. Member of that House; but, now that he saw the interpretation which had been put upon part of his observations by certain hon. Members of the House, he had only to express his regret that he should have made any allusion to the Speaker capable of misconstruction, for he certainly had not intended to say anything offensive to the right hon. Gentleman, or hurtful to the feelings of any individual Member of that House.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I think no one can have sat in this House for a length of time without observing that the House is always ready to accept in a generous spirit any explanations of remarks of a personal character which are made by any of its Members upon matters that have occasioned difficulty among us, especially when those remarks have reference to speeches or observations made by hon. Members outside the walls of the House, and reported, as they generally are, in a condensed, and possibly not altogether an accurate, form in the public Press. Therefore, although it is impossible not to feel that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Blake) was justified, and deserved the thanks of this House, in taking notice of the report of words used by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell)—words which, I am bound to say, we all lament, and which it would certainly have been better not to use—yet we must at the same time feel, after what the hon. Member has now said, that it is desirable we should let this matter drop, and that we should ask the hon. Member for Leominster not to take any further steps with regard to it. We cannot doubt that the hon. Member for Meath, although there may be two opinions as to his mode of promoting Business—we cannot deny that he has continually taken exception to proceeding with Business at a late hour, and he has always given the reasons which he now states. We may differ as to whether he has always taken the best course; but as to his motives, we have no right to ask anything beyond that which he has always avowed in the House, and which he now affirms. I hope that after what the hon. Member has said, the House will accept his apology and rest satisfied.
  MR. GLADSTONE: As one of the Members who has held a seat longest in

  889
  this House, I may perhaps be permitted by the indulgence of the House to express my entire concurrence in the very considerate and equitable observations which have just been made by my right hon. Friend opposite. I am quite convinced that in adopting that tone he is taking the course by far the most politic in reference to the peculiar class of difficulties with which he has had to contend, and I wish to express my great satisfaction at the fact that we have heard to-day the explanation of the hon. Member for Meath. I will express that satisfaction with one remark, and I hope that single remark will be excused. It appears to me that if any hon. Member of this House is so ill-advised on any occasion as to utter disparaging remarks outside the walls of this House in regard to the House itself, the House is so strong that, in my opinion, it can afford very well, if it thinks fit, to pass by remarks of that description. But, Sir, there is one thing we neither can afford to do, nor ought we to desire to afford to do, and that is, we cannot, in my opinion, tolerate any attack, direct or indirect, on the conduct of our Speaker. By "Speaker" I do not mean the present Speaker, but the Speaker as such and as known to the House. His conduct is liable to be challenged in the House; and if it is challenged anywhere, it ought to be challenged in the House. The very best Speaker that ever sat in that Chair—and, happily, it is hardly necessary to draw a comparison between one Speaker and another—cannot possibly be known outside the House as he is known within it; and, therefore, any assault or attack upon the Speaker outside the House never can carry with it its own cure, while an attack within the House ought to carry its own cure. On every occasion my feeling would be one of great leniency on the part of the House with regard to attacks upon itself; but in regard to remarks upon the Chair and on the impartiality of the Speaker in the administration of his high functions, I hope that such remarks as these will always be followed with vigilance and jealousy by the House, and that no disposition will be shown to tolerate any offence which may be committed in that direction.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he had heard with great and unfeigned pleasure the state-
  890
  ment of the hon. Member for Meath. He had never performed a more painful duty than that of drawing the attention of the House to the words used by the hon. Member. He felt it his duty to do this, because he knew that the hon. Member's attention had been drawn privately to these words, and he had failed to hear any expression of regret fall from the hon. Member in that House with regard to them. He wished, with the indulgence of the House, to explain why it was he took this step. Between 5 and 6 o'clock on Tuesday morning last, when most hon. Members were thoroughly wearied in consequence of the House sitting so late, and when other hon. Members were leading them round the Lobbies so many times in order, as was now explained, to facilitate Public Business, he regarded that conduct as a commentary on the speeches of the hon. Member for Meath, as reported in The Times and The Daily Telegraph. One of these was delivered in a school-room attached to the Italian Church. He stated the substance of those speeches as nearly as he could from memory, and on being challenged to produce the words, a noble Lord opposite was good enough to supply him with a cutting of The Times containing the speech at Hatton Garden, which, by permission of the Chairman, he read to the House. That hon. Gentleman, after listening for some time, stopped it, with the intimation that it should be brought before the Speaker and the House. He (Mr. Blake) then attempted to put a Question as to the truthfulness of the reports, but was stopped on the ground that the Question was out of Order, and he was therefore obliged to give Notice that he would bring it forward as a matter of Privilege, and therefore he had no alternative but to put his Notice of Motion on the Paper. That Motion he now wished to withdraw, and he hoped what had occurred would not be lost on other hon. Members. He had seen the report of a meeting held on Wednesday last, at which reference was made to trials of physical strength. [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKERintimated that the hon. Member was out of Order in referring to that subject.
  MR. BLAKEthen repeated he would withdraw the Motion of which he had given Notice.
  MR. BIGGAR: I should not have risen but for one observation which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, who has formed an opinion from an imperfect report. I was present when the speech complained of was delivered, and it did not strike me at the time, hearing the exact words used, that my hon. Friend did speak disrespectfully of the Speaker. As to the other issue, I do not offer any opinion; but so far as the speech referred to the Speaker of this House, I did not think then, and I do not think now, that my hon. Friend did speak disrespectfully, or that he intended to do so.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  NAVY—NAVAL EDUCATION—H.M.S. "INFLEXIBLE."

    OBSERVATIONS. RESOLUTION.
    MR. T. BRASSEY, in rising to call attention to the course of study pursued at the Naval University at Greenwich, said, that the education of naval officers, although a less sensational topic than other controversies connected with the Navy, was a question of the utmost importance. Some years ago he had invited the attention of the House to the Report of the Committee on the higher education of naval officers, and he had never ceased to watch the Naval University at Greenwich with the deepest interest. While admitting that the resources of that University had in the main been well applied, the recent Report of the Committee, appointed by the Admiralty to inquire into the organization of the College, suggested some doubts as to whether the studies of half-pay officers, who were voluntary students, had been in all cases judiciously chosen. There was reason to apprehend that the Naval University had failed to remove one most serious defect in naval education. He referred to that essentially important subject for naval officers, a knowledge
    892
    of foreign languages. There was a twofold object in the establishment of the College—first, to increase the technical knowledge and skill of officers; and, secondly, to cultivate their general intelligence. Such being the objects, the question was whether there was not some reason to apprehend, from the Report of the Committee, that the study of mathematics had been too rigorously insisted upon. In the words of the Committee of Inquiry—"The back-bone of the instruction at the Naval College consists of mathematics." The Committee did not depreciate the importance of mathematics as the foundation of many branches of study essential to a naval officer, but they were of opinion that only a limited knowledge was necessary for the effective performance of the technical duties of a seaman, and for the practical application of those branches of physics and applied mechanics, which most immediately concerned his profession. Few books could be more useful to a naval officer than Arnott's Physics, and it was a work which could be mastered without mathematics. To the scientific artillerist and shipbuilder, or to understand the theory as distinguished from the practice of navigation, mathematics were essential, but they would do nothing to supply quickness of eye to the pilot, or fertility of resource to the seaman. He would like to refer to some remarks on this subject made by Professor Faraday in giving evidence before the Public Schools Commission—
    "I should like," he said, "a profound scholar to indicate to me what he understands by the training of the mind in a literary sense, including mathematics? What does the mind learn by that training? Does it learn that which enables a man to give a reason in natural things for an effect which happens from certain causes, or why in any emergency or event he does or should do this, that, or the other? It does not suggest the least thing in these matters."
    He need not pursue the subject further. No doubt mathematics were of special value to naval officers and would form the groundwork of any complete course of naval education; but in the case of half-pay officers, the time at their disposal at Greenwich was not sufficient for a complete course of training, and if their limited time were too largely occupied with mathematics, there would be reason to fear that subjects of more practical importance would be neglected. The students at the College were not

    893
    idle. Captain Curme informed the Committee that he studied 10 hours a-day. Yet, notwithstanding their assiduity, the officers had no time at their disposal for many valuable subjects. One lieutenant stated in evidence that—
    "The lectures on physics were so few that he could not possibly have got his first-class certificate in them, or in winds and currents, if he had not availed himself of private tuition. For the last month there was an extra lecture on steam, from four to five o'clock, twice a-week. If he had had the same in physics it would have made a great deal of difference. Moreover, on winds and currents, there was no lecture during the last two months he was there."
    Experimental physics, practical mechanics, modern languages, and International Law were recommended by the Committee as alternative subjects of equal value with the higher mathematics. In making this recommendation the Committee had said—
    "We wish to guard ourselves against approving a course of study which should he chosen simply because it was easier."
    Whatever the subject selected by the candidate, they recommended that the standard of examination should be such as implied in the student both diligence and aptitude. The reasons why so much importance—he might say undue importance—was given to the mathematical studies of the senior officers at Greenwich were not far to seek. Prior to the establishment of the Naval College, mathematics was the only subject, not strictly of a professional character, which was systematically taught in the Navy. The consequence was that the majority of the superior officers, who distinguished themselves by their scholastic attainments, were mathematicians, and they naturally attached special value to the subject in which they were themselves most proficient. There was a tendency generally, in educational matters, to get into a groove. This tendency was specially pointed out in the Report of the Public Schools Commission. As they justly observed, a master could only teach those branches of knowledge in which he had himself been instructed; and it was only natural that he should attach the highest importance to those studies, in which he was himself proficient. Following the opinion of the recent Greenwich Committee, he would urge that the course of study for commanders and captains should be varied, and that they
    894
    should be allowed to make their own choice of studies from among the various subjects which were recognized at the College. They should be examined periodically, and as a further guarantee for their diligence and discipline they should be placed on full pay so long as they were permitted to reside at the College. The Committee on higher education were of opinion that the study of French was of particular importance, and they further recommended that opportunities should be afforded for learning German. The attention of the Committee had been specially directed to this subject by several most competent witnesses. They examined Colonel Williams, who had been for five years Instructor in Fortification at the Royal Naval College, and who told them that ignorance of French and German was the thing from which our naval service suffered more than anything else. Commander Wharton, who had obtained the Beaufort testimonial, went so far to say that French was a far more useful subject for the average naval officer to study than mechanics. Passing to the evidence collected by the recent Committee on the Naval College, he might refer to the evidence of Captain Curme, an officer who had passed successfully through a course at Greenwich, and who expressed himself as follows:—
    "There is no one thing in which most of us feel our deficiency more than in the fact that so few of us are linguists. I am sorry to say that frequently a foreign officer comes on board one of our ships and it is rare to find anybody that can talk to him."
    If he were allowed to refer to information obtained from private sources, the House would be surprised to know how deficient naval officers were in the knowledge of languages. In time of war the knowledge of languages was, as a matter of course, still more essential. The advantages of a knowledge of languages to a naval officer in a high command were never more conspicuously illustrated than in the operations of the combined fleets off Carthagena. The consultations with the Admirals in command of the combined squadron, and the negotiations with the leaders of the Intransigentes required the constant use of many languages. The success achieved by Sir Hastings Yelverton in sustaining the honour and authority of England, without resorting

    895
    to open hostilities, was due not only to the tact, which he displayed, but to his rare facilities for carrying on a personal intercourse in many languages. Was it not reasonable to infer that many little wars might have been prevented by a timely explanation in the language understood by the enemy? In short, the study of languages was obviously so essential to the efficiency of the Navy that the sole question was as to how it could be most effectually encouraged. The only direct step which had hitherto been taken by the Admiralty had been to issue a Circular, in July, 1874, inviting candidates to offer themselves for examination in French, Spanish, German, Italian, and Portuguese. The names of successful candidates were to be noted for employment in flag and senior officer's ships, as Interpreters of the First or Second Class. When so appointed, those of the First Class were to receive an allowance of 2s. 6d. a-day, and those of the Second Class an allowance of 1s. 6d., in addition to their pay. A reference to the Navy List showed that only three commanders and 10 lieutenants had passed the examination. This was a number obviously too small for the requirements of the Navy, and the inference might reasonably be drawn that further inducements were necessary. Admiral Shadwell's Committee had reported that it would be advantageous to the public service if, under suitable regulations, officers could be permitted to visit foreign countries for the purpose of studying the languages. They were to be placed on full pay and allowed harbour-service time if on their return they could pass the prescribed examination. As a further inducement to officers to qualify as interpreters, the Committee recommended that all officers who had successfully passed the required examinations should receive the extra allowance whenever they were placed on full pay. The Committee concluded their recommendations on the subject of foreign languages with a reference to the suggestions of Admiral Milne, who advised that on foreign stations, when in harbour, captains should be directed to obtain the services of French and drawing masters; and that some pecuniary aid should be given by the Admiralty to young officers in difficulty to pay such masters. He (Mr. Brassey) most earnestly recommended to the pre-
    896
    sent Admiralty the adoption of these suggestions. The English Navy was behind the Navies of all the other European Powers, except, perhaps, the French, in this most valuable attainment; and while the French were improving very much in this respect, and specially in their knowledge of English, he was assured that among the younger officers of our own Service there was even less disposition than formerly existed to apply themselves to this study. In the opinion of the responsible authorities at Greenwich, it was impossible to impart the requisite knowledge at the Naval University. It was in foreign countries that it could be most effectually acquired. Every naval officer ought to spend a portion of his half-pay abroad, until he had mastered at least one foreign language thoroughly. The strongest recommendations on this behalf had been made by the Committee on Naval Education, and by individual officers of the highest distinction. He ventured, therefore, to hope that the Admiralty would no longer hesitate to adopt the remedial measures required to supply the most serious educational deficiency of our Naval Service. In urging the subject of the revision of the course of study at Greenwich on the attention of the Admiralty, he wished to guard himself against being misunderstood. He was not an opponent, but, on the contrary, an advocate of a special mathematical training for the Navy. His remarks applied exclusively to the case of senior officers of the rank of captain or commander, who went to Greenwich for short periods as voluntary students, and who, he ventured to maintain, should be allowed a reasonable discretion in the choice of any branches of study, recognized and taught at the College, which they might desire to follow.
    MR. E. J. REEDrose to express his dissent from the observations of the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey) on the study of mathematics, though he was quite at one with his hon. Friend as to the importance of a knowledge of modern languages. The hon. Gentleman had distinctly stated that only a limited knowledge of mathematics was necessary. He (Mr. Reed) was sorry to see that the study of that branch of science was openly discouraged in that House.
    MR. T. BRASSEYsaid, the remarks to which reference was made were

    897
    quoted from the Report of the Greenwich Committee.
    MR. E. J. REEDsaid, that it was chiefly on account of that Report that he had risen to address the House. He advised the Admiralty to receive with great care the Report of that Committee. The connection which he himself had had with the Public Service had afforded him opportunities of observing, first, the great advantage enjoyed by naval officers who possessed a competent knowledge of mathematics; and, next, the great disadvantage which naval officers laboured under who had not that knowledge. It was not too much to say that throughout the whole Naval Service there was a want of extensive acquaintance with mathematics and nautical science, and that it suffered in consequence. For instance, the movements of ships under the helm were not at all thoroughly understood by many naval officers from want of mathematical knowledge. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the late Professor Faraday in support of his view. But it unfortunately happened that men generally undervalued that with which they were least acquainted, and those persons who were conversant with the works of Professor Faraday know that one of the greatest drawbacks to their value was Faraday's ignorance of mathematics, even in their elementary principles, and his inability to appreciate them. There were, no doubt, naval officers in every grade who were well acquainted with mathematics and with scientific principles; but they formed only a limited number, and we were entering upon a period when it was indispensable that naval officers should have mathematical knowledge at their fingers' ends. Every officer undertaking not only the command of a ship, but any responsible duties in connection with the ship, ought to be thoroughly acquainted with the mathematical principles on which the ship was regulated and in conformity with which he must handle her in times of danger. He was sorry to have to differ from the hon. Member who had rendered such good service to the Navy on different occasions; and he asked the Admiralty not lightly to yield to the pressure put upon them to discourage the study of mathematics. We recently had an example of the great necessity that existed for mathematical knowledge in naval matters. The Se-
    898
    cretary of the Admiralty invited hon. Members the other day to go to see a model of the Inflexible. Hon. Members went to see a model of the Inflexible, but they saw no such thing; they saw a shell, but there was not in it a single element which would determine the question at issue as to the distribution of the weights. Any naval officer trained in mathematics must know that that model differed in almost every particular from the ship itself, and that it threw no light on the solemn question at issue as regarded her stability, and that when such a model was placed before him, his ignorance, and not his knowledge, was presumed upon. All he could say was that the thing was adjusted according to what the Admiralty thought right and proper to look at. No doubt persons unacquainted with mathematics would be unable to see in what that model failed. As a further illustration he might mention that the Inflexible and many other ships depended for the way in which they should be managed on the manner in which water was let into certain compartments to balance other compartments, and mathematical knowledge was essential as a basis for all such proceedings.
    MR. MACIVERsaid, he agreed with the view of the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Brassey) with regard to mathematics rather than that of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Reed), who seemed to set an undue value on theoretical, as distinguished from practical knowledge in the officers of the Navy. The latter was possessed in a greater degree by the officers in the Merchant Service in consequence of the actual knowledge and experience they acquired while being at sea. He maintained that though there were many good sailors and engineers in the Navy, there were far too many who at the pains of much study had acquired some share of book learning, but who yet failed in a knowledge of that which was absolutely necessary to those whose success in the Merchant Service depended upon the safe navigation of their vessels.
    MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Brassey) had stated that, in his opinion, there was too much study of mathematics at the Naval University, and too little study of modern languages and Inter-

    899
    national Law. For his own part, he was more inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Reed), that mathematics were really the foundation of Naval science, and that it was desirable that all Naval officers should have a competent knowledge of mathematics. There were only a limited number of hours in the day, and of days in the term, and it would be quite impossible within the time for many Naval officers to study modem languages with any effect. Many of the remarks of the hon. Member for Hastings, however, should receive attention; and if anything could be done to increase the time that could be devoted to the study of modern languages and International Law, he, individually, would be very much gratified. The hon. Gentleman had also recommended that the Naval officers with half-pay who attended the College should get a further inducement to pursue their studies by receiving full pay. Here, however, the financial objection arose. It was not without difficulty that they could make both ends meet, and he could hold out no hope that those officers should at present receive full pay. The matter, however, was deserving of attention, and he should endeavour to see whether further inducements of any kind could be held out with the view of increasing the number of officers who would qualify under the Admiralty Circular of 1874. Under it, only a few officers had qualified as interpreter; but he would be very glad to see whether something more could not be done to induce them to do so. The hon. Member for Pembroke had made a very grave imputation on the Constructive Department of the Admiralty, for his remarks meant that that department, in common with the Lords of the Admiralty, had exhibited a model of a ship which did not in the slightest degree represent it. Now, he had not the scientific reputation of the hon. Member; but he was speaking on the authority of the department, and he gave that statement of the hon. Gentleman the most distinct and unqualified contradiction.
    MR. E. J. REEDasked the hon. Gentleman, whether he was prepared to state on his own responsibility that the model in question was a model of the Inflexible
    MR. A. P. EGERTONsaid, most decidedly and emphatically it was. He
    900
    had seen Mr. Barnaby, and asked him whether the model of the Inflexible represented the ship, first intact, and then in certain conditions, and Mr. Barnaby said it did. He had no reason to doubt that statement. The model had not been prepared for this special occasion. It had been prepared long ago for the Admiralty, and submitted to the Admiralty as a model of the ship. He thought the hon. Gentleman might trust to the honour of the Constructors' Department that they would not present as a model what was not 'a model of the ship. It was almost incredible that persons in their position, with their eyes open, should endeavour to mislead their masters, the Lords of the Admiralty, and that was what the hon. Member said they had done. He affirmed that the model was a model of the Inflexible as she floated in dock, and nothing else. Of course, she had not got her engines in, and they were not distributed as they would be. But that was represented by a weight put into the ship for the purpose of representing her engines. That weight was placed so as to stand where the centre of gravity would be. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda) would corroborate him. If the House believed the hon. Member for Pembroke, they must believe not only that the Constructor's Department, but that the Lords of the Admiralty, had set themselves to deceive the House. That was an accusation which was not true, and which never ought to have been made. The hon. Gentleman forced him to speak of his (Mr. Reed's) authority. He had the highest respect for the authority of the hon. Gentleman, but had the hon. Gentleman never made mistakes? Mistakes made by the hon. Gentleman had been pointed out again and again. The hon. Gentleman was no more infallible than any other Constructor; and when he (Mr. Egerton) was forced to contrast the authority of the hon. Gentleman with that of his own Department, he must say he preferred the authority of his own. He was sorry he had been forced prematurely into this discussion in the absence of Papers which would shortly be on the Table of the House, and to which nothing had been added to make out a case. He thanked the House for having given him an opportunity for standing up for his own Department.
    MR. E. J. REEDsaid, the case was simply this—certain officials had made their own calculations, and the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Egerton) rose in his place with the view of influencing the minds of hon. Gentlemen as to the question at issue—
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member was totally out of Order in the observations he was now making.
    MR. E. J. REEDsaid, what he wished to state was that there was a question of calculation and a practical issue between the Admiralty and himself. He said that the model was no model. There was not a plate which represented anything in the ship. It was merely a model weighted with lead, and weighted in accordance with the calculations of the Admiralty Department.
    SIR MASSEY LOPESsaid, the model had been made in 1876 for the information of the Admiralty before the ship was commenced, and had not been altered in the slightest respect from the time it had been made to the present.
    MR. E. J. REEDsaid, that if he had been out of Order in having made any improper reflections on the Admiralty Department, he hoped the House would, extend to the Admiralty a little of the same lesson when the Admiralty cast imputations upon him.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the view of his hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke appeared to be that the model in question, although not made for the purpose of influencing the House in the controversy as between the hon. Member and the Admiralty, was nevertheless exhibited for that purpose, and, though made years ago, it must have a certain effect on the minds of those who saw it. As he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) understood his hon. Friend, the model was weighted according to calculations which he disputed. The question between the hon. Member for Pembroke and the Admiralty was so grave, and it was so undesirable that it should be raised at any future time, that he hoped a Committee would be appointed to consider it.
    MR. GORSTregarded the question between the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Reed) and the Admiralty as a question of mathematics. It seemed to him that the model could not prove mathematically the stability of the ship—that could be proved only by an exact model of the ship, with the weight
    902
    distributed as on board the ship. It was admitted that this was not the case with the model, which was made many years ago, and not for the purpose of testing the stability of the ship. The engines were represented by a lump of lead, and every mathematician knew that that could not produce the same effect on the stability of the model as the engines and other weights that were distributed over the various parts of a ship. The question was very important, and it ought to be discussed as a scientific and mathematical one, without any imputation of motives one way or another. He did not understand the hon. Member for Pembroke to impute any motives to the Admiralty.
    MR. A. F. EGERTONdesired to explain that the stability of a ship depended upon the centre of gravity, and the lead purported to show the centre of gravity. It did not follow because the engines were not there, that the centre of gravity was not indicated.
    MR. SAMUDAsaid, a piece of lead might accurately represent the result of all the weights in the ship, if the effect of all the weights in the ship, when taken collectively, resulted in the same effect on the ship as the piece of lead referred to in the position it was placed; and that was what was intended to be done, the simple question being whether it was done rightly. No doubt, it was intended that the model should be correct, and, if it were, the result was correct as far as the model was concerned.
    LORD ESLINGTONsaid, there was an important question of fact, about which the two highest authorities were in conflict, and they ought to be brought face to face, because the construction of our future fighting ships was involved. The Ajax and the Agamemnon were being built on the same principle, and a second Agamemnon was in view. When a controversy of this kind had arisen, and had been fomented by correspondence in the newspapers, it was due to the public who paid for the ships and themselves, and it would strengthen the hands of the Government itself, if some further mode was devised for ascertaining the rights and wrongs of this question. Suppose it should turn out afterwards that the Admiralty were in error; the Government which refused inquiry would be placed in a very awkward position.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, the question was, whether the Admiralty was to he regarded as infallible; and it had made too many mistakes in the past for that conclusion to be accepted. Wooden line-of-battle ships were added to the Navy, and millions expended upon them, after their uselessness had been established.
    MR. D. JENKINSwas reminded by this controversy of the discussion as to the construction of the Captain; and he thought it important that the disputed calculations should be cleared up to the satisfaction of the House and the country.
    MR. BENTINCKsaid, that, in common with many other hon. Members, he had seen the model of the Inflexible exhibited in London, and while he acquitted the Admiralty of any intention to mislead, he contended that that model was utterly useless for the purpose for which it had been intended, inasmuch as it gave the uninitiated no clear idea of the principle on which the ship was constructed. In one of Her Majesty's Dockyards he had seen another model, much more carefully and elaborately worked out, and showing the principle on which the vessel was defended. From that model it appeared that the head and stern—in other words, the un-armoured parts of the ship—could not be struck by a shot in a vital place unless the shot struck the ship six feet under water. [Mr. REED intimated dissent.] If that was a mistake, then the model had been constructed under a total misapprehension of the facts of the case. It was desirable that an early opportunity should be given for a discussion of the question. Whether a Committee should be appointed, or some other course should be taken, he did not pretend to say, but certainly not one moment should be lost in enabling the House and the country to come to a distinct conclusion as to whether the doubts raised by the hon. Member for the Pembroke Boroughs with regard to the stability of the vessel's powers of defence were or were not well founded.
    MR. GOURLEYsupported the proposal for a Committee, and was of opinion that there were hon. Members of the House competent to examine witnesses and to report on the subject. The primary difference of opinion had reference not so much to the stability of
    904
    the vessel itself, as to the stability of the citadel, in the event of the wooden portions of the ship being shot away.
    CAPTAIN PIM, in rising to move—
    "That it is inexpedient to build any more vessels of the 'Agamemnon' class until that type has been tried, and that the money proposed to be voted for such purpose be expended in building a vessel of war, with full sail power, capable of cruising and blockading under sail alone, but able to steam when necessary 300 miles in 24 hours, with a coal supply for seven days, and with an armament consisting of one armour piercing gun of the longest range, as well as Shrapnel and Gatling guns and torpedo apparatus,"
    said, that, if in Order, he wished to add the following words to his Resolution:—"and that a Select Committee be appointed to enquire into the whole question."
    MR. SPEAKERinformed the hon. and gallant Member that the Motion for a Select Committee could not be put, as Notice had not been given of it, and the other part of the Motion affirmed a distinct proposition.
    CAPTAIN PIMsaid, in that case, he would confine his remarks to the Motion before the House. A great deal had lately been said in the public Press about the Inflexible and her class of vessels, and hon. Members had been invited to inspect the model of the Inflexible at the Admiralty. He, for one, went to have a look at her and would tell the House what he saw. The official in charge offered to fill both ends to show her buoyancy; but he said that that was unnecessary, as the chances were that only one end would be riddled at a time. The fore part only was then filled at his request; but when he (Captain Pim) proposed to touch the model, the official interposed, and said that if he did so the model would capsize. That proved to be the case, for the moment he touched her she turned turtle, and was only saved from going to the bottom by the quickness of the man in charge; and he was confident that if the Inflexible was at all like the model she would go to the bottom in a similar manner. He thought it would be a monstrous thing to send a crew to sea in such a craft. He would just give the House a description of the Inflexible. The Agamemnon and Ajax were vessels of the same type, only smaller, being only 280 feet in length, by 66 feet beam, with a displacement of 8,492 tons, at an

    905
    estimated cost of £350,000 each; while the Inflexible would cost about £500,000, her length 320 feet by 75 feet beam, with a displacement of 11,406 tons. Her sides at the midship section or citadel were 42 inches thick, including 24 inches of armour, the bottom was flat, the outer skin plating from the armour shelf to the keel was composed of ordinary ship plates ⅝ths of an inch thick, doubled over 30 feet of the bow. This skin plating was rivetted to the frames which were formed of ¼-inch plates, 3 feet 6 inches deep at the keel. They tapered gradually as they rose. The angle irons securing these frames to the skin were weak. The inner bottom rivetted on to the inner edge of these frames was composed of 7–16ths of an inch plates amidships and ⅜-inch plates at bow and stern. This thin, weak bottom had to support 3,150 tons of armour, the heavy boilers, machinery, guns, anchors, cables, and stores carried by the ship, and how any naval architect could call such a contrivance a ship he was at a loss to conceive. He did not wish to press his opinion alone upon the House, but would quote that of Admiral Sir Thomas Symonds, at present the Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouth, whose great experience no one could doubt. In answer to Question 1,158, before the Committee of Designs of Ships of War, he said—
    "I should be afraid to go at any great speed at sea with them (the devastation class); I think they are too low. I am afraid of the low, free-boarded ships. I have seen very heavy seas and know no limit to their power." Question 1,159—"If steaming you are obliged to go at a certain speed, or you drown yourself." Question 1,161—"I think it depends upon the ship herself being of a proper height, whether she is smothered or not by the sea." Question 1,163—"All I know is that so far as I am myself concerned, I should be very sorry to be in one of those vessels." Question 1,167—"I have no affection for those low, free-boarded vessels. I am positively afraid of them."
    He thought he had said enough to show that it was inexpedient to build any more vessels of such a useless type as the Inflexible or Devastation, or any of the class. They were worthless as coast defenders, and for distant service out of the question. With respect to the other part of his Motion, he could only say that two gunboats such as described in that Motion, properly handled, would destroy any iron-clad in the world. Why
    906
    the Admiralty persisted in building these large, costly, unwieldy, and easily destructible vessels he was at a loss to understand, especially when some 20 gunboats such as described could be built for the price of one Inflexible. Every sailor knew what small craft could do; their value was traditional in the Service from the earliest times. What did our small, light, nimble ships do against the Spanish Armada, and every reader of naval history must remember the action of the Fan-Fan and Spy gunboats against De Witt's large flag-ship. In fact, he did not believe that there could be the smallest difficulty in finding plenty of officers in the Navy who, with a couple of gunboats would make short work with Her Majesty's ship Inflexible and any of her class. He would not press his Motion to a division; but he did trust the Admiralty would take to heart the facts he had mentioned.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is inexpedient to build any more vessels of the 'Agamemnon' class until that type has been tried, and that the money proposed to he voted for such purpose be expended in building a vessel of war with full sail power, capable of cruising and blockading under sail alone, but able to steam when necessary 300 miles in 24 hours, with a coal supply for 7 days, and with an armament consisting of one armour piercing gun of the longest range, as well as Shrapnel and Gatling guns and torpedo apparatus,"—(Captain Pim,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. E. J. REEDsaid, he was glad the hon. and gallant Member for Gravesend could not move for a Select Committee, because, from the moment the Government undertook to produce the Papers showing the grounds on which they were led to place reliance on the Inflexible, it was, in his opinion, desirable that no further steps in the matter should be taken until those Papers should have been duly considered and the facts of the case were fully before the House. He was glad the hon. and gallant Member had brought the question before the House. Personally, he (Mr. Peed) had painful experience of the penalties one had to undergo for bringing ques-

    907
    tions of this kind before the attention of Parliament. In this case, it was clear, after what had fallen from the Secretary to the Admiralty, that he (Mr. Reed) was about to be exposed to the penalty of having his professional character placed in jeopardy because of the statements he had made as to the stability of the Inflexible. He could not help, at the same time, observing that it was very easy in those cases to cherish and act upon a false confidence. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty had taunted him (Mr. Reed) with the mistakes he had committed when in office; and in connection with the point, he would ask the permission of the House to advert to a single fact—he did so in no spirit of retaliation—and that was, that during recent times we had a ship which had capsized from want of stability, and that one, at any rate, of the officers who were responsible for the Inflexible, and who were said to be superior in authority to himself, had prepared a Report on the stability of the Captain, in which it was stated that she would be safe, even when her ends had been fully penetrated; yet a few days after that the Captain capsized, and 600 men were lost. That was his reason for speaking of the Inflexible, and, notwithstanding these attacks, he should still press for inquiry, for he had no personal object to serve. All he wanted was that the truth might be known, and he would withdraw all he had said, if the Admiralty Papers did not bear out his assertions. As for the Amendment, he could not feel that they were in a satisfactory position, because they had had no opportunity of discussing the proper kind of ship to be built, and had passed a Vote which involved the construction of another large ship of a kind the safety and utility of which had been called in question. The Government, he thought, had been rather high-handed in the matter, and they should have given more attention to the whole question. He much deplored the attitude they had taken, and was sure that the construction of small ships instead of large ones would be publicly urged. They had better reconsider that question, and not put the House of Commons in such a position that they would be debarred from discussing the question for another year. At any rate, a Select Committee might have been appointed; for, though he did
    908
    not doubt the competence of the Admiralty Board, its members were all at the head of departments, and could not give up their time to the matter. The Government, in his opinion, ought to reconsider the subject, or the House would next year take it into its own hands.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, that the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) had already asked for a Select Committee; but he did not know to what decision the Government had come. He considered the matter one of very great importance, and now that it had been brought to the attention of the House, the House was bound to have it thoroughly investigated.
    ADMIRAL EGERTON, while he approved of a full inquiry into the subject, was yet of opinion that the Motion was one the House could not adopt, as it dictated to the Admiralty not only what it should not do, but what it should do. By so doing they would be taking the responsibility from the Admiralty, and doing a very unwise thing. The question really was one of fact, which ought to admit of easy settlement, and he hoped that, considering the very general alarm as to the stability of the ship, there would be an inquiry into the state of the case. Instead of referring the matter to a Committee of the House, he would refer it to a Committee of scientific men.
    MR. T. BRASSEYfully agreed with the observations of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Reed), that no Parliamentary action could be taken till the promised Papers were on the Table. Those Papers, he was sure, would not satisfy the country, unless they contained, an independent Report approving the design of the ship. The situation was unprecedented in the history of naval construction, that an issue should be raised between two equally eminent naval architects, so that, on their disagreement, nothing but independent authority would satisfy the outside world. The country would probably insist on having independent opinion, and the organization of the Admiralty could not be perfect if the eminent men who designed ships were also the sole judges of their merits. He very much wished that the duty of initiating designs and their final approval were not altogether in the same hands. He was very grateful to the hon. Member for

    909
    Pembroke for urging upon the Government the necessity for re-considering the dimensions of our ships of war. The torpedo and the ram being now acknowledged to be the most destructive weapons of naval warfare, it seemed most absurd to put all our eggs into one basket.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not help feeling that the House was discussing the question under a double disadvantage. In the first place, his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty was unfortunately absent; and, in the second place, the Papers which had been ordered, prepared, and which were nearly, if not quite, ready, had not yet been distributed amongst hon. Members. However, there were one or two observations which it was possible for himself to make, although he was really ignorant of the details of this question. He would state at once that he could not adopt the suggestion thrown out by his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Pim), and which he would have embodied in his Amendment if it had been within the Rules of the House to do so without Notice—namely, to refer this question to a Select Committee. The Government would have a strong and decided objection to take that course; and he thought that, on reflection, the House would itself feel that that was not the way in which such matters should be dealt with. In point of fact, they proceeded on the principle of entrusting to a Department of the Government the duty of constructing vessels, and if the House appointed a Select Committee, however distinguished its Members might be, to examine and report on, and either confirm or overthrow, the decisions of that Department, they would weaken and destroy the responsibility which at present attached to the Admiralty on the part of the Government, and take on themselves a responsibility for which the House were hardly prepared. On these matters they had a right to call the Government to account if anything went wrong; and they would deprive themselves of that right by putting their imprimatur on the action of a Committee. On the other hand, they would subject the Public Service to great inconvenience by an inquiry conducted by persons who, however distinguished, would not possess the advan-
    910
    tage which a Government Department would have in conducting it. Now, it was undoubtedly the function of the House to criticize the proceedings of the Government, and when a Gentleman of the great experience and high professional standing of the hon. Member for Pembroke called attention to such a subject as this, it was obviously the duty of the Government carefully to consider the observations he made. He could say, on the part of the Government, that while, on the one hand, he thought it absolutely impossible to agree to the appointment of a Select Committee, it would, on the other, be quite right that they should consider among themselves the observations that had been made. The matter should receive the careful consideration of the Government. What steps they might think it right to take after they had fully considered it, he could hardly venture at the present moment to foretell; but they were fully sensible of the great responsibility that rested on them, and, whatever was done, there would be no deficiency on their part as regarded an earnest desire to take the right course.
    MR. NORWOOD, while agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman, that it was impossible to discuss the question with advantage in the absence of the promised Papers, was strongly of opinion that it should be referred to a Select Committee. It was a most important matter from every point of view in which it might be regarded. The question had been raised in a most deliberate and direct manner, and the opinion of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Reed), whether correct or not, could not be ignored. The House was not competent to pronounce an opinion without further information; but the allegations having been made deliberately, and without any reservation whatever, it was their bounden duty to ascertain the grounds on which the charge rested. He admitted that it would be difficult to find among the Members of the House a sufficient number of hon. Gentlemen possessed of scientific, or professional knowledge in respect to shipbuilding to form a Committee; but they could easily obtain a Committee by the addition of hon. Gentlemen of plain common sense who would be able to form a sound opinion upon the evidence which might be offered to them.
    MR. BENTINCKbelieved that all these doubts and discussions arose from the circumstance that neither the House nor the country had confidence in the Board of Admiralty. For himself, he regarded the present constitution of that Board as a practical absurdity. If they had any confidence in its construction, these doubts and discussions would not arise. He went further than the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Brassey) as to the absurdity of putting all our eggs in one basket. He maintained that a man-of-war which could not be handled and make her passage to any part of the world under canvas and independently of her machinery was not an available ship in time of war. His strong conviction was, looking to the aspect of European affairs and the present position of the British Navy, that, so far as they knew the intentions of the Government with the view of augmenting the strength of the Navy—they were not equal to the exigencies and requirements of the country.
    MR. SAMUDAsaid, he had great sympathy especially with the first part of the Motion now before the House for suspending the building of ships of the Inflexible type. When it was proposed originally to build the Inflexible he stated the opinion he then held—that it was altogether a retrograde movement and a very great mistake. To that opinion he still adhered, whether the question of stability was right or wrong. From the beginning, our object had been, in the construction of our ironclads to cover the whole water-line with armour. But the Committee of Design thought fit to propose to do away with side armour, and build up a central citadel; and when that design was accepted, by the Admiralty, a great step backward had been taken in the construction of our iron-clads. It was a radical mistake. He believed the best thing that could now be done with the Inflexible would be to get rid of the 900 tons of coal she was constructed to carry in her unarmoured ends and substitute 900 tons of armour, with which her two ends should be protected. He would strongly press on the Government the necessity of not committing themselves to the building of a new ship of the Inflexible class at present.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he was sorry to hear from his right hon. Friend the
    912
    Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was not intended to have a Commission to consider the condition of the Inflexible. In regard to the particular question raised by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Reed), he thought not only that it would be improper to build other vessels on the plan of the Inflexible, but that the construction of that ship herself should not be proceeded with until an inquiry had shown that she possessed sufficient stability and buoyancy. In his opinion a Committee of that House was the proper authority to examine into this question, as they had already voted £500,000 for this ship, and were now asked to vote sums for constructing other vessels of a similar character, and which might possess similar defects. It would, however, be unfair to the Admiralty for hon. Members to discuss this subject and to take a division without having before them those Papers which it was necessary to see before they came to a definite decision on the subject.
    MR. RYLANDSremarked that anyone who searched the records of the House for the last 30 or 40 years would find that most important questions relating to the administration of public Departments used formerly to be referred to Committees of the House. Questions of administration ought to be referred to Select Committees, in order that the House might keep its hold on the various important matters which from time to time came before it. Latterly, however, we had been drifting in a totally opposite direction, and many questions, instead of being referred to Select Committees of that House, were considered by Departmental Committees, in which permanent servants of the Crown occupied leading positions. If the House wished to control the expenditure of the country, it must not allow the inquiries to pass out of its hands into those of the servants of the Crown engaged in the great spending Departments. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give them two assurances—first, that no step should be taken with regard to the new Agamemnon until next year; and, secondly, that he would re-consider his decision concerning the Inflexible.
    CAPTAIN PRICEjoined in the appeal which so many hon. Members had made to the Government to institute some inquiry into the Inflexible. He could not

    913
    see any harm in such an inquiry. Indeed, he believed great good, generally speaking, would result from it, both as regarded the stability and rolling of their iron-clad fleet. They were now assured that the model of the Inflexible had not been made for the occasion; and it was desirable that it should be ascertained whether it was made as models usually are, and whether a perfect model ever was made for such purposes. The building of vessels like the Inflexible ought to be stopped until the matter had been investigated, and if the Amendment was pressed to a division he should vote for it.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, they were asked to appoint a Committee, because the experts did not agree. In his experience as a magistrate he had never known two scientific experts to agree, and he always found that he was left to draw the best conclusions he could from the rival evidence. He did not think the House ought to be called upon to undo the work of years, simply because a difference of opinion between professional men occurred upon one particular point. The responsibility was with the Admiralty, and it ought to be allowed to remain there.
    MR. MAC IVERsaid, he could imagine no good coming from the appointment of the Committee; but as public interest had been so much aroused on this matter, he thought it would be an excellent thing when the Inflexible was completed that the hon. Member for Pembroke should have the opportunity of capsizing the ship if he could.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put.

  THE MEDITERRANEAN FLEET—BESIKA BAT.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GOURLEY, who had the following Notice on the Paper:—
  "To call attention to the fact of the Mediterranean Fleet having been ordered to Besika Bay, and to inquire of Her Majesty's Government the names and type of ships, and why they have been sent there in place of to Egypt; and, further, to inquire the number and description of ships composing the Channel and North Sea Squadrons, and nature of the manœuvres in which it is intended to exercise the officers and men of the several squadrons,"
  rose to address the Chair, when—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member was out of Order, inasmuch as he had already spoken on the Question that he do leave the Chair.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, as his hon. Friend (Mr. Gourley) was out of Order, he wished to take the opportunity of making a few observations upon the question. The House had been for three hours and a-half discussing the question of the construction of ships of war; but what he wanted to know was, what these ships were for? Before voting money to be expended on the Navy, he thought it as well to know what the Government intended doing with the ships. He should like to know why, in this crisis of affairs, the Government had thought it right to alarm Europe by ordering the Fleet to Besika Bay? He thought it would have been well if, before doing that, the Government had taken the House a little more into its confidence. [Admiral Sir WILLIAM EDMONSTONE: No, no!] The hon. and gallant Admiral said "No;" but, perhaps, he would admit that there was at least some argument on the other side. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was not one of those who had been very hostile to the past policy of the Government; indeed, he had separated himself from many of his hon. Friends on that point. He honestly confessed he had seen very little to find, fault with in the manner in which they had conducted the foreign policy of the country. When he saw the Blue Book at the commencement of the Session, he felt that there was nothing shown in those Papers which he should wish to find fault with. Indeed, he felt that the Opposition could not make out a case against the Government. As matters went on, the House and the country had become more and more re-assured—a result to which the recent speeches of Lord Salisbury, the Secretary of State for War, and. the Secretary of State for the Home Department had greatly contributed. Nothing, indeed, could have been better than the speech of Lord Salisbury, in which he warned the country not to fight against a nightmare, and in which he sought to dissipate the absurd notion of those who were frightened by the progress of Russia, by advising them to consult a large map. After that speech, he felt more than ever re-assured, and his confidence in the Government had become

  915
  greater than it had been before. Well, after all that had taken place, he thought it was a most unfortunate time to arouse new anxiety by the removal of the Fleet, even for better anchorage, to Besika Bay. He was alarmed chiefly for this reason—that the movements of the Meet had been the weak part of the foreign policy of the Government all along. When last year they sent it to Besika Bay, they took credit for the step being supposed to be an indication that they were favourable to the cause of the Turks; but the country was much relieved by the assurance of Lord Derby, in answer to a deputation, that it had been despatched there solely for the purpose of protecting the Christian population. What, however, happened later on? The Meet was ordered away from Besika Bay by Lord Salisbury during the progress of the Conference, in order that the Turks might not by its presence be induced to place undue reliance on the assistance of England, so that there were three versions given at the time to account for the position of the Meet. That being so, there might be some other reason now for its having been ordered to Besika Bay besides that which had been assigned. It was, it appeared, sent there now, because Besika Bay was a better place for anchorage than where it was stationed a few weeks ago. But even so, it was, he thought, an unfortunate proceeding on the part of the Government to order it there, because in the present disturbed state of Europe it was most dangerous to do anything which might be misinterpreted, and because it would produce the impression that something more was meant by the step than the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to imply. It might be supposed, as it seemed to him, that it was a hint, or a warning, or a threat to one or other of the contending Powers. His opinion was, that if we were to attempt anything of that sort we might, in spite of ourselves, become parties to some extent in the conflict now going on. But it was said that the Government had no regard in the course which they pursued in reference to the Eastern Question to anything but British interests. Well, British interests were the interests of justice and freedom and humanity all over the world; and if it was not for the purpose of protecting interests of that kind, it was, he could not help
  916
  thinking, a great pity that the Fleet had been moved at all, especially if, as a consequence, great uneasiness was created. He had deemed it right, speaking for nobody but himself, to make these few remarks, and although he did not wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reply to them, should he think that to do so would not be conducive to the interests of peace, he could not refrain from expressing his regret at what had occurred. In conclusion, he would merely express a hope that the Government would adhere to a policy of strict neutrality, which he believed to be the wisest for the country, and the best calculated to secure the approbation of the people.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I am afraid from one remark which fell from the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) that the answer which I gave a little while ago may have been misunderstood. I think he spoke of my having given as a reason why the Fleet has been sent to Besika, that it afforded good anchorage. I did not, however, say anything about good anchorages. I said that the reason why it was sent there was, that the situation is a convenient and central one for the purpose of communication between our Ambassador at the Porte on the one hand, and the British Government at home on the other. I am sorry, I may add, that it should be supposed that there is anything in that answer, or in the action which the Government have taken, which should be open to such an observation as the hon. Baronet made about alarming Europe by a step which might be taken as a hint, or a warning, or a threat, by either of the parties to the war. That, it appears to me, is a very unnecessary construction to put upon the course which we have adopted. It would not, I think, be convenient at the present moment to enter into a general discussion of our foreign policy. I would, however, say this much—We spent'a fortnight a few weeks ago in discussing fully the position of affairs and explaining the policy of the Government, and we have since laid on the Table despatches in which that policy is set forth in the most distinct manner in communications of a diplomatic character. There is, therefore, no need now for further explanation in the matter.

  917
  Nobody who reads those despatches carefully, and also the language used by Ministers in the course of the debate to which I have just referred, can, it seems to me, refuse to admit at least this—that we have stated our views and intentions with as much clearness and minuteness as has ever been done in any diplomatic despatches with respect to the war which is now going on. With regard to the war now going on, our policy has been to maintain the principle of strict neutrality. We have also said that we will take due cognizance of the maintenance and protection of British interests. We have gone even beyond the enunciation of the doctrine, which might be looked upon as a truism, of regard for British interests, by specifying, with a detail for which I find no precedent in similar circumstances, the particular points which we considered those interests to embrace. In discharging the duty which rests upon us we have, I believe, been supported by the confidence of the country. I do not think it would serve any good purpose now to enter into a general debate on this question, and I hope, therefore, the House will allow us, after the long discussion we have had, to go into Committee.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
  Supply—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £193,890, Admiralty Office.
  (2.) £207,900, Coast Guard Service and Royal Naval Reserves, &c.
  LORD ESLINGTONtook occasion, while regretting the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty and its cause, to express his dissatisfaction with the present state of the Naval Reserve, observing that he did not believe it was placed upon such a footing that we could rely on it in a case of sudden emergency. The subject, had, however, he admitted, received more attention from the present Head of the Admiralty than from any of his Predecessors in office, and, as he was not able
  918
  to be in the House, he would content himself with giving Notice that he would bring the question before the House on a future occasion.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKpursued a similar course. He had much to notice about the Naval Reserve; but as the First Lord's illness, which they all so much regretted, prevented his attendance, he would say no more on the subject. He would like, however, to know the present number?
  MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, the number of the Naval Reserve was 17,217, of whom a little over 13,000 were in the First Class.
  CAPTAIN PIMsaid, that he had a Notice on the Paper to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £151,700, being the amount to be devoted for providing for 17,000 men of that Force, but that he would not press his Motion to a division in the absence of his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, although he felt it his duty to explain his reasons for wishing to move the reduction of the Vote. In the first place, the Royal Naval Reserve existed only on paper, every available British seaman was enrolled, and the total number reached, say, 13,000 men, as shown in the Report of the Admiral lately in command of that contingent, in the following words:—
  "It would appear that we possess nearly all the A.B.'s. in the Mercantile Marine that comply with the conditions laid down. The number floats between 12,000 and 13,000 men, and the entries about keep pace with the discharges."
  Now, what did this mean? Why, that in the British Mercantile Marine, which consisted of some 25,000 ships and 200,000 men, at least, there were only 13,000 real British seamen employed, the rest being foreigners and riff-raff of the worst description. In the event of war, the Mercantile Marine would be almost of as much importance to the nation as the Royal Navy, and must be largely employed to lay out coal for our war-ships, and bring back grain for our own consumption. The foreign element in the crews could not be depended upon, and therefore the Government dared not take any of these 13,000 men out of the merchant ships in which they were serving. Practically, for this reason, there was no Naval Reserve, and to spend money upon it under this condition of affairs was a sheer waste. Our

  919
  so-called Royal Naval Reserve was a sham and a delusion.
  MR. T. BRASSEYexpressed approval of the course taken by the Admiralty in encouraging the committees of training ships in their efforts to prepare boys for the Navy. With regard to the Naval Artillery Volunteers, he hoped that whenever a complete brigade of them should have been formed, the Admiralty would entertain the question of increasing the very small emoluments of the officers instructing the brigade.
  CAPTAIN PRICEwished to know whether there were any stokers in the Naval Reserve? He had understood that there were none, and he thought that the question was important. It was, as he knew, constantly the practice to send men from the deck to act as stokers, and that was obviously not the proper way of supplying a deficiency. Their duties were most important, and required close attention to make them efficient. He would like to mention the seamen of the Marine Pensioners' Reserve. That Reserve had recently been started, in order that younger men might not be lost sight of, and various inducements were offered them; but there was a large class of men, such as artificers and police, who could not avail themselves of that Reserve, and he wished to know whether they could not be in any way organized. They deserved to be regarded as worthy of notice.
  MR. GOURLEYsaid, he thought it desirable that the men of the Royal Naval Reserve should be brought together, say, at certain points of the coast, and accustomed to drill and thorough experience in the duties which they might be called upon to perform. What was wanted was a system under which 4,000 or 5,000 men could be sent out for practice once a-year, instead of as at present by driblets; and he trusted that the Admiralty would call out the men for that purpose, and for inspection.
  MR. MAC IVERapproved of the training of boys for the Naval Service. He could not agree as to the sufficiency of the Mercantile Marine to furnish the Naval Reserve, as there were not so many able seamen in the Mercantile Marine as there should be.
  MR. GOSCHENhoped the Government would not embark on any new system of Reserve as regarded artificers
  920
  and stokers, who occupied a different position from that of the seamen. The whole system of Reserve was that of drilling men and preparing them in times of peace for the duties they would have to discharge in times of war, and its object was that the authorities might be able to lay their hands on the men when they were wanted; but it was one thing to have a Reserve of men whose duties were of a special kind and another to maintain a class of ordinary artificers whose duties were always the same, and who required no special drill. The Government, then, would merely throw money away if it adopted that scheme.
  MR. RYLANDSwas very sorry to hear the account of the Naval Reserve as given by the hon. and gallant Member for Gravesend; but he believed the tendency of modern appliances was to reduce the number of men required. Whatever arrangements were made for a Naval Reserve, they must contemplate that they could not put them on board the Fleet without great inconvenience to the trade of the country.
  CAPTAIN PIMhoped the Government would encourage the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers, by which means they would soon possess a real, and not a sham, Royal Naval Reserve. He would undertake to raise 30,000 Naval Volunteers within a twelvemonth, really effective men, always on the spot, and always ready for service, and who would cost less than half that number of so-called Reserves, not one-tenth of whom could be relied upon when wanted. Instead of the useless coast defenders we ought to have light draught fast gunboats, armed with the longest range guns and manned by the Naval Volunteers stationed round our coast. The nation would then be not only efficiently defended, but capable of taking the offensive in any part of the world on the shortest notice. He earnestly hoped that the Admiralty would give attention to this deeply important subject. It was impossible to speak too highly of the good qualities of the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers, who, instead of numbering only 500 men, ought, and easily could be, made 50 times as strong.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) £109,002, Scientific Branch.
  CAPTAIN PRICEreferred to the large charge for clerks at Greewich College.
  SIR MASSEY LOPESsaid, the Admiralty had acceded to the request of the Committee, and reduced the number.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £76,930, Victualling Yards at Home and Abroad.
  (5.) £66, 150, Medical Establishments at Home and Abroad.
  (6.) £21,316, Marine Divisions.
  (7.) £78,010, Medicines and Medical Stores, &c.
  (8.) £8,147, Martial Law and Law Charges.
  (9.) £130,134, Misellaneous Services.
  (10.) £880,796, Half-Pay, Reserved Half-Pay, and Retirement to Officers of the Navy and Royal Marines.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £759,940, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Military Pensions and Allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878."
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  (11.) £279,981, Civil Pensions and Allowances.
  (12.) £168,280, Freight, &c. on account of the Army Department.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;
  Committee to sit again this day.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Resolutions [2nd and 5th July] reported.
  First Seven Resolutions agreed to.
  Eighth Resolution read a second time.
  MR. BOORD, in moving to reduce the Vote by £315, said, that was the amount of one year's rent of manorial rights over Plumstead Common, due under a lease granted by the lords of the manor to the War Department in 1873. He objected to that lease, because it hindered the preservation of the common as an open space for the enjoyment of the inhabitants, and because it involved a waste of public money. After the passing of the Metropolitan Commons Act in 1866, it was found impossible to proceed by a scheme under that
  922
  Act on account of litigation which was then before the Courts. This was settled in 1871 by the judgment of Lord Chancellor Hatherley in favour of the commoners; but shortly afterwards, on the Metropolitan Board of Works endeavouring to promote a scheme under the Act, they found the lease that had then just been taken an insuperable obstacle, and nothing had been done in consequence up to the present time, although it was understood that negotiations were on foot. The rights of the lords were of no value whatever to the War Department, for they only extended to the minerals beneath, and not to the surface of the common. If the right hon. Gentleman wanted to obtain control over the surface of the common, he must acquire the rights of the commoners. He might say there were no commoners; but that was disposed of by the judgment of the Lord Chancellor in 1871, from which he (Mr. Boord) read extracts showing that the existence of a body of commoners was abundantly proved. Their number was immaterial—one was as good as 100 for the purpose. It was not worth while to demonstrate the necessity for preserving open spaces in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, that was a subject all were agreed upon. In years gone by, it was probably possible for the military and the public to use the common simultaneously; but now, owing to the increased weight of artillery, the ground was so cut up that in winter it was a sea of mud, and in summer a waste of dust and sand. If, as he had understood the right hon. Gentleman on a former occasion to contend, he had a prescriptive right of user of the common for military purposes, of what possible use could the lease be to him? The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the reduction of the Vote.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out "£2,986,000," in order to insert "£2,985,685,"—(Mr. Boord,)—instead thereof.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he could not see what particular interest the constituents of his hon. Friend had in this matter. The real fact was that his Predecessors had been advised that it would be an advantage to them to have the rights of the lord of the manor,

  923
  and so he had taken a lease of them, just as the Government had done at Aldershot, Strensall, and other places where they exercised troops. If the commoners had any rights, let them take measures to establish them; but, hitherto, any attempts of that kind which had been made had been scouted out of Court. He hoped the House, therefore, would support what had been done in Committee. He was only acting in the public interest in what he had done, and when his hon. Friend asked what good would it do him to take a lease of the rights of the lords of the manor, his answer was, that his legal advisers told him it would do him good. An attempt had been made to invalidate those rights, but it had failed.
  Question put, "That '£2,986,000' stand part of the Resolution."
  The House divided:—Ayes 146; Noes 59: Majority 87.—(Div. List, No. 224.)
  And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, further Proceeding stood adjourned till this day.
  And it being five minutes to Seven of the clock, House suspended its Sitting.
  House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

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

  THE ROBERTS COURT MARTIAL.

    MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
    MR. E. JENKINS, in rising to call attention to the Report upon the Table of this House on the proceedings in the Court Martial on Captain Roberts, 94th Regiment, and to move—
    "That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying that, in view of the circumstances disclosed upon the proceedings, She will be pleased to reinstate Captain Roberts in his rank in the Army,"
    said, the case placed the discipline and the administration of the Army in a very unpleasant light, and it had attracted considerable attention, not only among military men, but among the
    924
    public at large. Having had his attention drawn to it, he had on different occasions put Questions in that House to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War; and on looking back to his replies, the right hon. Gentleman, he (Mr. Jenkins) thought, must entertain some resentment at having been made the instrument of equivocal statements. He had never seen Captain Roberts, and he had taken up this matter entirely upon public grounds. The case was a serious one for all parties concerned; it affected the right of an individual to receive justice, and the House was the proper tribunal to consider it. Captain Roberts had been dismissed from the Service on the ground that he was unfit to associate with gentlemen, while an issue was raised distinctly, though he submitted, improperly, by the Deputy Judge Advocate General in his charge to the court martial as to the character and reputation of his commanding officer. There were ample precedents for the course he was then taking. Last Session a similar case had been brought before the House by a then Conservative Member who was now a most distinguished Judge. Captain Roberts was an officer who had served his country for 20 years with distinction, and when in the 92nd Highlanders he was decorated with the Indian medal. Having gone on half-pay in consequence of the illness of his wife, he was subsequently appointed to a captaincy in the 94th Regiment. That occurred on the 30th December, 1874, and as it was alleged that for the time he interfered with and stopped the promotion of subalterns in the regiment, he would not be looked upon as a very welcome addition. It was during the stay of the regiment at Belfast that this officer of 20 years' service, decorated with the Indian medal, and against whom from first to last not a single atom of evidence could be adduced, was subjected to a course of treatment at the hands of a combination of his superior officers which at length drove him—or, at all events, induced him—to apply for leave to retire. He wrote a Memorandum embodying his grievances, and committed it to a friend, without giving him permission to use it in any official way, and simply for the purpose of getting his opinion as to the steps he ought to take in the matter. The Me-

    925
    morandum was handed by the gentleman to whom he had sent it to the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Stacpoole), who consulted with the Members for Clare (Lord Francis Conyngham and Sir Colman O'Loghlen). These laid their heads together, and resolved to go to the Military Secretary at the Horse Guards, and make some representations to him in reference to the case, based upon the documents, in Captain Roberts' favour. They did not deposit the paper in the War Office, but in consequence of statements alleged to be contained in the documents Captain Roberts was placed under arrest. A court martial was held, and he (Mr. Jenkins) had to reflect rather strongly on the manner in which officers and gentlemen considered it proper to give evidence in courts of that sort. The evidence showed that Captain Roberts gave no authority to send the document to the Military Secretary; that his friend gave no such authority; and it was rather hard on him that, in these circumstances, it should have been so forwarded, although it might be in accordance with military theories of righteousness. The Articles of War were apparently not considered so binding in the Army as was generally supposed. The Articles of War made provision for an officer who felt aggrieved by the conduct of his superior officer forwarding his complaint to the Commander-in-Chief; but Captain Roberts was deterred from taking that course because he had been informed that on two occasions other officers had endeavoured to get their grievances carried to head-quarters, and had failed. That was a matter which demanded inquiry on the part of the Horse Guards. Then came the period during which Captain Roberts was kept in custody. He was arrested on the 20th of April, and not brought to trial until the 27th of July, although from the facility with which officers might have been obtained both in Belfast and from Dublin for the purpose, he might have been brought to trial within a week. That, again, was not in accordance with the Articles of War, which said that an officer under arrest should be tried within a reasonable time. Captain Roberts was not tried until 68 days after his arrest, and that was not within a reasonable time. What was the reason for this long detention? He believed the reason was
    926
    that an endeavour might be made to induce Captain Roberts to withdraw the grave imputations which he had, in the "Memorandum" he had signed, brought against his commanding officer. A letter was written by the Secretary of the Commander-in-Chief on the 23rd of May, stating that His Royal Highness was aware that Captain Roberts had made grave charges against his commanding officer, and felt bound to give him an opportunity of proving those charges, adding, however, that on consideration of the grave consequences that might ensue, if Captain Roberts came to the conclusion that he had made the charge under mistaken impressions, he was at liberty to make "such retractations of the offensive imputations as might enable the Commander-in-Chief to permit him to retire from the Service." How could any officer, having signed a Memorandum to which he was prepared to adhere, accede to such a proposal as that? The first statement of importance contained in the Memorandum was this—"I was relieved from the command of my company, which was in perfect order." His commanding officer, Lord John Taylour, had exceeded his authority in thus summarily relieving an officer of his company in the face of the fact that the company was in perfect order. Had the company not been in good order the case might have been different; but, as matters stood, there was no excuse, especially in time of peace, for the commanding officer taking such a hasty step as assuming a right to dismiss Captain Roberts from a position which he held by virtue of the Queen's commission. It was an arbitrary act, and calculated to make Captain Roberts feel that he was made the subject of injustice. One of the witnesses, Lieutenant M'Kinlay, who had since unfortunately died by his own hand, took over the company, and, in doing so, certified that it was in perfect order, and that he was satisfied with the state of the accoutrements, &c., and although he gave evidence before the court martial to the effect that they were in an unsatisfactory condition, yet it might be presumed that the first evidence in the shape of the certificate as to fitness and order was correct, especially when it was remembered that he had admitted that as senior lieutenant he had a chance of succeeding Captain

    927
    Roberts. The evidence of the commanding officer was denied by other witnesses equally credible. Captain Roberts was accused of inefficiency, and the commanding officer, Lord John Taylour, said that he did not know his drill, and that he was unable to give the order "Change companies fours about," until he was told by his Serjeant; but he (Mr. Jenkins) had been informed there was no such order known in the drill of the Army. There was, on the contrary, evidence given before the court martial that Captain Roberts was by no means deficient in intelligence, that he was well informed; but that, on the other hand, he had a disinclination to improve himself in professional matters such as rendered his example anything but beneficial to young officers. Captain Roberts complained that he, an officer of 20 years' standing, was sent for 80 or 90 days to drill three times a-day, and do the goose step with half-clad recruits, and in conspicuous places, where the officers of other regiments could and did look on. Lord John Taylour admitted that Captain Roberts was sent to drill for those days because he had made no progress in his drill; but he denied it was with half-clad recruits, although he admitted it was in the last squad. In reference to this, Major General Bell, commanding officer of the district, stated that he had been 34 years in the service, and he had never seen an officer at drill with recruits; and although Captain Roberts might have been rusty, having been five years on half-pay, it was a military indignity that he should be, by direction of his commanding officer, placed on drill with recruits for 80 or 90 days, without the protection of the presence of a superior officer. What would have been the feelings of any hon. Member under the circumstances? Would he not have felt that there must have been a motive for such treatment, and would it not have been natural that he should have given expression to his feelings? In addition to this indignity, Captain Roberts was ordered to attend all courts martial as a supernumerary, which was like sending him as a child to school to learn that which he already knew. The consequence was he was pointed out to all officers as a man who was unfit to discharge his duty.
    928
    Yet there was evidence that he had a theoretical knowledge of his duty, for when Lord John Taylour was asked what was the reason for objecting to his sitting as a member of a Court, the answer was that Captain Roberts did not take the evidence in his own handwriting; but there was nothing unusual in that, for the evidence was generally taken down, not by the President of a regimental court martial, but by a subaltern officer. Captain Roberts had also, on the death of a man belonging to it, been deprived of the command of his own company—a step for which a precedent could not be named, and implying that he was not fit to take 100 men through the streets of Belfast. When he entered the regiment he had leave of absence, which was afterwards renewed, on account of the imminent death of his wife, and, although he had four months' leave out of 10, it was not imputed that there was any want of good faith about the medical certificate relating to the wife's condition. Under all the circumstances it was not surprising that, in the written statement, Captain Roberts should have spoken of undisguised hostility; and, though a judicious friend at his elbow might have advised him not to put such conclusions on paper, they were probably no stronger than anyone else would have arrived at had he been exposed to similar treatment. The witnesses who had failed to observe any of the provocations which Captain Roberts received could not recollect that they were present on the occasions when it was offered; but it was shown that on several occasions the orderly-book had been snatched out of his hands, and he had rushed out of the orderly-room, complaining of the manner in which he had been treated. On the part of the commanding officer there must have been a certain animus, some concealed motive—his treatment of Captain Roberts was so severe and degrading, and in any other Army of Europe it would have compelled him to give "satisfaction." Here it was supposed to be sufficient to go to head-quarters for justice, and Captain Roberts was dragged there in spite of himself through the error of a Member of Parliament. Was the House satisfied with the result? He was acquitted of the first charge, and found guilty on the second, framed under the 105th Article of War, of "making false

    929
    imputations on the conduct of the commanding officer," with a recommendation to merciful consideration, for a reason which amounted to acquittal; for a man could not be guilty of making false imputations if he were innocent, as he was declared to be, of wilful malice or intentional falsehood. It seemed to him that to advise Her Majesty on such a finding to degrade an officer was a very strong proceeding; and he had thought it his duty to ask the House to join him in asking Her Majesty to restore this gentleman to his former position, in order that justice might be done, and that Captain Roberts might not go down to his grave feeling that he had been dishonoured by such charges and by an unjust verdict. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for the Address of which he had given Notice.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying that, in view of the circumstances disclosed upon the proceedings of the Court Martial upon Captain Roberts, She will be graciously pleased to reinstate him in his rank in the Army,"—(Mr. Edward Jenkins,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    GENERAL SHUTEsaid, he rose, he must confess, with feelings of such indignation at the attack which had been made upon the officers of the English Army, that he could hardly reply with becoming coolness. The officers of the 94th Regiment, who had given evidence at this court martial, had been virtually accused by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Jenkins) of want of truth and of honour and of everything of which British officers were proud. No accusation could be more unfounded or unjust. It was only within the last three days he had read the proceedings at the court martial, and the reason he had not earlier acquainted himself with the subject was, because he did not think that House a proper Court of Appeal in these matters. ["Oh, oh!"] It was not fit to be a Court of Appeal on military questions; and if its authority in the capacity were recognized, why should not every Serjeant, corporal, or private in the Army who thought he had a griev-
    930
    ance come to it for redress? As for the case itself, it appeared to him that Captain Roberts could not object to any part of the treatment he had received, though he might well wish to be preserved from his friends. The hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Stacpoole), in his examination, had declined to say from whom he had received the incorrect and insubordinate document of complaints, which he gave to the military authorities, alleging that he had not the permission of the person from whom it had come; but the Court had, in his opinion, neglected their duty in not insisting on an answer to the question, for under the 13th clause of the Mutiny Act they had ample power to enforce it. Captain Roberts was in rather a hard position, supposing that he had never given the document to be used as it was, and naturally he might have supposed that any real friend in whose possession it came would have consulted some officer of experience as to the expediency of giving it to the Military Secretary, who would have known that to give it to that officer at the Horse Guards would be simple insanity. That was the most incomplete part of the whole story, and an answer should have been given to the question for the sake of both parties. It was impossible that the court martial could have decided otherwise than it did, for no harsh treatment, whether real or imaginary, could be accepted as an excuse for a gross breach of discipline; but he agreed with the general recommendation to mercy. The document which had been mentioned as a statement of Captain Roberts's grievances was too monstrous to be passed over; and, considering that it contained complaints of "an organized system of persecution," of "intemperate and insulting language," of a denial of the usual leave," and of "his life having been made intolerable for the last 12 months," he could only say that no honest friend would ever have let it come under the notice of the authorities, unless, which was not the case, there were positive proof that all the accusations it contained were strictly correct. But with respect to Captain Roberts himself, he could not altogether withhold his sympathy, as when he was ordered to join the 94th he had been 20 years in the Service, but had only passed 18 months with a regiment. He might

    931
    fairly ask, then, whether it was just and proper to send as captain to a regiment a man who had never had more than 18 months of regimental life and that in time of the Mutiny in India, when there were few opportunities probably of learning the details of drill? They had it from the colonel and two majors of the regiment that he was, as was only natural under the circumstances, utterly ignorant of the rudiments of drill. What on earth, then, was the colonel to do? He could not very well employ a company of formed soldiers in marching about the barrack yard in order to teach an officer who knew nothing. The colonel of the regiment felt that the best course was to drill that officer with the first class of the recruits without arms. He (General Shute) did not say that if he had been the colonel he would have done the same; but it was a great trial to a colonel to have in his regiment an ignorant captain who might ruin the simplest movement in the field, and who he and those under him found it impossible to teach—in fact, an exemplification of the vulgar saying, that "you cannot teach an old dog new tricks." Throughout the whole of those proceedings there was not an instance in which the colonel was proved to have been either intemperate or insulting towards Captain Roberts. It was alleged that the colonel had snatched the defaulters' book out of Captain Roberts's hand in the orderly room. There was no proof of that; but if a commanding officer had to do with an ignorant, stupid officer who was not up in the interior economy of his company, or his troop, and was very slow in finding a prisoner's defaulters' sheet, he might naturally in such a case take the book out of his hand and look at it himself. Then it was said that Lord John Taylour was not so intimate and so on with Captain Roberts as with some of the other officers of the regiment; but though it was the duty of the colonel to be courteous to all his officers, it was not possible that he could be on the same free and intimate terms with an officer who knew nothing of his duty as with one who was a zealous, painstaking, good young man, competent in his duties. Again, he asked, would colonels of regiments be doing their duty to the public or to the tax-
    932
    payers if they retained in their regiments, unless they could not help it, a man who was totally useless as an officer? A commanding officer always wished a funeral—when 100 men were marched through a town and were inspected by everybody—to be conducted by a good officer, and it was nothing astonishing, therefore, if Lord John Taylour did not employ an incompetent officer on such an occasion. For himself, he agreed with the court martial, and he maintained that Captain Roberts was not justified in saying that the colonel had wished to get rid of him in order to give a step of promotion in the regiment. In conclusion, he held that if the proceedings of courts martial of this kind were liable to be set aside by political influence, insubordination in our regiments would be encouraged, and that our Army would not long remain what it had hitherto been, probably the best disciplined in Europe.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, the hon. and gallant General who had just spoken had partly admitted the fact that Captain Roberts had not been treated in a manner becoming to men of fair minds, and that he had received less than common justice. He did not think that the Judge Advocate General would say that this was not a case which justified the expression of strong language. The House of Commons was a Court of Appeal to everyone in the kingdom who had been wronged, and on so glaring a case as this the House of Commons ought not to be asked to speak with bated breath. He took rather a lawyer's view of the case. He hoped others would take the view of human freedom; and if there was a wrong, it ought to be heard in that House without any fear of injury being done to the discipline of the Army. It was clear from the evidence that Captain Roberts was not received in a friendly manner when he first entered the regiment. He wrote the letter to which reference had been made, and which had been made public through the action of three Members of Parliament. It might not have been a discreet letter. The hon. and gallant General complained of its being circulated; but Captain Roberts said he was not responsible for that which the the three Members of Parliament did, and that it was unreasonable to say he was. He (Mr. Hopwood) also said it was unreasonable, and few men, unless

    933
    they placed the discipline of the Army above all right and justice, would say it was reasonable. Then as to the finding of the court martial. It acquitted Captain Roberts of the charge that he he had made wilfully false and malicious statements with reference to the colonel. In fact, by its verdict of acquittal of one of the charges, it affirmed the truth of a large part of Captain Roberts's complaint against his commander. Could any one doubt, who read the facts of the case, that Captain Roberts had been subjected to an organized system of annoyance? The evidence showed that most clearly. It was a pretence to say that he could not march a company through a town properly. Any Volunteer officer could do that. Was it true that "his life was intolerable and his position insecure?" It was not necessary that the court martial should express an opinion upon that, but, no doubt, his life was intolerable. There was abundant evidence to show that the gallant gentleman was treated in a manner which was unbecoming, and he appealed to the House to express in unmistakable terms its opinion of such treatment, and to say that, whether in the Army or elsewhere, it should not be tolerated.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Jenkins) had brought very grave charges, not only against the officers of the 94th Regiment, but also against the superior military authorities, and had not even spared the department over which he had an humble control. But if the House would permit him to adhere simply to the matters at issue, he trusted he would in a short time be able to show that the conduct of the Government or of the Horse Guards could not be justly impugned. In spite of what had been said on the other side, the great and primary objection to a Motion of that sort was, that it constituted an appeal to that House from the ordinary legal tribunal. ["No!" and "Hear!"] Hon. Members said "No;" but during a long series of years that had always been the opinion of high authorities in that House. Lord Russell had laid down this principle as follows:—
    "What I wish to guard the House against is assuming an authority which is properly given to courts martial of this country without extraordinary necessity and without any sufficient
    934
    reason, so that any person who may be hereafter led into improper conduct which may expose him to a court martial may he told that he may have the whole question re-opened before this House, by whom there will be a different finding and a different sentence, not acknowledged by the tribunal which had formerly tried and condemned him. Sir, I think that to establish such a precedent would be to shake the discipline of the Army, and not only to relax obedience, but to make all officers on courts martial afraid to do their duty in certain cases under the apprehension of their being re-tried before a Committee of this House."
    Some 12 years since the "Simla" court martial, which had already been referred to, but which was distinguishable in many particulars from the present case, was discussed in the House, and on that occasion Lord Hampton, then Secretary for War, and his noble Friend the Member for Radnor (the Marquess of Hartington) and General Peel, both ex-Secretaries for War, Sir John Karslake, and other high authorities, all concurred in the view of Lord Russell's which had been cited. There was also an absolute objection to discussing in the House of Commons questions which depended entirely upon the evidence adduced at a legal trial. How was it possible that hon. Members generally could give the time and attention necessary to study and master evidence taken during 10 or 12 days, so as to be enabled to come to a just decision as to the matters at issue? and he (Mr. Bentinck) protested against the course taken by the hon. Member for Dundee, who, for the space of an hour, had read isolated portions of the evidence without the context. He (Mr. Bentinck) could conceive no proceeding more calculated to mislead and perplex the judgment of the House. But coming to the actual merits of the case the main points were these—first, had the law been fairly and efficiently administered? and, secondly, had either wrong orinjustice been done to Captain Roberts? Now the circumstances antecedent to the court martial were these. In September, 1875, in consequence of confidential reports, the Military Secretary wrote, that His Eoyal Highness the Commander-in-Chief was of opinion that Captain Roberts'sremaining in the 94th Regiment would be of no advantage to the Service, and suggested his immediate retirement.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURrose to Order. He said, documents were being referred to which were not at pre-

    935
    sent before the House, and, as the right hon. Gentleman had quoted, he must produce them.
    MR. SPEAKER: If the right hon. Gentleman is quoting official documents, it is no doubt the practice they should be laid upon the Table.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, they were already printed in the Appendix to the Blue Book.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURagain rose to Order, and said, they were not; and he wanted a promise that these documents, now they had been quoted, should be produced.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the hon. Member for Dundee had admitted in his speech all that he desired to say on this subject.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURagain rose to Order, amid cries of "Order!" from the Ministerial Benches.
    MR. SPEAKER: I have already stated what the practice of the House is, and having made that statement, I presume the right hon. Gentleman, having quoted official documents will lay them before the House.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKwas proceeding to say, that on April 5 Captain Roberts was under orders, when—
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid: I must again rise to Order. [Loud cries of "Order!"] It is you who are calling out "Order" that are in disorder, and I am the person who is in Order.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must address his observations to the Chair.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: Then I address myself to you, Mr. Speaker, and again ask, whether these official documents to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred ought not to be produced.
    MR. E. JENKINSsaid, the communication in question was set forth in the Papers submitted to the House.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKresumed by saying that in consequence of these and other Reports, and particularly a Report made by General Bell, commanding the Belfast district, to the effect that Captain Roberts's remaining in the 94th Regiment was not desirable, and that he took no interest in his regiment or duties, and occupied the place of an efficient officer, the Horse Guards
    936
    determined that Captain Roberts's retirement by sale should be immediately proceeded with, and this final decision was communicated to Captain Roberts on the 5th April, 1876. Two days subsequently, and on the 7th April, the document which had been referred to as "Captain Roberts's case," was brought to the Military Secretary by three Members of Parliament, the noble Lord the Member for Clare (Lord Francis Conyngham), the right hon. and learned Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen), and the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Stacpoole). Now, this document was brought not as a private memorandum, but for a public purpose, and it was, therefore, in every sense, a public document, and a libel clearly published, both from a military and a civil point of view. Under these circumstances the Military Secretary had no alternative, by reason of the accusations which the document contained, but to act as he did, else he would have been guilty of a clear neglect of duty, and when such scandals were alleged, have been liable to the suspicion of shielding Lord John Taylour. A trial by court martial then became imperative; but Captain Roberts had no ground of complaint; because, before assembling the court, His Royal Highness gave him the opportunity of retiring from the Army, as decided on April 4th, on retracting the offensive imputation against his commanding officer; and he (Mr. Bentinck) desired to maintain most strongly that the letter of His Royal Highness, to which exception had been taken, was not only intended to save Captain Roberts, but was most kind and considerate in its terms. But Captain Roberts declined the proffered assistance, and elected to stand by the result of the court martial, which thus could not be avoided. Well, then came the question as to whether the prisoner had a fair trial; and could anyone doubt, he asked, who had read the papers, that that question must be answered in the affirmative The prisoner was found guilty on the second charge, with a recommendation to mercy, on the grounds stated. It became his (Mr. Bentinck's) clear duty to advise Her Majesty to confirm the sentence upon the simple ground that there was abundant evidence to go to what may be termed the military jury; but he was bound, in candour, to add, that, in his opinion, the finding of

    937
    the court martial was right and just, and he failed to see how they could have arrived at any conclusion more favourable to the prisoner; who also, by the gracious favour of Her Majesty, had, by the permission given to receive the value of his commission, obtained the utmost extent of mercy which could be accorded him, compatible with his non-retention in the Army. The late hour would not permit him to discuss at length the evidence given in the case, even assuming he was bound to do so, which he contended he was not; but in order that the House might know the exact truth with regard to Captain Roberts's entire unfitness for the position which he held in the regiment, he would cite the evidence of that most distinguished officer, General Bell, who commanded the district, and who was a disinterested witness in every particular. Major General Bell deposed that when he inspected the 94th Regiment, on the 6th and 7th July, 1875, Captain Roberts was quite unacquainted with his drill, and that he reported Captain Roberts's inefficiency to the Military Secretary and to the Adjutant General, and the result of his Report was that His Royal Highness suggested Captain Roberts should retire; that the Military Secretary asked his (General Bell's) opinion as to the advisability of Captain Roberts remaining in the Service, and he replied that Captain Roberts' sretirement was necessary for the good of the Service; and on cross-examination by the prisoner, General Bell said that it was with his knowledge and sanction that Captain Roberts was drilled shoulder to shoulder with last joined recruits in the barrack square, because he considered him unacquainted with drill; and being further asked by the prisoner whether he considered it just that he (Captain Roberts) should have been deprived of the payment of his company, because he was inefficient at his drill, General Bell replied that he was deprived of his company because his commanding officer had reported him thoroughly inefficient, he considered his commanding officer was right in doing so. The officers of the regiment gave similar testimony, and he (Mr. Bentinck) could also adduce much evidence, if necessary, of a similar purport. Under these circumstances he submitted that the case for asking a revision of this court martial had entirely
    938
    failed. The trial disclosed neither illegality nor injustice, and he asked the House to reject a Motion which had no substantial basis, and which was expressed in terms unsupported both by Parliamentary precedent and public policy.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he did not know Captain Roberts, and was only anxious that justice should be done in his ease. He had gone carefully through it, and he feared from what was contained in the Papers that a series of mistakes had been committed with regard to Captain Roberts from the very commencement. He had requested to see Captain Roberts's commission, and found that it was signed by His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief and by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. They, therefore, when they signed it, must have believed him to be efficient; and, if he were inefficient, it was a mistake to put him on full pay. What security had the House that such commissions were not being issued every year? The court martial had in effect condemned Lord John Taylour and General Bell. It was the duty of the House to look after the young men who went into the Army. He did not agree with the terms of the Motion of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Jenkins), and he was aware of the difficulties in carrying out a Resolution worded as that was; but the recommendation of the court martial was the ground on which he asked the Secretary of State to show some leniency to Captain Roberts. There could be no doubt that the recruit drill, and other irritating duties, had been put on this unfortunate officer solely for the purpose of driving him out of the regiment. After being put to recruit drill, he was sent to the adjutant drill, and then to musketry drill. He was then sent back to recruit drill, and was drilled in the public barrack square with half-clad recruits. He had, in fact, been treated with indignity, and his punishment had been greater than he deserved. The practice of suspending a captain from the command of his company was quite unknown 20 years ago, and was never mentioned in the Queen's Regulations. Reviewing the proceedings of the court martial, he contended that its members had neglected their duty in not asking for explanations and checking irregu-

    939
    larities in the conduct of the prosecution. The court martial did not appear to have contemplated so severe a punishment as that which had been inflicted. If, instead of dismissal, Captain Roberts had been allowed to retire, discipline would have been sufficiently vindicated.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, he had never heard a lamer defence than that of the right hon. Gentleman the Judge Advocate General. There was no desire to turn that House into a regular Court of Appeal from courts martial in all sorts of cases. All that was wanted was, that in cases of flagrant injustice there should be a right of appeal. If such a right did not exist, he wondered where officers of the Army would be in the hands of such despots as Lord John Taylour. After reading the evidence, he had no hesitation in saying there had been a great deal of injustice done to Captain Roberts, and that he had been the victim of gross despotism and cruelty. He thought, also, that the sentence of the court martial was more severe than the evidence and even the finding justified. As to Captain Roberts's letter, it was exceedingly mean to have used it as it had been used. Before taking it for that purpose warning should have been given that it might be so used. Let the House recommend Her Majesty to take a more lenient view of the case. He hoped the House would always be found ready to take up such flagrant cases of injustice.
    MR. FORSYTHsaid, that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton (General Shute) had said that the House of Commons ought not to be a Court of Appeal from the sentences of a court martial; and his right hon. Friend the Judge Advocate General had said the same, quoting Lord Russell. But Lord Russell had qualified his opinion by adding—"without sufficient reason." If there was to be no appeal to the House of Commons, an officer condemned by a court martial could have no redress. He could not bring an action in a Court of Law, and he would be without a remedy. He (Mr. Forsyth) quite agreed that the House of Commons ought not to interfere unless a strong case were made out. But the question was—Whether in the present instance such a case had not been established? The short facts were that Captain Roberts—an officer of 20 years' standing, who had been for five years
    940
    in the Gordon Highlanders—was transferred to another regiment, and was drilled with common recruits. All he had done was to state this fact, and it was admitted to be unprecedented, and an insult to a captain, by the witnesses for the prosecution. The answer of Lord John Taylour—"Not to my knowledge," was an admission that he had ordered Captain Roberts peremptorily to "leave the room." ["Oh!"] To refuse leave of absence without reason was insulting. It was simply—
    "Hoc volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas."
    A recommendation to "merciful consideration" always had weight with a Judge in a Criminal Court, and yet in this case the sentence was almost as heavy as it could have been if there had been no such recommendation. No money received for his commission could compensate Captain Roberts for the social injury done to him while his sentence remained in force.
    SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsupported the Motion. He was surprised to have heard it opposed as unconstitutional, when all that was asked was, that the recommendation of the court martial should be acted upon, and that Captain Roberts should be re-instated in his former rank, even if only for one day, so that he might be relieved of the stigma of having been dismissed from the Army. In this case, when Captain Roberts asked for leave to send in his papers, permission was refused. Thereupon he sent to a friend in London a private letter, which was subsequently communicated to the military authorities. He did not defend the intemperate language of that letter, which had constituted the charge against him; but it must be remembered that it was written when Captain Roberts was labouring under feelings of indignation at the refusal of his colonel to give him leave of absence. He (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) admitted that it was a mistake on the part of himself and of two of his Friends that that letter was handed to the Military Secretary, and he took his share of the responsibility. It was, however, shown to the Military Secretary merely to save time, and with no intention that it should be put forward officially. The Military Secretary forwarded the letter to the Adjutant General, and the result was the court

    941
    martial which removed Captain Roberts from the Army. In his opinion, the charge brought against Captain Roberts was the vaguest upon which a man could be put upon his trial. Still, that point had been decided by the Judge Advocate General, and consequently the House had nothing to do with it. The question arose, however, whether there were not facts in the case that justified them in asking for an Address to the Crown to carry into effect the recommendation to mercy, because the evidence disclosed circumstances of the greatest oppression on the part of the colonel of the regiment. Further, the court martial had acquitted him of the more serious imputations—namely, of malice and untruthfulness. Under all the circumstances, he hoped the Secretary of State for War would re-consider the case, and restore this much aggrieved gentleman to his former rank.
    MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, there was a great deal in the present case that was of a very painful character. There could be no doubt that up to the time Captain Roberts was placed in the 94th Regiment his character was unimpeachable, and, indeed, remained so, till these proceedings, which had been caused by the intemperate letter of which so much had been said. He was rather surprised, however, to find that the hon. and gallant General opposite (Sir Alexander Gordon) should have quoted the respectful language of a purely formal document as a voucher for Captain Roberts's character.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he produced the document, not as a certificate of character, but as a certificate of efficiency.
    MR. GATHORNE HARDYremarked that that only made the hon. and gallant Member's conduct the more extraordinary, considering the language he had used. The hon. and gallant Member must be perfectly well aware that officers were moved from half-pay to full-pay without undergoing any new examination. That had been done in Captain Roberts's case, and no one could pretend that it was done with ill will. On the contrary, Captain Roberts was treated with every consideration, and when he found it disagreeable to go with the 20th Regiment, he was allowed to go into the 94th, where, according to his own admission, for a time things went smoothly.
    942
    Now, what was it that in course of time made things not go smoothly? Was it any ill-feeling in the minds of the other officers against Captain Roberts, or was it a display of such complete inefficiency, amounting almost to a by-word in the regiment, on Captain Roberts's part as to render him quite unfit for his position? No one, he thought, who had read the whole of the documents, and not isolated passages of them, could have any doubt on the subject. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Alexander Gordon) thought it not inconsistent with his duty as a General of the Army to impute misconduct to the court martial. But that court martial was admitted by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) to have acted with great fairness and consideration. Yet the hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of that court martial in a manner which would have been unbecoming in a civilian, and was still more so in an officer of the Army. ["No, no!"] The fact was that not a single officer who sat on the court martial was an officer of the 94th Regiment. They were all independent members, without favour or affection, and they had no interest except to do justice to the officer who was brought before them. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had spoken of Captain Roberts having been subjected to treatment in the regiment calculated to produce irritation on his part. But the evidence of independent witnesses went to show that there was no such intention, but that Captain Roberts was an inefficient officer, and they strove to make him efficient. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Clare, having been Judge Advocate General, went with two other Members of Parliament, taking a formal document containing a statement of charges, to the Military Secretary of His Royal Highness. The Military Secretary was not a private secretary, but an official, acting as assistant to the Commander-in-Chief, and therefore he was only an instrument in passing on a document with which he could not deal himself, either to His Royal Highness, or to the Adjutant General, who was responsible for the discipline of the Army. He would venture to say that there was no official who, when three Members of Parliament brought him a document referring to a public matter, would not have supposed

    943
    that he was to deal with it officially. The evidence of the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Stacpoole) was to the effect that he, in company with the hon. Members for Clare County (Lord Francis Oonyngham and Sir Colman O'Loghlen) went to Sir Alfred Horsford, who declined at first to see three Members of Parliament, but was willing to see one. But when he was informed that the matter would be brought before Parliament, he said he would see the three. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had said that the conduct of Sir Alfred Horsford was "mean;" but a bolder, a more gallant, or more straightforward officer than Sir Alfred Horsford there was not in the Army. Sir Alfred Horsford did his duty; he referred the letter to the Adjutant General. The letter was not marked private, and therefore it was not a private communication, but was, as stated at the time, to be brought before Parliament. And then an opportunity was given Captain Roberts by His Royal Highness to withdraw the document. The right hon. Gentleman then read a letter in proof of that statement. That was the letter which the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Jenkins) said suggested to Captain Roberts a dishonourable course. It seemed to him (Mr. Hardy) no dishonour to call upon a man to say whether he persisted in certain charges he made against the officers of his regiment, and if he could not retract or explain them, that he should put them in a form in which they should be consistent with military discipline. He refused, and there was no other course in justice to the officers whose conduct was impugned, and to Captain Roberts himself, than to bring him to a court martial. The hon. Member for Dundee complained of the delay which had occurred. That delay was made with no intention to injure Captain Roberts, and certainly a large part of it was at his own request. The trial by court martial was held, the charges being for making certain statements which were false in themselves, and for making them wilfully and maliciously. He was acquitted on the latter, but found guilty of the former. So far as regards the organization of which Captain Roberts complained, there was no trace whatever in the evidence. The only charge he made was that against his command-
    944
    ing officer. It was with great reluctance that he (Mr. Hardy) referred to the evidence given before the court martial; but when a charge was made against a commanding officer, it was right to see whether that commanding officer, Colonel Lord John Taylour, was acting in defiance of his superior officers, or in obedience to what they thought right. One charge was that he had deprived Captain Roberts of the command of his company. Major General Bell was asked what would be the duty of the commanding officer, where a company was suffering from the neglect of the officer in command; and his reply was, "to deprive him of that command;" which was done. He was charged with being an inefficient officer. Major General Bell inspected his regiment six months after undergoing drill, and he was asked if all the officers were equally acquainted with their drill. The reply was that they were not equally acquainted with their drill, and that Captain Roberts was quite unacquainted with it. That was the statement of the inspecting officer, who was quite an independent witness. Major General Bell said he was asked as to the advisability of Captain Roberts remaining in the Army, and his reply was that his retirement was necessary for the good of the Service. That was said by Major General Bell with the immense responsibility which attached to him, and the House would not think of doubting the evidence of an officer in the position of Major General Bell, who was responsible not only to the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland, but also to the Horse Guards authorities. With reference to the next charge—that of being sent to drill with the recruits—it was a pity that some of them were in mufti; but, as a matter of fact, every officer when he went into the regiment had to drill shoulder to shoulder with the recruits. No doubt, Captain Roberts was in a peculiar position. He was a man of 20 years' service. He had forgotten his drill, and if he did not like to learn it in the position in which he was placed, he might have gone back to full pay and retired from the Army. Major General Bell expressed an opinion that the commanding officer was quite right in refusing leave to an officer who was not efficient in his drill. There was no doubt that Lord John Taylour was a strict officer, and he never denied that

    945
    he had put this officer to recruit drill, and that, in his view, he ought to retire from the Service. He might cite another instance of the inefficiency of Captain Roberts. He had been told to make a recognizance report himself; but, instead of doing so, he had obtained the services of a sergeant to draw it up for him. It was much to be regretted, he might add, that Captain Roberts had gone into the 94th Regiment; but, at all events, when he was brought back to full pay, and when the money due to him was given him, he had the opportunity of retiring. It was further alleged that a book had been snatched from him by Lord John Taylour; but in accordance with the evidence of Captain Harvey, the book had been taken from him in the quietest manner, while every one of the witnesses stated that they had never seen anything insulting in the conduct of Lord John Taylour towards him. It was clear that Captain Roberts was in the wrong place, and that he had violated military discipline in a manner which amounted to a very grave offence. That he was guilty of a breach of discipline was admitted, and as to the appeal ad misericordiam which was made on his behalf, he would remind the House that Captain Roberts might have retired from the Army with his money; but he endeavoured to destroy the character of his commanding officer and to injure that of his brother officers, that he took the chances of a court martial with that object, and that he had been found guilty of misrepresentation. These were grave military offences, but in compliance with the verdict of the court martial that mercy should be shown him, although he was sentenced to retire from the Service, he received his money. That was the judgment pronounced in his case, and although the House, influenced by kindly feelings, might be disposed to take the side of an old officer who had done meritorious service before he entered the 94th Regiment, he hoped it would not set itself up against the verdict of a court martial admittedly fair, whose sentence was mitigated in the most lenient manner by those by whom it had to be revised.
    LORD FRANCIS CONYNGHAM, as one of those who had been alluded to as going to the Horse Guards, on the part of Captain Roberts, wished to say one word in explanation. He thought it
    946
    was his duty to do so, and see the Military Secretary. They went, however, as Members of that House, and not in a private capacity. He believed the case of Captain Roberts was a very hard one, and on that account he wished to obtain a remedy from the military authorities. At the same time, he fully admitted that Sir Alfred Horsford could not have acted other than he did. He implored the House to remember that this was the case of a man who had for many years served his country faithfully, and who was a widower.
    MR. STACPOOLEreminded the House that Captain Roberts gave no authority to anyone to give this document alluded to to the Military Secretary, and under all the circumstances he hoped the House would support the Motion brought forward by his hon. Friend (Mr. Jenkins).
    MR. KING-HARMANopposed the Motion, saying it was a common thing for officers, after a long absence, to be sent back to the goose step.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 137; Noes 72: Majority 65.—(Div. List, No. 225.)
    Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  "THE PRIEST IN ABSOLUTION."

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. WHALLEYrose to draw attention to The Priest in Absolution, and to move—
    "That, having regard to the state of the Law which renders the publication of an obscene book an offence, although the person publishing it be not actuated by any desire to deprave, and to the absence of any power in the Education Department to interfere with the religious teaching in public elementary schools or to make any inquiry thereon, this House is of opinion that the doctrines and practices set forth in a book entitled The Priest in Absolution, and carried out under the name of the Confessional by certain clergymen of the Church of England, do tend to deprave and are dangerous to the best interests of society and of religion."
    The hon. Member had only commenced his observations when—
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
New MEMBER SWORN—Viscount Mandeville, for the County of Huntingdon.
Supply—considered in Committee—ARMY ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Bankruptcy Law Amendment* [234]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (Abingdon, &c.)* [235]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Belper Union, &c.)* [236]; Metropolis Improvement Provisional Orders Confirmation (Great Wild Street, &c.)* [237].
Second Reading—East India Loan [215]; Sheriff Courts (Scotland)* [209]; Local Taxation (Returns)* [220]; Elementary Education Provisional Orders Confirmation (Felmingham, &c.)* [223].
Committee—Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) [re-comm.) [184]—R.P.; Provisional Orders (Ireland) Confirmation (Holywood, &c.)* [225]—r.p.; Solicitors Examination, &c. [190]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Public Works Loans (Ireland)* [139]; Companies Acts Amendment (No. 3)* [171–238]; Legal Practitioners* [43]; Factors Act Amendment* [168].
Third Reading—General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation (Leith)* [211], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  TASMANIAN MAIN LINE RAILWAY BILL. [Lords.]

    THIRD READING.
    MR. RAIKESexplained, that he had, on a former occasion, stated that a sum of £117,000 had been spent in floating the company, and that Mr. Albert Grant appeared, to be under the impression that what he said was that he had received that amount. He had since investigated the matter, and he found that it was computed that a sum variously estimated from £103,000 to £170,000 had been expended, if not wasted, in promoting the company; but he also found that Mr. Grant was stated to have received only the ordinary and legitimate commission of 2½ per cent for having introduced the debentures, and that there was nothing to warrant the conclusion that he had appropriated the sum mentioned to his own purposes.
    Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

QUESTIONS.
  SCOTCH HERRING FISHERIES.

    QUESTION.
    SIR WILLIAM CUNINGHAMEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a letter from Captain Kerr, of the steamship "Gael," which appeared in The "Glasgow Herald" of the 19th instant, describing the extent to which the destruction of herring fry is carried on in the Firth of Clyde and the neighbouring waters; and whether the statements in that letter are substantially correct that the greater part of the fish so killed lately have been too small to be taken ashore, and that even of those taken ashore great numbers are thrown away as unfit for sale; and, if so, whether, considering the scarcity of herrings in that district, any steps can be taken to prevent for the future the wasteful destruction of immature fish?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: The attention of the President of the Board of Trade has been directed to this question. I am not able to give the House any pre-

    813
    cise information as to the correctness of the statements contained in Captain Kerr's letter; but there can be no doubt that there is a large destruction of herring fry in the manner described. In spite of this, however, the take of herrings in this district has largely increased. The House is probably aware that the Government is about to send a small Commission to Scotland to inquire into certain complaints which have reached them as to the fisheries, and this subject will be fully investigated.

  NAVY—RETIRED NAVAL OFFICERS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether, in the event of officers on the Retired Lists of the Navy being called again into active service, the Government would entertain any applications made by them for compensation for pecuniary loss incurred by their being obliged to give up any business or other civil employment which they might be engaged in at the time; whether such officers so called upon would be appointed to serve according to their rank and seniority on the Retired Lists; and, whether, on officers being retired either compulsorily or at their own request, it was made known to them that they would be liable to be called again into active service, in the same way as information to the like effect is communicated to seamen and marine pensioners under Article 23, at page 245, of the Queen's Regulations for the Government of the Navy?
    MR. A. F. EGERTON,in reply, said, that in the event of officers on the Retired Lists of the Navy being called again into active service, they would not be entitled to claim compensation for giving up civil employments in which they were now engaged. The Admiralty would reserve to themselves the same power of selection which they exercised according to the Queen's Regulations, and they would be dealt with according to their respective ranks.

  TRADES UNIONS—SOUTH YORKSHIRE MINERS' ASSOCIATION.—QUESTION.
  MR. SANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the decision of Mr. Serjeant Tindal Atkinson, County Court Judge at Barns-
  814
  ley, as reported in the "Yorkshire Post" of June the 15th, as to the funds of the South Yorkshire Miners' Association for the benefit of widows and orphans, which decision affects most seriously the future maintenance of three hundred widows and five to six hundred orphans, and having regard to the deprivation and loss likely to ensue to these unfortunate people who were led to believe that they had some provision to fall back upon in time of need, whether he will interfere on the part of the Government by instituting an investigation into the management of this association, with a view to inquiry whether the funds have been in any way misappropriated from the purpose for which they were subscribed?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, he very much regretted the position in which the particular society in question found itself, for the sake of those persons who had been practically deprived of the benefits which they might reasonably have expected to receive from it. The decision of the learned Judge was, however, he believed, perfectly correct, so far as the law of the matter was concerned. He was advised that the effect of a contrary decision would be that, if trades unions were brought within the law, proceedings might be instituted in the Courts to compel workmen to abstain from going to work, or, if they continued on strike, to compel trustees to apply their funds for the maintenance of strikes.

  METROPOLIS — SAINT MARGARET'S CHURCH—THE ALBERT MEMORIAL.

    QUESTION.
    MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Government has subscribed towards the restoration of Saint Margaret's Church; and, if so, whether the restoration may be postponed until the Report of the Committee on Public Buildings has been laid upon the Table, as it may then be considered desirable, if a suitable approach to the Houses of Parliament is to be made, to remove Saint Margaret's, in order to open to view Westminster Abbey; and, whether it is true, as stated in last Monday's papers, that the Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851 have sold ground on which it is proposed to erect a building so lofty that it will greatly injure the effect of the Albert Memorial?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, he would answer the second Question first. The Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851 had recently leased some land in the Kensington Road; but they were exercising great care to prevent the erection of buildings so lofty as to injure the effect of certain monuments, and they had refused to permit the erection of a building which would possibly have the effect of injuring the appearance of the Albert Memorial. With regard to Saint Margaret's Church, a sum of £1,500 had been voted for its restoration, as had been done in former years, owing to the interest which was taken in it by the House. The restoration would be carried out under the direction of the authorities of the parish, and the Government had nothing to do with postponing it, or accelerating it. The works were not likely to be undertaken before the Recess, so that in all probability the Report referred to would be submitted beforehand.

  TOWNLANDS AND TOWNS (IRELAND)— ALPHABETICAL INDEX.—QUESTION.
  MR. HEYGATEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether there exists any statutory obligation for the printing and publishing of the bulky volume, headed "Alphabetical Index of Town-lands and Towns of Ireland," in connection with the Census of 1871, price 8s. 6d., lately issued to Members; and, if not, whether the Treasury considers that the expense incurred by such publication, six years after the last Census, is justified by its general interest either for Parliament or the public?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: There is no statutory obligation of publishing an alphabetical index of townships and towns in Ireland. The information is, I am informed, necessary for some public Departments in Ireland, and, therefore, it was represented that it should be in existence; but I agree that it is not expedient that so bulky a volume should be presented and distributed as a Parliamentary Paper, and I may state that it shall not again occur.

  RUSSIA AND TURKEY—LORD DERBY'S DESPATCH OF THE 6TH OF MAY.

    QUESTION.
    MR. WHALLEYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the European Nations referred to in the Despatch of the Earl of Derby of the
    816
    6th of May, Whether any one of such Nations, and, if any, which, has expressed concurrence in the policy announced in that Despatch, restricting the operations of Russia in the present contest; and, whether any European Nation or Power, other than and except that of the Papacy, has expressed disapproval of the action of Russia against Turkey?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I can only say that I do not think it would be convenient to answer the Question.

  NAVY—THE NEW NAVAL COLLEGE— THE SITE.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. EDWARDSasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether there is any truth in the report that the Admiralty have decided to erect a Naval College at Dartmouth, and that the Grant to be asked for in the Naval Estimates is to be taken for that purpose?
  MR. A. F. EGERTON,in reply, said, the Admiralty had come to the conclusion that Dartmouth was the best site for the proposed Naval College. He was, however, in communication with his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, from whom he expected an answer immediately, as to whether the Vote for it should be proposed this Session, and if the hon. Gentleman would repeat his Question on Monday, he would probably be able to inform the hon. Gentleman of the final decision of the Admiralty on the subject.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEasked the hon. Gentleman, Whether a distinct pledge had not on three different occasions been given by the First Lord of the Admiralty, that no decision would be come to on the subject until an opportunity for full discussion with respect to it had been afforded the House?
  MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, he was not aware what were the exact words which had been used by the First Lord of the Admiralty; but, on referring to the Reports of the debates, he was unable to find anything implying an absolute promise on the part of his right hon. Friend on the subject. So far as he himself was concerned, what he had said on one occasion, in reply to a Question which had been put to him, was that he would assent to the postponement of the Vote for the site for a Naval College, in order that there might be an opportunity of having the matter fully discussed by

  817
  the House. Well, that being so, it was still open to the House to discuss the question when the Vote came on; but the Admiralty were bound to arrive at a decision in the matter before submitting the Vote.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEasked, Whether the hon. Gentleman thought having a discussion on the question before a Vote was taken was the same thing as having a discussion when the Vote was brought before the House?
  MR. A. F. EGERTONcould only repeat that he thought the Admiralty itself was bound to come to a decision before it made any proposal at all.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (METROPOLIS) BILL.

    QUESTION.
    MR. J. HOLMSasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he will cause a memorandum to be prepared for the information of the House showing the general effect of the Public Health (Metropolis) Bill on the existing Law, and specially indicating what clauses are taken from Acts now in force outside the Metropolis and what clauses are taken from the Acts now in force in the Metropolis; and further explaining what controlling power and authority now vested in the Secretary of State for the Home Department or Privy Council is proposed to be transferred to the President of the Local Government Board; and what powers hitherto possessed by the local authorities are proposed to be modified under the provisions of the Bill?
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: I may inform the hon. Member that I have already given directions for a Memorandum to be prepared showing the clauses which are taken from the Acts now in force in the Metropolis, whether with or Without alteration, those which are from Acts not so in force, and those which are new. Much of this information is already given in the margiual notes of the Bill. But when he asks me to state what power now vested in the Secretary of State or Privy Council is proposed to be transferred to myself, I must reply that the Bill does not propose to transfer any such power; because all the powers of the Secretary of State and of the Privy Council under the Acts consolidated by the Bill were so transferred by the Local Government Board Act, 1871.
    818
    I am surprised that there should be any misunderstanding on this point; because it was only in January last that, in the exercise of the powers so transferred, I caused a circular letter to be addressed to the Vestries and District Boards of the Metropolis, on the subject of providing hospital accommodation under one of the Acts now proposed to be consolidated, and no exception was taken by them in reply to the authority under which I so addressed them. There is substantially no modification of the powers now vested in the local authorities. On the contrary, some fresh powers are given to them by the Bill. The only new powers proposed to be conferred on the Local Government Board are with respect to the provision of mortuaries and the approval of voluntary arrangements between two or more authorities for providing joint hospital accommodation.

  NAVY — DOCKYARD ENGINEERS AT MALTA.—QUESTION.
  MR. J. COWENasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If a Petition has been received from the Engineers in the Dockyard at Malta, asking that the hours they work, in consequence of the heat of the climate, should be reduced from ten to nine hours per day; if nine hours is not the length for a day's work for Engineers in the Dockyards of this Country; and if he could state whether the demand of the Malta Engineers will be complied with?
  MR. A. F. EGERTON,in reply, said, it was true that the Petition referred to by the hon. Member had been received. It was also true that nine hours was the length of a day's work for engineers in the home dockyards. It had been decided to offer the Malta engineers a reduction in the hours of work coupled with a corresponding reduction of pay. This was the course adopted in the case of the home dockyards.

  SUCCESSIONS DUTY ACT — DOUBLE DUTIES—"THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CHARLTON."—QUESTION.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENasked Mr. Attorney General, If his attention has been called to the decision of the Court of Appeal on Saturday last in the case of "The Attorney General v. Charlton and others," as to Succession

  819
  Duty, in which the Court stated, that, but for certain decisions of the House of Lords on the Succession Duty Act, they would have held that the lower and not the higher duties, as claimed by the Crown, were payable by the defendants, and, consequently, would have given judgment against the Attorney General in the case before the Court; if it be the fact, that the Lord Chief Justice of England, in giving judgment in that case, stated that the decisions of the House of Lords relied upon by the Crown, were "clearly wrong, and proceeded on technical grounds contrary to the real meaning of and the spirit of the Act;" and that the House of Lords in these decisions had fallen into "a great and fatal error," and "had misconstrued the Act;" and, whether, having regard to the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice, and the judgments of Lord Justice James, Lord Justice Bramwell, and Lord Justice Brett, concurring with him, it is his intention to introduce at once a Bill to declare the Law, so as to overrule the decisions of the House of Lords, referred to by the Court of Appeal, which compelled that Court to decide in favour of the Crown, against their own unanimous opinion, in a matter of taxation affecting Her Majesty's subjects?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: This case of "the Attorney General v. Charlton" was one of a very complicated and perplexing character. It was, by desire of the Courts, argued five times—three times before the Exchequer Division and twice before the Court of Appeal. I was one of the counsel for the Crown, and my attention was therefore called to the judgment pronounced by the Court of Appeal on Saturday last. The Lord Chief Justice, in the course of his judgment, did make some such observations as those alluded to in my right hon. and learned Friend's Question with reference to the decisions of the House of Lords, and all the learned Judges stated, I believe, that they felt themselves constrained to pronounce the judgment which they gave by the authority of those decisions; but I do not think it at all clear that if the Court of Appeal had not felt obliged to follow the judgment of the House of Lords, they would have decided that the Crown was entitled to a lower duty than the duty claimed. It is quite possible that the Court might have come to the conclusion that the case fell within
  820
  Section 4 of the Successions Duty Act, and that double duties were payable as under the Legacy Acts. It will be open to the appellant to carry this case to the House of Lords; and until I know whether this course is to be adopted, I cannot decide whether it will be desirable to introduce any Bill on the subject.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS—SCOTCH BILLS.

    QUESTION.
    DR. CAMERON(for Mr. W. Holms) asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What course he proposes to take with reference to the four General Public Bills for Scotland which have been introduced this Session, but not one of which has yet been discussed in Committee, viz., the Poor Law, Prisons, Sheriff Courts, and Roads and Bridges Bills; and, seeing that the last-named Bill was specially mentioned in Her Majesty's Speech as a measure of importance, what day he would give for its consideration?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Government are very anxious to proceed with some at least of these Bills, and I can only say that we are anxious to find early days for proceeding with them. But the hon. Gentleman and the House are well aware we are in a difficulty at present because of the strong expression of opinion which was passed by the House that we ought to proceed with the Estimates as quickly as we can. There are also, as I mentioned the other day, two important measures—the East Indian Loan Bill, and the South African Confederation Bill—which it is desirable to proceed with. I will only say, therefore, that we will bring the Bills on as quickly as we can. To the remark of the hon. Member who put the Question, that not one of the Scotch Bills has been discussed in Committee, I must take some exception; because, although the Prisons Bill has not literally been discussed in Committee, an arrangement was made that it should stand over till the English Bill had been discussed, and that it should be reprinted in the form of the English Bill. That has been done, and therefore I suppose the discussion of the Scotch Bill will not occupy much time. The Roads and Bridges Bill has been committed pro formâ in order to introduce various Amendments. It will probably

    821
    be distributed to hon. Members shortly. We shall proceed with that Bill as quickly as possible, and with the others also.

  AEMY—TERRITORIAL TITLES TO REGIMENTS.—QUESTION".
  SIR ALEXANDEB GOEDONasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will state to the House whether Her Majesty's Government intend to carry into effect the recommendation of the Militia Committee which sat last year with respect to giving territorial titles to the regiments of the Army, and depriving them of their numerical titles?
  MR. GATHOENE HARDY,in reply, said, it was not the intention to deprive the regiments of their numerical titles; but to arrange them on the footing proposed by the Commander-in-Chief in 1873.

  FISHERIES (OYSTERS, CRABS, AND LOBSTERS) BILL.—QUESTION.
  MR. DILLWYNasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is aware that the 12th section of the Fisheries (Oysters, Crabs, and Lobsters) Bill re-enacts, as regards Prance, an Act of Parliament which has been repealed and was left out of the revised edition of the Statutes?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Yes, Sir, my right hon. Friend is aware of the fact referred to in the Question. And the reason is this—The Fishery Convention of 1839 between England and France was intended to remain in force until the later Convention of 1867 between the same countries came into operation. Unfortunately, difficulties have arisen, and that Convention is not yet in force. In these circumstances, it is proposed that the Act of 1843 which confirmed the first Convention, and which was repealed in 1868, should be temporarily revived until the day when the later Convention actually comes into operation.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)— ROMAN CATHOLICS.—QUESTION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Lord Advocate, If there has recently been an investigation into certain charges of unfair treatment of Roman Catholics in judicial proceedings at Irvine in Ayrshire; and, if he will state the result of
  822
  the investigation, or lay upon the Table any Papers connected with it?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: In Irvine there are a considerable number of Catholics and Orangemen among the working classes, and I regret to say that some time ago these parties gave each other considerable annoyance, and their differences occasionally led to breaches of the peace. In a recent case the offenders were prosecuted at the instance of the police authorities before the magistrates of the borough of Irvine. Complaint was made to me that a certain amount of unfairness had been shown by those magistrates in awarding unduly lenient sentences to the Orangemen tried before them. I considered it to be my duty to instruct the Procurator Fiscal of the Sheriff's Court, who is a Government official, to inquire and report to me the circumstances of these various cases in which unfairness was said to have been signally displayed. The result of the examination and investigation having been reported to me I have now to state, in answer to the hon. Member, that there seems no ground for imputing any want of fairness or any partiality to those justices in the discharge of a very difficult and delicate duty.
  MR. ANDEESON: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered my last Question—Will he lay the Papers upon the Table?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: I understood the Question was put alternatively. I do not think the Papers are of such a character that they ought to be laid upon the Table; but I will communicate with the hon. Member on the subject.

  ARMY—MAJOR DE DOHSE.—QUESTION.
  MAJOR O'GORMANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is his intention to recommend for employment in Her Majesty's Military Service, Major de Dohsé, late of the German Legion (British)?
  MR. GATHORNE HAEOYreplied in the negative.

  CRIMINAL LAW—CASE OF FRANCES ISABELLA STALLAND.—QUESTION.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been directed to a trial for murder which took place at the Winchester Assizes on Monday the 2nd instant, at which Frances Isabella Stalland, aged 20, was convicted of the

  823
  wilful murder of her illegitimate child, and to the report as given in the "Standard" newspaper, that the jury, after considering their verdict for forty minutes, found the prisoner Guilty, with a strong recommendation to mercy on account of her youth, her desertion by the father of the child, and the general circumstances surrounding the case; and that the judge, on passing sentence of Death, said he would forward the recommendation of the jury to the Secretary of State, but that neither he (the judge) nor the prisoner could expect that the sentence would be remitted; and, whether it is consistent with the prerogative of the Crown that the judge should say that he could not expect such recommendation of the jury would be attended to?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I have no official report whatever of anything that fell from the learned Judge who tried this ease, nor do I at the present moment know anything about the merits of the case, because the usual report has not yet reached me. But reading the Question as it is placed on the Paper, I should say all that the learned Judge meant to convey was this—that he did not himself agree with the recommendation of the jury, and would not probably back it up to the Secretary of State. I am sure that neither the learned Judge who tried the case, nor any Judge on the Bench, would for a moment think of interfering with the Prerogative of the Crown.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.—QUESTION.
  MR. CHARLES LEWIS: I wish to ask, Whether the Government, having regard to the large amount of time which has been consumed this Session in discussing the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill, are prepared to take any steps in order to prevent the loss of that time?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I really do not see what steps the Government can take. We have done what was in our power, in the way of affording one day which was at the command of the Government, and the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), in concert with the Government, gave another day. I am sorry that those days have not led to
  824
  any decisive results; but in the present state of Business, and considering the obligations of the Government, I do not see that I can at the present time make any other proposal with regard to the matter.

  PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—REFLECTIONS IN THIS HOUSE.—QUESTION.
  MR. PULESTON,who had the following Notice of Motion on the Paper:—
  "That in Committee of the whole House, no Member have power to move more than once either that the Chairman do report Progress or that the Chairman leave the Chair, and that no Member who has made one of those Motions have power to move the other in the same Committee,"
  said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question of which I have given him private Notice—Whether, in view of such scenes as took place the other night, in pursuance of a system of obstruction which is now becoming a standing reproach, offensive to the dignity of the House and antagonistic to the best interests of the nation, the Government are prepared—["Order!"]
  MR. CALLAN: I rise to a point of Order. I beg to ask, Mr. Speaker, Whether a Question which so palpably transgresses the Rules of the House, and which the Clerks at the Table, under your direction, will not receive, should be put on a subject affecting the privileges of Members of this House?
  MR. SPEAKER: According to the ordinary practice of the House no Question can be put involving matter of argument. I think some of the phrases contained in the Question as they reached me did so contain matter of argument.
  MR. PULESTON: I bow to your decision, Sir, and I will therefore only ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will afford such facilities as will enable me to bring forward the Motion which stands in my name, or whether Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to take similar or other means to effect the same object?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend has mentioned to me, before the commencement of the Business, that he proposed to put a Question to me with reference to the Notice which stands in his name for this evening, and which, pro-

  825
  bably, will not be reached till a late hour. The Question is whether we could give him any facility for bringing that question under consideration, or whether the Government themselves have any proposals to make upon the subject. The hon. Gentleman did not state to me the reasons upon which he proposed to bring forward that Question; but, of course, it would be affectation not to see that there is some connection between this Question having been put on the Paper at the present time and the proceedings which took place in this House a few nights ago. Well, with regard to, that matter I wish to say, on behalf of the' Government, that we are above all things anxious to promote in any way we can the convenience and proper conduct of Business in this House; and we ^consider that it may from time to time be desirable and necessary, as the character of the Business that comes before this House alters, as larger numbers of Questions are brought forward, as the nature of the discussions varies—it may from time to time be necessary to revise and reconsider the Rules under which our Business is conducted. At the same time, we are very conscious that those Rules are the result of many years and generations of experience; and we therefore feel that great care and pains ought to be exercised in making alterations in them. I think it would be particularly to be regretted if any alterations were proposed or discussed under this feeling—I do not like the word which was rising to my lips—but under any feeling of annoyance with reference to a particular proceeding. I am unwilling at the present time to express any opinion uopn what took place the other night. I think the judgment of this House and of the country is tolerably well formed upon that subject. I think we might only cause irritation and hinder the progress—the satisfactory progress —of Business by discussing what really needs no discussion. Therefore I would venture to express a hope that in what I am now saying I may not bring about a desultory or irregular discussion. But I would say, with reference to the Question of my hon. Friend, and to the Notice which stands in his name upon the Paper, that the Government have recently—before those transactions took place and still more since—given a great deal of attention to this subject; and we
  826
  are certainly of opinion that it may be desirable, calmly and with due consideration, to examine some portion of the Orders of the House, especially with regard to the question to which my hon. Friend refers—the question of Adjournment, or of reporting Progress, when the House is in Committee. And I may say that the particular proposal which my hon. Friend makes is one which, upon the face of it, commands our approval; and I think that, in substance at least, it would probably command the approval of a very large majority, if not of the whole, of the House, because I take it it only applies to the case of a Committee a Rule which works well in this House as a whole. At the same time, I think that, under the circumstances which I mentioned in the first instance, and bearing in mind the fact that it might be necessary, if we were altering our Rules at all, to make, perhaps, some other alterations besides this, and that it is undesirable to have frequent and desultory discussions upon such a matter—I think it would be better that we should not be in a hurry, and not attempt at present to deal with a question of this sort. My own opinion is, that the best course we could take would be to carry on our Business under the Rules which are at present in force, and to let us take time. The Government will undertake carefully to consider this matter, in consultation with yourself, Sir, and with the other authorities of the House, in order that we may be able next Session to propose a careful and well-considered revision of such parts of our Rules as may seem to require it. I may remind the House that there has been more than one Committee on Public Business, and that those Committees have made recommendations of an important character, some of which have been partly adopted, but several of which have never been adopted by the House. I think the recommendations of those Committees deserve serious consideration, and they shall receive it; and I think that, upon the whole, we should be best consulting the convenience and dignity of the House if we were at present to let this matter stand over. I trust we shall have no repetition of such scenes, upon which I do not wish to say more than I have already said; and I need not assure my hon. Friend that the convenience and dignity of this House are, and always will be,

  827
  a matter of great concern to Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. WHALLEY: Sir, I wish to make a few observations in the nature of a personal explanation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the observations that he has addressed to the House, has done so in carefully worded and measured terms—["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member proposes to make a personal explanation, no doubt the House will receive it with its usual indulgence; but if the hon. Member merely rises to make some remarks on the Answer which has been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he will not be in Order.
  MR. WHALLEY: As I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he imputed to those who took part in the proceedings of the other night—["Order!"] If I am to be interrupted in this way I really do not know how to make my explanation; but I must endeavour by some means to protect myself, and I do not know how I can do it better than by moving the Adjournment of the House. After having sat for a quarter of a century in this House, I cannot submit to the imputations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and though conveyed in such measured terms they raise considerations most unjust and most unfair towards me, on which I claim on personal grounds to offer some reply. It is the more important that I should do so, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he will not proceed to act on the Motion of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston), relative to the privilege of moving to report Progress, or that the Chairman do leave the Chair. ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member having proposed to make a personal explanation is not entitled, as I have already said, to comment on the Answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. WHALLEY: The observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were wholly uncalled for. ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is out of Order in the course he is pursuing; and if he disregards the ruling of the Chair I shall have to submit his conduct to the judgment of the House.
  MR. WHALLEY: I must make one more attempt, and after that I will acquiesce in what may be the desire of the House. I say that I cannot continue to discharge my duty in this House
  828
  under the rebuke which has been directly or indirectly cast upon me.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I rise to Order. It is only by the indulgence of the House that hon. Members are entitled to make personal explanations, and it is an indulgence that is never refused. I think that the hon. Member for Peterborough, in proceeding to make some remarks on the Answer I recently gave to the House, is entirely exceeding the privilege of Parliament, and can scarcely be considered as acting respectfully to you, Sir, after the observations you have made, in persisting in proceeding in the way he is doing.
  MR. WHALLEY: My reason for proceeding is that the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer assume that those who took part in the recent proceedings of this House are justly exposed to the censure and indignation of this House and the country. The Government, in the part which they took, and the right hon. Gentleman still more so, I venture to say, in the course which he has taken, are justly exposed to greater complaint on the part of those hon. Members than—["Order!"]
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: I rise to Order. Is not the hon. Member for Peterborough acting exactly contrary, Mr. Speaker, to your orders?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is altogether disregarding the injunctions that have fallen from the Chair, and unless the House thinks that I should act otherwise, seeing that we are now engaged upon the Questions before the House, and that the hon. Member by his conduct interrupts the Business of the House, I shall, with the concurrence of the House, call on such hon. Members who are desirous of putting Questions in the ordinary course of Business to do so; and I call on the hon. Member for Peterborough to resume his seat.

  PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—PRACTICE OF THIS HOUSE.—QUESTION.
  MR. E. JENKINS: Sir, I wish to direct attention to the Motion of the hon. Member (Mr. Blake), and to ask you, Mr. Speaker, Whether, as the terms of the Motion contain imputations upon the conduct of an hon. Member, and would involve serious consequences, inasmuch as if the House concurred it would involve a direct Vote of Censure, and as the appearance of the Motion day

  829
  after day upon the Notice Paper could not but be painful to the feelings of the hon. Member concerned, and also having regard to certain precedents which, however, it would be unnecessary to cite, whether this is not a Motion of that character, which, as a matter of Privilege, ought to take precedence of the other Orders of the Day?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member asks whether the Question of which the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Blake) has given Notice is of such a character that it ought to be dealt with as a question of Privilege. The House is aware that, according to the general practice of the House, no question of this character is dealt with as a matter of Privilege unless it is urgent in point of time, and directly affects the Privileges of this House or of Members of this House. The Notice of the hon. Member for Leominster challenges two statements alleged to have been made by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), one on the 21st of April, and the other on the 20th of June last. It appears to me that this Question, having regard to the question of time, cannot be regarded as a question of Privilege, because it is not urgent in point of time; but if the House should think fit to entertain the Motion at once as a matter of Privilege, the subject is one which would warrant that course.
  MR. BLAKE: I wish to ask you, Sir, if it is competent for the Motion which stands in my name to be then discussed with the consent of the House? It is true that some time has elapsed since the speeches referred to were made, but they are still in circulation in the newspapers. I think it is a matter that should be considered by Parliament as early as possible.
  MR. PARNELL: I rise to Order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that if it is thought desirable by the House that I should make an explanation in reference to either of the speeches referred to, I do not wish |in any way to stand in the way of the House in getting that explanation.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must inform the hon. Member that it is irregular to discuss the Motion of the hon. Member for Leominster unless the House should have previously signified its pleasure that it should be discussed as a question of Privilege.
  MR. BLAKE: I wish to move that the matter be now considered as a question of Privilege.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: I ask the hon. Member whether he thinks in his own mind that it can be brought forward and treated as a matter of Privilege?

  SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £132,000, Army Reserve Force Pay and Allowances.
  CONONEL MUREcalled the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the fact that in those branches of the Service in which the longest time was required to make a soldier the Reserves were weakest. In the Artillery, for instance, there were almost no reserves at all; so, also, in the Cavalry; while a large portion of the Infantry were not of an age fit for service abroad. He knew a regiment about 900 strong, in which there were 500 young fellows, a vast number of whom were not more than 17 or 18 years of age, so that if it became necessary to send that regiment abroad it would be found that at least 25 per cent of the men were in consequence of their youth unfit for foreign service. The same state of things would recur which happened during the Crimean War, when, as Lord Raglan said, vast numbers of young men were sent out to fill our ranks, who died off like flies. He hoped the matter would be carefully and honestly looked into. He admitted that the class of recruits had improved physically, educationally, and morally. They were a fine class of young men, but they were not fit to go into arduous foreign service.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, that to non-military men this question of Reserves was one of the great questions of the day. The schemes of Lord Cardwell had ended in disappointment, as he at the time the Bill for the Abolition of Purchase was before the House prophesied would be the case. The hon. Member was proceeding to refer to the Volunteer Force, the Vote for which had been the subject of discussion on a former occasion, when—
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Gentleman was not in Order in alluding to

  831
  a question which was not within the scope of the present Vote.
  MR. WHALLEYnext referred to the official Report recently made to the War Office respecting the Volunteers at the Easter Review.
  THE CHAIRMANruled that the hon. Member was not in Order.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he was speaking about the Reserves, by which he meant that military force that the country had at its command in case of emergency—namely, the Volunteers. ["Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the Vote before the Committee was not for the Auxiliary and Reserve Forces, but for the Army Reserve Force.
  MR. WHALLEYpresumed he might ask the Secretary of State for War what steps he proposed to take in compliance with the official Report already alluded to in order to render the Reserve Forces more efficient?
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTrose to Order, asking whether the hon. Member was not now for the third time pursuing a discussion which the Chairman had ruled was outside the Question before the Committee, and whether the Committee would not empower the Chairman to put the Vote notwithstanding that the hon. Member was on his legs?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, there was no doubt the hon. Member's remarks were still outside the Question; but he felt sure that after the intimation which had been given the hon. Member would not persist in that course.
  MR. WHALLEYremarked that he was extremely obliged to the Chairman for his courtesy, and could assure the Committee that he did him no more than justice in assuming that he had no desire to travel beyond the limits of the Question. He really felt totally unable, however, to discharge according to his conscience the duty that was required of him in the exigency of the case if he was not allowed to make these references in connection with the Reserve.
  MR. J. HOLMSdid think the Committee and the country were entitled to know clearly and specifically the expectations of the War Office as to the bringing up of the Reserve Forces. According to the Vote, the number would be 15,000 a-year.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he was afraid the hon. and gallant Mem-
  832
  ber (Colonel Mure) and the hon. Member (Mr. J. Holms) were not in the House when, on a former occasion, he went into the subjects to which they had referred. It was fully expected at the War Office that more men would be passed into the Reserves than had been anticipated. It was a matter of necessity that the regiments mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman should be pretty full of recruits; but it was certainly not intended to send young inexperienced men abroad. Only fit men would be sent out. He had entered fully into that question on a previous evening. As to men going into the Reserves, he was not able to force them to enter at the desired age. There were between 60,000 and 80,000 who were engaged to enter in their turn; he could not compel them to enter; but he was endeavouring, through the commanding officers, to induce men to join the Reserves earlier than they would otherwise do.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) £374,800, Commissariat, Transport, and Ordnance Store Establishments.
  In reply to Mr. GOURLEY,
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, there was nothing extraordinary in the item for the cost of watching the dockyards and various establishments—a duty which was undertaken by the Metropolitan Police, but of course had to be paid for by the Government.
  SIR ANDREW LUSK,referring to the item of £4,940 for police employed under the Contagious Diseases Prevention Act, asked how many policemen were so employed?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYcould not give the number at that moment, but said they were employed at all the places—and there were a good many—where the Act was enforced, and they were necessarily picked men.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) £2,986,000, Provisions, Forage, Fuel, Transport, and other Services.
  CAPTAIN O'BEIRNEcomplained of certain charges which unduly fell upon the Cavalry officers with respect to forage, and he suggested that a more liberal allowance should be made to them in reference to their horses.
  GENERAL SHUTEwas certain the great mass of the Cavalry officers preferred to be on the present footing. If their horses were provided by the country they would only get one each, but under the present arrangement, paying 8½d. a-day for forage, and getting good stable accommodation for their chargers, they usually kept three or four, and this was at once an advantage to themselves and to the country—to themselves, because it enabled them to hunt, giving them an "eye to country," and improving their horsemanship, both qualifications so necessary to Cavalry officers; but if they had only one each, and that a Government horse, they would not be allowed to hunt, and would not be granted stable room or forage for more—to the country, because each Cavalry officer had now two or three broken chargers ready on shortest notice for field service. Cavalry officers had a grievance, however, when it was considered that the Horse Artillery officers paid only 6d. a-day for forage, whilst they were charged 8½d. The mounted officers of Infantry, also, had a grievance in connection with the allowance they received in lieu of forage, for they were actually out of pocket. He hoped these matters would be considered by the War Office.
  MR. MELLORcalled attention to the difference between the charges made by the Railway Companies for civilians and for soldiers—the difference being something like 33 per cent against the soldier—a state of things which he thought required to be remedied as speedily as possible, as the result would greatly reduce the cost of the Transport Service.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he felt with the hon. Member that the War Department was rather hardly used by the Railway Companies with respect to these charges. The terms for soldiers were fixed at an early period; since then the charges for third-class Parliamentary passengers had been reduced, while the some advantage had not been extended to soldiers, who therefore paid more than Parliamentary passengers—which he thought was a great hardship. The Select Committee which sat on the subject of the Railway Passenger Duty called attention to this distinction in favour of the War Department, but did not make any recommendation, thinking
  834
  it rather outside the question which had been referred to them. He confessed he thought that considering what the State got from the railways they should also have looked to what the railways got from the State. With regard to the question of forage, the War Office had considered some suggestions on the subject, and the proposal he favourably entertained was that the forage allowance should be fixed, not at a precise sum, but according to locality and the price of forage in the place. He proposed, by next year, to make some additional allowance for the "first stall" in the stable, because officers lost 6d. if they took only one stall. At the same time, he could not promise to make the change which had been recommended with respect to Artillery officers, although they in every way deserved the consideration of the War Office. The present Vote could not be altered to meet the object in view.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £805,600, Clothing Establishments, Services and Supplies.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURexpressed a hope that the Committee would be made acquainted with the amount of stores now actually available. A Supplementary Estimate for £200,000 had been voted by the House, in order to lay in a spare stock of woollens in readiness for any unusual demands. He had fully approved of this prudent precaution; but it was only fair that the House should have the means of knowing that this extra stock had been laid in, and was year by year maintained, and not used to make a diminution of the Army expenditure in some future year.
  CONONEL MUREasked what was the nature of the new helmets for the Infantry?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he could not state precisely, but they might be described as blue helmets with brass band and brass spike.
  Vote agreed to.
  (5.) £1,120,000, Supply, Manufacture, and Repair of Warlike and other Stores.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTwished to know from his noble Friend the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, what number of Martini-Henry rifles were in stock, and whether it was in-

  835
  tended to arm all the Reserve Forces at once, as well as the Militia, with that rifle?
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL,in reply, said, the total number of breechloading arms in store was 856,578, of which 377,558 were Martini-Henry, and 169,000 Snider rifles; and there were 310,000 Snider rifles in the hands of the Reserve Forces. It was intended to arm the Cavalry with the Martini-Henry carbine, but at present the pattern of the lock had not been decided upon. The whole Reserve would in time be armed with the Martini-Henry rifle. The carbines now in the hands of the Cavalry would, when the new carbines were ready, be distributed to the Yeomanry Cavalry.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKwould move that the item for the Martini-Henry carbine be struck out, unless he received an assurance that in point of range it would be equal to the rifles carried by the Infantry.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILreplied that the Martini-Henry carbine would not come into use this year at all. The question with regard to the lock had not yet been settled.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKsaid, the question he wanted to raise had no reference to the lock, but to the length of range. What he desired was that the carbine should be in all respects a long-range arm.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYassured the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the pattern of the Martini-Henry carbine had not yet been submitted to him. There was no Vote for it taken in the present Estimates, and in assenting to the Vote before them the Committee would in no way be bound to the adoption of that particular weapon in the future. He might add that he was quite as convinced as the hon. and gallant Gentleman of the importance of a long-range.
  GENERAL SHUTEsaid, that so far as he could judge, Cavalry officers were quite satisfied with the carbine which it was proposed to give them, though it might not be of the full range of the Infantry. Its range was 1,000 yards, which was sufficient for nearly every practical purpose, and longer range would not compensate for the great inconvenience of having to carry a longer rifle on horseback. But the Lancers
  836
  ought to have a good rifle given to them, which would be a far more useful weapon than the lance.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that the Army Estimates were swelled year by year by reason of the excessive demands made by the Navy for guns and ammunition and carriages. By what accident was it that £80,000 was included in the Naval Estimates as a sum to be given to the Navy for torpedoes? If the Navy required them, the Secretary of State should have laid in a stock. Charges of the same kind should not appear in different Estimates, and yet the charges in the Army Estimates for torpedoes were large in amount. The mistake was made in extending the liability of the War Office to supply the Navy with torpedoes, in addition to guns and ammunition. This new weapon of war should have been a special charge on the Navy and included in the Estimates of the Admiralty. The War Office would have continued the manufacture or purchase of these weapons if the Admiralty desired, but only as agents, and not with any degree of responsibility. The best plan would be to let the Admiralty manage for all material.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the Treasury practically regulated the mode in which the accounts were presented, and this item had had the assent of the Treasury. Representatives of the Admiralty witnessed the experiments at Spezia, and the Department thought it expedient to procure a supply of torpedoes from Italy instead of manufacturing them at Woolwich. The War Department would be glad to relieve their Estimates of these large sums.
  CAPTAIN O'BEIRNEthought that to keep Cavalry waiting for orders while under long-range Infantry fire would have a demoralizing effect on them. He agreed with the opinion which had been expressed that the lance should be abolished.
  MR. GOURLEYwished to know whether the torpedoes charged for were for the Navy or the Army Service, and as to the number of boats for transport.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, that the torpedoes were of a new kind, but it was not necessary to explain them. The boats were required for transporting stores; one had to be built to convey the 80-ton gun. He did not, however, know their number.
  MR. GOURLEYsuggested that vessels should be borrowed from the Navy Department.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURthought that the War Office should have nothing to do with the ships of the Admiralty. That Board would charge more than anybody else, and supply the condemned and useless vessels of the Navy as quite good enough for the soldiers. The vessels sent out during the war with China would neither sink, sail, nor swim.
  Vote agreed to.
  (6.) £828,700, Superintending Establishment of and Expenditure for Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad.
  MR. J. R. YORKEsaid, he wished to ask one or two questions respecting the site of the Knightsbridge Barracks and the conditions on which it was proposed to re-erect them. It had always been understood that the ground occupied by the barracks was to be used for buildings. The road was to be widened, and then the architect would have to face the problem of erecting a proper barracks on an insufficient site. He could not think the present state of things satisfactory, and he had not approved the scheme from the outset; but he now acquiesced in it, thinking it better to spend £120,000 on new barracks than to waste £100,000 in vainly ornamenting the old building.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYreplied that the architect had fully considered the widening of the road, and had made his plans accordingly. The shifting of the officers' quarters had become necessary. The riding school was to be brought to the men's quarters, which would be an improvement on the plan originally contemplated, and the officers' quarters would be shifted upwards; but would not be placed at the extreme west end of the barracks, where a lofty building would intercept the view from the houses in the Knightsbridge Road. As the Guards would still have in front of the barracks the ordinary green sward in which they had been accustomed to exercise, they did not require a large court-yard.
  Vote agreed to.
  (7.) £154,400, Establishments for Military Education, agreed to.
  (8.) £31,000, Miscellaneous Effective Services.
  MR. HAYTERsaid, that a new military attaché was appointed. Would the right hon. Gentleman inform him where he was to be sent?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: To Constantinople.
  Vote agreed to.
  (9.) £249,100, Administration of the Army.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURcomplained of the obscure manner in which the military accounts were kept, so that it was impossible to ascertain what the expenses of the Indian Army were as compared with that at home. For the first time they had large sums deducted from the Estimates of the Home Army, because India employed officers and men belonging to that Home Army; but there was no information supplied to the House of Commons as to the numbers and grades so employed, excepting as regarded the regimental strengths. No doubt those numbers could be furnished; and as the details of the entire charge of £1,000,000, which the Estimates stated would be paid by India, could be supplied, he hoped that the Secretary of State for War would in future furnish the information, not only for the present year, but for previous as well as for future years as they come on. This charge of £1,000,000 was indeed heavy, considering that the pay of the regimental men and officers was borne by the Indian Estimates and not shown in the Home Estimates.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENcalled attention to the establishment of a Staff College and a Staff Corps some 10 or 12 years ago, and he wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman would consent to a continuance of the Returns he had obtained for the last five years, showing the appointments made and the names of the officers appointed?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he had no objection whatever to the Returns being continued.
  Vote agreed to.
  (10.) £33,500, Rewards for Distinguished Services, agreed to.
  (11.) £53,600, Pay of General Officers.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he considered they were entitled on this

  839
  Vote to raise questions relating to the mode in which the military administration of India and the Home Government was carried on. They were entitled to raise the question as to how officers were appointed to the Staff in India, and how the influence of the Commander-in-Chief had been able to carry out certain military changes.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYthought the observations of the hon. Baronet were not relevant to the question before the Committee.
  THE CHAIRMANruled that the hon. Baronet was not in Order.
  Vote agreed to.
  (12.) £420,200, Full Pay of Reduced and Retired Officers and Half Pay.
  In reply to Mr. CHILDERS,
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he hoped to be able before the end of the Session to bring forward the subject of the Royal Warrant with reference to retirement in the Army. He was not aware that any changes in it would render it necessary to propose a Vote. But if it were necessary, it would be brought forward independently of these Estimates. He would in that case make a statement on the subject, with the view of eliciting the opinion of the House; but he could not submit the Royal Warrant to the consideration of Parliament, because that would be an interference with the Royal Prerogative.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLobserved that they had received a very clear statement of the conditions on which officers of the Navy were retired, and ho hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to tell them with equal clearness on what conditions the officers of the Army were to retire. Were they liable after retirement to be called out for public service?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the question of the liability of officers who had retired on full pay was a question of law. The officers of the Navy, on retirement, had always been informed that they were liable to be called upon; but the officers of the Army had not been so informed, and, therefore, he could not at once answer the question of the hon. Baronet as to their exact liability, which, he repeated, was a question of law.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTwas anxious to know, not whether his right hon. Friend hoped to be able to bring forward a retirement scheme, but whether he positively intended to do so?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYthought his hon. and gallant Friend was a little too exacting. It was not in his power to say absolutely whether he could do so or not. He was obliged to have the assent of two parties, and if he did not get their assent he could not bring it forward. If he could find time, it was his full intention to do so; and it was the intention of the Government to give the opportunity, if he could get the Warrant.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he would support a liberal allowance for retiring officers provided they were ready to serve with the Auxiliary Forces; but he would oppose a large allowance if the officers would not remain available for the service of the country.
  MR. WHALLEYcalled attention to the inadequacy of the pay of the skilled officers, and especially of medical men attached to the Militia and Reserve Forces. He suggested the employment of retired officers to promote the efficiency of the Volunteer Forces.
  SIR PATEICK O'BRIENwarmly supported the suggestion of the hon. Member as well deserving the consideration of the Government, especially after the Report of General Stephenson that the Volunteers were inefficiently officered. He also urged that time would be saved if these Estimates as affecting India were settled by a joint Committee of the War Office and the India Office, so as to enable one Minister to give satisfactory explanations in Committee of Supply.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the question of utilizing retired officers had been raised by the recent Commission on Retirement and Promotion, and it would not be lost sight of. Indeed, the suggestion had been acted upon in officering the Reserves and the Militia; but it was more difficult to adopt it in the case of the Volunteers, with their local associations and their desire to select their own officers. Still, many retired officers had accepted commands and commissions in the Volunteer Forces.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked for some assurance that something would be done towards making officers

  841
  who retired under the Retirement Scheme liable for service if called upon.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that perhaps in a fortnight he would be able to give a better answer. With regard to the past, if officers were not at present liable, he could not make them liable; but the question as to the conditions of retirement in the future was different.
  Vote agreed to.
  (13.) £123,500, Widows' Pensions, &c.
  (14.) £16,700, Pensions for Wounds.
  (15.) £35,000, Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals (In-Pensions).
  (16.) £1,005,200, Out-Pensions.
  (17.) £165,000, Superannuation Allowances.
  (18.) £42,100, Militia, Yeomany Cavalry, and Volunteer Corps, Non-Effective Services.
  In reply to Mr. WHALLEY,
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYstated that it was hoped what might be saved in expenditure upon small and inefficient regiments of Yeomanry would, when expended upon larger and more efficient ones, be productive of great benefit to the latter. This proposal was in accordance with the recommendation contained in the Report of the Yeomanry Committee.
  Vote agreed to.
  (19.) £1,000,000, Regular Forces in India.
  (20.) £400,000, to complete the sum for Army Purchase Commission.
  Resolutions [2nd July] and Resolutions of this day to be reported Tomorrow, at Two of the clock;
  Committee to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  EAST INDIA LOAN BILL— [Bill 215.]
  (Mr. Raikes, Lord George Hamilton, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  EAST INDIA LOAN BILL— [Bill 215.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, the Bill contemplated two entirely distinct objects. First, it empowered the Government of India to raise £2,500,000 by the issue
    842
    of bills for a limited period, to serve as a fund which would make it unnecessary for the Government at unfavourable times to go into the Money Market. The second object was that £2,500,000 should be raised in this country to meet a deficit in the present year's revenue, and that that sum should be added to the permanent debt of India. Confining his attention for the moment to the power given by the Bill to raise £2,500,000 simply for the purpose of giving the Government the command of a balance which would enable them at particular periods to go into the market or not as they thought fit, he wished to observe that that was a proposal which had been recommended to the House on the plea that it had had the support of Mr. Bagehot. Now, he had read, every word, he believed, which had been written by Mr. Bagehot, and, having had the privilege of enjoying his most intimate friendship, had discussed over and over again with him the subject of Indian finance; and he ventured to say that if his works were searched from beginning to end, not a single argument would be found in them to support the proposal now before the House. For years Mr. Bagehot had been the distinguished editor and chief contributor to one of the leading financial journals, not only in this country, but in Europe; and immediately after the Under Secretary of State for India had stated that he based his proposal on his authority, The Economist said that there was a most material difference between that proposal and what Mr. Bagehot had always recommended. Mr. Bagehot's advice was that if it was necessary for the Indian Government again to come to England to borrow, they should not add to the permanent debt of India, but should obtain the money they required by the issue of a certain amount of bills or temporary securities, and then if they found that the price of silver was likely to settle down, these temporary securities could, in a year or two's time, be withdrawn. That recommendation, whether deserving support or not, was obviously distinct from the proposals of the Bill before the House. Considering the great practical importance of the subject, he hoped that between the second reading and the time for Committee there would be a sufficient inter-

    843
    val to admit of the question being fully considered by the mercantile community, who had direct dealings with India. The Government wanted to raise, in order to meet a deficit, £2,500,000 in this country, and, flying straight in the face of Mr. Bagehot's advice, they were about to add that amount to the permanent debt of India. They then hit on the novel expedient of issuing a certain amount of bills whereby they could enter the Money Market as speculators in silver; but he had been assured only the day before by a mercantile man of experience and eminence that that was a course of proceeding which involved very serious considerations, and to the full importance of which those engaged in business in connection with the East were not fully alive. It was said, however, that it was necessary the Government should have the power of which he was speaking to protect themselves against combinations of those who intended to purchase their council bonds, and who by forming a ring might compel them to sell at less than the market value. That fear of combinations, however, was, he was assured by some leading bankers and merchants, an entire delusion; but, of course, if it could be shown that the Government would have to contend against a ring of that kind, it might be necessary to arm them with power to resist it. With respect to the second part of the Bill, it was proposed, in the first place, to borrow in this country £2,500,000 to enable the Government to enter into those speculations to which he had alluded, and to increase the permanent debt by £2,500,000 more by loan from the same source. At present the revenue of India was only about £40,000,000, which was inadequate for the ordinary expenditure; but notwithstanding that fact, and notwithstanding that the present was a time of profound, peace, they proposed to borrow on the whole £8,500,000, being 20 per cent of the whole revenue. It might be said that the borrowing of this large sum was necessitated by the famine. The famine charge was put down at £2,000,000, and leaving this out of consideration for the moment, he would say the Government were going this year to take authority to raise £6,500,000. If the £2,500,000 of which he had spoken was placed in the hands of the Government, what security had we that it
    844
    would not be devoted to purposes of ordinary income? He had the more reason to think this would be done, because the Under Secretary did not say a word the other day about the extraordinarily low figure to which the cash balances had been reduced. Some years ago they amounted to £24,000,000; they had now been reduced to £12,000,000, so that no less than £12,000,000 had been spent. Lord Northbrook thought that the cash balances ought at least to be £1,000,000 more than they were at present, and they ought therefore to be replenished. Three years ago, when the noble Lord came into office as the Under Secretary of State for India, he gave three distinct promises with regard to the future finance of India. At the time those promises appeared to him (Mr. Fawcett) to be distinct and satisfactory. In 1874 the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) said that Lord Salisbury had determined that no work should be undertaken which did not produce a fair return; that no work should be undertaken even of a reproductive character which involved the raising of capital in this country; and that every effort should be made to keep the ordinary expenditure within the ordinary revenue. He regretted that those promises had not been fulfilled. The second part of the Bill added £2,500,000 to the permanent debt. This was a policy fraught with the utmost peril. At the present moment the home charges were no less than £16,000,000, while, a few years ago, they were only between £9,000,000 and £10,000,000. He had given Notice of an Amendment—namely,
    "That, in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient to raise by loan in this Country, on the security of the revenues of India, so large a sum as is provided for by this Bill."
    If he moved this Amendment and divided upon it he should be hopelessly beaten, and the division would be misunderstood. He bad therefore come to the conclusion that it would be better not to move it at the present stage of the Bill. He reserved to himself the right of proposing in Committee the reduction of the amount to be borrowed.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, that looking at the calamities which had recently visited India, it could not be pretended that it was in a satisfactory position. More money was required for India, and the

    845
    Government had to consider the best way of obtaining the necessary means of carrying on the government of that country. He could not see that there would be any greater speculation in silver as the result of the loan than existed at the present time. He thought there was a good deal of force in what had been said by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), with reference to the desirability of having a reserve fund to meet such exigencies as those of the recent famine in India; but such a fund, in the event of there not being any famines for many years to come, would amount to a very large sum, and what was to become of these reserves? We should have large sums of money lying idle. He held that the Bill would only empower the Secretary of State to do what he now had the power of doing. As for the cash balances in India and England, it seemed to him that if they only amounted to £12,000,000 at the present time, they were far too low. That a large sum of Indian money should be spent in this country was inevitable so long as our present relations with India existed; and it was therefore important that the Government of India should not be obliged to sell its drafts when the market was against it. The great danger to Indian finance was the construction of unproductive works, which, if unchecked, would probably bring about some great financial catastrophe. Unless great caution was exercised, he was afraid engineer officers with flashy schemes would continue, as heretofore, to cajole the Indian Finance Minister and the Viceroy into unremunerative undertakings. He hoped this subject would receive very careful attention, and he would even go the length of saying that the Viceroy ought not to undertake any new work which was not sanctioned by the Secretary of State in Council. If these views were carried into effect, he believed the finances of India would soon pass into a sound and prosperous state, subject only to such perturbations as famines might produce.
    MR. WHALLEYsaid, he hoped the Government would give an assurance to the House that no part of the money proposed to be raised under the Bill would be diverted to other purposes than those for which the House was asked to sanction the advance. England was without
    846
    a single Ally in Europe at the present time—excepting the Papacy—either in council or in action, with reference to that policy which related to "British interests" in the East—those interests, so far as we knew, being confined entirely to India. Action might be taken, and the money now asked for might be used during the ensuing Recess for some purpose we could not very well anticipate. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had played with the public interest with reference to India, making the Queen an Empress to check aggression on the part of Russia, and exciting alarm on the fictitious pretence that British interests were threatened; and he hoped that the Government would not pursue that policy by playing with the millions of money which were to be taken under this Bill. He trusted the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for India would give an assurance that no portion of that money would be applied to carrying out the foreign policy of the Government on the Eastern Question.
    MR. C. B. DENISONobserved that the hon. Member who had just spoken appeared to be labouring under a nightmare. He did not suppose it could have entered into the mind of any other person to suppose that a Money Bill whose Preamble said—"Whereas the exigencies of the public interest in India require" such and such things to be done, was going to be diverted into secretly carrying out a policy of warfare which was not avowed and openly discussed in Parliament. He (Mr. Denison) trusted the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State would not think it within his province to answer even in the negative a question which was almost an insult to the Government and the common sense of the House. This Money Bill was, no doubt, one of very great importance, and the exigencies of the service in India required that it should pass without any undue delay. He regretted the necessity which rendered it imperative on the Secretary of State for India to ask for the power which was granted under the Bill. The case was not based entirely on the necessities arising out of the famine in India. It was in vain to deny that the cash balances of India had been unduly decreased, and they must be replenished by loans. But the whole of this ques-

    847
    tion turned on the public works in India. The noble Lord had explained how it was proposed to keep the accounts so as to show what works were remunerative and what were not; but, for his own part, he had grave doubts whether in practice the plan would be at all feasible in India, where the superintending of these public works—railways and canals excepted—was all one and the same thing. Nor was he able entirely to concur with his noble Friend in what he said the other evening as to the elasticity of the revenues of India. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) had pretty nearly hit the mark when he said that the revenues of India did not exceed £40,000,000, while his noble Friend had spoken of £51,000,000. If we wanted to estimate the revenues of India, we must have regard to those sources of income which were raised from taxation, and not from the opium revenue, although that was a pretty constant quantity. With regard to the Bill before the House, he had no particular objection to offer to the mode in which the money was proposed to be raised. He failed to appreciate the objections which the hon. Member for Hackney had raised to that portion of the Bill by which it was proposed to empower the Secretary of State to raise £2,500,000 by bills of exchange. He did not think there was any danger of that power being abused. There was one omission in the Bill as compared with the Bill of 1874 which he wished to point out. The present Bill left out a very important clause, which made it imperative on the Secretary of State for India to lay before Parliament a statement of the manner in which he had exercised the powers given by this Bill. There was no doubt that it was a continuing clause, and would be equally operative whether it was repeated in the present Bill or not; but there was a distinction between the two Bills, because in the former there was no power to borrow money on bills of exchange, and the old clause would only be operative as regarded the permanent debt of India. Perhaps his noble Friend would explain whether it was intended to leave out of the purview of Parliament the money he received under the discretionary clauses of the Bill.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he was under great apprehension
    848
    with respect to the whole question of Indian finance. It was impossible for any State in the world to go on spending more money than it received without getting into a position of grave embarrassment. Strange as it might seem to the House, it was a fact that there was no exact statement of the indebtedness of India. They had no connected account of the deficits of India. Another mistake was that the settlement of India Proprietary Stock, which was paid off in 1874, had never been clearly stated. The Government of India ought to give a clear account of their indebtedness, not only as regarded the regular registered debt, but also of all liabilities, such as the capital of the various funds, and of the temporary loans, which might be considered in the same light as the floating debt of England. So far as he could make out, the debt of India was about £144,000,000, including the present loans in England and India. From the time when Lord Dalhousie ceased to govern India more than £80,000,000 of debt had been incurred, and since 1866 the debt had gone on increasing, and they went on borrowing money, not only without any prospect of repaying it, but without the expectation of being able to cease. The expenditure on the public works in India amounted in that year to £30,000,000, and it had since increased to £50,000,000, so that the increase of debt was not solely due to investments in works, but to other causes which ought to be kept under strict control. The Indian Government had the power of controlling the public works, although they had not exercised the power to control the other kinds of expenditure, yet the Government continued to borrow money, by which means they were able to spend more than their income. There was an arrangement in this Bill providing for the raising of funds in the London market by means of temporary loans. It was a power which required great care in the application, otherwise they would come into conflict with the bankers of London, if they abused the powers asked for. He had various Amendments to move in Committee on this Bill, and he would put them on the Paper, that the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for India and the House might be able to see them. The time had come when the India Office should deal

    849
    frankly with the House, and give every information to enable them to understand the Indian accounts.
    MR. O'DONNELL(who had a Notice on the Paper to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months) said, that he should not be justified, in a House of such slender proportions, in pressing his Motion to a division. He had desired technically to separate his Motion from that of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), who had confined himself to the purely financial consideration. Now, he did not think they would ever get at the root of the difficulties of India if they confined themselves to the multiplication table. A financial catastrophe was looming in no great distance. He protested against the wasteful expenditure of the finances of India. There was reckless and censurable waste in the expenditure on unproductive works in India; and he was apprehensive that wasteful expenditure would go on there until India was represented in this House. He apprehended, then, that such matters would go on as long as Her Majesty's Government had the administration of the affairs of that part of the Empire. A distinguished officer had been removed from a high position in India because he had expressed opinions on our financial administration that were disapproved by the Government. A couple of years ago the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Leith), who was a high authority on Indian affairs, presented a Petition signed by 16,000 of the most respectable members of the Native community, praying for representation in the Imperial Parliament. There was a large, influential, and cultivated class in India eminently fitted for Representatives, and whose presence in that House would greatly contribute to its efficiency. He believed that by giving those people Representatives in the House of Commons, and opening up honourable and great careers to the leading minds of India, they would do more to secure the confidence of the people of that country than could be effected by a hundred Regal processions. The hon. Member referred to the Indian famine, and, with regard to the wasteful expenditure of the funds to mitigate the severity of that calamity, said a Commission to inquire into the matter was asked for, and was refused by Her Majesty's Government. Millions and mil-
    850
    lions of the public money had been wasted in India, and, notwithstanding that, Her Majesty's Government now came to this House and asked Parliament for another loan, so that it was nothing but loans, loans, loans! It was stated by Sir Richard Temple that £500,000 had been unaccounted for. The question of borrowing £5,000,000 for India had not up to that moment occupied more than two hours; and looking at the seriousness of the matter, he, as one of a small minority, entered his protest against it.
    MR. MELLORremarked that the only Indian question which was annually brought before the House was the question of furnishing the means for the government of India; and he felt sorry to find that those hon. Members who were so desirous to bring about the repeal of the duty on imported cotton goods into India were not in their places. He considered the expenditure in India to be most excessive, and urged the necessity of economy in the various departments. It was most difficult to make anything out of the accounts; but, as far as he could understand them, he believed that a sum of money of not less than £5,000,000 was annually expended upon ineffective and unremunerative services, and with respect to effective service he found that everyone employed in India was much better paid than he would be in this country; and he especially referred to the cost of the Telegraph Service, which was very high and showed a large annual deficit. The Director General was paid a salary of £2,400 a-year, and the electricians £1,200, while in this country they only received £400 a-year. Now, why electricians in India should be paid £ 1,200 a-year, while the same class in this country only got £400, he could not understand. He believed that if proper care were taken of Indian finances the cotton duty could be swept away, and an innumerable number of Custom House officials dispensed with, and by freeing the sea board from fiscal import, we should then impart a stimulus to trade, which would greatly promote the prosperity of India.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, that the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) had addressed to the House some very cogent arguments against the borrowing of money in this country for the purposes of the Indian Govern-

    851
    ment, and he would have completely agreed with those objections if only the hon. Member had been speaking in the abstract. But we were passing through a somewhat exceptional crisis in India, and he should state briefly what the circumstances were which justified the Government in proposing to raise a loan of £5,000,000. Lord Salisbury on coming into office had laid down certain principles which the hon. Member for Hackney said had been thrown to the four winds, but which he (Lord George Hamilton), on the contrary, maintained had been strictly adhered to. The first of these principles was that there must be a clear margin between the ordinary revenue and the ordinary expenditure in India. That clear margin had been obtained during the three years they had been in office, the excess of revenue over expenditure in the first year being £2,000,000, in the second year £1,300,000, and this year it was estimated at £1,200,000. The second principle was that no public works should be constructed in future which would not be of a remunerative character. That also was a very good principle. Lord Salisbury, however, came into office shortly after the Duke of Argyll had sanctioned the construction of a large number of railways and canals which had been projected by the Indian Government. The contracts for these works had been entered into, and in some instances their construction had been commenced, and nothing could be more unwise than to stop them. The question then arose, how was it that the Government had now to ask the House to give them certain borrowing power? They were obliged to do so simply because they had had to expend in five years a sum of £11,300,000 in meeting two famines. He admitted that if these circumstances were not exceptional, and if we were obliged to spend £12,000,000 every five years for such a purpose, no language could be too strong to represent the desperate state of the finances of India. One of two things must happen. Either the people must be allowed to die of starvation or assistance must be obtained from England. But, looking at the matter from a common-sense point of view, it was not likely that famines of the magnitude of that of Bengal in 1874 or of that now raging in Madras would
    852
    occur again. It had been stated that excessive preparations had been made to meet that famine. That was very possibly the case, and the Government had never denied that, acting under Parliamentary pressure, they had made preparations in excess of the requirements of the case. The truth was that they had under-estimated the capacity of the grain trade and the resources of the people. In particular the expansion of the grain trade had agreeably falsified their calculations. Undoubtedly the sound way to meet an emergency was by having a balance between the ordinary income and the expenditure, so that a sum might always be available for beneficial purposes. He believed that in future the extension of railways and canals in India would have a tendency to check famines, and he pointed out that while year by year the number of miles of railroad was increasing the net loss was diminishing. But the policy of carrying on great public works was only an experiment, and he hoped that the question might next year be set at rest by a Select Committee. The Bill before the House asked for two powers—one of increasing the Funded Debt by £2,500,000, and the other of raising a similar sum by bills or bonds. Certainly there was a difference between these two powers, and arguments had been arged against them both. It was, however, to be remembered that the Indian Government was not in the position of our own Government—that it had two spending treasuries and only one of supply, and that bills were sold to get the money from India. Those bills competed with the London silver market, and the demand for silver depended on the Eastern trade; and while the cash balance of India might be overflowing, we might be unable to sell our bills here. Last year, owing to the extraordinary fluctuations of the silver market, they could not sell their bills, and a great pressure was put upon them to suspend their drawings and raise a loan here, and they were reluctantly forced to do so; and yet at that very time the Indian cash balances were so high that the Indian Government took up £1,250,000 in debentures that were not then redeemable. It had been stated in The Economist that he had not correctly represented Mr. Bagehot's view on that matter, though he believed he had done so.

    853
    What Mr. Bagehot had maintained as to their bills was that, in order to avoid those extreme fluctuations in the silver market, when there was no demand for silver they should either reduce or suspend their drawings on India, issue temporary bills, and, if the demand for silver increased, draw largely on India, increase their balances here, and then take up those bills when they were redeemable, the object being to keep the price of silver as steady as possible. Under the present Bill they took power to raise the whole of that £5,000,000 by temporary bills; but, in order to show that they believed it would be necessary for the service of the year to raise £2,500,000 this year, they took power only to raise one-half of the £5,000,000 by increasing the Registered or Funded Debt. Last year they were extricated from their difficulty by the total failure of the European silk crop, when there was a rush for silver for China, and they were enabled to sell their bills largely; but if the Asiatic silk crop happened to fail next year they would find themselves in great difficulty again. It was, therefore, proposed to take that power of raising £2,500,000 as the only means by which they could temporarily get over the great difficulties which the extraordinary fluctuations in silver caused last year. The highest price at which they sold their bills last year was 1s. 10 d. and 9–16ths per rupee, and the lowest price was 1s. 6½d. per rupee, making a difference of over 4d. the rupee. The Government only asked that temporary power for raising £2,500,000. He believed it to be absolutely necessary. They would not use that power unless they were obliged to do so, and they would endeavour so to increase their cash balances that they would be able to take up those bills when they became redeemable. He had had some Returns prepared which would give the annual indebtedness for the last 20 years, and the purposes for which the debt had been incurred, and as soon as the best method of showing their liabilities was arrived at that Return would be laid before Parliament. He had now answered most of the objections raised to the Bill. He did not go into the question of the cash balances in his Indian Budget Statement, because it was a very complicated subject. Their cash balances did not altogether belong to them, because they did a large bank-
    854
    ing business. They had taken over the cash balances from the East India Company and had inherited their liabilities, among which was their connection with the Service Funds. But, no doubt, the cash balances of India had largely decreased. It would be most unwise to keep high cash balances in India. When once they were high every conceivable demand would be made on the Government which it would be difficult to resist. No doubt they were very low, because the Government were anxious to avoid borrowing in the last financial year, and they had met a heavy famine expenditure last year out of those balances. He agreed with the hon. Member for Hackney as to the absolute necessity of keeping down their expenditure in this country as much as possible. This expenditure was the great future danger of Indian finance; but as long as they had to deal with famines of such magnitude as those of the last four years, the Indian Money Market was not able to meet the increased expenditure thrown on the country. He sincerely trusted that would be the last time that he or any other Under Secretary for India for many years to come might have to ask Parliament for power to raise a loan in this country. Lord Salisbury had resisted as long as possible all the pressure put upon him to apply to Parliament for fresh powers, and he had only asked for the sum which was absolutely necessary and which was far less than the amount that the Indian Government had wished them to borrow. Under those circumstances, he hoped that the House would allow that Bill to be read the second time to-night, and he would be most anxious in Committee to listen to any reasonable Amendments which might be suggested.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) (re-committed) BILL— [Bill 184.]
  (Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 26 th June.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  Clause 13 (Tenure of office of Judges, and oaths of office).
  DR. WARDmoved, in page 9, at end, to add—

  855
  "No Judge of the High Court of Justice, while he continues such Judge, shall hereafter be appointed to any place of profit under the Crown other than a judicial appointment."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)assented to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  DR. WARDmoved to add a Proviso that no Judge of the Supreme Court other than the Lord Chancellor should continue to be a member of any Board of Commissioners, or other Board exercising any public trust. The hon. Member questioned the propriety of a Judge acting upon Boards where he was obliged to take part in controversy relating sometimes to political as well as social questions. He was thus reduced from a high administrator of the law to a mere partizan, and the popular feeling obtained that he carried any bias he might have to the Bench.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 9, after the word "appointment," at the end of the last Amendment, to add the words "No Judge of the High Court of Justice, other than the Lord Chancellor, shall be or continue to be a member of any board of Commissioners, or other body exercising any public trust, and all Acts of Parliament constituting any of the Judges members of any such board of Commissioners, or other public body, shall be and the same are hereby repealed, so far as such appointments are concerned: Provided always, That nothing herein contained shall affect any appointment already made, or any act done in pursuance of any appointment already made." (Dr. Ward.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid' he had long been of opinion that Judges ought to be confined to judicial duties, and should not be members of Boards where political questions were sometimes discussed. He hoped, therefore, the Amendment would be accepted.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, none of the Judges in Ireland got even one shilling for what they did on these Boards. They gave the advantage of their judicial experience and training to the consideration of questions which came before the Boards of which they were members, and he did not think any reasonable and fair objection could be raised against them. It would be unwise to lay down any hard-and-fast rule that they should
  856
  never serve as Commissioners, especially on the Board of Charitable Donations and Bequests, where their legal experience was no doubt of great value and utility. On the Education Board, also, their judicial training might make them useful members. It would be better to leave these appointments to the discretion of the Executive. He hoped the Committee would not support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, the arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General for Ireland) had convinced him of the necessity for the Amendment. Supposing a Judge sat as a Commissioner on some Board in Ireland, and a case came before him concerning the decisions of that Board, how was it possible for him to give an unbiassed decision? If we did not require them to sit in England on public Boards, why should we in Ireland? He thought that it would only be an act of justice to agree to the Amendment.
  MR. RICHARD SMYTHthought that whatever opinion a Judge might hold as a Commissioner, it would not prevent him deciding with justice when a case was argued before him in Court. He did not think the Executive in Ireland had pushed partizan appointments from the Bench in Ireland so far as to demand legislative interference in the manner suggested by the Amendment. He thought it unwise, so long as the Judges were willing to undertake the duties, for the country to deny itself their services.
  MR. HOPWOODsupported the Amendment. In England the feeling strongly was that Judges should be Judges, and nothing else, and he was always in favour of making the same law for Ireland as for England. It would be dangerous to allow a Judge to place himself in a false position by reason of having already expressed an opinion upon a point raised in his Court.
  MR. O'DONNELLsupported the Amendment. As long as the appointment of Judges was open to suspicion it would be impossible there could be confidence in the administration of justice, and the respect due to the office of Judge. It was impossible that the Judges could maintain that position and respect as long as they were chosen from benefice holders, or were members of such bodies as the Education Commission, on which

  857
  they must take sides, and it was well known that they were appointed by the Government of the day for political considerations. On these grounds the present system was indefensible.
  DR. WARDsaid, his object in moving the Amendment was to prevent the Executive from taking from the Judicial Bench men to do partizan work on political Boards.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the Amendment, instead of assimilating the law between the two countries, would vary it. Judges were appointed on Commissions in England. The Lord Chief Justice was appointed one of the University Commissioners, and the Master of the Rolls was a Patent Commissioner.
  MR. BUTTsaid, they were not speaking of Commission Judges; they might be appointed as Commissioners of Charitable Bequests and Donations, which was analogous to the Charity Commissioners in England. But would it be tolerated that a Judge should be made a Charity Commissioner? He maintained that under the existing state of things the Judicial Bench in Ireland was placed in a position in which it ought not to be placed. The Judges regarded an appointment to some of these Boards a compliment from the Government, and Judges had no right to accept compliments from the Government. He desired the Irish Judges as free from every political, and even social, movement as were the Judges in England. It was the object of all legislation that Judges should be kept free from every influence which could in any way tend to bias their judgment.
  CAPTAIN NOLANpointed out that Judges who were appointed to try Election Petitions might also be members of the Education Board, where they would, have to decide on what were often political questions. It was evident that such a position of things would be undesirable, and place in a false position both Judges and Members of Parliament.
  MR. BIGGARsuggested that there should be a certain staff of paid Commissioners, and that Judges should be confined to their official work. It was evident that there were more Judges than were sufficient, or else the Judges in England must be very much overworked. If there were a paid body of
  858
  Commissioners, perhaps the number of Judges might still be further reduced.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEY,with reference to what had been said as to the freedom of the English Judges from contact with political matters, said, that not long ago he had himself the honour of serving on a Commission upon a question which excited political feeling. Out of the eight members of that Commission two were learned Judges, who were among its most useful members. There were many Acts under which Judges had been appointed Commissioners, and if the Amendment were passed as it stood it would have the effect of repealing those Acts so far as regarded those Commissioners.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENproposed to amend the Amendment by excepting from its operation those Judges already appointed.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 133: Majority 70.—(Div. List, No. 219.)
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Precedence of Judges) agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Saving of rights and obligations of existing Judges) agreed to.
  Clause 16 (Provisions for extraordinary duties of Judges of the former Courts) agreed to.
  Clause 17 (Salaries of certain existing Judges).
  MR. PARNELL,in moving, in page 11, line 9, to leave out "four thousand," and insert "three thousand five hundred," said, that he did not desire to take the money out of Ireland. There were the Irish National teachers who might be benefited. They were overworked, but they were not paid too high salaries, because it was not to the advantage of the Government of the day to overpay them. In Ireland Judges were paid much larger salaries in proportion than were Judges in England. Whereas in England a barrister of good standing deliberately forfeited a certain amount of his income when he accepted a seat on the Judicial Bench, in Ireland, with but few exceptions, a barrister who was raised to the Bench received a higher salary than he could possibly earn at his profession.
  MR. BUTTsaid, no such proposition was ever made before as that of the hon. Member to cut down the salary on which a Judge had accepted office. The Amendment would be applicable to the next clause, which dealt with future salaries.
  MR. PARNELLacknowledged that he had made a mistake in moving his Amendment to the 17th clause, and would therefore withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 18 (Salaries of future Judges).
  MR. PARNELLmoved, in page 11, line 29, to leave out "four thousand six hundred," and insert "four thousand."
  MR. BUTTsaid, there were several eminent men at the Bar who had not come into Parliament who would lose considerably if they were to accept £4,000 a-year. He would not advocate the spending of a penny in Ireland unnecessarily, because patronage in the past had been a great evil; but he did not think £4,000 a-year was enough to enable these Judges to maintain the dignity of their station.
  MR. BIGGARthought £4,000 sufficient, and deprecated high salaries as likely to produce political barristers rather than eminent jurists.
  CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, they had voted for a reduction of the Judges and for economy in several respects. They had also voted for cutting down perquisites of public functionaries. There was a general idea that Judges ought to be well paid, and they did not wish to see their dignity lowered.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)was quite sure that hon. Members did not wish to lower the dignity of the Irish Judges; and to say that £4,600 a-year was too much for the Chief Judges would be indeed to lower their dignity.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he felt that he ought to take a division on the Vote; and he could not agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, nor with the hon. and learned Member for Limerick. He would not, however, press his Amendment, and would withdraw it with the consent of the Committee.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PARNELLthen moved, in page 11, line 31, to leave out from "such," to "Act," in line 34, inclusive, and insert "three thousand five hundred pounds a-year."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)defended the Vote, and asked whether it was worth while, considering the importance of the Judges of the Court of Appeal, to cut the salaries down?
  MAJOR O'GORMANsaid, there was not a man at the Irish Bar at this moment who if he were offered £2,500 a-year would not jump at it. But what can we expect? We have Judges in Ireland who have sat here as Members of what was called the "Pope's Band"—men who incited the people to go about by night and commit murder. ["Order!"] They are on the Bench this moment. ["No, no!"] It cannot be denied, and has never been denied. I can bring the very words. "The nights are short in June; the nights are long in December," and the man who made use of that language was now on the Irish Bench. ["Order!"]
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I appeal to you, Sir, whether it is competent to the hon. and gallant Member to say that a Judge sitting on the Bench has incited to murder?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The observations which have been addressed to the Committee by the hon. and gallant Member are certainly exceedingly unusual—
  MAJOR O'GORMAN: Very likely. They are true. ["Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: At the same time, I am not prepared to say that it is not competent to a Member speaking in his place in Parliament with a due sense of his responsibility to bring a charge, however serious, against any public functionary, however important; but I think it my duty to point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the great responsibility of using such language.
  MAJOR O'GORMAN: I accept the responsibility. I am here to accept it, and to declare openly, before this House and before all England, that there is a man on the Irish Bench at this moment—["Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Question before the Committee—
  MAJOR O'GORMAN: Hear, hear!
  THE CHAIRMAN: I would point out that it is the custom of this House to

  861
  treat the Chair with respect. The Question before the Committee is the salary of a Judge. [Major O'GORMAN: Aye, aye.] The Amendment now before the Committee is an Amendment touching the salary of the Judge of the Court of Appeal to be appointed under this Act, and the hon. and gallant Member's observations touching the conduct of other Judges are clearly beside the question.
  MAJOR O'GORMAN: I do not think so, Sir—["Order"]—and I beg—["Order"]—well, then, Sir, I beg leave to say most distinctly that there is not a single Member of this House who is more ready to pay greater respect than I am prepared to give to you, Sir; and if I have in the slightest degree wandered away from that path, I sincerely beg your pardon and the pardon of the House. But, Sir, there is a broader scope in this Vote than what appears upon the Paper, and it is with respect to that that I think I am entitled to say a few words. The Question before the House is the salaries of Irish Judges, is it not? Am I to be confined in my observations to the simple question as to what shall be paid to a particular Judge? I sincerely hope not. I hope the House will permit me to say a few words on the general question. ["No, no!"] No, no! I say that comes from the right hon. and learned Member from my own county of Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen). I am astonished at that observation of "No, no," from him—indeed, and indeed I am. I am very much astonished, and I should be very much astonished also if his constituents are not also astonished. When the House is asked to vote these thousands, I say what they receive at this moment is quite enough. Why, there is not a man at the Irish Bar, beginning with Serjeant Armstrong—who, I believe, receives from his Profession the highest emoluments—who would not jump at an offer of a seat on the Bench with £3,000 a-year.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he thought the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Meath was a reasonable one, and he should therefore support it. The Chairman had allowed other speakers to-night considerable latitude, and therefore his hon. and gallant Friend (Major O'Gorman) naturally thought that a similar latitude would be extended to him. The hon. Member was
  862
  proceeding with his remarks, when—
  THE CHAIRMANtwice ruled that he was out of Order, and he at last sat down.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYwas opposed to small reductions in the salaries of Judges, and he was equally opposed to the multiplication of such offices. He contended that Irish Judges should be as well paid as those of England and the same thing applied to Scotland. He would have them confined to their judicial functions, but he would give them salaries that would make them easy in their circumstances. [Major O'GORMAN laughed.] My hon. and gallant Friend laughs; but he must know that Judges have a certain position to maintain, and often large families to educate, and that the due discharge of judicial functions eminently demands a mind free from unnecessary cares.
  MAJOR O'GORMAN: The hon. Member says Judges have large families. Well, Sir, I am a member of a Board of Guardians, and I can tell him there are lots of paupers who have very large families.
  MR. BIGGARsupported the Amendment.
  MR. COURTNEYopposed the Amendment, and remarked that the fact that the House had listened to the serious charges made by the hon. and gallant Member (Major O'Gorman) was due to the feeling that there was a certain amount of truth in them. The hon. Member was proceeding to speak of the duties of Irish Judges, when—
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out to the hon. Member that he was committing the same breach of Order as that for which the hon. and gallant Member (Major O'Gorman) had been called to Order.
  MR. BUTTsaid, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major O'Gorman) knew nothing of the Bar and the Bench. He (Mr. Butt) opposed the Amendment, on the ground that it would tend to lower the dignity of the Bench. He objected to the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that any man at the Irish Bar would jump at £2,500 a-year. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knew nothing about it. His statement was not true.
  MAJOR O'GORMAN: I beg pardon; I shall not allow the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that I know nothing

  863
  about it—I do know something about it. ["Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman can make any remarks he likes in reply; but he must allow the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Butt) to finish his speech.
  MR. BUTT: I have a right to say he knows nothing about it. I base that assertion on what he said, which he never would have said if he knew anything about it. These attacks on the Irish Bench and these attempts to lower its dignity are most improper.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The question before the Committee is not the conduct of the Irish Bench, but the appointment of a particular Judge.
  MAJOR O'GORMAN: Hear, hear!
  MR. BUTT: I bow to your decision, Sir; but I was speaking in depreciation of these attacks on the Irish Judges with a view to diminishing their salaries. I think it would be better not to divide the Committee on this question, but to throw the responsibility on those persons upon whom it really rests.
  SIR HENRY JACKSONsaid, the salary of a Judge ought to be such as would secure the services of the best lawyers, and as would prevent the possibility of any temptation to corruption. It was also reasonable that a Judge of higher rank should receive a salary in proportion to the dignity of the office he holds. No doubt men could always be found ready to undertake the work for less than the present salaries; but nothing could be worse than that judicial emoluments should be determined by lawyers underbidding each other, and something ought to be left to the responsibility of a Government which had certainly shown itself adverse to the payment of high judicial salaries. He suggested that his hon. Friend behind him should not divide the Committee on the point, but should throw the responsibility of fixing the amount of the salary upon Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. O'SULLIVANobjected to the salaries of the Irish Judges being reduced, as long as those salaries were voted by an English Parliament.
  MR. WHALLEYwas understood to denounce the attempt of the Government to obtain power and influence in Ireland by increasing the number of appointments and by giving undue salaries.
  MR. PULESTONrose to Order, appealing to the Chair whether the hon. Member's remarks were not wide of the question before the Committee?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, there was no doubt the remarks of the hon. Member did not strictly confine themselves to the Amendment, and they certainly did not refer to the Motion to report Progress.
  MR. WHALLEY: I am very much obliged to you, Sir, for cutting short the observations I was not prepared to make. My observations were called forth by something like surprise—for it is a most gratifying surprise to find the hon. Member for Meath and others taking the line of economy.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Whalley.)
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHurged that before Progress was reported the Committee should come to a decision on the Amendment, which it had already fully discussed.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he did not intend to take a division on the question, and he hoped the hon. Member for Peterborough would not persevere in his Motion to report Progress.
  THE CHAIRMANasked, whether the hon. Member for Peterborough wished to withdraw his Motion to report Progress.
  MR. WHALLEY: No.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 5; Noes 203: Majority 198.—(Div. List, No. 220.)
  Amendment (Mr. Parnell), by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN (for Mr. Law)moved, in page 11, line 34, after "Act," to insert "to the Master of the Rolls the same salary as at present."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that, while he was not at present prepared to assent to the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he would consider it before the Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  SOLICITORS EXAMINATION, &c. BILL.
  (Mr. Gregory.)
  [Lords.] [BILL 190.]

  SOLICITORS EXAMINATION, &c. BILL.

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. BIGGARmoved that the Chairman report Progress. It was too late an hour (1.30 a.m.) to discuss Business properly.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Biggar.)
    MR. CALLANprotested against the Irish Members obstructing English Bills. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, he was not afraid, in spite of that intimidating "Hear, hear." This opposition to the Bill was unfair, and he did not want the alliance of the hon. Member for Peterborough.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, it was a question of principle. They struggled against the conduct of Business at that hour of the morning.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he should divide the House on the Question of reporting Progress.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 5; Noes 96: Majority 91.—(Div. List, No. 221.)
    AYES—Kirk, G. H. O'Gorman, P. O'Conor,D.M. O'Sullivan, W. Whalley, G. H. TELLERS—Mr. Biggar and Mr. Parnell.
    MR. PARNELLmoved that the Chairman leave the Chair.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he must be consistent. He should oppose everything after 12 o'clock.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsuggested that his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) should, under the circumstances, accept the proposal to suspend further Progress with the Bill on the present occasion.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 5; Noes 98: Majority 93.—(Div. List, No. 222.)
    MR. BIGGARmoved to report Progress. Really these Gentlemen were too persevering. He insisted that this Bill should not pass that night.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Biggar.)
    MR. C. B. DENISON: I protest against the hon. Member's language. Does he think he can threaten the House? It is high time we should put a stop to this.
    MR. PARNELL: I rise to Order. I have heard an hon. Member use the word "blackguard." I wish to know if it is in Order.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That language, of course, is not Parliamentary.
    MR. C. B. DENISONsaid, they must not be compelled to close the House at any particular hour.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, these late Sittings were bringing the House into contempt. The Bill had been opposed on the ground that there were important Amendments on it, and there was not time to discuss it. Members had been insulted, and those who had given the insult had not the courage to apologize. Neither he nor his hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar) were responsible for this scene.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he was responsible, so far as such responsibility attached, to persevering with the Bill; but as this kind of opposition was tolerated, he should withdraw the Bill for the present. The Bill had been approved by all the Judges and by the Profession, and the Bill facilitated the admission of Irishmen into the Profession in England.
    MR. BUTTsaid, he thought the opposition to the Bill very unfair. Of course, he accepted the statement of the hon. Member who had just spoken. The Bill was practically unopposed. He earnestly asked the opponents of the Bill to withdraw their opposition.
    MR. BELLsaid, he had used the word to which the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) alluded; but it was uttered inadver-

    867
    tently, and without the least intention that it should reach the ears of any hon. Member. He expressed his deep regret for having used the word.
    MR. BLAKEhoped the Bill would be proceeded with. He had sat up the whole of the other night in protesting against the proceedings of this small minority, and he was prepared to stay again to-night.
    MR. WHALLEYprotested against Members assuming superior airs over their fellows.
    MR. BIGGARexpressed his regret for using the word "insist," but he should not flinch from his position.
    MR. ANDERSONtrusted the House was not prepared to enter upon another struggle such as that which terminated at a late hour the other morning.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, there was no desire to postpone the Bill if brought on at a proper time.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the Bill would confer benefits on law students coming from Ireland. If the half-past 12 o'clock rule were to be rigidly adhered to, it would be impossible for the Bill to be passed this Session. He trusted that the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress. At that hour he hoped the House would refrain from dividing again, and so avoid a repetition of the scene of the other night.
    MAJOR O'GORMANsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. Gregory) was willing to withdraw, but he was forced to go on by those behind him. Therefore, hon. Members opposite were responsible.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:— Ayes 4; Noes 78: Majority 74.—(Div. List, No. 223.)
    MR. PARNELLmoved that the Chairman leave the Chair.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, if the Motion were withdrawn, he should assent to reporting Progress.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. GREGORYmoved to report Progress.
    Motion agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  FACTORS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  (Sir John Lubbock, Sir James M'Garel-Hogg, Sir Charles Mills, Mr. Watkin Williams.)
  FACTORS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

    [BILL 168.] COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. BIGGARmoved to report Progress.
    MR. WHALLEYappealed to the hon. Member to withdraw his Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. CALLANasked what consistency was there in this? The hon. Member for Cavan opposed a Bill which conferred benefit on Ireland, but he allowed this Bill to pass.
    MR. O'SULLIVANrose to Order.
    THE CHAIRMANruled that the hon. Member for Dundalk was out of Order.
    Bill reported; as amended to be considered To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. WHALLEYrose to move—
  "That the practice of commencing business in this House at hours varying on each day, and continuing its sittings up to indefinite and unreasonable hours of the night and morning is at variance with experience as to the proper mode of transacting public business, and alike inconsistent with the convenience of Members and the due discharge of the duties of this House."
  When—
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Lord Byron, after the death of his Grandfather,
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation (Leith)* (137).
Committee—Report—Prisons (116); Universities of Oxford and Cambridge (175).
Report—Eeservoirs* (103).
Third Reading—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 1)* (112); Municipal Corporations (New Charters)* (125).
Withdrawn—Tramways* (124).

PRISONS BILL—(No. 116.)
(The Lord Steward.)
PRISONS BILL—(No. 116.)

  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 to 3 (Preliminary), agreed to.

  PART I.
  Transfer and Administration of Prisons.
  Clauses 4 and 5 (Transfer of Prisons, Administration of Prisons), agreed to.
  Clauses 6 to 12 (Prison Commissioners), agreed to.
  Visiting Committee of Justices.
  Clause 13 (Appointment of Visiting Committee of Prisons), agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Duties of Visiting Committee).
  LORD LEIGHsaid, that the Amendment which he wished to propose at the end of the Clause was one he trusted the noble Earl (Earl Beauchamp) would not object to, as it in no way affected the principle of the Bill. Their Lordships were aware that by Clause 13 Visiting Justices were to be continued, as now, to be appointed by Courts of Quarter Sessions, and his object in asking their Lordships to add the few words he suggested at the end of this clause was to secure that they should be called upon to report, as they did now, to Quarter Sessions. He was sure their Lordships would agree with him in considering it desirable that the office of Visiting Magistrate should not be a mere sham; consequently, in his opinion, the best way of keeping up their interest in the work was to call upon them not only to report to the Secretary of State from time to time, but also to Courts of Quarter Sessions in their respective counties and boroughs from whom they had received their appointments, and thus ensure for the management of our gaols attention and publicity on the
  870
  spot. Magistrates being entrusted with the administration of justice, he thought it most desirable that they should be kept well informed as to what was going on in their respective gaols, both county and borough.
  Moved to insert—
  "And such Visiting Justices shall send a quarterly report to the Chairman of the Court of Quarter Sessions having jurisdiction within the district from which they shall have been appointed."—(The Lord Leigh.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that the Amendment of the noble Lord, as far as he understood it, if the report suggested was to have any value at all, struck at the very root of the principle of the Bill. The noble Lord laid down as the foundation of his argument that the Magistrates in Quarter Sessions were entrusted with the administration of justice, and ought therefore to be informed on all that went on in prison. As far as that argument was worth anything, it would on the same ground be right that the Visiting Magistrates should report to the Judges of the land as well as to the Court of Quarter Sessions, because the Judges who went Circuit were entrusted with the administration of justice. That Bill proposed materially to alter the relation of the Court of Quarter Sessions to the gaols, because under it the Queen would resume her jurisdiction over the prisons, and the authority would be vested in the Secretary of State, to whom the report should properly be made. No doubt they wanted efficient local supervision, and that would be provided for by appointing a Visiting Committee under the Bill. But to lay it down as an obligation on the Visiting Committee that they should report to the Court of Quarter Sessions would place everybody in a false and wrong position. Supposing they reported to the Court of Quarter Sessions, if there was a difference of opinion between the Visiting Committee and the Secretary of State, the Visiting Committee would report their view to the Court of Quarter Sessions—what in that case was the latter to do? Supposing it should pass a Vote of Censure on the Secretary of State, was the Secretary of State to enter into a controversy with the Court of Quarter Sessions, which really had no jurisdiction in the matter? Again, under the Bill the Visiting

  871
  Committee would be appointed by different Courts of Quarter Sessions in various cases. In the county of Lincoln, for instance, one gaol would probably suffice for all the prisoners in that county, where there were three Courts of Quarter Sessions. Were the Visiting Committee to report to each of those three Courts of Quarter Sessions. For the reasons he had stated he hoped his noble Friend would not press his Amendment.
  LORD EGERTON OF TATTONmade some remarks, which were not heard. The noble Lord supported the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYthought that the Amendment was an extremely harmless one, and one that came fairly within the scope of the Bill. He did not see why it should be objected to, seeing that it had a tendency to chock the centralizing principle. Having introduced the Visiting Justices into their measure, he should have thought the Government would have wished to make their supervision a reality. It was said the Visiting Justices would report to the Secretary of State, as if they were officers of that Minister; but, surely, it was desirable that there should be some independent authority to report on the condition of a gaol. It would be an advantage to the Secretary of State to have some check on the Prison Commissioners and Inspectors. The magistrates were a local body interested in knowing all about the gaols to which prisoners were sent, the effect of the sentences passed on prisoners, and the like:—the Judges, who had to go to different parts of the country, were not exactly in the same position as local magistrates in regard to those matters.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, the noble Earl had not told them what would be the result of a report by the Visiting Justices to the Quarter Sessions. It would be simply nil—the report would lie upon the Table, and no action would be taken upon it. The Bill provided that the Visiting Justices should report to an authority who had power to act in the matter—namely, the Secretary of State for the Home Department; and so far as publicity went, that would be ensured by the Reports of the Prison Commissioners, which by the 10th clause were to be laid before both Houses of Parlia-
  872
  ment. The Visiting Justices would go over the gaol, and see the prisoners and hear if they had any complaint to make. That which they would do under this Bill they had done before—they were the proper body to see if prisoners were properly treated—to see that no oppression on the part of authorities in the gaols was used as against prisoners. He should be sorry to see the Amendment introduced into the Bill.
  LORD SELBORNEexplained that what his noble Friend near him (the Earl of Kimberley) desired to point out was, that the magistrates would be deprived by the Bill of powers which they at present exercised, and which it was most desirable they should still exercise.
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, one or two instances of hard treatment in gaols had happened lately. Suspicion of hard treatment might arise in cases where accidental death took place, or epidemic disease in the prison had proved fatal, or been communicated in the neighbourhood. Questions would assuredly be asked of the Visitors at the next quarter sessions. He thought it would be much better that a written Report of the condition of the gaol should be given to the Quarter Sessions than that a vivâ voce account only should be obtainable.
  LORD DENMANsaid, there was no necessity for the clause proposed by the noble Lord (Lord Leigh), because Visiting Justices would always let their brother magistrates know what was passing between them and the Home Office. In the county to which he had the honour to belong, they had lost one of the best Visiting Justices that ever lived (Mr. Mundy), and no successor would be elected to that honourable gentleman who would not explain all proceedings. No notice of this (Prisons) Bill had been taken for the Quarter Sessions, and no objection was made to it.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsupported the Amendment.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that to a certain extent, the principle of this Bill was already carried, out in Worcestershire. The gaol at Worcester had for some time ceased to be under the control of the Quarter Sessions, the county gaol had ceased to be under the control of the County Justices, and the whole jurisdiction in respect of the city gaol

  873
  and the county gaol had been transferred to a Committee of Visitors of Prisons. He saw no reason why anything should be done to create an anomalous jurisdiction after arrangements had been made, or were proposed to be made, by means of the Bill under consideration, for the efficient management of prisons. Why should they, when they created one authority entrusted with the proper supervision of prisons, create another by which nothing could be done?
  EARL GEANVILLEsaid, his vote would be determined by the consideration that the Bill, as it stood, would practically put an end to the local supervision of prisons. He strongly objected to any proposal which could have the effect of decreasing local interest in prison discipline.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONadmitted that there was some force in what had been said in support of the proposed Amendment, and was willing to undertake that before the Report on the Bill, the whole question should be carefully considered; and he hoped to be able to make a proposal that would meet the views of the noble Lord who had moved the Amendment and those who thought with him.
  VISCOUNT CARDWELLsupported the Amendment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought it would not be difficult to deal with the broad principle contained in the Amendment, if patience were exercised until the Bill was reported to their Lordships.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 58; Not-Contents 80: Majority 22.

  CONTENTS.

  Devonshire, D.

  Minto, E.

  Somerset, D.

  Morley, E.

  Westminster, D.

  Powis, E.

  Redesdale, E.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Sandwich, E.

  Amherst, E.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Bantry, E.

  Sydney, E.

  Belmore, E.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Camperdown, E.

  Cowper, E.

  Cardwell, V.

  Ducie, E.

  Halifax, V

  Fortescue, E.

  Hardinge, V.

  Granville, E.

  Beaumont, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Blachford, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Jersey, E.

  Kimberley, E.

  Carew, L.

  Laneshorough, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Lovelace, E.

  874

  Clinton, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Egerton, L.

  Selborne, L.

  Hammond, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Hanmer, L.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Hatherton, L.

  Houghton, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Leigh, L. [Teller.]

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Lyveden, L.

  Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Monson, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Sudeley, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.)

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cairns, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Crofton, L.

  Manchester, D.

  D'L'Isleand Dudley, L.

  Northumberland, L.

  Denman, L.

  Richmond, D.

  de Ros, L.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Bath, M.

  Digby, L.

  Bute, M.

  Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

  Hertford, M.

  Salisbury, M.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Winchester, M.

  Forbes, L.

  Forester, L.

  Beaconsfield, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Bradford, E.

  Gordon of Drumearn, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

  Coventry, E.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.)

  Lindsey, E.

  Morton, E.

  Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.)

  Nelson, E.

  Selkirk, E.

  Hampton, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Harlech, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Wharncliffe, E.

  Wilton, E.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Bridport, V.

  Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Leconfield, L.

  Manners, L.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Strathallan, V.

  Templetown, V.

  Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

  Abinger, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Airey, L.

  Sackville, L,

  Alington, L.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

  Aveland, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Bagot, L.

  Bolton, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

  Chelmsford, L.

  Walsingham, L.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Resolved in the Negative.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Visits to prison by any justice), agreed to.

  PART II. SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS.
  As to Obligation to Maintain Prisons.
  Clause 16 (Termination of local obligation to maintain prisons), agreed to.
  Clause 17 (Compensation to be made in place of prison accommodation), agreed to.
  Clause 18 (Compensation to be made to prison authority in respect of accommodation provided for prisoners of some other authority).
  EARL COWPERpointed out that by Clause 17, where the prison accommodation was insufficient the prison authority was to pay into the Exchequer £120 for every additional cell that was required; and the clause in the commencement recognized the principle that where the accommodation provided was more than was required, the prison authority should receive compensation of the same amount. What was thus given, however, with one hand was taken away with the other, and he therefore moved the omission of the words which so took it away—namely, from the words "Secretary of State" in line 18 to the word "that" in line 20.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, the Proviso, the omission of which was moved, was directed against a different case from that to which the noble Earl alluded—namely, where the county had been extravagant, or had through miscalculation built largely in excess of what was required. In such a case the loss must fall somewhere, and it was considered that the county, and not the Imperial Treasury, should bear the burden.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwas understood to say that when the Government took over a prison with excessive accommodation, they ought to pay in the event of their being able to make that accommodation available for prisoners from another county.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORreminded the noble Earl that the effect of his Amendment would be to throw upon the public funds a charge which it could not be supposed would be sanctioned by the other House.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 19 agreed to.
  Clauses 20 to 23 (As to contracts and debts), agreed to.
  Clauses 24 to 29 (As to classification and commitment of prisoners), agreed to.
  Clauses 30 to 32 (As to jurisdiction), agreed to.
  As to Discontinuance of Prisons.
  Clause 33 (Power of Secretary of State to discontinue prisons).
  THE EARL OF POWISmoved an Amendment, with the object of restoring the clause to the form in which it was introduced in the other House. The clause as it stood empowered the Secretary of State to abolish the local gaols in counties having less than a certain population. In his opinion, one gaol should be kept up in all counties for the convenience of untried prisoners, who might otherwise be conveyed to places far distant from their homes, where they would be unable to communicate with their legal advisers and their witnesses without incurring considerable expense and being otherwise subjected to disadvantage. It would not cost much to keep up one or two of the smaller gaols which it was contemplated to abolish, the expense of maintaining a small staff of officers and of keeping the premises in repair being very slight. In this case area was quite as much a matter of consideration as population. The loss of the gaol would certainly lead to the abolition of the Assizes and Quarter Sessions, and so seriously affect the constitutional position and completeness of the county.
  An Amendment moved,
  In page 12, lines 40 and 41, to omit "unless the Secretary of State otherwise order, for special reasons to bo stated in his order."—(The Earl of Powis.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPthought that the arguments of the noble Earl went far to prove the necessity of the words which he sought to strike out of the clause. The noble Earl appeared to think that inconvenience might arise from the Secretary of State making such Orders as would inconvenience the public; but he had never known a Secretary of State who was likely to disregard the

  877
  convenience of the public. The provisions of the Bill, by requiring the Order of the Secretary of State to be laid before Parliament before it could be enforced, afforded an efficient guarantee against an abuse of the power by that Minister. He declined to accept the dictum of the noble Earl, that requirements under this section should be regulated by the extent of the area of the county. The case of the gaol of the county of Rutland, where a few prisoners were maintained at an expense of £117 per head per annum, was an instance showing the necessity for abolishing prisons of that class. The noble Earl had drawn a harrowing picture of the untried prisoner being unable to communicate with his friends and his legal advisers; but he must submit that such inconvenience must necessarily be occasionally endured, because it would be impossible to keep up gaols in all parts of a large county like Lincolnshire in order to the convenience of untried prisoners. The Bill contained provisions that mitigated the hardship upon the prisoners who were to be removed out of their own counties, and to enable the Visiting Justices of their district to have access to them at all times.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 34 (Effect of discontinuance of prison), agreed to.
  Clauses 35 and 36 (Status of prison officers), agreed to.
  On Clause 35,
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, it enabled the Secretary of State to take over the present officials of prisons, who at present were local officers, and to redistribute them as he might think proper, for the performance of the same or analogous duties. It was feared by many that great hardships would be caused to them if they were moved from place to place. He hoped that some assurance would be given that all the circumstance of these officials would be fully considered.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPpromised that great care should be taken in carrying out the provisions of this clause so that no injustice should be done to the present officials.
  Clauses 37 to 54 (As to miscellaneous matters), agreed to.
  Clause 55 (Arrangement and arbitration), agreed to.
  Clauses 56to 61 (Definitions),agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3ª on Monday next.

POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPHS).

  RESOLUTION.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE, on rising to call attention to the Correspondence between the Earl of Redesdale and the Postmaster General laid before the House on the 28th June last; and to move a Resolution, remarked that no man had been a more consistent supporter of the Government than himself; but that, as Chairman of Committees appointed by the House to watch over its private legislation, he had thought it his duty to take the course he was now pursuing. He desired that, at any rate, the responsibility in respect of these clauses should rest upon the House, and not upon himself. The provisions which the Post Office sought to introduce into certain Private Bills appeared to him objectionable, not in themselves, but because they would be of piecemeal and partial application in the country, and as the Postmaster General had challenged his right to veto them, he had deemed it right to bring the question under the notice of the House. In the Correspondence which had passed on the subject, the Postmaster General reminded him that the assent of the Crown must be given to any Private Bill affecting Crown property before it could pass. That statement was, no doubt, true, but it applied only to landed property of the Crown, which could only be dealt with in special Bills relating to particular cases. The Post Office clauses wore of a different character altogether. They were to a considerable extent positive enactments conferring certain rights and privileges upon the Postmaster General as against the corporations or companies in whose Bills they were to be inserted. Now, if those clauses were required on public grounds, they ought, in his opinion, to be applied to all companies, in all parts

  879
  of the Kingdom, and not merely to those who happened to have particular Bills before Parliament. In. one town a Gas Bill would subject the gas works to the penalties laid down by the Postmaster General, while the waterworks in the same town which had no Bill would escape scot-free. A corporation with a Bill was made liable, while the companies in the same place were not. That seemed to him an extremely unfair mode of proceeding with regard to public property. Whatever provisions the Postmaster General might think necessary for the working of the telegraphs ought, in his opinion, to be uniform in their application, and to form the subject of public legislation. He accordingly declined to sanction the introduction of the clauses referred to in the private Bills. His views on the subject were fully embodied in the Correspondence which he now moved should be laid before the House, and he trusted the subject would receive from their Lordships the attention which, in his opinion, it deserved.
  Moved, "That it is not expedient to agree to the introduction of the clauses proposed by the Post Office for partial protection of their telegraphs into certain private Bills."—{The Earl of Redesdale.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORfully acknowledged the great energy and activity which his noble Friend had always shown in the conduct of Private Business, and the great weight of his authority on that subject; but he was nevertheless of opinion that, in the present instance, he had taken an altogether untenable position. The Resolution he had submitted to the House was, he would venture to say, without parallel in Parliamentary history. His noble Friend did not say that the clauses to which he referred were improper clauses—he only said that they ought to be made general. Whether the clauses in question ought to be introduced into certain private Bills was a point which his noble Friend was perfectly entitled to raise. He might have moved that one of those Bills should be considered in Committee of the Whole House, and he might then have taken the opinion of the House upon the clauses to which he objected. But instead of following that course—which would have been in accordance with Parliamentary practice—his noble Friend had introduced a Motion apply-
  880
  ing to particular clauses in something like half-a-hundred Bills, and the result might be this—The House might be induced—though that was not very likely—to accept the Motion, and when the clauses in question came before it in each of those Bills it might vote in the opposite way. He (the Lord Chancellor) entirely protested against the Motion, and in all friendliness challenged his noble Friend to produce a single example of such a course as he proposed being adopted in either House of Parliament. What was the nature of the clauses to which the Motion of his noble Friend applied? They were simply intended to prevent Gas and other companies who had obtained power to carry out public improvements from meddling with the telegraph wires and poles without obtaining the consent of the Postmaster General or his representatives; and if such interferences took place penalties were made exigible. These were, surely, safe provisions. As an example of the kind of cases for which some provision of that kind was necessary, he might mention that, at Manchester, some workmen finding telegraph wires in their way, cut them without notice, and thus caused great inconvenience to the public. There were now something like 60 Private Bills which had come up from the other House, in which the Post Office Department had proposed in the other House that those protective clauses should be inserted. Into a great number of them they were introduced with the consent of the promoters; but with regard to others objections were made by the promoters. Those objections were considered by Select Committees of the other House, and the result was that the clauses were inserted either as they had been first proposed or, in some particular cases, with modifications suited to the locality in which they were to be applied. Those Bills had come up to their Lordships' House, and the question which his noble Friend raised was whether it was right that that House should reject those clauses which, after consideration and in many instances with the consent of the promoters had been inserted in the other House. There was also a certain number of other Bills—bringing the whole up to about 100—as to which the question was sub judice in this House, whether clauses of that description should be introduced. There-

  881
  fore, what his noble Friend proposed was that they should undo what had been done in the other House in the ease of some 60 Bills, and declare what they would refuse to do in respect to some 40 more Bills. His noble Friend said that if those clauses were proper to be introduced, they ought to be introduced by a general measure. He conceded that it might be advisable to introduce those clauses by a general measure, and there was a strong probability that they would be so introduced; but still, it was new to him that it was contrary to Parliamentary practice or at all unusual when the promoters of private Bills came to Parliament for powers to enable them to interfere with public property or public rights of a particular kind, for Parliament to put them under terms requiring them in executing such powers not to do injury to those public rights. It was the most common of all cases for Parliament to require clauses of that kind to be inserted. His noble Friend had complained that the Government had brought in an additional Bishoprics Bill, and occupied the time of Parliament with that, whereas they ought to have endeavoured to pass a general Bill in regard to those clauses. With all courtesy he told his noble Friend that the Government must be the judges in a matter of that kind. He demurred to the proposition that because it might be desirable hereafter to have a general measure on that subject, therefore they were to allow the promoters of a number of Private Bills to carry them through Parliament, to acquire vested interests, and to meddle with public property without putting them under reasonable terms as to the exercise of those powers for which they were soliciting Parliament. He would commend to the attention of his noble Friend the passage in Sir Erskine May's valuable book as to the Practice of Parliament in regard to Private Bills. That work gave the history of what was done generally by the public Departments in regard to such Bills. The authorities of those Departments in both Houses frequently suggested Amendments in Private Bills, which were either agreed to by the promoters, or the promoters suggested similar Amendments of their own for the same purpose. The Board of Trade assisted at the revision of Railway Bills, and suggested such Amendments as
  882
  they thought necessary for the protection of the public, or for the saving of private rights. The Home Secretary exercised a similar supervision over turnpike road Bills. When, again, Private Bills affected places where there were naval dockyards, the Admiralty required protective clauses to be inserted. And so the Board of Trade, the Board of Health, the Treasury—in fact, there was not a single Department of the State which was not in the habit of watching in that way over the public interests committed to it, and of having the Private Bills of the year submitted to it, with a view to the insertion in them before Committees of both Houses of provisions analogous to those which the Post Office now required in the ease of the telegraphs. Finding in Private Bills powers taken the exercise of which would interfere with the telegraphs under their protection, the Post Office Department framed a set of model clauses, moderate and proper for their purpose, and they asked Parliament in the case of every such Bill to adopt them. Those clauses, in the great majority of instances, had been inserted without the slightest objection on the part of the promoters until they came to that House, when they found they had an unexpected ally in his noble Friend, who became their champion; and, although they had assented to the insertion of the clauses in the other House, those Gentlemen would be exceedingly glad to have them rejected in their Lordships' House. It was perfectly right, when an application was made in that House to have those clauses inserted in any Bill, that the question should be fairly considered whether there was a justification for their insertion; but a sweeping Resolution like that proposed by his noble Friend was an entirely different matter. The Post Office was only following the practice adopted by every other Department, yet his noble Friend said they were to have no protection until they had a general measure. But he submitted that those who came to Parliament for powers, in the exercise of which they might cause inconvenience to the telegraphic system of the country might fairly be put under the terms which Parliament thought just and reasonable.
  EARL GEANVILLEsaid, he was not surprised that the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, having a strong

  883
  opinion, rightly or wrongly, that those clauses ought not to be introduced into Private Bills in the present manner, should have brought the matter before their Lordships. The noble Earl had suggested that the remedy on this subject would be to pass a general Bill with regard to it. In answer to that remark, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said that it was too late for Her Majesty's Government to introduce such a Bill this Session. He (Earl Granville) thought Her Majesty's Government ought to give a pledge that they would prepare and introduce such a Bill in the next Session.
  After a few words from the Earl of POWIS,
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELDsaid, he quite admitted that a general Act on this subject should be passed, and Her Majesty's Government would undertake the duty of bringing in a general Bill. But he trusted that after the declaration on the part of the Government, there would be no further opposition to the Bills—of which the number was considerable—now before the House awaiting its sanction, and in which great interest was felt.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE, in reply, said, he regarded these clauses as unjust, and the promise just given by the Prime Minister, in fact, admitted that they were so. Of course, if their Lordships took upon themselves the responsibility of sanctioning the insertion of them, it would be useless to press his Motion; but he must observe that their sanction of them was the worst precedent in his time with regard to Private Legislation.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

CONFESSIONAL IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND—"THE PRIEST IN ABSOLUTION."—QUESTION.
LORD ORANMORE AND BEOWNErose to call the attention of the House to the notice which appeared in the "Ecclesiastical Gazette" of the 15th of June, that the Lord Chancellor had appointed the Rev. Edgar Herman Cross to the Rectory of St. Nicholas, Lewes, Sussex; and to ask the Lord Chancellor, Whether he was aware that the name of the Rev. Edgar Herman Cross appeared in the list of members of the Society of
884
the Holy Cross, the Society which countenance the use of the book called "The Priest in Absolution?" The noble Lord said the public opinion—and he believed it to be right—was that no one more than the noble and learned Lord himself disapproved the proceedings of this Society, and it was difficult to understand how this appointment was made. It might be said that the Rev. Mr. Cross was an excellent man; but he hardly expected that would be said by the noble and learned Lord, because there were excellent clergymen in every Church. What we wanted in the Church of England were clergymen who would work honestly and consistently in accordance with the doctrines of that Church.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my answer to the Question of the noble Lord must be in the negative. I am not aware of the fact he has stated in the Question.
THE BISHOP OF CHICHESTERsaid, he had instituted this gentleman to the parish referred to in the parish church, and in the presence of the parishioners, after having taken every possible precaution. With regard to this particular Society, how could the Lord Chancellor know anything of it, when the very existence of it he (the Bishop of Chichester) thought was unknown in that House until attention was called to it by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees? Therefore he hoped their Lordships would under these circumstances extend their indulgence to the Lord Chancellor and to himself with regard to this subject.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, that he understood the answer of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in the sense that he had made no such appointment. ["No, no!"] The answer meant, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord did not know that the gentleman in question was a member of the Society of the Holy Cross.
House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till Monday next, Eleven o'clock.