Sitting of 22 March 1877

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES—Resolutions [March 19] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Resolution [March 19] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Referred to Select Committee—Registration of Borough Voters (re-comm.) [115].
Select Committee—Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) [50], Mr. Mulholland disch., the Marquess of Hamilton added.
Committee—Prisons [1]—R.P.; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Orders [108]—R.P.
Committee—Report—(£1,213,502 6s.9d.) Consolidated Fund.
Third Reading—Supreme Court of Judicature [103], and. passed.

QUESTIONS.

  THE MEDICAL ACT—EXAMINING BOARD.—QUESTION.
  MR. ERRINGTONasked the Vice President of the Council, What progress, if any, is being made by the various medical bodies towards carrying out the "conjoint scheme" of examination; and, whether in his opinion the time has not come when Her Majesty's Government should itself undertake to reform the whole system of licensing for medical degrees?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: We have been informed by the President of the Medical Council that negotiations have been carried on at various meetings of a conference held in London, under the presidency of Sir James Paget, between all the medical licensing bodies in the kingdom—that is to say, the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, London, and Durham, and the Corporations of the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, and the Apothecaries' Company—for the purpose of forming one Examining Board for England under Clause 19 of the Medical Act. Conditions have been agreed to by the representatives of all the Bodies, and they await the consideration and consent of the Bodies themselves. There is every reasonable ground for hoping that this consent will shortly be obtained. In Ireland also a demand has been made within the last year to form a united Examining Board, but this demand has hitherto failed. From Scotland we have no evidence that the formation of a General Board is contemplated. In the circumstances mentioned above, I think the hon. Gentleman will see that it would be premature for me on the part of the Government to express an opinion as to the necessity for undertaking the reform of the whole system of licensing for medical degrees.

  EGYPT AND ABYSSINIA.

    QUESTION.
    MR. POTTERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is prepared to communicate to the House information as to the present state of negotiations between Egypt and Abyssinia; and, whether there is a probability of the early conclusion
    318
    of peace; and, if so, whether Egypt will cede to the Abyssinians the port of Massowah, and arrangements be made by the British Government for the free development of trade and the establishment of friendly relations between this Country and Abyssinia?
    MR. BOURKE: I have to state that the latest information we have respecting Colonel Gordon is dated a very few days ago, and comes by telegram from Cairo. The Consul General states that Colonel Gordon, on being appointed by the Khedive Governor General of the Soudan, was furnished with full powers by His Highness to conclude peace with King John of Abyssinia. I am sorry to say it is impossible to state now whether any question with regard to the cession of the port of Massowah to the Abyssinians will form part of those negotiations; but we are informed that Colonel Gordon is instructed to negotiate peace on the basis that a large reduction of Customs dues should take place in those ports through which Abyssinia receives her goods; and therefore we are under the impression that Colonel Gordon will negotiate peace with Abyssinia upon that basis; but we do not yet know the result, and, indeed, there has hardly been time for any settlement to be come to. Then the hon. Member asks about the relations between Abyssinia and this Country. I have only to state that Her Majesty's Government have no wish that our relations with Abyssinia should be anything but most friendly. But, at the same time, I should remind the hon. Member that we have had experience in this country of Abyssinia, and of the danger of placing Consuls where it is inconvenient and almost impossible to give them proper protection.

  THE NEW EDUCATION CODE—NEEDLEWORK.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. HEYGATEasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether expostulations have not been addressed to the Education Department in reference to the requirements specified in the Third Schedule attached to the New Code, as follows:—
  "Needlework, Infants' Department, First Standard, 3 to 5 (probable age). To show any garment which can be made entirely by these, e. g. a child's common pinafore;"
  and what reply has been given to such expostulations?
  MR. SAMPSON LLOYDasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he has not received objections from various quarters complaining of the excessive nature of the requirements of the New Code in respect of "Needlework" in the Infants' Department; and, whether, in consequence of such objections, it is proposed to modify such requirements?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: I thought I had fully explained to the House two days ago that we had arranged that no change whatever should be made in the instruction in needlework during the next year—that is to say, till after March, 1878—the object being that we may have the advantage of receiving criticisms on the Needlework Schedule published in this year's Code during the next 12 months, so that modifications or improvements may, if necessary, be made in the Schedule in the Code of next year. Children, therefore, need not be instructed in accordance with the Needlework Schedule till after the issue of the Code of 1878, as that Schedule will only affect the examinations of the following year.

  CROWN BENEFICES—FEES ON PRESENTATIONS.—QUESTIONS.
  Mr. HEYGATEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the large amount of fees payable on Crown Presentations to Benefices, as stated in page 313 of the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the Ecclesiastical Offices and Fees Bill, 1876; e. g. paid to Home Office £7 13 s. 6d., Attorney General £8 18 s. 6d., Presentation Office £14, total £30 12 s., on a benefice under £300 a-year; and, whether he can inform the House for what services these fees are payable, and to what purpose they are applied?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I am glad my hon. Friend has called my attention to this matter. I stated the other day that I thought fees were very soon swallowed up; but I am afraid the person by whom they are swallowed up in the present instance is my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The first sum referred to (£7 13 s. 6d.) has been payable to the Home Office for a considerable period in respect of church presentations, charters, and warrants of
  320
  various kinds. It was originally composed of "fees" and "gratuities," the former amounting to £6 7s. 6d., and the latter to £1 6s., the former sum being traced in the office books as far back as 1727. Prior to 1795 the united amount was received for the use of the Secretary of State, Under Secretaries, the clerks, and office keepers. In February, 1795, an Order in Council directed the "fees "and "gratuities" to be carried to a "fee fund" for the payment of the office salaries, and ever since that date this sum of £7 13 s. 6d. has been simply recorded as a "fee." It is a public one, and is now handed over to the Exchequer as soon as received, instead of being retained as formerly to meet the expense of salaries. With respect to the sum payable to the Attorney and Solicitor General, I have before me a statement of the service rendered for that payment. It consists in signing the warrant, the fee for which, £5, was formerly divisible between them, but which is now paid into the Exchequer. Then the Clerk of the Patents receives for drawing the warrant a fee of £2 7s. 6d., and for engrossing a guinea is received, the Stamp Duty being 10 s.—total £8 18 s. 6d. These fees are by arrangement now paid into the Exchequer. The stamps payable in the Presentation Office upon presentation to a living in the Lord Chancellor's patronage which exceeds £250 and is under £300 in value are—ad valorem stamp, £5; fee stamp, £8—total, £13. The whole of these fees, being payable in stamps, go into the Treasury and form part of the revenue of the country. The result is that there is the most direct taxation possible on the poorest class of persons who could possibly be called upon to pay it.
  In reply to Mr. CHILDERS,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERstated that he had no objection to consider the re-appointment of a Treasury Committee on the subject of these fees.

  THE MEDICAL SCHOOL OF EDINBURGH.—QUESTION.
  MR. M'LARENasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the recently published Correspondence between the Treasury and the principal of

  321
  the University of Edinburgh respecting the Parliamentary Grant intended to be proposed in aid of local subscriptions for erecting new and enlarged class-rooms and other subsidiary buildings to accommodate the greatly increased number of students now attending the medical school of Edinburgh, Whether provision will be made in such buildings for teaching female medical students separately from males; and, if no decision has been come to on the subject, whether there would be any objection on the part of Her Majesty's Government to refer the question as to the expediency of providing such accommodation to the University Commission now sitting in Edinburgh to report their opinion thereon?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: The Government, in making the grant in question, had not in view the making of provision for teaching female medical students separately from males. The addition to the University buildings was planned, and has been, so far, carried out by the University themselves. They had obtained large subscriptions for the purpose, and the plans were settled long before any application was made to the Government for a grant. The grant is simply one in aid of the building fund. The Government feel satisfied that the University have already obtained a large sum of money by private subscriptions, and are further satisfied that the grant will enable them to complete the undertaking. When the proposed plans are completed a large amount of accommodation will be added to the University. The subject is one for the consideration of the University authorities, and I cannot say that the expediency of providing accommodation for female medical students is a proper matter to refer to the Commissioners.

  COAL MINES—THE TYLDESLEY EXPLOSION.—QUESTION.
  MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the finding of the jury who investigated the Tyldesley explosion case report, by which seven lives were lost, and which runs—
  "The coroner, in summing up, advised the jury not to return a verdict of 'Manslaughter,' as it would be impossible to sustain it afterwards.
  322
  The jury were unanimously of opinion that these deaths were caused by a blown out shot assisted by gas, and they were of opinion that the mine had been badly managed, and that the managers and owners were all to blame for not providing a sufficient staff of men to carry on the works according to Act of Parliament;"
  whether if, after the strong condemnation the jury passed upon the managers and owners, he will order them to be prosecuted, notwithstanding the direction of the coroner; further, if he will instruct that an investigation be made into the conduct of the managers if they hold certificates, the inquiry to be in conformity with the terms of the 32nd Clause of the Mine Act, 1872; and, if such neglect be proved as the jury indicate, that their certificates may be withdrawn in terms of said statute?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, that he had not yet received the exact terms of the finding of the jury who investigated the case alluded to by the hon. Member. In two reports which he had seen there was some difference as to what their finding was; but he expected to receive a copy of the verdict in a day or two.

  COAL MINES—THE SWANSEA EXPLOSION.—QUESTION.
  MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to a report which appeared in the "Western Mail" of the 17th instant, which purports to be an account of the investigation which took place before the coroner's jury on its last day's sitting in respect to the explosion which took place in the Weigfach Pit, by which eighteen lives were lost, near Swansea, a few days ago, and if, more particularly, the evidence of Mr. Wales, the Inspector of Mines for the district, and the portion which runs as follows:—
  "It is lamentable to think that persons placed in such responsible positions can be guilty of such conduct as not reporting the true state of the colliery, upon which so many lives depended;"
  whether he will order such of the persons to whom the Inspector refers as may be alive to be prosecuted; whether, considering that the manager admitted while under examination that he knew there was gas in the mine, that he will order an investigation to be made into

  323
  his conduct for allowing men to make reports which have turned out to be incorrect; and, if the board or magistrate find him guilty of gross negligence he will see that his certificate is withdrawn?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said he thought it was in the interest of all parties, both employers and employed, that a prosecution should issue according to the finding in the verdict of the coroner's jury, and, therefore, all persons implicated with that finding would have proceedings taken against them. He did not think it right that the Secretary of State should take proceedings against any persons connected with the mine that would prejudice the proceedings taken in consequence of the finding of the coroner's jury. When that prosecution was over, he could state what would be done.

  TURKEY — REFORMS.

    QUESTION.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL,who had given Notice to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether a communication from the Turkish Government, stating certain alleged reforms, which was telegraphed on the 9th instant, has reached Her Majesty's Government; whether the article "Amnesty for individuals implicated in the recent events at Philippopolis," means that the perpetrators of the atrocities in that part of the country are to be pardoned and, whether "Mr. Baker, an English colonel," to whom has been confided the scheme for the future protection by a gendarmerie of the people of the Christian provinces, is the same person who was removed from Her Majesty's Army in consequence of his conviction in a criminal court under well known circumstances? said, he had been advised by an authority to which he thought it right always to defer, that it would be better that the last part of the Question should not be put; he would therefore content himself with asking the hon. Gentleman, Whether a communication from the Turkish Government, stating certain alleged reforms, which was telegraphed on the 9th instant, has reached Her Majesty's Government; whether the article, "Amnesty for individuals implicated in the recent events
    324
    at Phillippopolis," means that the perpetrators of the atrocities in that part of the country are to be pardoned?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Gentleman has exercised a wise discretion in not putting the third of the Questions of which he has given Notice. I can only express my regret that he should not have thought of the objections to such a Question before he put it on the Paper. I have risen to answer the Question—or, rather, to take notice of it—instead of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, because it is one of a class to which I think the attention of the House may well be directed. The practice of putting Questions to Ministers in this House is one of very great public utility, and it is one which I am sure the House is always desirous to encourage within reasonable limits. If Questions are put for the purpose of eliciting information, the Government will always be found ready to give such frank and full, and, I hope, courteous, answers as they are able to do. But I must say that Questions of this character, of which we have had more than one example in the present Session, are such as may lead to very great inconvenience. They are made, not the vehicles for asking for information, but for conveying in an indirect form attacks or imputations on the Government which it would be far better should be made in direct debate or discussion. With regard to this particular Question, I do not know precisely the meaning of the phraseology of the hon. Gentleman, "whether a communication from the Turkish Government, stating certain alleged reforms, which was telegraphed on the 9th instant, has reached Her Majesty's Government." He does not say by whom or to whom it was telegraphed. It is the case, no doubt, that a communication stating certain reforms or measures proposed to be taken by the Turkish Government has been communicated to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The hon. Gentleman asks whether the Article with regard to the amnesty refers to the perpetrators of the atrocities. I am informed that the impression upon the mind of my noble Friend is that it does not bear the meaning attributed to it by the hon. Gentleman.

  THE UNITED STATES—CONSULAR CONVENTION.—QUESTION.
  MR. GOURLEY (for Mr. BATES)asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he would take into consideration the feasibility of concluding a consular convention with the United States Government in order that disputes between masters of British ships and their crews may be dealt with by the British Consul in a similar manner as is done by the Consul of every other Power, not even excluding China and Japan?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, that all the Powers whose Consuls possessed the right of adjudging such cases in the United States did so under a Special Convention. Negotiations were, however, in progress in the direction indicated by the hon. Gentleman's Question; but certain difficulties with regard to jurisdiction had to be encountered which could only be met by legislation. The subject had been for some time under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and they hoped to be able to deal with it satisfactorily before long.

  TURKEY—THE EMBASSY AT CONSTANTINOPLE.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether lie can inform the House what arrangements Her Majesty's Government contemplate with regard to the Embassy at Constantinople?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Mr. Speaker, as it is of importance that Her Majesty should be represented at the Porte by a representative of higher rank than a Charge d' Affaires, and as Sir Henry Elliot is not at present able to return to that post, Her Majesty's Government are considering what arrangements can be made; but my noble Friend (Lord Derby) is not at the present moment able to enter into particulars on the subject.

  EXPLOSIVES ACT, 1875—THE BYELAWS.—QUESTION.
  MR. M'LAGANasked the President of the Board of Trade, How many Harbour authorities have applied for confirmation of Bye-laws under "The Explo-
  326
  sives Act, 1875;" how many codes of Bye-laws have been confirmed; in how many Harbours has the total prohibition of the loading or unloading of explosives been sanctioned by the Board of Trade; how many Harbour authorities have submitted Bye-laws to the Board of Trade more than six months ago which have not yet been confirmed; what steps he is prepared to take to compel those Harbour authorities which have not yet submitted Bye-laws for confirmation to do so without delay; and, if he is prepared to bring in a measure containing a general set of Bye-laws for the regulation of the traffic in explosives which will be applicable to all the Harbours of the Kingdom?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: One hundred and forty-eight harbour authorities have applied to the Board of Trade for confirmation of their bye-laws. In 86 cases the bye-laws have been confirmed, in 34 of which loading or unloading explosives has been prohibited. There are still under consideration 52 cases in which the bye-laws were originally submitted more than six months ago, the delay being in general caused by the harbour authorities taking time to consider or omitting to comply with suggestions made by the Board of Trade. The Act has conferred no power on the Board of Trade to exercise the compulsion suggested by the Question. I am not prepared to recommend a general set of bye-laws applicable to all harbours, as the varying circumstances of different harbours render it, in my opinion, impracticable to frame a model code of bye-laws which would be suitable for all harbours.

  EGYPT—SALE OF SLAVES AT CAIRO.

    QUESTION.
    MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he has observed a letter in the "Army and Navy Gazette," from Captain W. R. Kennedy, R.N., stating that, a few days after the Egyptian Government sent a ship of war down the Red Sea for the suppression of the slave trade, there was a sale of slaves in Cairo, at which some 300 women were sold; if Her Majesty's Government has any information on the subject, and whether, in point of fact, that sale was at the instance of the Egyptian Government itself; and, if Her

    327
    Majesty's Government has remonstrated or will remonstrate strongly with the Khedive on such inconsistency?
    MR. BOURKE: I have seen and carefully read the letter alluded to in the Question of the hon. Member. In consequence, a telegram has been sent to Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General in Egypt asking him to make inquiries on the subject. We have not yet received an answer; but I have no doubt the Consul General will report what foundation there may be for the report in question.

  VACCINATION ACTS—THE LYMPH.

    QUESTION.
    MR. FORSYTHasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he can state whether the vaccine lymph now in use is obtained from the original source suggested by Dr. Jenner, or is artificially produced by inoculating the animal with the small-pox virus; and, what securities are taken, by microscopical examination or otherwise, to ascertain the perfect condition of the lymph now distributed by the National Vaccine Establishment in connection with the Local Government Board?
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: So far as is known, none of the lymph at present in use is of artificial production, the lymph distributed being either from Jenner's source or from sources of the natural disease in the cow which have since been met with. The securities for the perfect condition of the lymph are—first, the careful choice of the vaccinators by whom it is collected; second, the inspection to which they and their stations are subjected; and, thirdly, the independent microscopical examination, without which no tube of lymph is ever sent out.

  THE WAR AND ADMIRALTY DEPARTMENTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. SEELYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether a Committee has been appointed, or is about to be appointed, for the purpose of inquiring into and re-organizing the War and Admiralty Offices; and, if so, whether, as regards the Admiralty, the inquiry will embrace the "Naval" as well as the other departments?
  MR. W. H. SMITH,in reply, said, a Committee had been appointed with the view of framing a scheme for the reorganization of the War Department, so far as it might be possible to adapt the recommendations of the Report of the Committee to the administration of the War Department and conduce to the efficiency of the public service. A Committee was also about to be appointed to inquire into the constitution of some of the branches of the Admiralty. The "Naval" department of the Admiralty referred to by the hon. Member had already been inquired into and the salaries there re-adjusted, and this department would not, therefore, form the subject of further inquiry.

  SOUTH AFRICA — THE TRANSVAAL REPUBLIC.—QUESTION.
  MR. COURTNEYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether there is any foundation in fact for the rumours transmitted by Reuter's agency from Cape Town, and published in the newspapers of Tuesday last, that, in the event of riots ensuing in the Transvaal Republic in connection with its proposed union with the British Colonies of South Africa, Sir Theophilus Shepstone will establish a Provisional Government, and call upon all orderly inhabitants to support it, and in that case troops will probably be ordered to the Transvaal from Natal?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: The communications from South Africa received at the Colonial Office make no mention of such rumours as those mentioned. Sir Theophilus Shepstone has received no instructions bearing on the contingency of riots in the Transvaal Republic, nor have any directions been given for the employment of troops beyond the frontiers of the Colony; although in the event of the lives of Her Majesty's subjects being endangered it would naturally become the duty of the Lieutenant Governor of Natal to take measures for their protection. It is, however, trusted that no such danger will arise; and. I must add as a caution—not to the hon. Gentleman, in whose case it is of course unnecessary, but to the public at large—that it is advisable to receive rumours from South Africa at the present time with great caution.

  JUDICATURE ACT, 1873—APPOINTMENT OF A NEW JUDGE.—QUESTION.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the new Judge of the High Court of Justice, to be appointed under the Bill of the present Session, will be under an obligation to go Circuit; if so, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that the new Judge shall take his regular turn with the rest of Her Majesty's Judges in going Circuit upon all the Assizes; and, if not, whether such Judge will be entitled to receive the same salary as those Judges who will have to bear the expenses of the Circuits for the Spring and Summer Assizes, and whether such expenses are correctly estimated at about £500 per annum for each Judge?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Section 37 of the Judicature Act of 1873 provides that Circuit business shall be done by the Judges of the Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer Divisions; but that it shall be lawful for Her Majesty to include in any Commission of Assize if she think fit any Judge of the Chancery Division appointed after that Act. The Government propose no change in this law, and the new Judge, who is to be attached to the Chancery Division, will be appointed on this footing. Whether Judges of the Chancery Division will at any time be, under this power, included by the Crown in Commissions of Assizes is a matter which must depend upon the state and exigencies of business in the various Courts, and no answer can be given beforehand. The salary of the new Judge will be £5,000 a-year.

  THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

    QUESTION.
    MR. GODDARDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in the event of his having a surplus at his disposal, he will be willing to make some provision in his financial arrangements which will afford some relief to the owners and occupiers of land from the very heavy additional burdens thrown upon the local rates in consequence of the rapid abolition of the turnpike system?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is one of the melancholy duties of the Chancellor of the Exche-
    330
    quer to be sometimes obliged to keep secrets, and whether he will have a surplus at his disposal or not is one of those secrets which he is particularly anxious to keep. I may say, however, that if I have a surplus at my disposal I shall be ready to take into consideration all claims. How far I shall be able to relieve them will depend upon the amount of the surplus.

  ARMY—THE EASTER MONDAY FIELD DAY.—QUESTION.
  Lord ELCHOasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether Volunteers, who are employed in Government Offices, will be allowed to accompany their regiments and take part in the coming Easter Monday Field Day without loss of pay or the curtailment of their annual leave?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not able to promise that all Volunteers employed in Government Offices will be allowed to accompany their regiments on Easter Monday. Some of the public Offices must remain open on that day, and it may be impossible to dispense with the attendance of a particular clerk or writer who happens to be a Volunteer. But I may take this opportunity of expressing a hope that the Heads of Departments will, wherever possible, give leave of absence to Volunteers wishing to take part in the manoeuvres, and that they will not think it necessary to make any deduction in consequence from their pay or annual leave.

  TURKEY—ALLEGED OUTRAGES IN BULGARIA.—QUESTION.
  MR. FAWCETT: I do not know whether the Question I am about to put is one of those on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just put his ban officially; but whether that be so or not, I claim the right to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any reply has been received from Mr. Jocelyn to the telegraphic despatch which was sent to him by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, instructing him to inquire about certain outrages which, in a letter dated "Pera, March 6th," and published in the "Times" of March 16, were stated to have been perpetrated in the neighbourhood of Adrianople; and, if any reply has been received from Mr. Jocelyn, he will communicate it to the House?
  MR. BOURKE: Mr. Jocelyn, under date of the 21st instant, telegraphed that the Vice Consul at Adrianople reported having heard of alleged outrages ten hours' distant from that place last week, and said ho was making every inquiry and had spoken twice to the Governor General on the subject. His Excellency disclaimed any knowledge of the affair. The Italian Consul General represented the disturbances which had occurred to be of little importance. A further telegram has been sent to Mr. Jocelyn instructing him to desire Mr. Vice Consul Dupuis to go or send some trustworthy person to ascertain the truth respecting the reported outrages.

  ARMY—THE REGIMENTAL SYSTEM.

    QUESTION.
    COLONEL BARNEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has any intention of altering or abolishing the numbers of any regiments of the Regular Army; and, if so, whether the House will have an opportunity of discussing this alteration before it is carried into effect?
    MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I have not formed any intention upon the subject at present; but if I should do so, I shall no doubt be responsible to Parliament.

  TURKEY—THE NEGOTIATIONS.

    QUESTION.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the hon. Member for Hackney, Whether, considering the important questions involved in the present negotiations, he intends to proceed with the Motion of which he has given Notice, and which stands seventh in the Orders for tomorrow; and, if so, whether any arrangement has been made to bring on the discussion at an early hour?
    MR. FAWCETT: In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I beg to say that nothing whatever has occurred to alter the decision I expressed on Tuesday last, that I should do everything in my power to bring on the Motion which stands in my name for to-morrow night. I think I shall be able to find very good reasons to show that it is desirable to have it discussed, notwithstanding the negotiations now pending. In reply to the second Question, whether I have made any arrangement to facili-
    332
    tate the Motion coming on at an early hour—I believe there are eight Motions standing before mine; but I have been informed that out of those eight six would not come on, and that the only Motions which precede mine are those of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), and I hope, therefore, to be able to bring on my Motion at an early hour. I have only to add, for the further information of the House, that during the last few days such intelligence has reached this country as to the present condition of the Christian subjects of the Porte—["Order"]—I am only giving Notice that I shall add words to my Notice of Motion which will afford the House an opportunity, if it comes on, of considering, before rising for the Easter Recess, the present deplorable and critical state of the population in Bosnia, Bulgaria, and Herzegovina.

  PARLIAMENT—ORDER OF BUSINESS—THE EASTER VACATION.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think it may be for the convenience of the House for me now to say that we have been obliged to-day to put the three first Notices at the commencement of the Business this evening because they relate to the Money Business of the country. It will be necessary for us, if we are to rise on Tuesday next, to ask the House to allow us so far to suspend. the Standing Orders to-morrow as to take the Report, and, I hope, the third reading at the same time, of the Consolidated Fund Bill at half-past 4 to-morrow. It will not interrupt the progress of Business, because it will pass without discussion, and it is very necessary to send it up to the House of Lords to-morrow, in order to get the Bill passed before the Recess, or we shall be in some difficulty. This has arisen partly from the count out on Tuesday, and partly from the discussion yesterday on the Irish Land Bill lasting till nearly 6 o'clock, so that it was impossible to proceed with the matter then. If the Prisons Bill passes through Committee to-night, we propose on Monday to take the second reading of the Prisons (Scotland) Bill and the Maritime Contracts Bill; and on Tuesday, on which day I

    333
    shall move the Adjournment of the House, I shall ask the House to consent to a Morning Sitting, for taking Votes on Supply. I believe it will be necessary to call the House on Saturday, but it will be a formal Sitting, in order to receive a Commission in the House of Lords for giving the Royal Assent to certain Bills.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he did not understand from the right hon. Gentleman what Business would be taken to-night if the Prisons Bill were concluded at an early hour. Would the right hon. Gentleman go on with the second reading of the Prisons (Scotland) Bill or the Prisons (Ireland) Bill in Committee? He wished also to know what Supply would be taken at the Morning Sitting on Tuesday, and whether it was intended that there should be an Evening as well as a Morning Sitting that day. It would be also convenient if the right hon. Gentleman were to state to-day or to-morrow what Business the House would take on the first day of re-assembling after Easter?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I hope we shall get through the Prisons Bill this evening. If so, we shall take the second reading of the Scotch Prisons Bill. But there are several other Orders which may be taken if desirable. With regard to Supply, on Tuesday, I should propose to take Classes 2 and 3 of the Civil Service Estimates. I do not think it will be the wish of the House to have an Evening Sitting on Tuesday. A meeting at 12 o'clock will be more convenient, as it will enable hon. Gentlemen to leave town early. With regard to the Sitting on Saturday, it will be necessary that there should be a quorum of the House for the purpose of reading the Consolidated Fund Bill. No other Business would be taken. As regards the Business after the Recess, we propose that the House should meet on Thursday, April 5, and take Supply, the Civil Service Estimates, and I propose on the following Thursday, April 12, to make my Financial Statement.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPE: Would the Secretary for War supplement the statement that has been given by saying when the Universities Bill will be taken?
    MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I am not able to state, but it will be after Easter.
    MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE: If there is no Evening Sitting on Tuesday, what becomes of the Notices of Motion?
    MR. GOLDSMIDasked, if there were to be a Morning Sitting on Tuesday at 12 o'clock, whether it would be under the Rule which applied to Wednesday Sittings?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the House would be under the ordinary Rules and not under those applicable to Wednesdays. The House would not adjourn till Motion was made to that effect, unless a special Order was previously made that the House should rise at a particular time. The Government did not propose that the Notices of Motion dropped on Tuesday should take precedence when the House reassembled.
    MR. GOLDSMIDasked if the House did not meet under that Standing Order, under what order it was to be? If they met at 12, was there anything to prevent the House sitting all the afternoon and evening?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it would be a matter for consideration what course would be most acceptable to the House, and most probably on Monday it could be determined that the Sitting on the following day should be from a particular hour to a particular hour; but he thought it would be best not to bind themselves to any particular course at the present time, because they were in an uncertain position in regard to Supply.
    MR. CHILDERS: Is the Secretary of the Treasury to make his general Statement about the Votes on Tuesday? If so, I think it will be very inconvenient.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDON: Will the Mutiny Bill be taken to-night?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Not after 12.
    MR. P. A. TAYLOR: I shall oppose its being taken after 11.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was not absolutely certain whether his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury would have an opportunity of making his Statement on the Civil Service Estimates on Tuesday; but if he were able to do so and to go into Supply, it would not be at all an inconvenient time to make the Statement, which would be of a very general character, would not go into minute detail, and was sub-

    335
    stantially contained in the Memorandum already circulated among hon. Members.
    MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, after the Notice they had received of a Committee of Supply on Tuesday, and as they had not been told under what Standing Order they were then to proceed, he should probably raise objection to the proceeding on Monday next.
    MR. J. COWEN: Will the Valuation Bill be taken before Easter?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No.

  LAND TENURE (IRELAND) BILL.
    PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
    THE O'CONOR DON: I rise, Sir, for the purpose of offering a personal explanation. An expression fell from me yesterday in the course of the debate on the Irish Land Bill which I have reason to believe has given offence to some hon. Members of the House. I feel, Sir, that I was wrong in making use of the expression I refer to. It fell from me in the heat of debate; it was wholly unpremeditated; and I can assure the House I never intended it to give any offence whatever. I believe that I was wrong in making use of the expression I did, and now feel it my duty most unequivocally to withdraw it.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PRISONS BILL.— [BILL 1.]
  Mr. Assheton Cross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
  PRISONS BILL.— [BILL 1.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress, 1st March.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    As to Classification and Commitment of Prisoners.
    Clause 20 (Confinement of prisoners before and during trial.)
    MR. H. B. SHERIDANmoved a Proviso, to the effect that persons on remand, or committed for trial, should be subjected to such restraint only as was necessary to secure their attendance.
    Amendment proposed in page 8, at end of Clause, to add the words—
    "(Persons on remand or committed for trial to be subject to such restraint only as is requisite to secure their attendance.)
    Provided always, That no person in cusdody, untried and unconvicted, charged with crime or misdemeanor, shall be subject to any restraint
    336
    in his personal liberty, other than may be necessary in cases of remand to secure his attendance before the magistrate by whom he is committed, and in cases of committal for trial to secure his attendance before the court by which he is to be tried; and no such person shall, previously to trial, be compelled to perform any menial office or duty in the gaol or place of detention in which he is detained, or be otherwise subjected to the discipline of such gaol or place of detention applicable to persons found guilty by the verdict of a jury:"—(Mr. H. B. Sheridan.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped the Committee, would not accept the Amendment, because he did not think it would be right to tie the matter down so strictly as the hon. Member proposed to do. He (Mr. Cross) had endeavoured in an Amendment which he had placed on the Paper to Clause 35, to convey that there should be for the future a clear distinction between the treatment of prisoners awaiting their trial and that of those who had been convicted of crime. It would be the duty of the Secretary of State to draw up rules and regulations on the subject, and no alteration could be made in them without the sanction of Parliament.
    MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured, as far as he was concerned, to meet the objections which had been urged upon this important point. But the Amendment of which he had given Notice was similar to that proposed last year, to which hon. Members decidedly objected. What he believed the Committee expected and desired was that a clear distinction should be drawn between the innocent and guilty, and that the confusion which now prevailed upon that subject should be put an end to. Legislation only could cure the evil. Had the right hon. Gentleman any doubt as to the outrages which had been committed on untried men? Was it not the privilege of every Englishman to be deemed innocent till he was convicted? Why, then, did he object to legislation? Why was everything to be left in the hands of the Secretary of State? He might make rules and regulations, but nothing would be easier than to revoke them. The right hon. Gentleman in his new clause proposed that—
    "There should be in force in every place in which prisoners are confined before trial special

    337
    rules regulating their confinement in such manner as to make it as little as possible oppressive, due regard only being had to their safe custody, to the maintenance of order and discipline in the place in which they are detained, and to the physical and moral well-being of the prisoners themselves."
    What was meant by regard being had to discipline? A case had occurred in which a prisoner, busily engaged in preparing his defence, had been required to make up his bed 20 times in one day to suit the caprice of a warder. The Committee of the Howard Association believed that untried prisoners ought not to be subject to the ordinary discipline of a prison. What was meant by the word "discipline" in the right hon. Gentleman's clause? Did he intend to perpetuate that treatment of untried prisoners of which complaints had been made? Were untried prisoners to be paraded before visitors? Were they to be compelled to study in a hundred ways how respect was to be paid to the governor? What was meant by having regard to the physical and moral well-being of a prisoner who was merely detained for safe custody? He might have only a day or two to prepare his defence, and he might require every hour of this time. Was he to be required to attend to his toilet to please the whims of a warder? What was meant by his moral well-being? Was he to be examined in theology? What the prisoner required was fair play and opportunity to see witnesses, solicitor, and counsel. The police would be examining his books and papers, and falsifying them. ["No, no."] These things were done, and he could sustain the assertion by evidence. Did the House forget the case that had occurred at Newgate, in which a gaoler insisted on knowing a prisoner's line of defence? The police were public prosecutors; there was an esprit de corps among them which led them to resort to any means to obtain information in order to secure convictions. It was not to be said that no injury could result from such espionage. It was the inalienable right of an untried prisoner to have his time free for the preparation of his defence, to see witnesses, and to enjoy every privilege consistent with safe detention, that was enjoyed by his accuser. When did the right hon. Gentleman propose to draw up his rules and what was to be their character? What rules could be drawn
    338
    up that would be inconsistent with the Amendment that he now proposed? Why could not the right hon. Gentleman say what he proposed to do? It was the duty of the Committee to resist the progress of the Bill until some consideration was paid to a question of this magnitude. The Bill took away the powers of justices, which were a present safeguard, and vested them practically in the Home Secretary. What larger power over personal liberty existed in Russia than resulted from vesting the treatment of untried prisoners in executive officers? When it was remembered that political prisoners would come within the range of the proposed rules, it would be seen that the question was worthy of attention. He could not accept the new clause of the right hon. Gentleman, and could not understand why he could not now define the mode of treatment of untried prisoners, or why he could not accept an Amendment which, in substance, had been approved by his Colleague the First Lord of the Admiralty at a meeting of the Howard Association. Although he did not wish to impede the Bill, he should feel bound to carry his Motion to a division.
    MR. HUNTsaid, the hon. Member must be under some misapprehension, as he did not remember ever attending any meeting of the Howard Association.
    MR. ROEBUCKsaid, lie did not think it necessary to put into the Bill all the rules that might be necessary before the trial of prisoners; but perhaps the Home Secretary could indicate the principles on which they would be framed, so that it would be known to what extent a less generous Secretary would be restrained, by formal regulations, in respect of the obligations to be imposed upon untried prisoners, for though nearly all were guilty a small percentage were innocent, and ought to be considered.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought he had made it clear on introducing the Bill that it was his intention to make a difference between tried and untried prisoners. The former debate in Committee showed that it was advisable that the House should have indication of what that difference was to be, and he had therefore put on the Paper a new clause to follow Clause 35,

    339
    of which the hon. Member would have given a fairer idea by quoting it in its entirety. It was as follows:—
    (Special rules as to treatment of unconvicted prisoners.)
    "Whereas it is expedient that a clear difference should be made between the treatment of prisoners awaiting their trials and the treatment of prisoners who have been convicted of crime, and that, in order to secure the observance of such difference there should be in force in every place in which prisoners are confined before trial special rules regulating their confinement in such manner as to make it as little as possible oppressive, due regard only being had to their safe custody, to the maintenance of order and discipline in the place in which they are detained, and to the physical and moral well-being of the prisoners themselves: Therefore, Be it Enacted, That the Secretary of State shall, from time to time, make, and, when made, may repeal, alter, or add to special rules:—

    (1.) With respect to the retention by a prisoner of the possession of any books, papers, or documents in his possession at the time of his arrest, and which may not be required for evidence against him, and are not reasonably suspected of forming part of property improperly acquired by him, or are not for some special reason required to be taken from him for the purposes of justice;

    (2.) With respect to communications between a prisoner, his solicitor, and friends, so as to secure to such prisoner as unrestricted a communication between him, his solicitor, and his friends as may be possible, having regard only to the necessity of preventing any tampering with evidence, and any plans for escape, or other like consideration."

    He did not think that any Secretary of State could be more bound than he would be by those provisions.
    MR. H. B. SHERIDANwished to explain that the paper he read had been one of the printed publications of Howard Society, read two or three years ago at a meeting at Dudley House at which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Sir Charles Adderley), the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Hunt), Colonel Crofton, and others had been present. It was then decided that a representation should be made to the Home Secretary in favour of an amelioration of the existing treatment of untried prisoners. They recommended that there should be greater facilities for cleaning their cells; more opportunities for communicating with their friends personally and by correspondence; more time for bodily exercise; and less restiction as to books and
    340
    newspapers, and an exemption from exhibition to visitors, and from being required to pay respect to officials in humiliating postures.
    SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, that though differing in politics from the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan) he must say he fully agreed in a great deal that he had said. He thought there should be something more definite in the Bill than what was proposed by the Home Secretary. Some time ago it was the practice of the House of Detention at Clerkenwell to shut up in total darkness the untried prisoners, men who might be perfectly innocent, from 4 o'clock until 8 the next morning. That system went on as a matter of course for years, until partly through his instrumentality it was altered. At present an untried prisoner had no access to the documents that might be necessary for his defence; he would allow him to go to his own house, of course, in custody, and examine his books and paper.
    SIR HENRY JAMESshared fully the views of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan) with respect to the treatment of untried prisoners; but he thought his Amendment would be ineffectual to secure the object at which he aimed. The prison regulations ought to be dealt with as a whole; but the Amendment of the hon. Member touched only on a portion of them. According to his proposal no discretion was to be left to the Governor, who, if he found a loaded pistol with a prisoner, could not take it from him without running the risk of being subjected to an action.
    MR. H. B. SHERIDANobserved that by his Amendment everything might be taken from a prisoner in the discretion of the Committee of Magistrates.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, in the interests of the prisoner he had a very strong objection to one of the hon. Member's proposals—namely, that the prisoner's counsel and attorney were to have access to the prisoner's money at all times.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the proposal was not at present before the Committee.
    MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, that the law of Ireland, like that of England, was that a man was, supposed to be innocent until he was found guilty. The practice in Ireland, however, was quite different, for

    341
    the moment a man was committed by a magistrate, it was taken as granted he was sure to be guilty. He would give the Committee an instance of how untried prisoners were treated in Ireland, and in order to prevent the recurrence of such things he proposed to add to the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Sheridan) words which would include within the operation of that Amendment, prisoners "in custody under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act." It was the more necessary to do this because the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act was sometimes passed very quickly in that House. Times were very quiet at present; but no one knew when the Act might be suspended, and it might be the fate of any hon. Member to find himself affected by it. He would give them an instance of the way in which a political prisoner was treated when the Government authorities had not the courage to charge him with any offence. He was arrested under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act—[Laughter]—he was kept for 15 days in solitary confinement before he was allowed to see his solicitor or counsel; he was kept for 30 days before he was allowed to communicate with his people, although he had at that time 50 men in his employ; he was kept 120 days before he was allowed to see any member of his own family, and during those four months the Government never brought the slightest charge against him. He was allowed to see his family only once a-week, and then in the presence of a warder, and three of them only were permitted to visit him at the same time. He well remembered once, when three of his family came to see him, his daughter a girl of 13 years of age, was kept outside the prison gate because she would make the fourth. At the same time, while he and others similarly arrested were treated with such barbarity, the convicted prisoners were allowed to take several hours' exercise in the yard and to speak to one another, while the political prisoners were only allowed to have one and three-quarter hour's exercise, were obliged to walk in single file, and not permitted to speak. He well remembered a warder calling to him on one occasion—"Sullivan, stand out of the ring." [Laughter.] He said to the man—"When you address me remember my name is O'Sullivan, not Sullivan." [Laughter.] The warder
    342
    called him to order then and there, and demanded his right to dictate to him what he should call him. He replied—"I don't mind what you say, but I ask you to call me by my proper name when you address me." The Governor of the prison then came up, and gave him 48 hours' solitary confinement for daring to speak to the warder. In fact, untried prisoners in Ireland were treated far worse than convicted housebreakers or pickpockets, particularly if they were in custody for political offences or agrarian outrages. The hon. Member concluded by moving an addition to the Amendment after the word "misdemeanour,"—"or in custody under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act."
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he did not understand the hilarity of his hon. Friends during the statement of the hon. Member for Limerick. A gentleman who had become a Member of that House had been incarcerated, and was now able to inform the Committee of his own experience in prison. He confessed he did not think that was a subject for joking; and he thought it would have a grave effect in Ireland if it was said that the House of Commons jeered at an hon. Member, who had been committed to prison on suspicion of a political offence, when he stated facts to show how necessary it was observe great caution in dealing with this subject. In dealing with unconvicted persons they were dealing with the essential rights of every subject of the Queen. With regard to the Motion before the House he sympathized with the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan). He had from the first looked on this Bill with the greatest suspicion, inasmuch as it was founded on the supposition that all untried prisoners and prisoners convicted of slight offences ought to be treated on a system uniform with the treatment of the worst convicts. The idea pervaded the whole of the Bill. Nor was be less suspicious of its constitutional effect. The 42nd clause, for example, concluded as follows:—"All enactments inconsistent with this Act, or with any such rules made there under are hereby repealed." That literally gave the Secretary of State power to repeal all statutes inconsistent with his rules. That was a most faulty principle. A former Home Secretary (Sir George Grey) promised him, and kept his promise,

    343
    to introduce the rules as a Schedule to the Act of 1865, and he was glad the hon. Member for Dudley was making a struggle for the constitutional principle Sir George Grey felt bound to introduce into his Act.
    MR. HUNTexplained that he found he had been present in 1873 at a meeting of justices at Dudley House, at which Papers were distributed containing the words which the hon. Member for Dudley had quoted.
    MR. H. B. SHERIDANunderstood that the papers in question had been adopted by the meeting.
    MR. HUNT: No.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, that hon. Members on that side of the House owed their hearty thanks to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate). He had shown them on that occasion that he had risen superior to all prejudices and had taken a broad and constitutional view of the subject before the Committee. It would be lamentable if it could be said in Ireland that the sufferings of Irish political prisioners were treated with levity by the House of Commons; but he did not think the good-humoured laughter in which some hon. Members had just indulged could be so understood. Still, he asked the Committee to go still deeper into the subject, and consider well the statement laid before it by his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan). If his name were Poerio, or if it were set forth under the guise of a Neapolitan story that a man of position in his own county, in his own rank of life, one of the most respected men in the Province of Munster, was arrested, put in prison, no charge brought against him, never brought face to face with his accusers from the first day to the last, for 15 days allowed to lie in that prison, subjected to treatment severer than that applied in English prisons to convicted felons—if that story were told of a Neapolitan prison, what would they think of it? He asked the Committee to feel, not for his hon. Friend, who was now beyond the reach of any such barbarity, but for other innocent men who might be subjected to such treatment; and to declare that such conduct should not be permitted in future. He would state what his hon. Friend had shrunk from telling them, that during the month when legal advice was denied to him he
    344
    was obliged to sleep in bedding repulsive to decency. That was the case of an untried prisoner in Ireland. He believed it was the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) who said that nearly all the Irish Members had been in prison at one time or another. He should give them the practical experience of another Irish State prisoner. He (Mr. Sullivan) was put up as a misdemeanant for political writing. When O'Connell and other State prisoners were imprisoned in Richmond Gaol in Dublin they were simple misdemeanants. They could see their family and friends at all reasonable hours, supply their own food, their own table linen, their own bedding, and, in fact, were only kept in severe detention, but subjected to no humiliation. Now, between O'Connell's imprisonment and his imprisonment as a misdemeanant, a Bill, like that before the Committee, passed through Parliament, and for want of some vigilant Member like the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan) calling attention to the point now under discussion a serious change in the law was made. Under the new law he found himself classed with the vilest herd of criminals in Richmond Prison, forbidden to see his wife and little child for a long period, but, for an exception to which he would presently refer, exempted only from eating the coarse food of the gaol, because his health rendered it necessary that he should receive hospital diet, just as any other prisoner would be exempted in similar circumstances. His mother came to see him once during the 100 days he was in confinement, and had to see him through a barred window in the presence of a warder, and he then said she should come to see him no more. How was his prison treatment modified? He felt bound to pay a tribute of grateful regret to the memory of a man, a statesman, now no more, the late Lord Mayo—kindly, generous, broad-minded—and amongst the many who wept for his tragic end no man in all broad Britain paid an honester tribute of sorrow over his grave than he did. He saw in his prison cell the letters of Lord Mayo complaining that the Act of Parliament, which had been passed through the House of Commons without sufficient attention being paid to the details, left him, as Chief Secretary for Ireland, powerless to mitigate many of the severities of

    345
    his lot. He had good reason to believe, also, that the then Viceroy, the Duke of Abercorn, was equally anxious, if possible, that he should be spared from the humiliations and privations of his prison life; but the Act of Parliament had tied their hands and left them no power to interfere with the rules of the prison, till at last the matter was brought before the notice of that House. More than ever was it necessary to be watchful now with regard to this subject, because they were about to centralize into one hand the whole prison management of the country. The visiting justices throughout England might have their faults—and he blamed the action of some of them in respect to the appointment of chaplains; but for the sake of constitutional principle he would prefer the errors of visiting justices, even though opposed to his own feelings, rather than see the centralizing system carried out to so great an extent. If they could have the assurance that the kindly feelings animating the Home Secretary would be perpetuated in his successors there would be but little difficulty about the matter. But they ought to take a warning from the experience of the past, and seek—it might be requiring that the regulations for the treatment of prisoners should every Session be submitted to the House—to prevent the recurrence of undue hardship in the future.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, they had already by statute the power of making regulations for prisons, and the present Bill did not propose to go further than the law as it now stood. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) said he assented to the Bill of 1865, because the rules proposed to be made under it were in the Schedule. The 21st clause gave power to make regulations with respect to the arrangement of prisons, and such rules were as binding as if they formed a portion of the Bill. In this respect it was the same as the Act of 1865, and the provision was really copied from it. He would, however, go further, and state that no rule would be passed by him under this Bill, or brought into operation, until it was first laid on the Table of the House. That course was, he believed, much better than any Amendment proposed, and he hoped, therefore, the discussion would not be continued,
    346
    nor any further time of the Committee wasted.
    MR. WHITBREAD,remarking that the injustice of subjecting untried prisoners of a certain class to inconvenience and even cruelty had already been sufficiently discussed, wished to draw attention to another point—namely, the position of the poorer and more illiterate class of prisoners. In the Bill of last year the Home Secretary bound himself to maintain a prison in every county; but that clause did not appear in the present Bill. The gain of getting rid of small prisons would be very costly, since a poor or illiterate man might be detained in a gaol, far away from his friends and his witnesses, on whom alone he could rely for assistance on his trial. He trusted that their case would be taken into consideration by the Committee in dealing with the clause under discussion, which, however, he thought, might very fairly be withdrawn, if the Home Secretary would undertake to bring this matter up on the Report with the view of giving effect to the principle he had been asked to carry out.
    MR. HERMONrecommended that the hon. Member for Dudley should withdraw his amending clause, with a view to the principle which it embodied being given effect to in a modified form which would secure more general support.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was painful to think of the number of persons in this country who were subject to the grievance of being confined in prison for many months before their trial took place. He believed that if it were inquired into it would be found that thousands were subjected annually to this degradation who were afterwards found to be innocent of the charges brought against them. It was a scandal to think that, notwithstanding the existence of the most expensive judicial establishment in the world, persons were detained in prison from July to December, when the winter assizes commenced. That was a great grievance, and it was a greater anomaly that their Judges could not be got to deliver the gaols of this country between July and Christmas. He trusted that, whatever might be said for or against the proposals of the hon. Member for Dudley, the Home Secretary would introduce into the Bill some clause founded on the assumption that an untried prisoner should not be sub-

    347
    jected to such penalties as those to which reference had been made in the course of this discussion.
    MR. HENLEYthought it would be much better that rules should be made by the Secretary of State under the authority of the statute, and then if they were found inconvenient they could easily be amended; whereas if the rules were embodied in the Bill all the inconveniences which might arise under them would be perpetrated until they were repealed by Parliament. By the proposals of the hon. Member for Dudley, persons in custody might have an unlimited amount of money in their possession, and free access to them between 10 and 4 o'clock would also be given to any number of people who might be called relations or witnesses. These people were to have unrestricted private communications with the prisoners. In those circumstances, in times of excitement the relatives and witnesses, with the command of all that money, would easily find the means of kicking up such a row outside the prison as would make it impossible to maintain the discipline necessary for the safe custody of the prisoners.
    MR. PEASEsaid, he inferred that the Home Secretary was prepared to accept the Amendment which he (Mr. Pease) had on the Paper, and that of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon), which went still further; also that no rules under the Bill were to come into force until they were laid on the Table of the House. If that was so, there was very little difference between the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan). He quite agreed, however, with the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken that the object in view would be better attained by the rules, and trusted that the hon. Member for Dudley, having gained these assurances from the Home Secretary, would not go to a division on the subject.
    MR. ROEBUCKurged that, as the Secretary of State was, under that Bill, to be the whole regulating power of the prisons of this country, that right hon. Gentleman must have considered what the general rules for regulating prisons ought to be and must have them in his mind. If so, he could put those rules upon paper, and he ought to place them before the House, in order that hon.
    348
    Members might determine whether in their opinion the principles they contained were right or wrong. If right, they could then be placed in the Schedule for the guidance of succeeding Home Secretaries.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that although he might have in his own mind a general notion of what the rules ought to be, it was rather too much to ask that he should now lay them before Parliament, before he had had the advice and assistance of the Prison Commissioners who were to be specially appointed. He had already stated that he would undertake that the rules should be laid on the Table of the House before that Bill came into operation. Every rule that was made or altered would be laid on the Table. That was as far as he could possibly go.
    MR. J. COWENentirely concurred with the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) with respect to the severities used in prison towards untried prisoners. His friend, the late Mr. Ernest Jones, was compelled to assort with burglars, thieves, and murderers, and if not for the influence of his friends in that House must have died from the severity of his treatment. He had no objection to the rules, but he did complain of the way in which they were put in force. Policemen had no doubt a difficult duty to discharge; but he would appeal to any hon. Member whether they did not usually act towards their prisoner as if he were a guilty person, and use every effort to get him convicted. He therefore thought that there should be something stronger than the rules proposed by the Home Secretary. They had had experience of those rules already, which had not been a favourable one. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) alluded to the thousands of persons detained in the prisons of this country for months before brought to trial. He (Mr. Cowen) held in his hand a document which proved that from January to July, 1876, 12,000 persons were waiting to be tried, which was, he considered, a great grievance.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, the advantage of dealing with this matter in the way proposed by the Home Secretary was that the rules which he would make could be adapted to the different cases that might arise.
    Mr. WALTERsaid, he was afraid that whatever they did they could never make the practice in this matter quite square with the theory, the theory being that every person was presumed to be innocent till he was proved to be guilty. But they could do something, and they ought to do something. In the opinion of the Governor of Reading Gaol they ought to do something towards mitigating this confinement, and he (Mr. Walter) thought the rules which his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary proposed to lay before the Committee should have particular reference to these four points—first, the mode of confinement; second, diet; third, the amount of exercise; and fourth, the access of the friends of untried prisoners. He believed the county gaol of Reading was one of the best ordered gaols in the country. It was one of the model gaols built some 25 years ago, when attention was first drawn to this subject. The difficulty was that in all gaols there was no distinction between the cell of a prisoner who was awaiting trial and the cell of a convicted prisoner. He thought something might be done to obviate the idea that the cell in which an untried prisoner was detained was a criminal cell. In Reading Gaol any prisoner before trial who could afford it might have food supplied to him by his friends. The scale of diet allowed to untried prisoners was the highest scale allowed to convicted prisoners. He suggested to the Governor of that prison whether it would not be well if for untried prisoners such a common-place thing as tea or coffee were provided instead of gruel. The Governor said that would be a reasonable improvement. With regard to exercise the case was this—every prisoner before trial had four hours' exercise in the day. He was not required to do any work, but if he wished to work for his own improvement he was allowed to do so. There was a rule for facilitating all reasonable access of his legal advisers. With regard to access of his relations or friends, there had been a question whether or not a grille should be interposed between the prisoner and them. That was a precautionary matter; but he (Mr. Walter) thought some relaxation should be made in the case of a man's wife or children wishing to see him. He merely called the attention of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to these
    350
    points, because they were entirely matter of detail. Whether or not the rules which his right hon. Friend would make would be adequate would depend upon the intimate knowledge he had of these matters.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that it was much to be regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary should have failed, as he had pleaded, to consult those whom he must know as the future Prison Commissioners, with respect to the Rules, which were to have such potent effect under this Bill, seeing that he had had this Bill long under consideration, having introduced its counterpart last Session. He (Mr. Newdegate) was surprised at an observation the Home Secretary had made in reply to his former observations; in seeking to justify the power sought for himself under this Bill, he had referred to the fact that visiting justices could make rules under the existing Act, but he omitted all mention of the fact that the visiting justices were a delegation of the quarter sessions, to which court they were responsible, and further, that all the notes they made were subject to the revision of the Secretary of State. But who was to revise what the Secretary of State had done? This Bill proposed to group prisons and to remove prisoners to a great distance from their habitations and their friends. Therefore the Committee was doubly bound to guard the interests of these untried men.
    MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, that when this question was last before the House, it was adjourned to give the Home Secretary time to prepare the necessary rules. [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS intimated his dissent from that statement.] He did not desire to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, but the Committee understood that it was the intention of the Government to frame rules. Why would not the right hon. Gentleman say what part of these Amendments he proposed to accept. These Amendments were not mere crude proposals, because they had been prepared with great care by Equity and Common Law counsel, and had been submitted to, and approved by, more than one Secretary of State. Indeed, they were far from being as crude in form as was the Amendment placed upon the Notice Paper by the right hon. Gentleman himself.
    DR. KENEALYsaid, he had no desire to apply to that House the expression of a great poet of the last century, to the effect that "Wretches hang, that jurymen may dine," and therefore he must beg the Committee to listen to a very few arguments in support of the great principle embodied in the Amendment. Hon. Members had wandered far away from the Amendment which was really before the Committee, and had been discussing a number of prison rules with which they had nothing to do at that particular moment. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan) simply amounted to a declaration of the existing law of England, which was that every man should be deemed innocent until he had been proved to be guilty. No untried prisoner ought to be subjected to any restraint beyond that necessary to secure his attendance at his trial, or to any menial or disgraceful work. He could not see why the Home Secretary should not accept the Amendment, embodying as it did the principle of perfect right and justice.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYwished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there was a great difference between an important principle and a mere rule of practice adopted in different gaols. The Amendment involved the great principle that no man should be subjected to any inconvenience beyond the mere restraint of his liberty, or compelled to perform any menial office until he had been convicted of a breach of the law. That, as the hon. Member for Stoke (Dr. Kenealy) had said, was a great principle which was recognized by the law of England. It was not always carried into effect, as he need not tell hon. Members who were acquainted with the duties of magistrates. Even in Middlesex, untried prisoners had been subject to great inconveniences. If this great principle had been always adopted in practice, those things which horrified the House and the country, and which had been described by two hon. Members from Ireland, would not have occurred. He appealed to the Home Secretary to accept the principle of the Amendment, and then bring in his own rule or regulation, which he had no doubt would be framed in accordance with any assurance he might give the House. It was a wholesome thing, in his opinion, that
    352
    the House of Commons should affirm the principle that no prisoner untried should be subjected to any unnecessary hardship. Indeed, he did not think that such a principle needed discussion. It was one that any Government should receive with open arms, and the Home Secretary would be doing honour to himself and the House by accepting it without further discussion.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMON,who had also placed an Amendment upon the subject upon the Paper, observed that some of the statements that had been made tonight must have brought a blush of shame to the cheek of every Englishman. The eyes of the country would now be open to what was going on in our prisons under what we fancied was a humane and civilized system of prison discipline. Believing that the Amendment would meet that state of things he should give it his support.
    MR. GOLDSMIDobjected to power being conferred upon Home Secretaries, no matter how much they were trusted by the country, or how properly such trust might be reposed in them, to repeal Acts of Parliament by rules which they might choose to lay down. If rules in relation to management of prisons were to be laid down, let them be included in a Schedule to the Bill, with the understanding that they should at no time be altered without having been first submitted to Parliament.
    MR. PARNELLpointed out that neither of the two Amendments under consideration, either that of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan), or the new one proposed by the Home Secretary, governed the case of those prisoners not accused of any offence whatever, but arrested and held in prison under the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, as was the fate of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan). He would ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he meant deliberately to except those prisoners from those rules or regulations to be adopted? Were there not only unconvicted, but unaccused persons to be excepted? The hon. Member for Limerick had given an account of his sufferings while in prison, and he was sorry to say he met in some instances with laughter. ["No, no!"] He was willing to believe the laughter arose from no ill-feeling or desire to evade the question to which his description was directed.

    353
    It was important the Committee should know what the experience of a prisoner in such a case was, and, with the permission of the Committee, he would read a few extracts from a speech of the late Mr. G. H. Moore, Member for Mayo, when he applied for a Select Committee to inquire into the treatment of untried prisoners. Mr. Moore, in quoting Mr. O'Sullivan's experience, said—
    "He was arrested on the 5th of March, 1867, taken twenty-one miles to Kilmallock the same night, taken before a magistrate, and was sent to prison as a Fenian agent. Five days after he had been arrested the governor of the prison informed him that he had received the Lord Lieutenant's warrant for his detention. He was not allowed to write to his wife, or to write to anyone of the nine firms for whom he did business, though he represented that the ruin of his business would follow from his not being able to write to his employers. On the night of his arrest he was put into a bed the sheets of which were black with dirt, but when he complained of the dirt he was told that the sheets could not be dirty, because the last man who slept in them had only committed an assault. He asked to be allowed to wear his trousers during the night, but was refused, and stripped naked to search him, and his clothes, with the exception of his shirt, were thrown outside the cell. He could not sleep in consequence of the thinness of his covering, and had to get out of his bed during the night with cramps. [Laughter.] He (Mr. Moore) did not see what there was in this description to excite laughter. The warder called the petitioner Sullivan,' and when he said there was an O' to his name, the warder asked him how dare he dictate to him, and ordered him into his cell, and the governor deprived the petitioner of that day's exercise."—[3 Hansard, cxcvi. 1161–1162.]
    There were other details of the same character, and he thought if there was one thing upon which the Committee should deliberate, it was such treatment as this of untried prisoners. There was no more painful part of a magistrate's duty than the remanding a prisoner to such treatment. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would accept the proposal and avoid the necessity of a division.
    MR. H. B. SHERIDANhoped the right hon. Gentleman would not force a division without saying something respecting the principle involved in the Amendment. If an alteration of the wording of it would meet the objections of the right hon. Gentleman he would consent to such alteration. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the principle of the Amendment. Unless he did, he (Mr. Sheridan) would exhaust all the Forms of the House in opposing the passing of the measure.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYwished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman accepted fully the two principles contained in the Amendment—that a prisoner should be detained merely and not subjected to hardship, and that he should not be required to perform menial offices.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, the hon. Member by his side (Mr. Sheridan) was ready to withdraw his Amendment if he received a simple assurance from the right hon. Gentleman upon this point—not that there should be a difference of treatment, that would not be satisfactory—but that the principle governing the detention of untried prisoners should be that merely of keeping them in safe custody.
    ASSHETON CROSS,did not think he could give a much stronger expression of opinion than he had done already—namely, that it was expedient a clear difference should be made between the treatment of prisoners awaiting their trial and the treatment of prisoners convicted for crime. In order to secure the observance of such difference rules should be drawn up regulating the detention of prisoners awaiting trial so as to make it as little oppressive as possible "due regard only being had to their safe custody and the maintenance of order in the prisons and the physical well-being of the prisoners."
    SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEthought that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan) would do himself great injustice by not accepting the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. It would be quite open to him, if he had occasion to do so, to object to the rules to be framed under the clause.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONobserved that the recital to the clause did not carry out the object which the right hon. Gentleman had in view. If he would consent to add to another section words embodying the principle of the Amendment, he believed that such a course would be satisfactory.
    MR. MACDONALDconsidered that it would be most objectionable to place in the hands of the Secretary of State the power of making special rules.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSobserved that the House would have a control over the rules, inasmuch as they must be laid on the Table before the Act came into operation.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, that the words "maintaining order and discipline" were full of danger, and under them the very hardships of which they complained might be inflicted.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOT,having carefully examined the Amendment, felt bound to give it his support.
    MR. MELDONalso supported the Amendment, remarking that if it should be rejected, the Bill would very probably undergo a series of obstructions, which would be most disagreeable to the Government.
    Amendment (Mr. O' Sullivan) agreed to.
    Question put,
    "That the words 'Provided always, That no person in custody, untried and unconvicted, charged with crime or misdemeanor, or in custody in consequence of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, shall be subject to any restraint in his personal liberty, other than may be necessary in cases of remand to secure his attendance before the magistrate by whom he is committed, and in cases of committal for trial to secure his attendance before the court by which he is to be tried; and no such person shall, previously to trial, be compelled to perform any menial office or duty in the gaol or place of detention in which he is detained, or be otherwise subjected to the discipline of such gaol or place of detention applicable to persons found guilty by the verdict of a jury,' be there added."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 108; Noes 145: Majority 37.—(Div. List, No. 42.)
    MR. H. B. SHERIDANmoved in page 8, at end, add—
    Such persons to retain possession of money, papers, &c., under their control at the time of their arrest, unless same constitute evidence of the charge.)
    "Provided also, That every person charged with crime or misdemeanor shall be allowed to retain possession of any money, property, books, papers, or documents in his possession or under his control at the time of his arrest; unless such money, property, books, papers, or documents shall, in the opinion of the magistrate by whom he is remanded or committed, constitute evidence necessary for the complete investigation or trial of the charge brought against him; and in the event of the committing magistrate being of opinion that such money, property, books, papers, or documents do constitute such necessary evidence, the same shall in cities and boroughs be placed in the possession or under the control of the superintendent of police appointed for the district, and in counties in the possession or under the control of the chief constable appointed for the county or division in which the person charged resided at the time he was arrested, or in which he was arrested."
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSexplained that under the Act of 1865 a prisoner on entering the gaol was deprived of all valuables found upon his person. The gaoler took charge of them and restored them when he was dismissed from custody. It would be altogether inconsistent to allow a prisoner to keep in his possession money which ho might use in bribing the warders. He quite agreed in the object of the hon. Member for Dudley, but he thought it could be better attained by rules than by enactment in the Bill.
    MR. GOLDSMIDsuggested the propriety of each prisoner being supplied with a copy of the rules on entering prison, because it frequently happened that warders made their own rules; or, if that could not be done, then that a complete copy should be hung up in each cell.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he agreed with the suggestion of the hon. Member.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that the rules which the Home Secretary had placed upon the Paper were quite as definite as could reasonably be expected, and he therefore could not support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dudley.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that prisoners should be allowed to state to their relatives how they were treated.
    DR. KENEALYreminded the Home Secretary that if police or prison officials disappeared with money or valuable property belonging to the person taken into custody, the latter had no redress against the Treasury, or against anybody. He suggested that when a prisoner was apprehended, his money and valuables should be immediately remitted to the office of the magistrate, who should be left to deal with them at his discretion.
    SIR GEORGE BOWYERdoubted whether it would be expedient to pass such a clause, because it would be difficult to know what articles in the prisoner's possession might turn out to be material for the purpose of bringing the offence home. He thought it would be best, on the whole, to leave a discretion in the hands of magistrates.
    MR. MACDONALDsupported the Amendment. He said the present mode of treating those that were merely changed with an offence was disgraceful. They were called upon to submit to all

    357
    manner of indignities that took from them their self-respect, and made them almost begin a career of crime. He mentioned a case in which £50 was taken from a man who was apprehended, but turned out afterwards to be innocent, and within a few days this man's wife and children had to go to the relieving officer. He thought some provision should be made for supplying money to prisoners families.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, so far as property was concerned, he thought that must be dealt with by a separate Bill, probably in the Summary Jurisdiction Bill. The Committee was now dealing only with property which a man brought into gaol with him, and that was taken by the gaoler under the Act of 1865. If the prisoner were to request that the money he had brought with him should be sent to his family it would be done.
    DR. KENEALYsaid, he had never known an instance in which the gaoler would incur the responsibilty of parting with the money he might have taken from the prisoner.
    MR. GOLDSMIDadvised the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment, as he thought the Home Secretary had already conceded as much as could with safety be expected of him. He suggested that a list of the property found upon a prisoner should be taken upon his arrest and that a copy of the list should be given to the prisoner.
    MR. H. B. SHERIDANwas disposed to accept the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, but he wanted to know what was to be done with reference to the man's books and papers.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that that was already provided, and he added that by the law as it stood at present an abstract of the rules was to be posted in each cell, and the gaoler was to read, or cause them to be read, within 24 hours. The visiting justices would hear the complaints of prisoners. In regard to the question of books and papers, he admitted it to be worthy of further consideration, and it should have his attention.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that the prisoners distrusted the visiting justices, who in turn distrusted the prisoners. He thought that the Amendment should be carried, and he should certainly vote for it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. H. B. SHERIDANthen moved the following Proviso:—
    (The counsel of such persons to have free access to them at all times.)
    "Provided also, That the counsel and attorney of every person in custody charged with crime or misdemeanor shall have free access to such person at all times, and the relations and all persons who may be required as witnesses for the defence of the person charged shall be entitled to see him at any time between ten in the morning and four in the afternoon. All interviews between the counsel, attorney, relations, and immediate friends of the person charged and such person shall, except in cases of felony, if he or they require it, be strictly private, and the privacy of such interviews shall not upon any pretence whatever be interfered with.'"
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment, but would accept in its place that which he himself had given Notice of upon Clause 35, where it was provided that the Secretary of State should have power to make special rules regulating the communications between a prisoner, his solicitor, and friends.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill,"
    MR. NEWDEGATEasked through what agency prisoners were to be traced when their place of imprisonment was not known? In case of convicts they knew of but one agency by which that could be accomplished, but in gaols there was no corresponding agency. Were the clerks of the peace or the clerks of assizes to undertake the duty.
    MR. WHITBREADrecommended the establishment of places of detention for untried prisoners.
    MR. H. B. SHERIDANsuggested that funds for the purpose might be got out of charitable bequests left for poor prisoners.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKheld that houses of detention would necessarily be prisons, and worked by prison authorities.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Bill proposed that there should be a gaol in each county unless the Secretary of State gave satisfactory reasons to Parliament for leaving the county without; but in some cases the gaol of another county would be nearer a prisoner's home and friends and more convenient of access; and in that case a prisoner might be sent to such gaol:

    359
    and when a man was removed out of his county it was intended that his friends should be informed where he was confined and where he would be tried. A record would be kept both at the gaol from which a prisoner was removed and at that to which he was taken, and information about him would be obtainable at both. Care would certainly be taken that untried prisoners were placed in no worse position than they were in at present as regarded detention and trial at a distance from their homes and friends; and it might be desirable in some cases to provide houses of detention which would be less costly than gaols, because the same staff would not be required for them. Bequests for debtors or prisoners would continue to be administered in accordance with the terms of the bequests; certainly the Bill would not vest them in the Home Secretary.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 21 (Confinement of prisoners after conviction) agreed to.
    Clause 22 (Confinement of debtors and prisoners who are not criminal prisoners) agreed to.
    Clause 23 (Saving as to commitment of prisoners) agreed to.
    Clause 24 (Legal custody of prisoner).
    MR. H. B. SHERIDANmoved that no untried prisoner shall be retained in gaol for a longer period than three months, and that if ho be not then brought to trial he shall be discharged unless an application be made to the High Court of Justice for an order for his detention on the ground that from want of the necessary evidence it was impossible to bring him to trial sooner. Innocent persons had sometimes been exposed for 10 months to the intolerable hardships of prison life.
    THE CHAIRMANthought the Amendment was not germane to the clause, and that, if it came within the four corners of the Bill, it must be moved as a new clause.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 25 (Allowance to discharged prisoners).
    MR. SAMPSON LLOYDmoved, in page 9, line 30, after "Commissioners,"
    360
    to insert "on the recommendation of the visiting committee," his object being that the visiting justices should have an interest in the distribution of the funds which were granted to prisoners on their discharge.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he wished that the justices should still take an interest in this matter, and suggested that instead of the Amendment proposed, the words should be "upon the recommendation of the visiting committee or otherwise."
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    SIR JOHN KENNAWAYmoved, in page 9, line 31, after "or," to leave out to end of Clause, and insert—
    "may order a like amount to be paid to the treasurer of a certified Prisoners' Aid Society on the gaoler receiving from such society a certificate in writing, signed by the secretary thereof, that the same has been applied by the society for the benefit of the prisoner;"
    and he contended that that course would be much better than that proposed in the Bill, and submitted that it was now adopted in regard to convicts' gratuities.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSdid not think that the Amendment would conduce to the good working of the Prisoners' Aid Society, and contended that the State must have a control over the money spent.
    MR. CHILDERSasked, whether it was wise to give these payments statutory effect, and suggested that the Government should deal with them like all others, and ask the House for a Vote in Committee of Supply.
    MR. WHITBREADsupported the Amendment moved by the hon. Baronet (Sir John Kennaway).
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSbelieved that under the clause in its present shape the visiting committees would come to some understanding by which the grants would be applied tolerably equally all over the country; whereas if the Amendment were adopted there would be very great diversity in regard to the amount of money given in different localities.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SPENCER STANHOPEmoved, in page 9, line 32, after "society," to insert "or refuge." There were many of these refuges which were doing good

    361
    work, and which could not be self-supporting.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in assenting to the Amendment, said that, provided the institution was certified under the Act, he did not care what name it went by.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. ASSHETONmoved, in page 9, line 34, at end, add—
    "and in addition thereto the Prisons Commissioners may further provide any prisoner with the means of returning to his home or place of settlement by causing his fare to be paid by railway, or in any other convenient manner."
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it was unnecessary to insert the Amendment, as the proposal involved in it was already the law.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    As to Jurisdiction.
    Clause 26 (Jurisdiction of sheriff, coroner, and other officers) agreed to.
    Clause 27 (Sheriff not liable for escape) agreed to.
    Clause 28 (Prisoners under sentence of death) agreed to.
    As to Discontinuance of Prisons.
    Clause 29 (Power of Secretary of State to discontinue prisons.)
    MR. ASSHETONmoved, in page 10, line 35, to leave out from "provided" to "order," in line 37, inclusive.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, lie should have two important matters to attend to in the working of this Bill. The first was the question of expense, and the next was the question of the prisoners themselves. The fewer the gaols were, the more cheaply could the Bill be worked. But, on the other hand, he was sure he should be inflicting a grievous hardship on a great number of people, especially those who were waiting for trial and those who were in custody for debt, if ho took them a very long way from their homes and also incurred considerable expense in sending them back again. Therefore, on the whole, having considered the matter very carefully, he thought it was wise to
    362
    put in the Bill a provision that there should be prisons, generally speaking, in every county. There would be prisons and prisons. In many counties the prisons would be places simply for the detention of prisoners awaiting trial. Such prisons would not require the usual staff of officials.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he foresaw from the beginning that the Bill would not be worked with the economy with which it was said it would be worked. There could be no doubt that prisoners who had been tried and sentenced to a few days' imprisonment with or without hard labour, would be sent to those prisons which the Home Secretary described as mere places for the detention of prisoners awaiting trial, and that would involve the necessity of providing the usual staff of prison officials.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. WHITWELLmoved, in page 10, line 37, after "his order," to insert—
    "made after a vote in favour of the discontinuance of such prison has been passed in quarter sessions by a majority of the magistrates for such county then present."
    The clause involved a financial difficulty, upon which the justices ought to be allowed to negotiate with the Home Secretary.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSexplained that the difficulty had no real existence.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 30 (Effect of discontinuance of prison.)
    MR. FRESHFIELDsaid, this clause allowed prison authorities to redeem prisons on the payment of a sum of money within a period of three months. He thought this period should be extended at the discretion of the Home Secretary, and therefore moved, in page 11, line 4, to leave out "three months," and insert "a period not less than six months, to be prescribed by the Secretary of State."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved, in page 11, line 10, after "Act," insert—
    "and on repayment by such authority of any compensation it may have received out of

    363
    moneys provided by Parliament in respect of its having provided a prison of its own more than adequate for the accommodation of the prisoners belonging to such authority."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. PAGETmoved, in page 11, line 37, after "authority," to insert—
    "then any such other prison or prisons belonging to such authority shall either be re-conveyed to such authority to sell or dispose of as they shall think fit, or, if such prison or prisons be continued by order of the Secretary of State, then shall be paid by the Treasury to such authority a sum equal to one hundred and twenty pounds in respect of each certified cell in any such prison or prisons so continued."
    He maintained that if the second gaol were maintained for Imperial purposes, it ought to be paid for by the State.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the county gaols were too large for present purposes, but if they had been erected with a view to the probable increase of the criminal population the Treasury would pay at the rate named; but if they were not constructed with that view, but were only sufficient for present purposes, the Treasury would not pay for them.
    MR. PAGETstated that was no concession at all. It might do very well in districts where there was an increasing population; whereas where the population was almost stagnant, many of the gaols would simply be discontinued.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Status of Prison Officers.
    Clause 31 (Position and duties of existing officers of prisons) agreed to.
    Clause 32 (Discontinuance of prisons and abolition of office within a year) struck out.
    Clause 33 (Superannuation of officers and abolition of office after a year.)
    MR. FRESHFIELDmoved, in page 13, line 28, to leave out "after the expiration of one year after the commencement of this Act."
    Amendment agreed to.
    EARL PERCYmoved, in page 13, to leave out line 39 and insert "in respect of which payment has been made out of
    364
    rates and." In a case known to him, where the Governor of a gaol had been appointed after many years' service in the police, the gaol might be abolished and the Governor would receive little or no compensation under the clause. His view was that now that these officers were about to be transferred to the State they ought to receive greater consideration than those who would be appointed by the Imperial Government for the first time.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSwas afraid that in the interest of the ratepayers he could not accept the Amendment.
    EARL PERCYsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment and bring it up again on the Report.
    MR. SAMUDAcalled attention to the hardship that would be inflicted on superannuated officers of prisons if the clause remained in its present state. He asked that they should be allowed to remain on the same footing as existed at present.
    SIR WALTER BARTTELOTmoved the omission of the latter part of the clause, which proposed that the annuity granted to prison officers should be apportioned between the period of service before and after the passing of the Act, that portion of the allowance payable for service before the passing of the Act to be paid by the local authorities of the prison where the officer was serving at the commencement of the Act. He thought it would be very dangerous to place at the disposal of one man such a large amount of patronage as the Home Secretary would possess supposing the clause to pass in its present shape. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that the visiting justices had done their duty with respect to the selection of officers of gaols, and he now proposed that one year after he had taken the gaols into his hands it should be in his power to say who amongst those Governors and other officers he would retain. Every one of the officers of the gaols might be thrown on the rates of the county by the arbitrary power of the Secretary of State. That was not a power which should be entrusted to any man.
    Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 1, to leave out from the word "any," to the end of the Clause.—(Sir Walter Barttelot.)
    MR. ASSHETON CROSScould not accept the Amendment. There had been a very great number of very excellent officers who had served the country for a great number of years. Because the Secretary of State was to take over all the gaols at a given date, it would not be fair to take the whole burden of pensioning men, who had for perhaps 30 years served the county, from the county and throw it upon the Treasury. If a certain number of gaols were struck off a certain number of gaolers must be struck off also; but there was not the slightest desire to get rid of these men, and he would offer every inducement to the best men to remain in the service as long as possible.
    MR. FRESHFIELDmoved, as a counter Amendment, that certain words should be left out of the same section of the same clause which related to the apportionment of the superannuation allowance or gratuity between the period of service before and the period of service after the Act. The effect of the Amendment would be to remove the scale fixed by the Bill, according to which the annuity should be divided between the county authority and the Treasury.
    ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that this Bill would be a great financial relief to the counties; but if the Treasury wore to be attacked first of all for the prisons, then for the superannuation fund, and then goodness knew what would come next, the result would be that the gaols would be left just as they were now.
    MR. FLOYERthought it would be most unfair to the counties to charge them with any superannuations beyond those which would naturally under the old system have fallen upon them. If the 32nd clause had remained he could have supported the 33rd; but as that had been struck out he should be obliged to vote for the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Baronet.
    MR. CHILDERSasked whether the Government intended to work the clause so as to enable the Treasury to apportion superannuation charges between the Imperial Exchequer and the counties?
    Question put,
    "That the words 'any annuity by way of superannuation allowance or gratuity under this section shall be' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 220; Noes 58: Majority 162.—(Div. List, No. 43.)
    Clause, as amended, agreed to
    As to Miscellaneous Matters.
    Clause 34 (Relaxation of the law relating to hard labour.)
    MR. PARNELLmoved that the Chairman report Progress, on the ground that at that time of the night hon. Members could not transact business with that careful attention which was desirable.
    MR. BIGGARsupported the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." — (Mr. Parnell.)
    MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped the hon. Member would not persevere with his Motion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) had an Amendment on the Paper, and when that was disposed of he should not go further.
    MR. J. GOLDSMIDthought the question of reporting Progress might be compromised, if the right hon. Gentleman would conclude with Clause 35.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSassented to this suggestion.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENthought on an important question of this kind—a question in which so many hon. Members were interested—Progress should not be reported; and, if reported, he should certainly vote against it.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYconcurred in the opinion that Progress ought not then to be reported.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he would withdraw his Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 35 (Rules as to treatment of prisoners before trial, and prisoners confined for nonpayment of sums in the nature of debts), agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
    House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Justices Clerks (28).
Select Committee—Public Record Office (21), nominated.
Second Reading — Committee negatived — Third Reading—(£700,000) Exchequer Bills and Bonds, and passed.

TURKEY—THE CHRISTIAN SUBJECTS OF THE PORTE—TREATIES WITH GREAT BRITAIN.

  POSTPONEMENT OF MOTION.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he had given Notice for that evening to move—
  "For Copies of all the Imperial decrees capitulations, and conventions of any kind which entitle Great Britain to intervene against abuses in the government of the Porte and. in favour of the races subject to it, without reference to the Treaties formed after the Crimean war for

  307
  upholding the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire."
  He understood that the negotiations between this country and Russia were still going on, and that while they were pending there could not be a discussion on his Motion without the greatest inconvenience. He therefore begged to postpone his Motion till the first day on which the House met after the Easter Recess.

THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE PROTOCOL—SIR HENRY ELLIOT.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, I have given private Notice to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that I would make a Motion for Papers relative to Eastern Affairs. As the noble Lord (Lord Campbell), who had given Notice that he would this evening move for the production of Papers relating to the Christian subjects of the Porte, has postponed that Motion, I will now make a formal Motion that there be laid on the Table of the House certain Papers showing what has transpired with reference to the Eastern Question since the presentation of the last Blue Books. Having given Notice to the noble Earl, I may be permitted to address to the House a few words on the general subject. I cannot but feel that with regard to the Eastern Question certain Papers which would tell us what has taken place since the meeting of the Conference should be at the disposal of your Lordships. If we may trust public information, something like an understanding has been come to; and if that is the case, I should like very much to know what it is. We are led to conclude that what the Government primarily desires is the peace of Europe, and not the protection of the Christian subjects of the Porte. I, for one, would not stand a single moment in the way of peace; but I believe that the feeling of this country would be entirely against the signing of a Protocol of this kind if the main question is entirely forgotten. The peace of Europe, so far as this country is concerned, is regarded as a secondary consideration; the first and main one is that the Christian subjects of the Porte should be more fairly governed, and that the undertaking which has been given should not be allowed to pass on the bare promise that reforms will be carried out. The signing of the
  308
  Protocol might bring about peace, but would leave Turkey perfectly free to act towards the Christian population just in the same manner as she has hitherto done. I believe myself that the Government have been perfectly consistent up to the present time in the policy they have adopted, and have refused to put their hands to anything that means coercion either now or in the future: but the result of that will be that there will be no change in the shameful treatment of the Christians in Turkey. The Government have contented themselves with giving advice couched in the strongest terms as the only pressure to be brought upon Turkey. I believe that pressure—moral pressure, or moral persuasion, call it what you will—brought to bear on the Ottoman Government, will have no effect in securing for those Provinces what the Great Powers at the Conference declared to be necessary, and the effect of such a Protocol as it is understood the Government are about to agree to will be to let all the efforts of the Conference fall to the ground without issue. Whatever else may happen, I cannot believe that this should be the only outcome of the expression of public opinion in this country during last October—for little has been said comparatively with regard to the subject since. The heart of the people is still sound on this particular point. I do not believe that England will consent to put herself into such a ridiculous position as that, after having at thousands of meetings denounced in the strongest language the Turkish oppression of these Provinces to have been such as to justify us in putting all our Treaties with Turkey on one side so soon as this Protocol is signed, no more should be heard of the justice of the case. Even if it be true that since the time this question was discussed the requirements of the commerce and trade of this country and throughout the world have taken possession of the mind of the people, I do not think that what appears to me a matter of such moment should be allowed to pass without some protest, even if it be from a single voice. So much for the English view of the Protocol. I must take it that the Protocol has been approved and signed by Russia; but I cannot conceive that such a document will be satisfactory to the Russian people. If it has any meaning at all, a strong change must have been

  309
  wrought in the feeling of the people of Russia, which has been so stirred in behalf of the Slav cause. I am one of those who, up to this time, have had faith in what was declared to be the Imperial policy at Moscow It is seldom, indeed, that promises of that sort are made by the head of a great nation; but those promises having been made, I cannot believe that the present policy of Russia is only to retire from the position she has placed herself in, nor that, after the strong expression of feeling manifested throughout the whole of Russia, the mere acceptance of a Protocol by the guaranteeing Powers can be considered satisfactory to that country. I understand that the question has been asked already whether Sir Henry Elliot, our late Ambassador at Constantinople, will return to his post; and, although the Government have stated that it is intended a temporary arrangement shall be made, it has not been definitely stated that Sir Henry Elliot is not to go back; and I cannot conceive anything more disastrous to the high standing of this country, or more in opposition to the general feeling of the people, than that such an official should find himself the trusted Ambassador of this country again. He has manifested on more occasions than one a strong feeling in favour of the Turks. It was at his advice, we are told, that the fleet was sent to Besika Bay for the protection of the Christians at the time the revolution broke out; but, in my opinion, if a few companies of infantry had been sent to the scene of action, that would have had much more effect than all the ironclads put together. I am far from speaking in any sense hostile to the Government; but, in my opinion, the fleet was sent to Besika Bay for the moral support of the Turks, and not for the protection of any portion of the Christian population. Subsequently, the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary has informed the Porte, in the most decisive language, that in consequence of the atrocities committed in Bulgaria, the Turkish Government can no longer look to the moral support of England. But, notwithstanding that declaration, and the strong language used by our special Ambassador at the breaking up of the Conference, Sir Henry Elliot, when taking his leave at Constantinople, expressed his hopes that when he came back, as he expected very
  310
  soon to do, he should find Turkey prosperous. He could not understand how, after the language of our Plenipotentiary at the Conference, the Government could think of sending back Sir Henry Elliot to Constantinople, and thus placing England in so false a position in the face of Europe. With the Constitution just proclaimed the position of the Porte at the present moment is such that any interference in her affairs would be most justly resented by her. The only thing she has offered in return for your Conference, for your advice, and for the protection you have extended to her, is this: she has declined them altogether, and decided to stand upon her own footing; and with that Europe is bound to be content. If that is the case, the whole sufferings of the Christian Provinces are forgotten, and Turkey is in the same position she was before. She can let loose her passions as before, she has nothing to restrain her. She cares nothing for the public opinion of Europe, and, as a matter of fact, she has never enjoyed greater independence than she possesses at the present moment. There is little hope for Turkey, and I trust that the Government will not again enter into negotiations with her unless this question is settled in a satisfactory manner. If the Plenipotentiary and Ambassador came away diplomatic relations must have been broken off, and why they should have been renewed since I cannot understand. Turkey is faithless and bankrupt, and no relation should be held with her until the wrongs of her Christian population have been redressed.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he must express his opinion that the course adopted by the noble Earl was not a right one. He could not think it regular, convenient, or just to attack a man without Notice. He was not himself acquainted with Sir Henry Elliot; but he had no doubt there were noble Lords who would have come down prepared to defend him had Notice been given of the attack just made on him. Again, he protested against what the noble Earl had done as inconvenient and most unfair and unjust; and he ventured to express a hope that such mode of procedure would find no favour in their Lordships' House.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, that there was a Notice on the Paper relative to Eastern Affairs.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: Yes—but not by the noble Earl who has just spoken.
  THE EARL OF DUDLEYsaid, that having given private Notice that he would move for these Papers, he did not think he was out of Order in making a few remarks. If there had been the slightest expression of opinion on the part of the House he would have desisted; but he believed that the observations he made were couched in such general terms that they could not be construed into a personal attack upon the Ambassador.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I must say, notwithstanding the disclaimer of the noble Earl, I feel with the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) that the course adopted by the noble Earl is one, to say the least of it, singularly inconvenient as regards the transaction of Public Business, not warranted by the forms or customs of the House, and, under the circumstances existing in this case, is of great unfairness to an individual. It is perfectly true that the noble Earl (the Earl of Dudley) gave private Notice to me of his intention to move for Papers—which, by the way, he has not moved for—in connection with the Eastern Question. Of course, I could not and did not object to his doing so; but it must be obvious to all your Lordships that for a noble Lord to give Notice of a Motion which is not on the Paper, and the terms of which do not appear on the face of the Notice, and thereon to enter upon a discussion of a subject of great magnitude and importance, must be highly inconvenient. The only person who had Notice of the noble Earl's Motion is myself, and certainly I did not know, and could not suppose, that he was about to enter into a general discussion of the whole Eastern Question. My Lords, we have discussed this question on three occasions within the last six weeks, and I think, therefore, it is all the more unreasonable and inconvenient that the noble Earl should, under the form of a formal Motion for Papers, come down and enter into the subject of the negotiations between this country and Russia and call upon those who represent the Executive of the country to give explanations on matters of Imperial policy. I shall not ramble over the wide field traversed by the noble Earl, but I must say that I think he has not been very accurate in his
  312
  language. He wants to know why our diplomatic relations with Turkey, if they were broken off, should be renewed, and if we were right in breaking them off, how we are justified in renewing them? If the noble Earl had taken the trouble to read the Papers, he would have found that diplomatic relations never have been broken off with Turkey. So far from that, when we agreed with the other Powers to withdraw our Ambassador we almost went out of our way to make it clear to all concerned that we did so merely as an expression of our feeling at the failure of the Conference, and that no rupture of diplomatic relations with the Porte was intended or implied. The noble Earl then went on to express opinions in which I do not think he will find any one to agree with him, either in or out of this House. He protested against the understanding come to, or about to be come to, between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Russia. How can the noble Earl know what that understanding is? That, I think, is a question which only he himself can answer. No result has yet been arrived at in the negotiations, on which we are still engaged, and if the noble Earl is acquainted with the result at which we are to arrive I can only say that he knows a great deal more than I do or than any other Member of the Cabinet. The noble Earl next says that the peace of Europe is only a secondary consideration, the primary one being the good government of the Christian Provinces of Turkey. I think the noble Earl can scarcely have reflected before he used that language. I hope I do not undervalue the importance of good government in the Christian Provinces of Turkey; but it must be obvious to any one that a single month—I might almost say a single week—of a European war would bring in its train far greater horrors than any which have occurred in the Turkish Provinces. I will not enter into a discussion, which I am certain your Lordships would feel premature and out of place, on the nature of the Protocol we have been invited to take part in. Its wording and the conditions on which, if signed, it will be signed are still under the consideration of the Cabinet; and in this, as in all similar cases, we act with the responsibility which attaches to the advisers of the Crown. Any steps which may be taken

  313
  shall not be kept secret one hour from this House and the country; and upon them, when they are taken, we shall be quite prepared to invite the opinion of Parliament. I really do not know what is the standard or measure of policy or impolicy in the mind of any one who regards the maintenance of European peace as a secondary affair; but I think that whatever opinion I might entertain of the Turkish Government, if I were addressing the House as an independent Member, I should think twice before I used language so likely to have the effect—if it should have any effect at all—of irritating and exasperating the Russian people against the pacific policy which, to its honour, the Russian Government is showing itself willing to adopt, and so calculated to increase the difficulties of friendly Governments, and to postpone, if not to defeat, that solution of the question which we all desire. I have only one other remark to make, and it is as to what the noble Earl said in regard to Sir Henry Elliot. He was well answered on that point by the noble Duke who spoke opposite (the Duke of Somerset). I do not think that—at any rate in this manner—Sir Henry Elliot ought to have been attacked. It is not just that an able public servant, disabled temporarily from the performance of his duties by the very efforts he has made during the last 12 months, in spite of ill-health, to perform those duties efficiently, should be attacked without the warning which would have enabled him to meet the charges made against him, and without notice to those who would have been ready to defend him. For my part, I do not know in all the diplomatic service of this country one public servant more assiduous, more industrious, or more public-spirited than Sir Henry Elliot. If there is such a feeling abroad as to his disqualification for a high diplomatic position as appears to be present in the mind of the noble Earl, I can only say I heartily wish that those who hold that opinion would have the courage to assert it, and to assert it in a form in which it could be submitted to the judgment of Parliament. I do not think I need trouble the House further. In regard to the Papers which the noble Earl announced his intention of moving for, I may say some further documents are preparing for publication, and we shall be ready to lay them
  314
  on the Table at the earliest convenient moment.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATH: I do not think the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has any cause to complain of this question being brought forward, as the noble Baron (Lord Campbell) opposite had a Notice referring to the subject on the Paper for to-night, and that Notice was only withdrawn at the last moment. On the contrary, I think the noble Earl (the Earl of Dudley) was perfectly justified in bringing this important question before the House. The noble Earl the Foreign Secretary has told us that the withdrawal of the Ambassadors from Constantinople was not to be understood as a breaking off of diplomatic relations, but as an expression of opinion on the part of the Governments at the failure of the Conference. Well, if it was necessary that the opinion of this country in regard to the failure of the Conference should be expressed by the withdrawal of our Ambassador, has the opinion of the Government in regard to the failure of the Conference changed, that they should now send their Ambassador back to Constantinople? If there was any meaning in his withdrawal at that moment there must also be a meaning—but a contradictory one—in sending him back at the present time—especially if it is done without concert with the other Powers. A proceeding of that description appears to lay the Government of England open to the charge of not acting in a straight-forward manner towards those Powers with whom, during the Conference, they expressed their desire and anxiety to act. I think the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary has also done great injustice to the noble Earl opposite. That noble Earl said that he wished here to make his protest against any agreement being come to by which the wrongs of the Turkish Christians should be left unredressed. I do not wish to dilate now upon that point; but the Foreign Secretary seemed to wish to turn what the noble Earl opposite had said into an expression of indifference on his part to the maintenance of the peace of Europe. Now, if peace can only be secured by leaving the Christian populations of Turkey under that horrible government and in that wretched condition in which we know they are at present, I doubt much whether peace is worth preserving at that price. The real fact is—and the noble

  315
  Earl must know it—that whatever agreement you may come to, and whatever I terms you may make that do not ensure the real pacification of the Christian Provinces, you will fail to secure the permanent peace of Europe. To think that, with Montenegro discontented and Bosnia and the Herzegovina in insurrection, you can now sign a Protocol which can be—I will not say a panacea for all the evils under which they are suffering—but which will prevent further disturbances in that country, or connected with it, is a belief that I do not think the Government can be blind enough to hold. I must say—anxious as I should be to support the Foreign Secretary, and regretting, as I do, to have to say anything in criticism of his policy—I cannot help thinking that if last year, when what was called the Berlin Memorandum was presented to this country for signature, the noble Earl had looked at the whole importance of the questions involved; if he had grasped in his mind all the interests that were affected by it; if he had then adopted a different policy, and sought to secure the peace of Europe by insisting on that of Turkey, we should not now be discussing, as we are, this question, not knowing from day to day what may happen, and hardly knowing what we ourselves are wishing.
  LORD DENMANrose to speak, when—
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would point out to your Lordships that there is no question before the House.
  LORD DENMANsaid, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack seemed to think that he had the same power as the Speaker of the House of Commons, but he had no power over "an independent Member," and he would move the adjournment of the debate. With respect to Sir Henry Elliot, an irregular Question was asked by the noble Earl on the front Opposition Bench (Earl Granville), and answered by the noble Earl Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, as to that Ambassador. It bad been stated that he would have returned to his post, as requested, if his health had permitted, but that no temporary successor had been appointed. He (Lord Denman) ventured to think that during his temporary absence a man like Sir William Mure, who had been 40 years on excellent terms with Mahomedans in India, whilst not indifferent to the truths of Christianity, as
  316
  the report of a recent meeting in Edinburgh would show, might do good service at Constantinople. With regard to Sir Henry Elliot, he (Lord Denman) thought that distinguished diplomatist might say of himself—
  "Ille potens sui
  Lætusque deget cui licet in diem
  Dixisse, Vixi eras vel âtra
  Nube polum Pater occupato,
  Vel sole puro: non tamen irritum
  Quodcunque retro est, efficiet; neque
  Diffinget infectumque reddet
  Quod fugiens semel hora vexit."
  Moved that the House do now adjourn. —(The Lord Denman.)
  On Question, agreed to.

  PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE BILL [H.L.]
  Select Committee on: The Lords following were named of the Committee:—

  Ld. Chancellor.

  E. Sydney.

  D. Somerset.

  E. Redesdale.

  D. Bedford.

  L. Brodrick.

  M. Bath.

  L. Rayleigh.

  M. Ripon.

  L. Rosebery.

  E. Devon.

  L. Houghton.

  E. Shaftesbury.

  L. Hartismere.

  E. Malmesbury.

  L. Hatherley.

  E. Powis.

  L. Selborne.

  E. Harrowby.

  EXCHEQUER BILLS AND BONDS (£700,000) BILL.
  Read 2a (according to order); Committee negatived; then Standing Orders Nos. XXXVII. and XXXVIII. considered (according to order), and dispensed with; Bill read 3a, and passed.
  House adjourned accordingly at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.