Sitting of 5 July 1879

MINUTES.
— PUBLIC BILL — Committee — Army Discipline and Regulation [88]—R.P.
The House met at half after One of the clock.

QUESTIONS.
  SCOTLAND—DUNBAR HARBOUR.

    QUESTION.
    LORD ELCHOasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, having received the engineer's report upon the state of Dunbar Harbour, he is now prepared to state what course he proposes to take with regard to it?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, in reply, said, that the old harbour of Dunbar had never been supported in any way, either by public grants or otherwise, from the public accounts; and looking, at the Act, which required certain local contributions to be made in addition to any grant from Government funds, the Government thought it within their powers to sanction an expenditure of £5,000; and the Treasury accordingly had addressed a letter to the Provost of Dunbar, offering to provide funds for the repair of Victoria Harbour, on condition that the locality undertook the
    1548
    restoration of the old harbour. The engineer's estimate of the cost of the necessary repairs was — for Victoria Harbour, about £5,000; and for the old harbour, about £2,000.

    THE LATE PRINCE IMPERIAL—LIEUTENANT CAREY. — QUESTION.
    SIR ROBERT PEELasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the inquiry, which is reported in the papers to have taken place in Zululand, into the unfortunate occurrence which resulted in the death of the Prince Imperial, is an "official inquiry" or "court of inquiry;" what is the distinction or difference to be drawn between an official inquiry and a court of inquiry; and, whether the Government have received any information on the subject; and, whether it is the result of such official inquiry or court of inquiry that a court martial is now about to be held on Lieutenant Carey?
    COLONEL STANLEY, in reply, said, he would answer the first part of the Question first, because he thought that that would dispose of the whole. The court martial appeared to have been ordered on Lieutenant Carey as the result, as far as he understood, of a Court of Inquiry which had been held locally; but the official inquiry which the right hon. Baronet referred to, or intended, probably, to refer to, was what he (Colonel Stanley) mentioned the other day, when he said directions had been sent out to make ample inquiry into the matter. Those instructions he did not think could possibly have reached the Colony at the time the order for the court martial was made; and, therefore, he thought the inquiry which had taken place was a local inquiry.

ARMY — MILITARY PRISONERS — CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CALLAN: I wish to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War a Question, of which I have given him private Notice. The Question I wish to ask is, Whether it is a fact that the senior officer in command of a military district—such, for example, as Weedon—on a complaint being made of the misconduct of any prisoner, has the power to order a punishment of not exceeding twenty-five lashes; and, if it

  1549
  is not so, whether there was such power a few years ago?
  COLONEL STANLEY: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to repeat his Question on Monday, when I shall be in a position to answer it.

ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL—THE CAT-O'-NINE-TAILS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PARNELL: I beg to ask the honourable Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) a Question, of which I have given him private Notice, with reference to the specimen cats now in the custody of the Sergeant at Arms. I wish to ask him, Whether those cats 3vhich are now on view, and in the custody of the Sergeant at Arms, bear any other endorsement or endorsements, or bear the same endorsement or endorsements, which they bore when the hon. Member for Dundalk inspected them the other day at the Admiralty; and, if not, whether any change has been made in the endorsement or endorsements on these cats; if so, I wish to know, what is the nature of the changes which have been made?
  MR. CALLAN: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Question, of which the hon. Member for Meath gave me private Notice three hours ago, I have to say that alterations have taken place on the endorsements of two of the cats, one only being unchanged. That which is called the "Navy cat" is the one which has not had the endorsement changed. When I first saw it, and now, it bears the endorsement—" Pattern of Navy cat, approved by the First Lord of the Admiralty, 7th December, 1877; by the Marine Office, 10th December, 1877—G. W. Rodney, Deputy Adjutant General." With respect to the other cat—the cat which came from the Duke of Wellington—when I first saw it at the Admiralty it bore the endorsement—" Navy cat from the Duke of Wellington, 25th June, 1879; Her Majesty's Dockyard, Portsmouth." To that endorsement an addition—and, I think, no one will deny an important addition—has been made. The words " never used " have been added. Those words were not upon the cat when I inspected it at the Admiralty; and if they had been I should have considered it to be my duty to mention it when I drew the attention of the
  1550
  Committee of the House to it the other day. The endorsement on the other catwas—" Specimen cat, used many years since. Her Majesty's Dockyard, Portsmouth, 26th June." That endorsement, and the paper upon which it was written, have been entirely removed, and a new paper and a new endorsement substituted for it. The cat now bears the endorsement—" Cat approved for use on board Her Majesty's ships for Seamen and Marines." That endorsement has been substituted for—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Question of the hon. Member for Meath was scarcely regular, because it did not refer to any Bill or Motion before the House. He did not feel bound to interfere before; but now that the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) had proceeded to make a statement which might lead to an argument, and which might be controverted, he felt that in that respect it would be going beyond the limits allowed in replying to a Question.
  Mr. CALLANsaid, he accepted the decision of the right hon. Gentleman at once. He was merely endeavouring to answer the Question that had been put to him, and was not travelling one inch beyond the fact that another instrument had been substituted.
  LORD ELCHO: In reference to the Question that has just been asked by the hon. Member for Meath—
  MR. SPEAKER: I have already pointed out that any discussion upon it is out of Order.

SOUTH AFRICA — THE ZULU WAR — NEGOTIATIONS WITH CETYWAYO.

  QUESTION.
  SIR ROBERT PEELasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any information from the Cape confirming the report that Lord Chelmsford has refused to entertain proposals from Cetywayo for peace until certain conditions have been complied with?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF TUE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, that he himself had not received the information to which the right hon. Baronet referred, and he was not aware that such information had been received by any Department of Her Majesty's Government.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL.— [BILL 88.]
  (Mr. Secretary Stanley, Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. William Henry Smith, The Judge Advocate General.)
  ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL.— [BILL 88.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 3rd July.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    Military Prisons.
    Clause 131 (Establishment and regulation of military prisons).
    Amendment proposed, in page 70, line 15, after the word " correction," to insert the words "not exceeding twenty-five stripes in the case of corporal punishment."—(Mr. Sullivan.)
    Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "stripes," in order to insert the word " lashes,"—(Mr. Secretary Cross,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, " That the word 'stripes' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    MR. CHAMBERLAINrose for the purpose of making a request to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department to withdraw his Amendment, in order that an Amendment which stood on the Paper in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) might be proposed to the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman would see that if his Amendment was first disposed of, and the words which he proposed to insert were inserted, it would be impossible for his hon. Friend the Member for Meath then to bring forward his Amendment. Under the circumstances of the case, and in consequence of events that had taken place, he thought it would be desirable that the hon. Member for Meath should have an opportunity of bringing forward the Amendment which stood in his name. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that a short time ago, when this subject was under discussion, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War made an appeal to the Com-
    1552
    mittee, which it was very difficult for the Committee to resist, and which was also supported by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition (the Marquess of Hartington). He stated that if the Committee felt any confidence at all in him, they ought to leave the administration and the settlement of such details as the nature of the instrument by which punishment was to be inflicted to him. Unfortunately, after what had taken place in the Committee on Friday last, they could no longer allow this question to rest in the hands, even of the most honourable and most humane of Secretaries of State for War. They found that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had so much business to attend to that he had no time to make himself acquainted with details, but had been misled by false information, which he had received from subordinates; and, under these circumstances, it would put the Committee in a wrong position if matters were left in their present position. It would be within the recollection of the Committee that in the previous discussion which had taken place upon the subject, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, in reply to a question of the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan), assured them that the instrument which was used for inflicting these punishments was a cat-o'-nine-tails without knots. Now, the question whether the cats were with or without knots upon the nine tails was one of very great importance. It depended upon that whether the punishment, which they all regretted should be administered, should be administered consistently with the dictates of humanity—should be as lenient as was consistent with the maintenance and preservation of discipline—or whether, on the contrary, that the instrument intended deliberately to inflict the greatest amount of torture should be that in use in the British Army. Since these statements were made, the right hon. and. gallant Gentleman had admitted that he was misinformed, and that the cat was a cat with knots in the tails. He (Mr. Chamberlain) had been to see the instrument; and he would venture to say that it was simply impossible to imagine a more brutal instrument for inflicting a brutal punishment. The instrument, which had been sometimes referred to as the "Marine cat"—which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had

    1553
    stated was the instrument in use in the Army, consisted of nine tails of thin whipcord, and these had upon them nine or more knots on each tail. There was not the slightest doubt that when that instrument was applied by a powerful man, with a downward motion, in the usual way, every one of those knots would remove a piece of flesh from the back of the sufferer. He thought that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had misled the Committee—unintentionally, of course, but without the slightest blame—and that the punishment that would be really inflicted by this instrument was not the punishment which they had been discussing, or which the Committee had any conception of up to the present time. The punishment which such an instrument would inflict was, he thought, in fact, not one which the Committee would allow to be inflicted. Under these circumstances, and having regard to the feelings expressed on the subject, he trusted that the Government would see its way to re-consider this question, and to ascertain whether it would not be possible to meet those views, and to relieve the British soldier from the possibility of being subjected to this brutal and degrading punishment. He did not think that there was one single argument which had been used in this debate in favour of the punishment of flogging which could not be used with equal force in defence of the thumbscrew. They were there in the 19th century discussing as to the amount of torture which could be inflicted on soldiers, and using instruments which they thought had been discarded altogether. And the punishment they were considering was worse than the thumbscrew; for after suffering the thumbscrew a man could go away without carrying with him in after years permanent marks of his degradation, and losing his self-respect. He (Mr. Chamberlain) did not threaten that if this Bill wont through, in its present form, 500,000 men would meet in Hyde Park; but he did say that if the question were understood in the country—as it was not, owing to the necessarily brief reports published of the proceedings in that House—there would be, and he should say there still might be, a very great and general agitation of the constituencies against the retention of such
    1554
    a brutal punishment for the British Army—a punishment which had been abandoned in every other European State. When the General Election came on inquiry would be made as to the conduct and action of the Government in the matter; and it would be a very difficult question for hon. Members to answer as to how they had given their votes upon the question of flogging in this Bill. He was convinced that the vote which Her Majesty's Government was pushing on was a vote against the convictions of a large majority, and did not represent the real feeling and sentiments of the Committee with regard to this punishment. It only represented the desire of hon. Members opposite to give every support they could to Her Majesty's Government in the proposals it might advance. He believed that hon. Gentlemen opposite, like every hon. Member on his side of the House, would experience a general feeling of relief if Her Majesty's Government could see its way, even at the last moment, to abandon this punishment. An attempt had been made, at different periods during the debate, to describe the opposition which had been made to the Bill as Irish obstruction. He would venture to tell the Government that they were mistaken in supposing that the opposition to this principle of corporal punishment was confined to Irish Members, or that they had any ulterior view in regard to the matter. The feeling, so well expressed by Irish Members again and again, was shared in by English Members; and, so far from the opposition to the infliction of that punishment being confined to Irish Members, the Division Lists would show that many English Members had voted against the retention of the punishment. If Irish Members were guilty of obstruction, he said English Members were decided to adopt the same course—call it obstruction, or systematic opposition, or what they would—and he believed that in taking that course they would be supported by a vast majority of their constituents out-of-doors. He would, therefore, urge the Government to get rid of this stumbling-block in the way. If the Government would but remove it, he would venture to promise them that they would get through the remaining clauses of the Bill in the Committee that afternoon. [" No, no "] Well, he spoke

    1555
    for himself and his Colleagues; but, at all events, he might say that they were prepared to withdraw all further opposition to the Bill, if that objectionable provision were removed. By taking that course the Government would get rid, in a comparatively short time, of everything which could be considered in the nature of obstruction.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not think that the general question of flogging in the Army was well raised on this particular clause, for the clause had nothing whatever to do with flogging in the Army, but only in prisons, whenever by the prison rules it could take place. Flogging in the Army was provided for by the earlier clauses of the Bill; and he should have thought that the better course to have adopted would be to have discussed this question on the Report. With regard to the proposition that had been made to him by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), the Government would give every facility for the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) to move anything he might wish. But the fact was, that the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) had an Amendment upon the Paper, which could not be accepted in its present state, and to that he (Mr. Assheton Cross) had proposed an Amendment to alter the word " stripes " to " lashes." If that were done, the matter would be settled; and, therefore, he should suggest the insertion of his Amendment in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Louth.
    Mr. HOPWOODsaid, that he should be sorry to commence a general discussion upon this subject; but he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would see its way to intimate to the Committee some considerable modification in its views. He hoped that the Government would yield upon the matter. If that were done at that moment, he really did think that his lion. Friend's (Mr. Chamberlain's) prognostication would be realized. For his part, he must disclaim any desire to block or obstruct the Bill; hut, so far as they had obstructed it, their opposition had been justified. Her Majesty's Government had yielded, in many important particulars, after a considerable amount of pressure; and he thought that they ought, therefore, to make an allowance
    1556
    for them, and to consider that they were justified, to the full extent, in what they had done: for if they had not opposed the Bill to the full extent of the means in their power they would not have succeeded so far as they had. Could not Her Majesty's Government hold out some hope to them that what was urged upon them from all sides of the House should be seen to? He was sure that the question would grow; and that a number of hon. Members who now voted for the retention of this punishment would have cause to regret that they had done so.
    MR. RYLANDSthought it would be well for the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department to consider the point which had been raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain). If the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman were not withdrawn, it was clear that the effect of its adoption would he to preclude the proposal of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) being brought forward.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSthought that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was mistaken as to the effect of the proposal which he had advocated. He (Mr. Assheton Cross) would further point out that the Amendment, to which his own proposal was an Amendment, was entirely in the hands of the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), and could not be withdrawn, except with his sanction.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, that it could be withdrawn, with the consent of the Committee; but that consent could not be given, as the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) was not then present.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper which he gave Notice of last night, the object of which was to except corporal punishment from the list of punishments which might be inflicted in military prisons. He had an idea that personal correction included a great many other things besides corporal punishment. They had now seen the cats, and were able to see that the prison cat used was of such a severe description as would, in all probability, very materially alter the views of the Committee. If the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Louth was amended by the words pro-

    1557
    posed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, it would preclude him (Mr. Parnell) from moving his previous Amendment, because they would then have agreed to the words " corporal punishment." On the other hand, if the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment, and allow that of the hon. and learned Member for Louth to be negatived or divided against, that course would not preclude him from moving his previous Amendment. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman could be brought forward afterwards, if the Committee decided to retain corporal punishment in gaols. That appeared to him to be the only course by which the Committee could be enabled to come to a decision upon corporal punishment in gaols in view of the new evidence that they had had that day. Then, if the Committee still decided to retain corporal punishment in gaols, they would have the advantage of the reduction of lashes proposed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department; whereas, if the right hon. Gentleman went on with his Amendment, they would be placed in this position—those who desired the abolition of corporal punishment would be compelled to oppose his Amendment to reduce the number of lashes. The only fair way, in his (Mr. Parnell's) opinion, was for the right hon. Gentleman to allow the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Louth to be negatived, then he could take the sense of the Committee upon the question of corporal punishment.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that he had always been willing to give the Committee all possible information in his power. When he had spoken on this matter he had always asked the Committee to remember that he spoke with the responsibility of the maintenance of discipline in the Service. He thought that if hon. Gentlemen opposite looked to the discussion throughout, they would feel that in what the Government had thought it its duty to advocate it advocated from a sense of duty—he might put it more plainly, that there was as much humanity on one side of the House as on the other. That being so, he might go one step further, and say that it would not escape observation that he, perhaps, deserved some little censure for
    1558
    not having placed upon the Table of the House the Schedule which he had promised. In deciding upon that, they had to remember, on the one hand, that they must insist upon carrying out strict discipline under all circumstances of the Service; and, on the other hand, that they could not refuse the military authorities the means by which alone, under certain circumstances, they could carry it out. He was not in a position to make any statement upon that occasion; but, having carefully considered the matter with his Colleagues, he would ask the Committee to receive an assurance from him that when he came to move the Schedules—the words " corporal punishment" having already been agreed upon—when they came to those Schedules, it would be his duty to make a statement that he had no doubt would be satisfactory to the Committee. He must point out, at the same time, that the chief point that arose in his mind was that discipline must be such as could be carried out in the field as well as at home. If persons would look at the recorded opinions of men like Sir Charles Napier, Sir Garnet Wolseley, the Duke of Wellington, and others, they would see that discipline in the field must be prompt, and in some cases must be severe. He would quote from recollection that Count Von Moltke, speaking in the German Parliament upon a point of discipline, said that punishment should be " sure and sharp," and he could not agree with those who thought that punishment should be " short and mild." With this explanation of his views, he would ask the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Parnell) not to raise the general question until they came to the Schedules, when he trusted that it would be in his power to give some explanation to the Committee.
    Mir. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that he was sure hon. Gentlemen would acknowledge that he had imputed nothing in the nature of want of humanity to hon. Members opposite. He had heard with satisfaction the statement that the right lion and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had made, and which he hoped augured the intention of Her Majesty's Government either to abolish flogging altogether, or to reduce it to a minimum. He would point out that the remarks of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman were rather outside

    1559
    the question raised by this Amendment. He was dealing with the question of discipline in the field; but the discipline to be enforced upon soldiers in the field was an entirely different question to the discipline to be enforced upon them in prison. He did not think that there would be any difficulty in coming to a decision upon this matter; for the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had expressed his willingness to facilitate the matter. They desired to abolish corporal punishment in the military prisons. The argument in favour of corporal punishment in the field did not apply to soldiers in prison. That was a question which, in the first instance, they desired to raise. If they failed to bring over the Committee to their views, they were anxious to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who was willing to reduce the punishment which might be inflicted. If the course which he (Mr. Chamberlain) had suggested were taken, then, when they had divided upon the Main Question, they would be able to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSwould only point out that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) was not under his control; but on the understanding that that should be negatived he would consent to take the course suggested.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, he had heard with great pleasure the words of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, and he was sure that what he had said would shed a ray of hope through the country, which would be terribly disappointed if the expectation was not fulfilled, as he (Mr. Hopwood) had little doubt it would be fulfilled, by Her Majesty's Government.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, there was one point in the otherwise very satisfactory speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to which he (Major Nolan) wished to allude. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that by means of corporal punishment alone military discipline could be maintained in the field. How was it they found that discipline could be maintained in the Armies of foreign States—in the German, in the
    1560
    Russian, in the French Army—without flogging? With regard to the quotation from the speech of Count Von Moltke, he had read it; but he did not think he went so far as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to think. Ho could not help contrasting it with an observation in The United Service Gazette of a recent date. Great importance was attached to that paper, because it was well known that a gentleman connected with it was a great authority on German Army matters. There was a statement in that paper that during the wars of 1866 and 1871 there was not a single German shot or flogged for any breach of discipline. It seemed to him (Major Nolan) that that matter not only disposed of the necessity of flogging, but disposed of the very great argument which had been put forward by the opposite side of the House to show that if they did not flog they must shoot. They knew that there were facts connected with The United Service Gazette which made it extremely probable that any statement put forward by it upon the German War would be perfectly correct. If it was true that in the wars of 1866 and 1871 no German was ever shot or flogged, he thought that the argument that discipline could only be maintained by flogging, and if they did not flog they would have to shoot, fell to the ground.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he also had heard with great pleasure the exceedingly satisfactory remarks made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. He would like to say one word, however, upon the general question, because he did not suppose that it would now be brought forward to any great extent until they had heard the promised statement of the Government. He had not taken part in the discussions on the Bill, as he had not much knowledge upon the subject; but he had watched it, during its progress, with very great interest: and he really believed that the time was come when it would tend both to promote the discipline of the Army and be to the general advantage that this punishment should come to an end. He thought that if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War could abolish this punishment it would be better for the discipline of the Army and for its general interests.

    1561
    If it was to be done at all, it would be infinitely better that it should be done by the Government themselves, if they possibly could do it. He made these remarks entirely in a conciliatory spirit. It was impossible to sit opposite the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, and the other Members of the Government, and not to feel that they disliked this punishment as much as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen did upon this side of the House. He had no doubt whatever that the Government had been informed, by many persons concerned in the administration of the Army, that it was exceedingly difficult to keep discipline up without this punishment. But, on the other hand, they must remember that they had to raise an Army out of a free country. This was not the punishment of a civilized country; it was a barbarous and disgraceful punishment. Their great object was to raise the status of the Army. He thought the Government and the Horse Guards should have some trust in the Army of the future, and that they should believe that they would get on better without this punishment than with it. At all events, the result of these discussions had been very much to limit and curtail the punishment, and to place it under the strongest possible safeguard, and there could not be much doubt that it would be very little used, even if retained. They could not, however, suppose but that the question as to the retention of the punishment would be raised year after year on this Bill coming annually before Parliament until it was abolished. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would see their way out of these difficulties by informing the Committee, in their promised statement, that they had decided to abolish the punishment.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he was bound to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that a discussion upon corporal punishment generally did not arise on the clause then before the Committee. The clause they had under consideration only referred to the infliction of the punishment in prisons.
    MR. M'LARENsaid, he had taken very little part in the discussion. He desired, however, now to express his most earnest hope that Her Majesty's Government would give way to the feel-
    1562
    ing of hon. Members on both sides, and would abolish flogging altogether.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he had also heard, with the very greatest pleasure, the assurance of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. In corroboration of some views that he had lately expressed, he would mention the fact that the news of the flogging of men of the Connaught Rangers at the Cape was, as he had expected, producing a wide-spread agitation throughout Ireland.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the question of flogging in the field, to which the hon. Member was referring, was not raised upon the Question before the Committee.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he would not pursue the subject further at that time.
    Amendment (Mr. Secretary Cross), by leave, withdrawn.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was not the custom to allow an Amendment to be withdrawn, unless on leave being asked by the proposer, or by someone expressly authorized by him. The proper course to be taken would be to negative the Amendment, if the hon. Member proposing it should be absent, and had not authorized anyone to withdraw it in his name.
    Amendment (Mr. Sullivan) negatived.
    MR. PARNELL, in rising to move, as an Amendment, in page 70, line 17, after " correction," to insert " excepting corporal punishment," expressed a hope that the Government would see its way to accept it. During the very interesting discussion upon the Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock) on Thursday last, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was good enough to say that he thought there should be some clear distinction between the prison treatment of soldiers convicted of breaches of military discipline and the prison treatment of soldiers convicted of crimes of a disgraceful or immoral character and all offenders against the ordinary laws of the land. He (Mr. Parnell) was encouraged, under these circumstances, to hope that the right hon. Gentleman might see his way, if not to accept his (Mr. Parnell's) Amendment in its entirety, yet to except the punishment

    1563
    of flogging from the punishments that might be inflicted for breaches of prison discipline upon military prisoners confined for breaches of military discipline. He would be content to leave to the regulations of the Prisons Act the treatment of offenders, whether military or civil, who might be convicted of offences against the laws of the land of a disgraceful kind. He thought that prisoners who committed offences of a disgraceful kind against military law should be in the same position as other civil offenders. But he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would agree to except from the same prison discipline soldiers not convicted of those crimes, but merely breaches of discipline. Since this matter was discussed on the last occasion, they had seen specimens of the prison cat; and he thought that every hon. Member who had seen the cat would admit that it was an instrument of punishment that ought not to be allowed to be in use anywhere. The handle was exceedingly heavy, and the lashes were exceedingly long, and there were a number of solid knots upon it, which, when the punishment was inflicted by a powerful warder, were calculated to make a very considerable lacerated wound. The cord of which the lashes were composed of was of an unusually hard description, differing from any other cat inspected by hon. Members. This instrument seemed to have been expressly designed to inflict as much pain and punishment as possible by means of an instrument of that character. He merely mentioned this as an additional reason why, in the case of soldiers merely confined for a breach of discipline, and not for an offence of a disgraceful and immoral character, they should not be made liable to be punished in this manner. To the prison rules now under discussion he (Mr. Parnell) had moved an Amendment against the punishment of flogging altogether; but the Committee decided against him, and the punishment was retained—limited, however, to 36 lashes. The right hon. Gentleman himself now proposed to limit it, in the case of military offenders, to 25; but it appeared to him (Mr. Parnell) that for the sake of argument, admitting that there was any ground for the continuation of flogging in the Army—he did not really admit it—that could not be considered a reason why the punishment should be retained in prisons, especially
    1564
    military prisons. They had a soldier in prison, entirely under their control, and they had no difficulty in inflicting any punishment upon him. They did not want him to do duty, neither were they anxious to punish him so that the sight of his humiliation should exercise a salutary influence upon the other soldiers. The men were always flogged in private, and not before their comrades, and by the ordinary rules many other punishments could be inflicted. They could put the prisoner in solitary confinement by order of the magistrates or visiting justices, even in a dark cell; they could nearly starve him—that was to say, put him on bread and water for 14 days, and reduce him, so as to render him perfectly amenable to the discipline they desired to keep up in the prison. There was, therefore, no shadow of a ground, as far as he could see, for the retention of this objectionable mode of punishment, much less for its application to soldiers who had not been guilty of crimes in themselves disgraceful or immoral, but in the character of breaches of discipline merely. Some slight breaches of military law were punished by committing the soldier to prison for 40 days; and was it right if, while he was confined in prison ho happened to lose his temper, and make some irritating disrespectful observation to a warder, or even strike him, that he was to be flogged for that? Surely that could not be allowed to continue. Ho trusted that the Committee would think that he had made out a good case for the abolition of this punishment with regard to the class of criminals they were now dealing with, and he hoped that his proposal would be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was perfectly willing to put imprisoned soldiers on the same footing, and under the same restrictions, as any other prisoners. But that was all that he felt able to do at the present moment. 'The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), with a very few verbal alterations, would practically do all that had to be done. Corporal punishment, of course, could not be inflicted for light offences; and it was only for repetition of offences, or for very serious offences, that the gaoler was entitled to inflict this punishment. It was absolutely necessary, for the pro-

    1565
    tection of the warders, that there should be this power of punishment. He entirely agreed with hon. Members opposite that it should be used as little as possible; and so strongly did he feel that, that only quite lately he sent out a Circular to all the gaolers, that this punishment was not to be resorted to, and the Visiting Justices were not to be asked to sanction its infliction, except in cases of absolute necessity. He could not go further than that at the present moment; and he must ask the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) to consider that since they discussed this question in 1877, he Mr. Cross) had appointed a very careful and excellent Commission to consider the whole question of prison discipline. He could only say that if they could recommend, after careful consideration of the matter, that this punishment should be abolished, he would immediately give effect to that recommendation. Until, however, he had received their Report, and saw what they were prepared to do, he would not be justified in making a change of that hind. The Commissioners had gone very carefully into the matter; and if, as a. consequence, they were of opinion that this punishment should be done away with, he would certainly follow their advice: but until that advice was presented to Her Majesty, in the House of Commons, he did not feel justified in making any alteration in the present system. Therefore, he hoped this matter would be allowed to stand over until that Report was presented. As to the instruments in use, ho wished to explain that there was formerly a different kind of cat in use at the prisons. The Commission of 1872 or 1873, however—a Royal Commission, of which Lord Grey was Chairman—recommended an alteration, because, in their opinion, that cat was not severe enough for the purpose for which it was necessary: when, in consequence of that, his Predecessor in Office authorized the use of the particular cat which had been employed ever since.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he could not but admit that the statements by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War and by the Secretary of State for the Home Department had altogether changed the circumstances under which they approached the consideration of this question. He
    1566
    felt for himself—of course, he was only entitled to speak for himself—that it would not be justifiable in them to continue any further opposition, at the present stage, to the flogging clauses of this Bill. He sincerely hoped, therefore, that his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) would be contented with the assurance that he had just received, and would withdraw his Amendment. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had stated that the prisoners could not be punished except for serious offences. He begged to call his attention to one of the prison rules, which enacted that for the following offences, committed by prisoners convicted of felony, and sentenced to hard labour, corporal punishment should be inflicted. Amongst the offences named were the following Repetition of insulting or threatening language to any officer or warder of the prison." That might be a serious offence; but, on the other hand, an ill-tempered gaoler might report language which would not justify this severe punishment. Again, a second clause included wilfully and maliciously breaking prison windows. Surely, to break a prison window was not an offence to justify a severe flogging. He only called attention to the matter, however, with the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would deal with it.
    MR. E. JENKINSsaid, he would like to perfectly understand what it was the Secretary of State for the Home Department had offered. As he understood, his hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) had pointed to the fact that there was a class of persons who, after having committed certain offences, were liable to corporal punishment; and what he desired to know was, whether it was clearly understood that the right hon. Gentleman would narrow the right granted under this clause to make regulations with regard to the flogging of soldiers in prisons, and would agree that soldiers should be put on precisely the same footing as other persons?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS, interrupting, said, what he proposed was, to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), which then would run something like this—
    " Nor authorize corporal punishment to be inflicted for any other offence, or for an offence

    1567
    for which such punishment could be inflicted in prisons, under the Act of 1865."
    MR. E. JENKINSthought that they wanted also the insertion of the words " under such circumstances."
    MR. RYLANDSthought it was not quite satisfactory to the Committee to be told, as a justification of the continued use of this very objectionable instrument, that it was determined upon by a previous Commission. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance with regard to the cat employed in the prisons.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the whole question of the cat employed in prisons would have been considered before but for the appointment of the Commission, to which everything had been referred; but for that Commission the question would already have received his consideration.
    MR. BIGGARdid not think his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) should withdraw his Amendment. The assurances that they had received from the right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches were of the vaguest description. The right hon. Gentlemen simply confined themselves to generalities. They said, what was no doubt very true, that they were personally very much opposed to this system of flogging; but then they sheltered themselves behind the decisions of former officials, and of the private recommendations of persons who were not responsible to the House, and of whom the House did not know. In opposing a clause of this sort, their primary duty was to see that the instructions given were so explicit that no mistake could be made, and that their views should be entirely carried out. With reference to prison discipline, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department constantly protested, in the most vehement terms, during the passing of the present Act, his desire to act with humanity to prisoners, and his desire that they should be treated in a very lenient manner. But in all that discussion he did not tell them that the cat was in use in prisons, such as had been described to them that day. It was thoroughly different to the one in operation in the Army. Seeing that this system of prison discipline was carried on as it was, he (Mr. Biggar) thought the right hon. Gentleman, in spite of what any Com-
    1568
    mission might report, ought to give way; because, after all, a Commission had only to take evidence and make recommendations. The right hon. Gentleman would be able to carry out their recommendations, which, after all, were simply the opinions of so many gentlemen. He (Mr. Biggar), himself, would be very much in favour of fighting this question on this broad issue to a final settlement. His reason was, that persons in gaol were very much worse treated in the matter of flogging than anyone outside; because they were, in the first place, utterly powerless, and without any public influence to support them. In places of that kind, they ought to be treated with much more humanity than in the case of soldiers in the field. Yet they found that this prison cat was a much more terrible weapon than any other cat, and it could be used for very trivial offences; besides which it could be used without coming under the gaze of the public, and without being subject to public opinion, as were the cats used in the Army and Navy. To say that a man was to be flogged to death, as he might very probably be, with such an instrument as they had seen in the cloak-room, for using what a prison warder might be pleased to call insulting language. seemed to him to be a thing which could not be maintained. In short, it seemed to him that those persons who supported such a proposal must surely wish that there should be no British Army; or, that if there was to be a rank and file, that it should consist of men of the vilest description possible.
    SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, after the statement they had heard that afternoon, there could be no doubt the Government were about to yield to the opposition which had been raised. No one could doubt, who had watched the last meetings of the Committee, and had seen the diminished opposition the Government had felt it necessary to give to this system of punishment, that their opinions had altered under the opposition of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Ho must say that the statement made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department was one of a very serious character; because, although no one would doubt the kind and amiable character which distinguished that right hon. Gentleman, still there was a point in his

    1569
    statement which showed how absolutely desirable it was that further limitations should be made to the use of the cat. The right hon. Gentleman stated that if the military prisoners should be treated as civil prisoners, surely it was unjust that men, simply because they were soldiers, should be subject to a harsher system—
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, they never were; but as the clause was drawn it would have permitted a harsher treatment than had been given before. His statement was, that he would consent to the insertion of words which should make the treatment of soldiers the same as that of civil prisoners.
    SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that was a very satisfactory statement; and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would take care that this punishment should not be inflicted, unless it was absolutely necessary; but it was clear that if the Committee had not raised opposition—
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSmust again beg pardon for interrupting. He had been entirely mistaken. He had never said he would take care nothing should be done in the future which was done in the past. What he had undertaken to do was to put in words which should, by statute, prevent the soldier being treated more harshly than he had hitherto been treated.
    SIR ROBERT PEELreplied, that he took down the words of the right hon. Gentleman, and he would state what they were. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would take care that military prisoners were put upon the same footing as civil prisoners, and that these punishments should not be inflicted, except upon actual necessity. Now, he had said he was prepared to act upon the recommendation of a Commission which was about to report on the whole question of prison punishments; and if that Commission reported that flogging should be abolished in prisons, that he was prepared to accept that recommendation. Now, would it not be much more gracious if the Government were at once to yield to the Irish Members and their friends on this question, than to hold out any longer? That Commission was sure to report in favour of the abolition of punishments of this character, and it would be far better if the Government would yield before the end of the discussion. Anyone could
    1570
    read that that was coming upon the lines of this discussion; and, in fact, he was satisfied that the Government meant to give way. Then let them do it now. Then the Committee could proceed at once, and the Business of the House could no longer be stopped. He could not resume his seat without expressing, in his own name, and in the name of many thousands in the country, the great satisfaction which would be felt at the determined resistance which had been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite. He spoke not only of those who came from Ireland, but of others who shared their opinions; and he honestly endeavoured, in conjunction with them, to erase altogether from the Statute Book punishments which shocked the feelings of the English people. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had told them that if they abolished this punishment—as he himself believed the Government did intend to abolish it—that it would improve the morale of the British Army. As the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had told them that he would abolish it, if the Report of the Commission was in favour of doing so, he (Sir Robert Peel) could only say it would be far more graceful that the appeals, made night after night for three weeks to the Government, to honestly and frankly say that which they most probably intended to do, should be complied with. It would immensely relieve their supporters on that side of the House. They hardly knew what course to take in the matter. There were many hon. Gentlemen on the Benches near him who listened to the debate, and were prepared to support the Government; but when they saw the Government could not relinquish the position they originally took they were placed in a very difficult position, not knowing whether they should get up and support the Government.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTobserved, that he had listened attentively to the remarks of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel); and he was bound to admit that there was an impression amongst hon. Members on that side of the House that the Government did intend to give way on that question. He was, therefore, going to put a question plainly and directly to the

    1571
    Government, because they had no right to keep hon. Members in that position. He, and other hon. Friends, came down honestly to support the Government, having quite as much regard to humanity as any hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, in that which they believed to be imperatively necessary for the discipline of the Army, which they desired to see maintained with all those traditions and in that high state of discipline for which it had been so remarkable. That being so, they had a right to ask whether it was the intention of the Government to give way; because, if that were the case, Ministers ought not to call upon them to make statements, if at the end the whole question was to be sacrificed, and that it was to go forth at the last that the Government were in the wrong, and that the few Members who opposed them were in the right. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, then, should let them know distinctly, in the necessities of the discipline of the Army, whether he meant to maintain this corporal punishment? With regard to the statement of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), concerning the treatment of soldiers in prisons, he should like to tell that hon. Member that he, himself, had had a very long experience, for he had been a visiting magistrate for over 30 years, and during the whole of that time he was only once called upon to flog in the gaol he visited. That was in the case of a soldier—a French soldier—who had endeavoured to murder, or, at any rate, to violently assault the warders as they came round. He would like to ask the hon. Gentleman opposite whether that was not a proper case, or whether, supposing soldiers put in a prison, under such circumstances, ought to be subjected to any different treatment, or were to be able to combine to take the life, for instance, of the warders of the gaol, without fear of corporal punishment; while other prisoners in the same place would be subject to that punishment? Generally speaking, soldiers in civil prisons were placed there for long sentences for very grave crimes. Why should such men be put in a different position to civilians in that prison? In fact, no discipline could be maintained unless all were treated alike. Again, when the prisoner was brought before the visiting justice by the gaoler, in order
    1572
    to be sentenced to corporal punishment, two visiting justices were required to he present; and they were required to take down, in writing, the evidence of the warders, and of the Governor of the gaol, on oath, and afterwards they must say whether the offender ought to be flogged or not. He would ask the lion. Member for Meath, whether he really thought that men in the responsible position of visiting magistrates in a gaol would be likely, if they could possibly help it, to inflict a punishment of this sort, unless they knew it was absolutely necessary for the maintenance of discipline? It must be remembered that there were a great many prisoners in these prisons with very few persons to control them. If they did not keep up discipline, they might just as well not send a man to prison at all. A good deal of stress had been laid on the cats they had seen in the Oriel Chamber. He was exceedingly sorry these cats were placed there. [Mr. BIGGAR: Hear, hear!] If the hon. Member for Cavan would wait until lie (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had finished, he would not laugh, and cry " Hear, hear !" in that way. The hon. Member had described these cats as instruments of the greatest torture. Well, if they were used in the state in which they were exhibited, they would be instruments of the greatest torture; but he could affirm, as far as he knew anything about it—and he had seen cats used both in the Army and in the prisons—that the cat which was nearest to that used everywhere was the cat which was called the " Marine cat," except that it had no knots on it. That he believed to be the proper cat to be used for all purposes, whether in the Army, Navy, or prisons; and if one cat of that pattern could be adopted for the whole he believed it would be far better, and no one would have a right to complain.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwished to say a very few words on the position in which the Committee then stood in regard to this question of corporal punishment. It had been very frankly admitted, by hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House, that there was no question of humanity on one side of the House or the other. As far as any feeling of humanity was concerned, they were all extremely sorry to have the necessity forced upon them to consider

    1573
    punishments of this sort. On the other hand, the Government were, in this matter, in a most responsible position. They were hound to consider, not only what might be ordinarily the first feeling suggested on considerations of humanity, but they had to consider, also, the maintenance of discipline and the maintenance of proper order under circumstances of very great difficulty and temptation. Therefore, going for a moment beyond the limits of the prison Amendment, and referring to the question of punishments in the field, there could be no doubt that there was a most just susceptibility on the part of the public, and on the part of lion. Members in the House and elsewhere, as to the maintenance of proper order and good conduct amongst our troops in the field and for the prevention of outrages. It was always a matter of great difficulty how they were best to restrain these outrages; and they had to consider if corporal punishment was absolutely and essentially necessary for that purpose. Similarly, in the case of prisons, they had to consider the question of how discipline was to lie maintained; and if they had to subordinate the first emotions of humanity to other considerations in the course of these discussions, the Government had been obliged to maintain and assert a stricter and severer view than that suggested by those who were merely actuated by the first emotions of humanity. His right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, however, had now declared that they were prepared to consider this question as a whole; and his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War had stated that he would be prepared, at a subsequent stage of the Bill, to make a statement to the Committee as to the views of the Government on this matter. Under those circumstances, the hope had been expressed that they might be spared an irregular discussion upon the whole question of corporal punishment, and that they might now consider this question of prison discipline alone. Then, with regard to this question of prison discipline, they were all agreed that military prisoners must be treated in the same way as civilians, and that they could not have two systems of discipline in the same prison, if soldiers were confined with civil prisoners, it was evident they
    1574
    must have the same code of regulations with regard to one class as the other. His right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department had, in fact, stated that lie was perfectly prepared to accept an Amendment carrying that out—an Amendment very nearly similar to that of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), proposed with that object. Then, again, with regard to the question of what those regulations were to be. His right hon. Friend had informed the Committee that that was a question which was engaging his serious attention, and that he had appointed a Commission which was to advise him on the whole subject. He thought that if the Committee looked at the whole matter fairly they must see nothing more than that could be reasonably expected from the Government at the present time, and they might be very well content to leave the matter in the hands of his right hon. Friend. He now earnestly hoped that they might proceed with this business, and not be required to go into a general discussion, over and over again, of corporal punishment. The Committee must surely see that it was far more important and more advantageous to proceed with the Bill, and then, in due time, after the statement of his right hon. and gallant Friend, to again discuss the question.
    MR. CALLANthoroughly agreed that there should be but one system for both civil and military prisoners. Ho was, however, informed that in the military prisons of the present tune the senior military officer in the district, who might be only a captain, could be sent for by any prison official, to go to the prison on complaint of misconduct of any military prisoner, and, at his own discretion, for any ordinary offence, could order the infliction of 25 lashes, without getting any other authority, and without a court martial.
    COLONEL STANLEYreplied, that ho had been asked a question as to that very point a short time before, and he could not at present answer it. His right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department had, however, stated at a very early stage of the Bill, that he was desirous to make the rules in all prisons the same.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERexplained, that the visitor of the prison must be a field officer. He was detailed for a week

    1575
    as visitor, and he was always a field officer.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that his information was derived from an hon. Member of that House (the O'Donoghue), who was not then present. He was informed by that hon. Member that, while he was only a Militia officer, he was sent for to a military prison; a complaint was made to him, and he was asked, in the exercise of his discretion, to order the infliction of 25 lashes, which, to his credit, he declined to do. He was quite sure the hon. Member would not mind his name being given; and he might mention that it was the hon. Member for Tralee, who at the time was serving with the Kerry Militia.
    MR. RYLANDSsimply rose in consequence of the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the opinion which he had expressed that, under the circumstances, hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House should accept the assurance which had been given by the Government, and should be satisfied with it. Now, he (Mr. Rylands) was bound to say for himself that he could not feel quite satisfied with the statement emanating from the Front Bench. Two Members on his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) own side of the House, each of them men of position, had appealed in direct terms to the Government. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tam-worth (Sir Robert Peel) had said what he (Mr. Rylands) and his Friends on that side were quite disposed to believe—that, in watching the course which the Government had taken, it was quite evident that they were intending to yield to what appeared to be the general feeling of many hon. Gentlemen on both sides. He (Mr. Rylands) had no doubt that that feeling did exist, and that it was mute so far as hon. Members opposite were concerned; but, still, he knew there were hon. Members on that side who would not be indisposed to support the views which had been expressed by hon. Members sitting around him. Then the hon. and gallant Baronet, whom they all respected for the independence of his views (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), made another appeal to the Government to tell them its intentions. The hon. and gallant Baronet told them that he entirely disapproved of the tendency which the Government had shown in the
    1576
    direction of more leniency; and he expressed his regret that these cats had been deposited in the House for the inspection of hon. Members. Undoubtedly, however, the opportunity which they had had of inspecting these cats had a most important bearing on this question, because that exhibition proved that Ministers on the Treasury Bench were entirely ignorant of the instruments of torture used in different branches of the Public Service. If that was so, what were they driven to believe? They must believe that what they had felt all through these debates—that the Treasury Bench were under an influence outside the House, not to yield to the pressure put upon them by hon. Members around him (Mr. Rylands). The Government resisted that pressure, and talked about obstruction and waste of public time. For his part, he thought the greatest obstructionists in this matter had been the Government themselves. He could point to hours spent in that House in impressing upon the Government concessions, which, after debates for hour after hour, they had at length conceded. All those debates occupied a large amount of public time. Why were they not conceded before? Because the Government were not convinced that he and his Friends were right in their views? For his part, he believed the Government were convinced at the commencement of these debates, and that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for the Home Department would have given way to the views expressed in the House, but for the influence exercised on the Government outside the House. [" No, no ! "] He was stating what could not be denied. There was an influence in the Army which regulated all these, and overrode the judgment of the Government. He believed a large amount of public time would have been saved if the Government would have exercised their own authority, an authority which was supreme. When they were convinced, they should have at once expressed their convictions, and not have held back, because they were anxious to meet views outside the House, and to justify themselves in the eyes of persons of great authority in the administration of the Army. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished this Bill to pass, let

    1577
    the Government exercise their own authority. Let them yield to the conviction forced upon them, and say at once they would carry it through in the form that had been suggested, and would not have their hands bound down by influences outside the House, which did not appear in the discussions in which they were engaged.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must again point out to the Committee that the Question before it was the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell).
    MR. W. E. FORSTERwished to keep himself as much as possible to the Question before the Committee; but he could not help supporting the appeal of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). He hoped he should not be out of Order in saying his hon. Friends below the Gangway were very much to be congratulated on the success of their endeavours. At the same time, it would be hardly fair to press the Government much more. It was almost impossible that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War could say much more than he had done. If his hon. Friend (Mr. Rylands) was right in supposing that persons outside the House had to be consulted, who were, as he supposed, persons very high in the administration of the Army, they could, indeed, hardly think the Government would consider themselves justified in taking a very prominent step of this kind, without, at any rate, having informed those persons of what they were going to do. He did not think they could expect the Government to go further than they had gone that day. But he did trust that the Government would feel that the progress of Public Business would be very much facilitated, if they would take the very earliest opportunity, after that day, of stating what was their final conclusion. In regard to the question before the Committee, his hon. Friend ought to succeed without any difficulty, for the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department needed only to have the matter brought to his attention to give way; and it was now generally understood that there was to be no difference in the punishment of a soldier because he was a soldier. He understood the right hon. Gentleman most distinctly to say that, and they should rely upon his carrying
    1578
    it out, so far as the clauses of the Bill required, and in administration afterwards.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, although the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) declared that the cats on view outside were not those in use in prisons, he (Mr. Biggar) thought he was justified in thinking that they were, for the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department evidently thought so himself, and explained how that particular cat came to be recognized as the cat of the English prisons. The hon. and gallant Baronet did indeed say that that cat was not in use in his prison. That was a very grave imputation upon the way in which the right hon. Gentleman discharged his duties; for it meant that the general instructions he gave were not carried out as they ought to be. It was very important that they should have all the instructions with regard to this question set out in the most definite manner, and that it should not be left in the least to chance, because the system of flogging men by chance seemed liable to some abuse. Then, again, the hon. and gallant Baronet said the only case where he had ordered flogging was in the case of a Frenchman, who had conspired to murder the prison warders. He thought that that grave offence should not have been settled in a summary manner, but that the man should have been brought formally before the magistrates, and not to the Assizes, when he would probably have got penal servitude for life. He hoped the Government would give them a more explicit statement on this matter. He had listened very carefully, and he did not think the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was very explicit as to what the Government meant to do. It was still a toss-up chance whether they would fight it out, or surrender at discretion. He did not think he had ever heard, in all his experience, a number of speeches more ambiguous than those which had been delivered from the Government Bench on this particular question. Right hon. Gentlemen got up and talked; but when. they sat down they always left him, at any rate, in very great doubt as to what they meant to do. With regard to the treatment of prisoners, he contended that soldiers ought to be treated very

    1579
    much better than ordinary criminals, because a soldier was, at any rate, assumed to be a man of decent character. He should not be expected to consort with men who had been sentenced for crime, and who probably were confirmed thieves. But the Secretary of State for the Home Department had taken credit to himself for saying that he would not treat them worse than any others. Ho did not think the right lion. Gentleman deserved any credit for that statement; and he did think that the Amendment should be argued, and that the Government should accept the Motion of his lion. Friend.
    SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, no doubt the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E Forster) would have an effect, when he urged the Committee to accept the assurances of the Treasury Bench, and to allow this matter to be postponed; and when he added, moreover, that it was almost impossible for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to give information on this point. He (Sir Robert Peel) would point out, however, to the right hon. Gentleman, that last Thursday fortnight they were promised the Schedule of the offences for which flogging was to be inflicted, and yet that was not at present before the Committee. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman said that the Committee should accept a suggestion that this question should be postponed, he did not think they could allow that, in fairness, after the discussion that had taken place. What had they not done by their perseverance? The Secretary of State for the Home Department had only required to have one matter brought before him, in order that lie might yield to the wishes of the Committee. If they might congratulate themselves on the success that they had so far obtained, surely, by a little more pressure, they might now gain, without further delay, the opinion which the Government had promised to give. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would be prepared on a subsequent date to make a statement on this subject. What they demanded was that that statement should be made now. It surely could not be difficult to make a statement of that nature; and he, for
    1580
    his part, did not believe that satisfactory progress would be made with this Bill, unless the assurance was given to lion. Gentlemen on that side of the House, as well as on the other, as to what the intentions of the Government were on the subject now before the Committee.
    MR. O'DONNELLthought that all they had heard from the other side of the House ought to impress on the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) the fact that good Conservatives 11. ere expected to vote straight and ask no questions. He was afraid from what he could see that the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be very satisfactory; and, certainly, the assurances on this especial point given by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, were by no means what he (Mr. O'Donnell) wished. In these cases of flogging in prisons, they had first to consider who were the prisoners to be flogged; and, next, what were the crimes for which they were to be flogged; and, thirdly, what was the instrument of torture with which flogging was to be inflicted. On all those points they ought to receive careful information. He could not but think, when the Secretary of State for the Home Department said ho would draw no distinction between the soldiers who might be incarcerated for purely military offences, and ordinary ruffians, he distinctly went away from the position which the Committee believed he was prepared to occupy some time ago, and that when he now said that he would draw no distinction he receded from the position which his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), at any rate, believed the right lion. Gentleman had taken up some days ago. Then, again, they knew nothing about the crimes for which flogging was to be administered. At least, all that they did know was very unsatisfactory. A prisoner in the gaol could be flogged for using insulting language to a warder. They were told that warders must give their evidence on oath. That washy no means satisfactory, for in every trial which took place, in which prisoners were committed, there was evidence on oath, given against them; yet, in spite of that evidence, the jury did not believe them. Then, as to the instrument with which torture was to be inflicted, he did

    1581
    not think anything could excuse the infliction of such flogging, supposing it was to be continued by such a thoroughly abominable weapon as that which was on the premises of the House at that moment. It was an instrument that might be put in competition with the Russian knout, or with any other instruments of torture known in the civilized, or the uncivilized world. He could not help being struck by some remarks of hon. Members who were examining these instruments of punishment. One hon. Member took up this prison cat, and said — "Well, this is a fearful weapon; but it is not too severe to lay on the back of such a ruffian as a garotter." He (Mr. O'Donnell), himself, might not have been indisposed to agree to a certain extent in that sentiment; but the Committee must remember that not merely were garotters liable to punishment by this cat, but every person who used insulting language to a warder was liable to be flogged with it. Thus, soldiers imprisoned merely for insubordination might get the same punishment. Again, they knew nothing of the offences which were to be punished with flogging, and many of them might be altogether undeserving of that fearful punishment. Thirdly, they had no satisfactory assurance with regard to the weapon to be used. The hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex had made a statement as to the cat he used in his prison, which merely had the effect of conveying a very serious imputation against the uniformity of prison discipline under the Secretary of State for the Home Department. While, therefore, they had good reason to be satisfied with the main assurances of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, he thought those given by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on the special point under discussion, could not give any satisfaction to hon. Members on that side of the House, who had been protesting so long against this system. He was afraid, however, they would get no satisfaction; because influential Members on the Government side who had asked distinct questions on the subject had been thrown over by the Government.
    SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYsaid, that if hon. Members on the Conservative side of the House were to indulge
    1582
    in as much talk regarding that Bill as some hon. Members on the other side, not only would the Bill never get through, but no other Bill would pass the House. The great difference between the two sides of the House was, that while hon. Members on the Liberal side below the Gangway were in favour of abolishing flogging altogether in the Army, they on the Conservative side were in favour of flogging being continued, but surrounded with safeguards, and with an instrument which should not be an inhuman one. They believed the Government would give all that, if they were allowed; but they did not think the way to get these safeguards was by obstruction. He trusted the Committee would now be allowed to proceed with the Bill.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he would endeavour to explain the real effect of his Amendment, as some misapprehension seemed to exist concerning it. It had been misunderstood both by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last (Sir Graham Montgomery), and those who had preceded him. It had not for its object to abolish flogging in the Army generally; but flogging of military prisoners convicted of offences against this Act, which were not of an immoral or disgraceful character—in fact, for breaches of prison discipline while in prison. That was the nature of his Amendment, which he desired to explain to the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he had been in his place, which he was not. He certainly thought that the right hon. Gentleman ought to be in his place at that time, and he did not see how they could come to a satisfactory conclusion in his absence, for he was more concerned in the matter than the Secretary of State for War. It had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) that the Secretary of State for the Home Department was willing to give them all they wished. But he was willing to do nothing of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman had distinctly withdrawn from the position that he assumed on a previous occasion with respect to the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock). The right hon. Gentleman promised then that sentence of imprisonment upon soldiers inflicted by

    1583
    courts martial should be carried out in military prisons only, or if in civil gaols, then entirely separate from civil prisoners; and that only soldiers who had been sentenced by court martial to be dismissed with ignominy at the expiration of their term of imprisonment should be imprisoned in civil gaols with ordinary prisoners. Thus, a very broad distinction was drawn between military offenders and ordinary offenders. What he was now asking the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department to do was to widen his decision with regard to military prisoners. All that the right hon. Gentleman had promised them on the present occasion was, that military offenders should not be treated worse than ordinary criminals. That was a distinct withdrawal from his previous position, and was totally a retrograde step? He (Mr. Parnell) felt very great dissatisfaction at the alteration in the position of the right hon. Gentleman, and he was sorry that flogging for prison offences should not be abolished in the case of military prisoners, who had been convicted of offences not of an immoral, disgraceful, or fraudulent character. The right hon. Gentleman had previously stated that he would agree to a more lenient treatment; but now he said that the only thing he could do was to give this class of prisoners the same treatment as other criminals. This made it necessary for them to urge their views upon the right hon. Gentleman in order to prevent a misunderstanding. The hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had stated that he had never known, in the course of his experience as a Visiting Justice, more than one flogging taking place in prison. But let them take the case of a man who had conspired to murder a warder. For that offence the punishment of flogging, sanctioned by the rules, did not seem to be exactly the right kind of punishment. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had promised to give them military prisons for soldiers; and there would, therefore, be no difficulty in carrying out the proposal which was embodied in his (Mr. Parnell's) Amendment. It had been mentioned by the hon. and gallant Baronet that the Visiting Justices had to inquire into the breach of prison dis-
    1584
    cipline before flogging could be inflicted. But that provision was introduced at his (Mr. Parnell's) instance in the Prisons Act of 1877, and was a concession granted by the right hon. Gentleman. The argument of the hon. and gallant Baronet seemed to be that they could not have two sets of prisoners in a gaol with different disciplines. But it was the promise of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department that these two classes of prisoners should be kept entirely distinct, and, where possible, confined in different gaols. They should remember that some of these prisoners would be confined in prisons not under the right hon. Gentleman, but under the Governor General of India. There was no reason in saying—" We will wait until the Penal Servitude Commissioners have made their Report before we consider the necessity for the abolition of flogging."Those Commissioners were only inquiring into the discipline in penal-servitude prisons, and not in ordinary prisons, to which this provision applied. The hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) had both assumed that flogging was to be abolished in the Army. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford had assumed the same thing. They all assumed it, and he (Mr. Parnell) was very much disposed to assume that, because flogging was to be abolished in the Army, it would also be abolished in prisons. [Mr. ASSIIETON CROSS: No, no !] As the right hon. Gentleman did not agree with that conclusion, it entirely altered the case, and he should be obliged to press his Amendment.
    MR. RITCHIEobserved, that the statement had been made that hon. Members on that side of the House were in favour of flogging, and that on the other side of the House they were in favour of its abolition. For his part, he must distinctly disclaim the accuracy of that statement. Not only was he opposed to flogging, but he had always held very strong opinions against that punishment. He did not think that the remark was justifiable, in a general sense, for, so far has his observation went, hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House had expressed themselves as strongly in favour of flogging as hon. Members on the Government side. It

    1585
    was altogether a mistake to assume that this matter was one for one side of the House or the other, or was at all a matter of Party. Members of either Party were upon both sides of the question. For his part, he had never voted for flogging, either in the Army or in the Navy, knowingly. He had considered the matter carefully, and had come to a conclusion against it; but as he felt that it was a matter in which the opinion of the military authorities ought to have great weight, he did not like to take upon himself the responsibility of voting against them; but, at the same time, he could not bring himself to vote for the punishment. In his opinion, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to flogging in the Army and Navy, ought to have been at once accepted by all hon. Members in the Committee, whether they were in favour of flogging, or whether they were opposed to it. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the matter would receive the careful consideration of the Government; and he himself earnestly begged the Government, if they did not feel perfectly convinced that this punishment was one for which there was a strong necessity, that they would take upon themselves the responsibility of abolishing it. He thought it would be unfair to press the Government at that time, after what they had said. The Bill was not likely to leave the House just yet, and there would be many other opportunities for hon. Gentlemen on either side to again urge this question upon the Government, if the explanations that they had promised to make were unsatisfactory. What he had said had entire reference to flogging in the Army and Navy, for with respect to flogging in prisons he held a totally different opinion. He did think that the crimes for which that punishment was now given in prisons were crimes which were deserving of a punishment of that nature. And, therefore, while he would strongly urge upon the Government the desirability, if they could by any possibility see their way to do so, to give their favourable consideration to the abolition of the punishment in the Army and Navy, he would not urge upon the Government to do more than the Secretary of State for the Home Department had promised with reference to
    1586
    flogging in prisons—namely, that there should be no difference in the punishment of prisoners whether soldiers or civilians. He (Mr. Ritchie) did not think that the Government would be justified in promising more than that. He earnestly hoped that the Government, when they came to make a statement upon the matter, would be able to tell the Committee that, after careful consideration of the question, they were prepared to recommend the abolition of the lash. He thought that hon. Members, who had so persistently brought this question to the attention of the Government, ought now to rest satisfied with what had been said, and allow the Bill to proceed.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINthought that the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was under some misapprehension; and as one who had supported him throughout in his opposition to flogging he must appeal to him to withdraw his Amendment. He did not think it was fair to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, at the present time, to abolish flogging in prisons. He had told them that the matter was under his consideration; and they did not know whether, on another occasion, he would recommend its abolition. Personally, the right hon. Gentleman had expressed himself opposed to punishment of that character, unless absolutely necessary. They had his assurance that nothing would give him greater pleasure than to be able to abolish it. They had, further, the assurances they had obtained from admissions on the part of the Government that there was an intention to abolish flogging in the Army. The whole practice of flogging had received a mortal blow. And when flogging in the Army had been abolished, he did not believe that flogging in prisons could be maintained for long. He thought that his hon. Friend rather damaged the cause which they all had at heart by pressing his Amendment.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONhoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would not give way upon this point. As he (Sir Alexander Gordon) understood the matter, there would be two different systems of punishment in the same prison. Soldiers were not to be submitted to corporal punishment for offences to which other prisoners would

    1587
    be subject. The effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) would be that soldiers would be able to commit offences in the sight of other prisoners in gaol, and vet be exempt from the punishment to which the others were subjected. In his opinion, if the punishment was necessary for one set of prisoners, it was necessary for the other. He hoped that the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) would accept the advice of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), and not press his Motion.
    MR. HOPWOODjoined in the appeal to the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) not to press his Amendment. He would have many opportunities of again bringing the question forward, if the expectations which had been held out to the Committee were not realized. He could say that he had sometimes helped the hon. Member, when others had fallen away from him; and, therefore, he was sure that he would consider the advice that he tendered him on this occasion. He trusted that the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. C. BECKETT-DENISONsaid, that the words of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), if they remained uncontradicted, would, in his (Mr. Denison's) opinion, give rise to future trouble and misunderstanding. He had stated, with respect to what had fallen from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, that he had understood that the Government were about to abolish corporal punishment in the Army. [" Hear, hear! "] That cheer assured him that he was not mistaken in the interpretation which he had placed upon the words of the hon. Member. He had listened to every word said by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and he thought that the interpretation of the lion. Member was incorrect. The point was this—the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had once or twice, during the discussion, said that he should he prepared to make a statement to the House upon this subject. He (Mr. C. Beckett-Denison) personally understood, and he believed that every other hon. Gentleman upon the Government side of the House also understood, that there were certain exceptional offences, in connection with Armies in the field, which would be
    1588
    placed in the Schedule, for which corporal punishment would still be enforced. It was essential to both sides of the House that they should be put in full possession of the facts—one side believing that corporal punishment was about to be abolished from the combatant forces; and the other side of the House being asked to come down and support the Government in maintaining the discipline of the Army. If the Government were about to abolish corporal punishment, let there be no misunderstanding on the subject; but let there be such a statement as both sides of the House could appreciate. He had risen to make these observations in consequence of the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for Birmingham. They were, at that moment, engaged in the discussion of prison discipline, and so much had been said with regard to the general subject, and it had been so differently treated in the various phases of the discussion, that he thought they would, on the next occasion, be in considerable difficulty, and have, perhaps, a great amount of wrangling as to what had been actually said then. He protested against the interpretation. He might be wrong, for lie was not in the confidence of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War; but if it was the intention of the Government to abolish corporal punishment for all offences, whether in the field or at home, then he thought that hon. Members on that side of the House, who had simply discharged the duty—to them a disagreeable one—of upholding the Government, by voting for what they had considered, up to that moment, to be necessary for the maintenance of discipline, were placed in a disadvantageous position, in which they ought not to be placed.
    MAJOR NOLANwished to contrast the speech of the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Beckett-Denison) with that of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie). He did not think that the statement of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets was quite accurate. He had taken the trouble to look at the Division Lists upon the question of the abolition of corporal punishment, and lie had not recognized more than one or two Members from the Conservative side of the House Who voted for the abolition of the punish-

    1589
    ment. He recognized some Liberal Members who voted for its retention, and a very few Irish Members, he was glad to say. He thought there was a stronger feeling for the abolition of the punishment on that side of the House than on the Government side. He wished to call attention to the speech of the hon. Member for the West Riding, who had rather urged upon the Government the retention of this punishment. It was true he did not really urge the Government to retain the punishment; but he cast up the reflection at them that they were behaving ill to their supporters. It seemed to him (Major Nolan) that nearly all hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House were in favour of the abolition of corporal punishment, while many hon. Members on the other side urged the Government to retain it. He thought that the Government were anxious to throw it over, as they had come to the conclusion that it would do more harm than good; but were restrained from doing so. Now that the attention of the country had been drawn to this subject of corporal punishment it would not leave it; and those debates would be perused by the classes from which the Army was drawn, and would have a great effect upon recruiting in time of war—the retention of this punishment, and the debates which had taken place upon it, would have a very deleterious effect upon recruiting. The Government must wish to have a strong Army; but they could never hope to have one, if they retained this punishment. And what was the use of retaining merely a fragment of this punishment? He would point out to the Government that so long as they retained even a fragment of the punishment, the agitators would have something to lay hold of; and so long as the agitators brought this question foward, so long would an evil effect upon recruiting be produced.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that the speeches which had recently been made turned upon expressions which he had used in the course of that evening; and, perhaps, he might, therefore, be allowed to endeavour to put the Committee in possession of what he had actually said. With respect to the question of corporal punishment in prisons, that matter had been dealt with by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of -State for the Home
    1590
    Department; but, in connection with the matter, a discussion had arisen upon the whole question of corporal punishment, and the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had made au appeal to him (Colonel Stanley) to state Ins views upon the point. He had endeavoured to do that, so far as ho could, without interfering with the Business of the House. He bad felt it his duty to explain, as clearly as possible, the position in which he conceived himself to be placed. The decision of the Committee with regard to corporal punishment in respect to the Army and Navy had been given; but lie had been asked to go back from that decision. When he stated that he would prepare a Schedule containing all the crimes for which the punishment was to be inflicted, and under what circumstances it should be inflicted, he was not aware that the matter would be one of such exceeding difficulty as lie had afterwards found it. He had exposed himself to censure for not having already laid this Schedule upon the Table of the House. He would venture to claim for the Government side of the House the same amount of humanity as was possessed by the Opposition; and he therefore deprecated any such observation as that of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway, that particular persons were in favour of corporal punishment and others were for its abolition. Whatever view they took in that House, it should be understood that what they did was in performance of a duty; and if hon. Members on his side of the House supported corporal punishment, they did so because they believed it was necessary in order to maintain discipline. What lie said when he spoke before was, that not having received all the information which he hoped to do, he did not feel himself then in a position to state more definitely what he would do on this matter; but that when they came to the Schedules, and that portion of the Bill which defined the circumstances under which the punishment should be inflicted in the field and on board ship, he trusted that he would be able to make a statement to the Committee. Ho would ask the Committee, therefore, to bear in mind that the primary consideration in a measure of this kind was the responsibility under which he felt himself for maintaining discipline. He hoped that

    1591
    the Committee would see that while, on the one hand, they were pressed for not sufficiently maintaining discipline in the Army; on the other hand, it would be unfair to officers in the field, who were responsible for the good order of the troops, if sufficient means were not given them to repress crime. That was the substance of what he had said before, and he was most anxious not to take from, or add anything to, that statement. He could not be answerable for the constructions that hon. Members had placed upon it; but he had endeavoured, as accurately as he could, to repeat what he said at an earlier period of the debate. He hoped that the Bill would now be allowed to proceed.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINthought that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had omitted a few words to which he (Mr. Chamberlain), in common with other hon. Members, had attached the greatest importance. As he understood the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, he said that upon the Schedule he would be able to make a statement, and so he continued—" which will be satisfactory to hon. Gentlemen opposite," or something to that effect. He (Mr. Chamberlain) did not pledge himself to the exact words; but he would pledge himself to this—that he had distinctly heard the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say that the statement he would make would be satisfactory. When such a statement was made in the face of the determined opposition to this measure—almost the whole of which had been directed against the practice of flogging—it was not to be wondered at that he himself, as well as the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) and the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), and other hon. Members, should have understood that he was desirous of seeing whether he could not carry out the views of the opponents of the measure. It was understood, however, that there were difficulties in the way, and that there were parties to be consulted. They were prepared to make allowance in respect of these matters, and not to press the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on that occasion; but it seemed now that the matter had assumed a totally different complexion, for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had withdrawn what he had stated.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that he had unquestionably used the words attributed to him. He did say that be hoped to make a statement which would be satisfactory to the Committee.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINthought that the Committee were entitled to a little more explanation upon this matter, and that no doubt should be suffered to remain. He did not think the statement could be satisfactory, when one side of the House understood one thing, and the other side of the House understood another thing. He could assure the right hon and gallant Gentleman that, as far as he (Mr. Chamberlain) could judge, there was a strong feeling to withdraw any opposition to the Bill, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman hoped to make a statement which would be perfectly satisfactory to the Committee; but if that was not the expectation of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and if he did not intend to convey to the Committee that the Government were prepared to make any concessions beyond those which they had made on previous occasions, then he (Mr. Chamberlain) thought the continued opposition to the Bill perfectly justifiable. Let him point out to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the right lion. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) very distinctly appealed to him in the same sense; and he could not conceive that he could have so far misunderstood him as would appear to be the case, having regard to the views expressed by the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. C. Beckett-Denison). He might point out that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had also fallen into the same error as he (Mr. Chamberlain) had as to the construction of the words of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that he had withdrawn nothing, and that he entirely adhered to what he had previously said—he adhered to what he had said at an earlier period of the debate; but it was absolutely impossible for him to give any more definite assurance then.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINremarked that he had again and again said he accepted the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement, as indicating on the part of the Government a willingness, if not au intention, to abolish flogging in the

    1593
    Army. He was still under that impression, and, therefore, he should abstain from further opposition at this stage of the Bill.
    MR. ASSHETONsaid, the statement just made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was precisely the same as that which he made at the beginning of the discussion.
    MR. MONKthought that the last statement of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was perfectly satisfactory. It was clearly the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make further investigations with regard to this question of flogging; but this concession could not be made until the other authorities connected with the Army had been consulted. Really, under the circumstances, he thought that this Amendment should be withdrawn, and the Bill allowed to go on.
    MR. HOPWOODconsidered that it would be better if the Government announced that, on some future, but early day, they would make a statement on the question of flogging. They could see that the Government was placed in great trouble and, difficulty; but it was not their fault. If the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. C. Beckett-Denison) had only waited a day or two, and not insisted upon an explicit declaration, the Government would not have been placed in a difficulty. He thought the best course would be for the Government now to postpone the clause, and not to bring it forward until they made their statement.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he rose for the purpose of making a suggestion of very much the same character as that of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood). The Government had made a statement that evening of considerable importance. He believed that it had been said that a statement would be made when the Schedules were moved. As so much appeared to turn upon the character of this statement, he should now ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, whether it would not be possible for him to take an earlier opportunity than the Schedules would afford of making the statement? Perhaps on a Motion to report Progress such a statement might, without any irregularity, be made. It would be, however, much more con-
    1594
    vincing to the Committee if the statement could be made at as early a period as possible. The Government were evidently not prepared to make that statement now; but, perhaps, it would not be too much to ask that the statement should be made on Monday next, or on some other early day. He should be inclined to think that the earlier that statement was made the sooner they would be allowed to proceed with the discussion of the clause.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Government would be anxious to make a statement on the earliest day on which they might possibly do so; but, at the present time, it was impossible to say more than that the subject should be brought before the House without any unnecessary delay.
    MR. PARNELLdid not see how they could proceed to the discussion of the clause until they had heard the statement of the Government with regard to flogging. He would point out that the provost-marshal clause had been made a postponed clause, and that was one of the clauses connected with the question of flogging.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONrose to a point of Order. He did not think the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was in Order in discussing a clause not before the Committee.
    THE CHAIRMANthought that the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was not discussing, but only referring to, another clause.
    MR. PARNELLthought they could not discuss this clause until they knew the decision of Her Majesty's Government on the question of flogging. Perhaps it would be best to accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that they would inform the House at as early a day as possible of their decision, and would give an opportunity for discussion. He begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment (Mr. Parnell), by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment (Mr. Secretary Cross), agreed to.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would then move an Amendment, of which Notice had been given by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr.

    1595
    Chamberlain). It was to insert on page 70, line 17, after the word " severe," the following words:—
    "Nor establish other occasions for corporal punishment; that was, that no other punishment should be inflicted than those enumerated in the roles approved by the Secretary of State under The Prisons Act, 1877."
    MR. PARNELLdid not think that this Amendment went far enough. The further consideration of the question of flogging was postponed until they had heard the views of the Government; but this Amendment empowered the prison authorities to inflict corporal punishment upon military offenders in all cases in which civilians were liable to the punishment. Under the rules, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department allowed corporal punishment to be inflicted for offences for which it ought not to be permitted at all. For breaking windows, or otherwise destroying prison property, or making a disturbance, or doing any other act, or misconduct, or insubordination, a prisoner could, under the rules, be sentenced to receive corporal punishment. It should be remembered that prisoners frequently lost their reason from solitary confinement, and it was very likely they would make these disturbances, and yet for such offences corporal punishment was to he inflicted. There was another difficulty in connection with this matter. Some of the prisoners who would be confined under the Bill would be in prisons under the direction of the Governor General of India. In this country, no flogging could ho inflicted in prisons but by the order of the Visiting Justices; but in India they had no magistrates and no independent tribunal, and, therefore, it remained with the gaoler to inflict the punishment whenever he pleased. All these circumstances were exceedingly unsatisfactory. He did not think that this matter should be settled, until they had heard the views of the Government upon the question of flogging. Moreover. if this Amendment were accepted, he did not think that it would be in his power to move an Amendment which he proposed to do, limiting the power in regard to corporal punishment.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the Amendment of the Secretary of State for the Home Department limited the cases to which corporal punishment
    1596
    should be inflicted under the Act to such offences as those for which the punishment could be inflicted under the Prisons Act of 1877. It was not absolutely impossible, after such an Amendment had become part of the Bill, to introduce another Amendment proposing that it should only be inflicted under certain circumstances; but the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) would ho out of Order in moving that it should be inflicted in a less degree.
    MR. PARNELLthought, perhaps, it would be better to omit the Proviso. His object was to be enabled to move an Amendment limiting the amount of punishment which it was at present lawful for the Secretary of State for the Home Department, under the present rules, to inflict; and to limit it to offences for which at present it could be lawfully inflicted.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. Member would be quite out of Order in moving that Amendment. Any matter concerning the Prisons Act did not come within the scope of this Bill.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that if the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department were agreed to, it would be impossible to inflict flogging for any offence which did not come within the rules in the Prisons Act. He did not think that it would be possible to reduce the punishment in military prisons to less than what was given to civil offenders.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that he only wished to point out that it was not competent for any Amendment upon this clause to deal with punishment of civil prisons.
    MR. PARNELLwished merely to reserve to the Secretary of State for the Home Department the same power which he at present possessed under the Prisons Act of 1877, to inflict punishment upon military prisoners. It was really important that they should have power hereafter, by means of a new clause, to be in a position to limit the power of inflicting punishment upon military prisoners.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. Member would be in Order in moving what he proposed as dealing with any persons affected by the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    MR. PARNELLobserved, that the question at issue was as to the pattern of the cat. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had declared that a pattern was adopted by Earl Grey, as Chairman of the Royal Commission, because the one previously in use was not sufficiently severe. [" Order, order!"!]
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that there was no Question before the Committee.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he would move the following Amendment in page 70, line 18, after the word " England," to insert these words—
    " And that the instrument to be used in the infliction of corporal punishment shall be according to the sealed pattern of the cat of nine tails approved by the First Lord of the Admiralty, dated 7th December, 1877, from the Royal Marine Office, and endorsed W. J. Rodney, Deputy Adjutant General,' but without knots."
    MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment, as he (Mr. Cross) stated some time ago the whole subject was now engaging the attention of a Royal Commission. He was awaiting their Report, and ho should be very much guided by their decision. He was speaking of the one with knots, not the one without knots; and he was bound to say that persons of very great experience had very different opinions as to the severity of the one or the other. The whole matter had very much better be left entirely to the Commission.
    MR. PARNELLasked if the nature of the cat was before the Commission, because this was a question which had come up very recently?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSknew that the Commission had inquired into the whole question of flogging; but, of course, he was not in the secret of their deliberations. He knew, however, that they had taken evidence on the matter.
    Mr. PARNELL, under the circumstances, would not press his Amendment, although he did not regard the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as at all satisfactory. In fact, he did not regard any statement that had been made by the right hon. Gentleman that day as satisfactory, and they were in singular contrast to the attitude of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. He hoped the Report of this Commission would be out very soon, be-
    1598
    fore the Bill left the House, and he would postpone further opposition until he saw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdawn.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, his next Amendment had nothing whatever to do with flogging. He proposed in page 70, line 18, after the word " England," in the same place as before, to insert these words—
    "Subject to the Prison Act of the fortieth and forty-first Victoria, chapter twenty-one, and that all the regulations in the Prison Act of 1865, and in the aforesaid Act, as to the duties of gaolers, medical officers, and coroners shall be contained in such rules."
    THE CHAIRMANobserved, that the Amendment required the word " Provided" inserted after the words "twenty-one and."
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSobserved, that the clause as proposed to be amended could not possibly work; but he had no objection to the principle. If some such words as " so far as, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, may be applicable," were added, he would accept the Amendment. Otherwise, certain statutes would be applied to places where they were utterly inapplicable. In India, for instance, he did not know that there were coroners, and it would he necessary to consult with the India Office on the subject. That lie would do before the Report was brought up.
    MR. PARNELLthought it was the duty of the Government to provide sonic substitute for coroners' inquests in cases where prisoners died in gaol in India. The right hon. Gentleman had not given them the slightest intimation as to whether he considered it desirable or not, when a prisoner died in India, that an independent inquiry should be held into the cause of his death. When the Prisons Act was passing through Committee the right hon. Gentleman agreed that these coroners' inquests should be held in Scotland and Ireland, where they had not previously been in vogue. There were no such things as coroners in Scotland; but the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate met him (Mr. Parnell) in the fairest possible way, altering his Amendment for him, and inserting the words " procurator-fiscal" instead of the word " coroner." No provision in that Act had been more advantageous, or had proved itself to be more necessary, than

    1599
    the power so given of holding inquests on persons who died in prison. Since the introduction of the clause, several prisoners had died in gaol, and they had had fearless and independent verdicts returned by the coroners' juries from which the greatest possible benefit had been derived. [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: Hear hear !] The right hon. Gentleman had himself acknowledged that, and, in fact, he was so impressed with the verdicts given in the cases of a prisoner named Nolan and of the late Sergeant M'Carthy, a political prisoner, that he caused independent inquiries to be made into the causes of death. By this clause they were asked calmly to give up to the Governor General of India the power to make regulations in regard to this matter. He wanted to know what provision there was in India for these independent inquiries? He was surprised at the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to insert the suggested words, the effect of which would, practically, be to destroy all the good contained in the Amendment.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, no one had a greater appreciation of coroners' juries than he had. They were most valuable and proper institutions, and he would be glad to see them established everywhere. But what he wanted to point out to the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was, that his Amendment, as it stood, would defeat the object he had in view; while, on the other hand, the alteration he had suggested would help him to realize it. As a matter of form, ho would propose to add to the Amendment the words " so far as the same can be made applicable." If better words could be suggested for carrying out the same object, ho would willingly accept them.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE, as a Member of a Committee which had sat for a greater part of the Session on the consolidation of the laws relating to coroners, thought it would be quite desirable to extend to soldiers dying in prisons outside this country the same protection that persons dying in prison in this country already enjoyed. But he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had at all met this Amendment in a hostile spirit. On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman suggested the addition of certain words
    1600
    without which he (Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice) was bound to say, in his opinion, the clause would not work. Therefore, if he might be so bold as to offer a suggestion to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), he would advise him to accept the addition of the words suggested, or some others analogous to them.
    MR. HERSCHELLthought, even then, the Amendment would not run quite correctly. He would suggest that it should run that these rules should contain provisions similar to those in force in other prisons in the United Kingdom as to medical officers, coroners, and so on, and that due provision should be made for similar inquiries elsewhere. It was impossible to go into the matter much more definitely than that. The way in which what they desired was to be carried out must be left to those who had the framing of the rules. The Secretary of State for the Home Department, he understood, was quite willing that the provisions in the United Kingdom should be extended elsewhere; but some little alteration of the words would be required.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, if the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) would take the words he had proposed for the present, he would consult the draftsman to see if better words could be put in to secure the object. He could not do more than that.
    MR. PARNELLremarked that it would be better to leave out the words " and coroners " altogether, and to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell). The clause would then read—
    "And that rules shall be adopted providing for independent inquiries into the deaths of any prisoners in these gaols in a similar way to those inquiries carried out by coroners."
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSbegged the Committee to remember that it was absolutely impossible to draft an alteration in a clause in this way. No lawyer, even, could do it. What he had said should satisfy the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) that the matter should be carefully considered afterwards.
    MR. BIGGARwas of opinion that it would be much more convenient to discuss the matter at that time. They had had so much experience of the ambiguity

    1601
    of Ministers on particular questions, and of their uncertainty afterwards as to what they did say, and as to what they did mean, that it would be much more safe to do the very converse of what the hon. Gentleman proposed, and to adopt the Amendment as it was proposed by the hon. Member for Meath. If the words were not found suitable, the Government could suggest an Amendment, and that would be by far the most satisfactory way. Otherwise, afterwards, the Secretary of State for the Home Department might say that he said something, and somebody else might say he said something else, and they might have a very long discussion as to what actually was said.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINobserved, that the Amendment suggested by the Secretary of State for the Home Department was "where he thinks practicable." Did they understand from that that the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of this inquiry, and pledged himself that he would introduce words securing independent inquiry in India?
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department only asked that the words should be put in a workable shape, and that the inquiry should be, so far as they could. be, made applicable. Substantially, he accepted the Amendment, with a small rider to it, and that was really the question before the Committee. He had hoped that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath would not insist on moving the second Amendment which he had just threatened; because he must see it was impossible for him, or anybody else, or even the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Herschell), to draft an Amendment upon a complicated matter of this kind at a moment's notice. If the draftsman found that the words suggested did not exactly carry out the unanimous intention of the Committee, he would see that other words would be brought in which would carry out that intention.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSwould state exactly what he had done in the matter. He wanted, if possible, to make this clause convenient to work; and he had had two legal gentlemen with him for nearly an hour that morning, and though they drafted a number of Amendments, they neither of them could draw one which was satisfactory. The parti-
    1602
    cular clause as to India would require very grave and serious consideration; but the words he proposed he thought were sufficient to carry out what was desired.
    MR. PARNELLwanted to know whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department thought there ought to be these independent inquiries in India, and whether he would introduce words to insure that these independent inquiries should be held.?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSanswered, that he could not state his intention more clearly than he had already done.
    MR. PARNELLbegged to move to report Progress. The right hon. Gentleman had distinctly evaded replying to his question. ["No, no!"] The right hon. Gentleman had most distinctly evaded replying to his question. He had asked whether he would undertake that the Amendment on the Report should be introduced into this Bill which should secure to the soldier dying in India the same independent inquiry which he obtained in England? The right hon. Gentleman had refused to give any answer to that question, although it was a fair and straightforward question, and one which ought to be answered.
    MR. HERSCHELLsaid, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say he would do so. He might be wrong; but he certainly understood that, and he was acting under that impression.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, this altercation confirmed what he had before said about the mischief of ambiguous statements. ["No, no!"] The right hon. Gentleman had distinctly said that he was in favour of the principle. The controversy now was whether he had said he would carry that principle into operation. His statement on that point might have been more or less ambiguous, because different Members formed different opinions as to what was said. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) thought one thing was said, while the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell) thought another; and the right hon. Gentleman sat still and confirmed neither the one nor the other view. If he would get up and. say, "I will try and carry this idea into operation," it would save a great deal of time; while, on the other hand, if he did not wish to carry this idea into operation,

    1603
    he might say so, and they might argue the clause on its merits. He could not understand why, if the right hon. Gentleman were inclined to help Business, he should sit still and refuse to answer a thoroughly plain question.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSreplied, that he never refused to answer any question at all. The question asked of him was one which he could not answer more than lie had done Already. He was in the hands of the Committee, and if the Committee wished him to repeat what he had said he would say it again. He was in favour of the spirit of the Amendment; but, as far as coroners were concerned, he said that the Amendment would not work, because he understood there were no coroners in India. He was altogether in favour of a free and independent inquiry in cases of death happening in prisons. Therefore, he proposed to put in the words " as far as the same can be made applicable." Therefore, he said that if those words were put in he would, before the Report, consult the draftsmen and see how this intention that there should be an independent inquiry could best be carried out.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, they quite understood what the right hon. Gentleman had said, and they wanted now to know whether he would go a step further and promise to use his great influence with the governing powers in India to bring about, on behalf of the soldier, that which this Committee desired to enforce? If he would give them that assurance, he could not do more. These were the points on which a little doubt and difficulty was arising. The words he had used left them in no doubt about his intentions; but they now wanted to know whether this was to be treated merely as draftsman's work, imposing no obligation on the Government, or whether he would press the Indian Government to carry out this change? That was the only point on which the Committee asked for some assurance of his feeling.
    SIR HENRY JAMEStrusted the Committee would refrain from pressing the right hon. Gentleman; for it seemed to him (Sir Henry James) that it was unbecoming to raise such questions as these. The right hon. Gentleman, in his opinion, had spoken as clearly and as definitely as he could. He approved
    1604
    the Amendment; but he could not approve it as it stood, because there were places where coroners did not exist; and, therefore, he proposed to add words applying the principle as far as was practicable. The right hon. Gentleman had said he would take counsel and see what words would be the best; and if he proceeded without such counsel, and hastily, on words drawn at the Table, they would get a result which would afterwards produce those inextricable difficulties of which they often had experience in the Courts.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Henry James) had rather administered a reproof to him. His hon. and learned Friend had said that the Secretary of State for the Home Department had promised to take counsel as to how this Amendment could best be carried into effect. He had not said that. He had said that he would take counsel with the draftsmen how they could put in words to carry this out as far as possible. But he had not said that he would press upon the authorities governing India and endeavour to induce them not only to carry this out as far as it was practicable, but to make it an effectual legislative enactment.
    MR. HERSCHELLthought the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) had not listened very carefully to what was going on. He seemed to be under the impression that the Secretary of State for the Home Department said that he would merely consult with the draftsmen to see how far the Amendment could be carried out. On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman had said that he was entirely in favour of an independent inquiry; that he thought there should be an independent inquiry in India as well as elsewhere; and that he would consult with the draftsmen to see how that best could be carried out. He had not at all limited what he had said by using the words " as far as possible." He understood the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman to be that he was entirely in favour of independent inquiry, and that he would consult the draftsmen as to how that could be most effectually secured. What more than that they could ask for he did not know.
    MR. GREGORYthought the first thing they should ascertain was, whether this was not already provided for

    1605
    in India. The Indian Penal Code had ' been in operation for some time, and the question was, whether this provision did not already exist there under that or regulations for the management of prisons? They were going to legislate for India without knowing what legislation on the point already existed in that country.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, nobody would complain of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) asking the question he did; but, for his part, he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) did not conceive there could be any doubt on the matter after what had fallen from the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Ho had said, with perfect clearness, that it was his intention that prisoners dying in India should have the same legal privileges and rights as those enjoyed by prisoners similarly situated in England. He might remind the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), also, that ho could claim the promise of the right lion. Gentleman as the promise of his hon. Colleagues. If the right hon. Gentleman, as partly in charge of the Bill, gave a pledge on a particular point, it was not, as was supposed by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), that he did not bind his Colleagues. There was no such thing as a separation of Cabinet Ministers, and he must remind the hon. Member that the Office of Secretary of State was one Office, and all the different Members in it held the same position. Therefore, what was said by one and what was done by one was practically said and done by all.
    MR. PARNELLobserved, that the Secretary of State for the Home Department had amended his words. [" No, no! "] He (Mr. Parnell) had taken down the words on both occasions. First of all, the right hon. Gentleman said he would consult with the India Office to see whether anything could be done. Then, subsequently, when he (Mr. Parnell) moved to report Progress, the Home Secretary changed the expression.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must point out to the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) that he said he would move to report Progress, but that he did not do so. [Mr. PARNELL: Oh ! yes, I did.] The hon. Member rose and
    1606
    said that he proposed to move to report Progress; but he sat down without making that Motion, and, as a consequence, there was no Motion now before the Chair.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he certainly had intended to move to report Progress, and if they had any doubt about it he would move it again. He did not, however, intend to persevere with it for the reason that the statement the right hon. Gentleman made now was very different to that he made a short time ago. He said now he would see how an independent inquiry could be carried out. That was a sufficiently satisfactory statement; but it was not the statement he made on the original Motion to report Progress. His statement then was, that he would see whether anything could be done. He begged now to withdraw the Motion. He must, however, tell the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) that he could not accept his suggestions as to how he should conduct himself. He should accept suggestions from the Chair, but not from anyone sitting on the Opposition Benches.
    THE CHAIRMANstated that no Motion having been made it was impossible for any Motion to be withdrawn.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.

    Pay and Pension.
    Clause 132 (Authorized deductions only to be made from pay).
    MR. BIGGARsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had asked him to move to amend the clause, which he would do formally, by moving to leave out from the end the words " or by any Royal Warrant for the time being." These Royal Warrants had created considerable inconvenience; and he thought it was very reasonable indeed, and very desirable that, as far as possible, all public affairs should be regulated by Act of Parliament.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. PARNELLwas sure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War did not intend to be discourteous, and that it was owing

    1607
    to an accident that this Amendment had been dismissed as unworthy even of a remark from him.
    MAJOR NOLANobserved, that if these words had been left out the whole machinery of the Army would be disorganized. There were many details, such as stoppages for mess, and bands, and so on, which must be regulated by some authority, and yet could hardly be regulated entirely by that means. There was certainly one deduction which the men always grumbled at—that was for barrack damages.
    COLONEL STANLEYexplained, that he did not understand that the hon. Member for Cavan County (Mr. Biggar) had finished his observations. He quite agreed that it was impossible to put into an Act of Parliament all the deductions which should be made.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked, whether the clause applied to all parts of the world? In India, there was a practice of making local Acts override Imperial Acts, and of stopping pay from officers under these local Acts wholly irrespective of the Imperial Acts.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, it was entirely new to him that a local Act could override an Imperial Act; and if the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) could refer him more accurately to what he was referring he would endeavour to clear the matter up.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONexplained that there was a list under the Articles of War of what deductions were to be made. The Indian Government, a few years ago, passed an Act that an officer in that country, before he was allowed to perform his duty, should take out a licence. That had occurred in his (Sir Alexander Gordon's) own case. He had been sent out by the Horse Guards to serve as a military officer, and he had got his commission in his pocket entitling him to serve, and to exercise his profession; but he had to pay a very large sum, as much as the Governor General himself, before he could exercise his duty.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEobserved, that there was no doubt officers were subject to deductions from their pay in a most unjustifiable way. For instance, eight days' pay was deducted for the support of the band from all officers of the rank of captain; but it was not de-
    1608
    ducted from the pay of subalterns, which he thought very unfair. He was also charged with the expense of his promotion certificate, and other certificates, which was most unfair. An officer who rose from the ranks found these deductions very unjust.
    MR. ONSLOWexplained, that the licence referred to was a quasi-income tax put upon all individuals in India. He should like to know what the Natives would have thought if they had been liable to this licence tax, while a European, who drew far higher pay in India than officers of the same rank serving anywhere else, had been free from the tax. It would be thought a real and very gross injustice. He was in India at the time the tax was proposed, and undoubtedly there was great complaint at its imposition; but all saw the necessity that every subject of Her Majesty should be taxed equally.
    MAJOR NOLANobserved, that this licence tax did not come under the clause at all; but was, as had already been said, in the nature of an income tax, which was also stopped from an officer's pay in England.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 133 (Penal stoppages from ordinary pay of officers) agreed to.
    Clause 134 (Penal stoppages from ordinary pay of soldiers).
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, he wished to bring under the notice of the Secretary of State for War what was, to a certain extent, a question of drafting; but was, at the same time, an extremely important matter. As he understood the clause, if a man was absent without leave there was an imperative stoppage of his pay. As the clause now stood, he understood that if a soldier was absent for a day his pay must be stopped. That was a radical and important change in the present discipline of the Army, for, under the old Acts, a commanding officer had a discretion in the matter. The first consequence of the change was, that as the word " soldier " included non - commissioned officers, they were now going to punish non-commissoned officers, if they were absent for a day without leave, which was a totally new feature in the Bill. Absence without leave was a very serious offence, on the one hand; but it was also, under some

    1609
    circumstances, the most trivial offence a man could commit. Then, was part of a day the same as a whole day? It very often happened that a soldier was absent without leave from 10 o'clock at night till 1, and that would imply a stoppage of two days' pay. If that stoppage was to be imperative on the commanding officer, of course, heavy punishment would be inflicted. In some cases, it was not even certain that the man intended to commit an offence. He was asked why he was absent, and his reply might be that he went up to town and missed his train. If that explanation was believed, the excuse was accepted. But, of course, a man could not go on for ever missing trains. But the amount of two days' pay was not the most serious part of the punishment. One of the consequences was to put back a man's good conduct stripe for two years. That meant a loss of a penny a-day for two years, or £3; while if the man had already got a good conduct stripe he lost it for a year, which was a loss of 30s. There were also other consequences which followed from the loss of this stripe which he had not estimated. He wanted the Committee to leave the law as it now stood at present, and to give the commanding officer a discretion. He would, therefore, move, in page 71, line 6, to insert the word " may" instead of the word "shall."
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that he would agree to the insertion of the word " may " instead of " shall." If the hon. and gallant Member (Major Nolan) would look at Clause 135, he would find that he was under a misapprehension. He (Colonel Stanley) had endeavoured to explain that the effect of these two clauses was simply to make it permissive whether a man forfeited his pay or not. Formerly, a man might be absent and yet not forfeit his pay. They wished now to provide that the presumption should be that where a man was absent, he should not receive his pay for the days during which he had been absent It was perfectly possible for a commanding officer, under Clause 135, to say that a man should receive back his pay upon making a proper explanation of his absence. The intention of the Government was to leave the law exactly as it was, and simply to alter the presumption as to the loss of pay. Where a man had been guilty of absence without leave, he
    1610
    would forfeit his pay for the period of his absence, unless his commanding officer should order him not to do so; it was not intended to make it compulsory upon the commanding officer to stop a man's pay; but the commanding officer would act as he did at the present time, entirely at his own discretion. He wished it to be clearly understood that the law was left exactly the same as at present, and that full power was given to a commanding officer to remit the whole or any portion of the forfeited pay.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERdid not agree with the statement of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that the practice would remain as heretofore. The question which a commanding officer would now have to decide was not whether he would take away two or three days' pay from a man; but he would have to give his decision as to whether a man was to receive back the pay which he had forfeited by being absent. It seemed to him that this was not a good alteration, and that it would give rise to great confusion. It would be necessary for a man to say now to his commanding officer—" Give me back my pay." As the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) had observed, if a man was sentenced to forfeit his pay, it would involve a regimental entry. There was no doubt that, under the new system, a great many more men than heretofore would lose their pay.
    MR. A. H. BROWNwished to draw attention to the operation of the provision in certain cases for deduction of pay. Sometimes the Volunteers were placed by the Bill under martial law, and in all respects put upon the same footing as the Regular soldiers, and an allowance was given them for going into camp. He wanted to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman if he did not think it would be unfair for a deduction to be made from the allowance to Volunteers? The allowance was given for the benefit of the whole corps, but it was practically taken by the commanding officer and used as a fund. It was entirely different from pay, and, in his opinion, ought not to be taken away under this provision of the Bill.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that, of course, it would be a matter for the discretion of the commanding officer as to whether he would take away a man's

    1611
    pay. He imagined that, technically, the allowance could be claimed by each man, unless the rules of the corps said otherwise. By an arrangement made between the men and the commanding officer, the allowance was placed in a fund; but he imagined the men had a right to the money. Of course, where the rules of the corps otherwise prescribed, then a man was precluded by his contract from claiming it.
    MR. A. H. BROWNremarked that this allowance to Volunteers in camp was in the same position as the capitation grant. Both were given to the men individually; but, practically, formed a fund. It would be impossible for a Volunteer to claim from his commanding officer any sum which might be given him in respect of the capitation grant, or allowance for going into camp. His point was, that if a man were fined under the Bill, and his allowance was taken away from him, then they would be taking away something which was really given for the good of the whole corps. His contention was, that this clause should not apply to Volunteers when under martial law.
    COLONEL STANLEYbelieved that the capitation grant was the property of the men who earned it, unless the rules of the corps otherwise provided. Technically, the capitation grant was the property of each man, and he could sue his commanding officer for not giving it to him, unless the rules of the corps said otherwise. At all events, it was a point for the Civil Law to decide. As regarded the stoppage of any allowance to a man, if it were the property of the corps, then, no doubt, a man would be bound to make it good; or, of course, it was within the discretion of the commanding officer to say whether or not it should be taken away.
    MR. A. H. BROWNsaid, that the allowance was given for the benefit of the corps. It was true, no doubt, that the commanding officer of the camp might be the commanding officer of the Volunteers; but it was quite as likely that a Regular officer might be put in command of the camp, and it would be in his power to take away this allowance from the corps. It was not true that the rules of all corps obliged men to give up their right to the capitation grant and vested it in the commanding officer. The contrary was the case with
    1612
    the corps which he had the honour to command; and if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman were right, he would be liable to be called upon, by every man in the corps, to repay the capitation grant. He did not think that that was the correct view of the matter.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that he had not offered any conclusive opinion upon this matter. This provision, however, applied to the deduction from a soldier's ordinary pay in the Regular Forces, and was not likely to arise in the case of Volunteers.
    MR. RIDLEYwished to point out that in the Definition Clause it would be found that the expression " soldier " did not include a non-commissioned officer. It was perfectly true that he was subject to military law as a soldier; but it was expressly provided that the expression soldier should not include a non-commissioned officer. The clause said—
    " The expression soldier' includes any person belonging to Her Majesty's Regular, Reserve, or Auxiliary Forces, and who is, for the time being, subject to military law, and not an officer or non-commissioned officer, as above defined."
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, that there had been a long contest as to this definition last year. It was ultimately settled that, for the present, the word " soldier " should include non-commissioned officer. What he wished to know was, whether this particular clause was meant to apply to non-commissioned officers as well as to soldiers?
    COLONEL STANLEYapprehended that the clause would apply to noncommissioned officers.
    MAJOR NOLANthought that the point should be more definitely settled; it was not right that there should be any possibility of mistake about the matter. It did not appear to him that Clause 135 was satisfactory. The effect of taking a man's pay away was to cause a regimental entry to be made, and that had a very serious effect upon a man.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that, as regarded regimental entries, it was intended to follow the existing practice. No doubt, when a man's pay was stopped, a regimental entry would follow, as at present; but it was not intended to follow the practice any further than it existed at the present time. All that they wished to do was to reverse the presumption that a man. who had been

    1613
    absent was not to lose his pay. They wished now to make a man lose his pay unless his commanding officer remitted the deduction to him; of course, then, a regimental entry would not be made.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, that if the deduction were to be remitted the commanding officer would have to make an explanation of the circumstances. He would have to write a letter, or to give some explanation to the superior authorities. Primâ facie, a man, when absent without leave for a day or part of a day, had committed an offence, and was subject to a regimental entry. To prevent that happening, a commanding officer would now have to remit the deduction, and to make an explanation of the circumstances which had led him to do it. The pay would have to be remitted by some formal entry, and the commanding officer would be liable to be called upon to account for having so remitted it. There would be a primâ facie case against the commanding officer for having remitted the deduction. Perhaps this would not affect a strong commanding officer; but it would tend to prevent many weak ones from using their discretion.
    THE CHAIRMANdesired to point out that the subject which the hon. and gallant Member was discussing did not arise under the clause.
    MAJOR NOLANobserved, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had pointed out that Clauses 134 and 135 ought to be taken together in dealing with this matter. As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had, however, consented to put in the word " may," instead of " shall," he would leave the matter as it stood at that time.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MAJOR NOLANmoved, as an Amendment, in page 71, line 8, before the word " day," to insert " whole." The effect of the Amendment would be that deductions from the ordinary pay of soldiers could only be made for every whole day of absence. He thought that if the law was to be altered it would be better to put it beyond doubt that a man was not to have his pay stopped unnecessarily for an absence of a few hours. It was a serious offence for a man to be 24 hours absent; but half-an-hour, or a few hours, might be a very trivial matter.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that there was no intention to make any change in the law by this clause, but only to alter the presumption as to the deduction of pay. The simple object of the clause was to provide that a man's pay should be presumed to be forfeited by his absence, unless his commanding officer should otherwise order.
    MAJOR NOLANthought that it ought to be made clear that absence for a few hours did not involve forfeiture of pay. He had seen two or three days stopped from a man's pay for a few hours absence, and he did not think that that ought to be allowed.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERasked why the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had changed the 176th Article of War, by which a soldier was made liable to forfeit his pay for any day or days, not exceeding five, for which he should have been absent without leave. Under that Article, commanding officers were enabled, if they thought it right, to make a soldier forfeit his pay. The effect of the alteration would be that a soldier would have to apply not to have his pay stopped. A soldier, when before his commanding officer, might say nothing, and his pay would then be taken from him as a matter of course. In his opinion, it would be better that the presumption should be that the man should not forfeit his pay.
    MR. BROWNsaid, that he had an Amendment on the Paper in the Definition Clause (180) to which, if he might now allude, as the Secretary of State for War had already done so, he would like to draw the attention of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway. It was in the same direction as the Amendment now before the Committee, only it made " a day" for the purpose of deducting pay to be not less than six hours, not " a whole day." He quite agreed with the hon. and gallant Member's observations to the effect that they ought not to allow pay to be taken away for a short absence; but thought the best way to meet the case was by his Amendment at the end of the Bill.
    COLONEL STANLEYthought that the best plan would be that he should undertake to consider this clause, and amend it, if necessary, upon the Report. The Government wished to leave the law as it was at present, except so far as it was altered by the Amendment of the

    1615
    hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. J. Brown), which he thought very fair.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. J. Brown) was accepted he would withdraw his Amendment.
    COLONEL STANLEYhoped that the Committee would pass the clause in its present form. He would promise to consult his Advisers in the matter, and to see whether or not this clause could be altered. He was desirous of making it perfectly clear that where a man was absent for a certain time his pay should not be taken away for longer than the period for which he was absent.
    COLONEL ARBUTHNOTdid not see any necessity for postponing the consideration of this clause, as there was no alteration in the existing practice, except that " may " was substituted for shall."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, that the object of the Amendment which he had now to move—namely, in page 71, line 9, to leave out " without leave or as prisoner of war," and insert—
    "As prisoner of war, or, if ordered by a court martial or by his commanding officer for every day of absence without leave;"
    was to make it quite clear that pay was not to be stopped unless the commanding officer expressly desired it to be. At present, the commanding officer did not stop the pay unless he thought it was a bad case; but under the system introduced by the Bill, a commanding officer who remitted the deduction would have to send in an explanation. In the Artillery, junior officers would have to send in explanations to the satisfaction of two commanding officers; and it was quite possible that the lieutenant-colonel might allow it, but the full colonel would not allow it. He only gave that as an illustration; but the same thing would often happen in the Infantry and in the Cavalry. He thought the result of the change made in the matter would be that many more soldiers would have their pay stopped than at present. They were now taking away a man's pay by Act of Parliament, and altering the presumption against the soldier. It was really a very important point, for taking away a man's pay involved very serious consequences. If a man happened to
    1616
    bear a bad character, a commanding officer would give him a heavy punishment. But this Act would make a heavier punishment imperative, unless a commanding officer chose to remit it. He believed that, considering the circumstances under which troops were commanded, about one-half of the commanding officers would object to write letters accounting for their remission of deductions from pay, and many men would be deprived of good conduct pay for very trivial offences. The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. J. Brown) removed a part of his objections by reducing it to a longer absence. He did not see that there was the slightest objection to the system as it existed at present.
    COLONEL STANLEYwished the Committee to consider the position in which the matter now stood. They had inserted the word " may " instead of " shall." He had been asked why he had reversed the presumption, and for that he had given his reasons. If it could be shown that he were wrong, ho was willing to revert to the original presumption. But it must be remembered that the words in this clause would have to be read in connection with other clauses, and it seemed to him that the whole matter was really one of form, and that the word " may," which they now had inserted in the clause, made it permissive on a commanding officer to make these deductions; and the matter was made still clearer by Clause 135, which gave power to remit any deduction.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, he did not pretend to be an authority; but he would draw attention to the fact that Regulations could be issued by the Secretary of State for War, and would probably be issued, which would make these deductions imperative. The Secretary of State for War had power to order commanding officers to make these deductions of pay. Of course, if the Secretary of State for War promised that matters were to be left as they stood in the clause, there would be no question about reversing the presumption.
    COLONEL STANLEYremarked that he had already said once or twice that his intention was to leave the law as it existed at present.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that he had to move, as an Amendment, in page 71, line 9, to leave out from the clause the words "or as prisoner of war." The Amendment was one which stood on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain). He (Mr. Parnell) did not see any provision in the Bill for taking away the pay of an officer who had been taken prisoner of war, and it was unfair, therefore, to take away the pay of a soldier.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, if the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) would allow him, he would alter the clause by inserting words which would meet his views. He should propose to insert after " or as prisoner of war," the words, " without his absence is not satisfactorily explained."
    MR. PARNELLsupposed that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman meant that these deductions were to be made if a soldier were taken prisoner by reason of his own conduct.
    COLONEL STANLEY: If he were taken prisoner, and failed to establish that he did not have it in his power to get away.
    MR. CALLAN: That is, if he was taken prisoner by any want of due precaution.
    Amendment (Mr. Parnell), by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment (Colonel Stanley) agreed to.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEsaid, that he had to move an Amendment in page 71, lines 17 and 18, to leave out the words "to have been caused by his own misconduct." The effect of the Amendment was to prevent the ordinary pay of a soldier being deducted when he was in hospital on account of sickness, certified to have been caused by his own misconduct. There were various objections to the practice of deducting the pay of men who were incapacitated from duty owing to the contraction of certain diseases. The practice of making these deductions was only introduced into the Army some few years ago, and was a complete innovation. It should be remembered that only about 4 per cent of the men were allowed to marry, and there was, therefore, great excuse for them in the matter. The officers of the Army were strongly opposed to this deduction being made, for they said that it induced men
    1618
    to desert. It was also a strong objection to the system that the pay of officers was not deducted while they were incapacitated from similar causes, although lie had known some officers incapacitated from these diseases for several months. It might also happen that men were situated in districts where the Government had not taken the precaution to protect them from the disease. The greatest objection to these deductions from the men's pay was that it led to the concealment of disease on the part of the men.
    COLONEL ARBUTHNOTcould speak from his own experience as to the ill- effects of this system. Many medical officers had appealed to him during the last few years to do what he could to obtain a reversal of the system, because it was very detrimental to the Army. In his opinion, it led only to deception and to the concealment of disease; men were driven to quack doctors, and very often ruined their constitutions.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he was of opinion that the practice of deducting the pay of men when they were incapacitated by diseases of this character was a total failure. It led, in many cases, to the concealment and ultimate aggravation of the disease. He had also been informed by a medical officer that he had known cases of men being punished twice over, on the supposition that they had contracted a fresh disease. This was really a question of class legislation, for officers were not subject to the same penalties, although they were equally liable to contract the disease.
    MAJOR NOLANfully agreed with what had been said as to the evil effects of deducting men's pay for these reasons. He had never supported the theory that officers and soldiers should always be treated exactly the same; but he thought that, in this ease, it was the greatest unfairness to stop the pay of a soldier, while the pay of the officer was not stopped, for the same reason. He could see no good result from stopping the pay of a soldier—the State saved no money by so doing, and he could not but think that a great deal more harm than good was done by the practice. He hoped that the Amendment would be accepted.
    MR. HERSCHELLunderstood that the hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne) had moved to leave

    1619
    out the words " to have been caused by his own misconduct or " He would point out that if this were done there would be nothing left to govern the rest of the clause.
    COLONEL STANLEYthought, from what had been said, it must be assumed that it was not considered wise to deduct pay on account of illness caused by misconduct of a particular kind. Whether it would be wise to strike out the whole of the sub-section he did not know. With regard to the merits of the Amendment, he might say that there was no doubt that the effect of the stoppages was to cause a great deal of concealment, and thus to aggravate the disease. He was placed in this difficulty about the matter—he understood that all the questions in connection with this subject were already under the investigation of a Committee of the House. At the same time, he had no objection to the words " by his own misconduct " being struck out of the sub-section. He was very strongly in favour of the Amendment; but, perhaps, it would be necessary to provide for the case of a man who wilfully injured himself, and, if necessary, he would bring in words on the Report to provide for that case. He would consent to the Amendment, on the understanding that he should be at liberty to insert words to govern the other cases of misconduct.
    MR. PARNELLthought there could be no objection to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman taking the course he proposed, and inserting words to deal with other cases of misconduct, if he thought it necessary, on Report. He would, however, point out that self-mutilation was already made an offence under the Bill.
    MAJOR NOLANthought there were ample guarantees against self-mutilation in the clause, which had already been passed.
    COLONEL ARBUTHNOTsaid, that, in his opinion, it would be best to omit sub-section 2 altogether.
    Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he had an Amendment to propose to sub-section 3 of this clause—namely, after the word " destruction," to insert the word " directly," thus making a soldier only liable to have deductions made from his
    1620
    pay to make good, amongst other things, destruction directly occasioned by the commission of any offence by him.
    COLONEL STANLEYconsidered it would be unadvisable to insert this word. It was surely sufficient evidence that the damage or destruction had occasioned by him, if he were convicted of the offence.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, a very important question arose between the nature of direct and indirect damage, as to which he might allude to the well-known example of the Alabama Claims. If they were to make a soldier responsible for every expense, loss, damage, or destruction, he could be made liable for a good deal more than he ought to be in common fairness. No doubt, this was a legal point, and a man ought not to be held responsible for indirect damage arising out of his act. He thought that the Amendment might fairly be accepted, for he could imagine many cases in which it would be unfair to the soldier to make him responsible for damage not directly occasioned by him. He did not think that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should have any hesitation in accepting the Amendment.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONwas of opinion that the clause was perfectly clear as it stood, and he hoped that the Amendment would not be accepted.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 135 (Remission of deductions from ordinary pay); and Clause 136 (Supplemental as to deductions from pay), severally agreed to.

    Exemption of Officers and Soldiers.
    Clause 137 (Exemption of officers and soldiers from tolls).
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERmoved, as an Amendment, in page 72, line 34, after " regular," to insert " and auxiliary." His object in moving that Amendment was to make it perfectly clear what powers were to be conferred upon the Volunteers. He knew that, at certain times, the expression Regular Forces included the Volunteers of all arms; but he did not think that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War could object to put in the words he had moved, in order to make it perfectly clear. Let

    1621
    them consider, for one moment, the powers conferred upon a commanding officer. He could pass over regular ferries, with his soldiers, as passengers, and pay for himself, and each soldier, one-half only of the ordinary rate payable by single passengers, and he might have the ferry-boat for himself and his party, depriving others for that time, and should, in such cases, pay only half the ordinary rate for such boat. That was a very considerable power, and it was only right that the Volunteers should possess it. It was uncertain, as the clause stood, whether Volunteers on the march would be included in the term "soldiers of Her Majesty's Regular Forces on duty or on the march," or whether they would be entitled to do the various things which soldiers on service could do. He thought it was advisable to show perfectly, beyond any doubt, what powers were conferred upon Volunteers. It would be extremely inconvenient, unless it was thoroughly understood by the public in general, and by the Volunteers, that they had the same power as Regular soldiers; or, if they had not, that that also should be understood.
    COLONEL STANLEYthought that the clause did not require amendment. If not perfectly clear, he hoped to make it so. He would prefer the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wenlock (Mr. A. H. Brown), if he altered the clause at all.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONthought that the intention was not to include the Auxiliary Forces under the clause; and that by Regular Forces was meant those who served under continuous service. This clause, as it stood, did not include Volunteers, and he did not think it advisable that it should do so.
    MR. A. H. BROWNobserved, that this clause, undoubtedly, included Volunteers, because Clause 168 governed it, and placed the Auxiliary Forces in the position of the Regular Forces for the time being. The expression Regular Forces in this clause, therefore, included the Volunteer Forces, if they were subject to military law.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLthought it desirable that this clause should include Volunteers. They were raised and armed for the Public Service, and it was right that they should enjoy all proper facilities. In many parts of Scotland
    1622
    the tolls were absolutely monstrous, and unless some power were given to Volunteers to travel at a cheaper rate, they would, in many cases, be prevented from assembling.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSthought that it would be dangerous to insert the words suggested in this clause, as some conflict might arise with Clause 168.
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERthought it better to amend this clause, as, otherwise, there would be a difficulty in referring to the other clause to see what was meant.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSthought it would be better to leave the clause as it stood; but if it were necessary to make it more clear it could be done on Report.
    MR. PARNELLwished to point out to the Committee that when they came to Clause 168 it was proposed to enact that when officers and soldiers of the Auxiliary Forces were subject to military law they should be treated as if they were a part of the Regular Forces, and the Regulations enforced under the Act should apply to them. The matter only came to this—that if the Volunteers were subject to military law, then this clause would include them; but if they were not subject to military law at the time, this clause would not include them. The Committee was asked to go upon the assumption that the Volunteers were to be subjected to military law. But he must say that there would be a difference of opinion when they came to the part of the Bill by which they were made subject to military law. It was not right that Volunteers should be obliged to pay heavy charges for tolls. In Scotland tolls of 2s. 6d. or 5s. were not uncommon, and in England many turnpikes were still in existence. He was happy to say that in Ireland—where he hoped soon to see Volunteers —the roads were in a more advanced state, for they were made at the expense of the county in general, and there was no charge demanded of any person going along them. He believed that the roads in Ireland were the best roads in the world, and they were entirely free from all tolls. He certainly thought that this clause should be amended. It would be an anomaly if they did not give the Volunteers those facilities in Scotland which they would enjoy in Ireland. The Volunteers in

    1623
    Scotland would be obliged to pay very heavy tolls, while the Volunteers that were to be established in Ireland would pay nothing.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLunderstood that Volunteers on the march for the purposes of drill were exempt. The object in view might be attained by merely omitting the word "regular."
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERreplied, that Volunteers were already exempt from toll by the Volunteer Act, which was not superseded by this Bill; while even when this Bill was passed they would be exempted under the clause, because they were included as Regulars. He had only moved his Amendment in order to make the matter quite clear.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 138 (Exemption of soldiers in respect of civil process).
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEmoved, as an Amendment, in page 73, line 32, after the word " exceeds," to leave out the word " thirty," and to substitute " forty." He pointed out that the purchasing power of money was one-third less now than what it was when this Regulation was first introduced, and that, therefore, the change was desirable.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 73, line 32, to leave out the word thirty," in order to insert the word " forty."—(Major O'Beirne.)
    Question proposed, " That the word ' thirty' stand part of the Clause."
    COLONEL STANLEYdid not think it would be very desirable to make the alteration. Practically, there was not much difference between £30 and £40; and he should not like to disturb the present arrangement, which was well known, and was a very reasonable one.
    MR. PARNELLthought that one of the provisions of this clause was of a very extraordinary character. A soldier was not to be compelled to appear in Court, except for a debt or damages, where the amount exceeded £30. He could not understand why a soldier should not be compelled to appear before a Court of Law in reference to a smaller sum than £30.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the clause made no alteration in the present state of the law. It was desirable that soldiers
    1624
    should not be compelled to appear for comparatively small sums, for the obvious reason that he had not got the money to pay his expenses. He might be summoned from one part of the Kingdom to another, and then the loss would fall upon the public.
    MR. PARNELLthought that the provision was a very extraordinary one, and that it might be limited by making his appearance depend upon the will of his commanding officer, otherwise he might refuse to attend important trials as a witness.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONpointed out that this might give rise to some difficulty.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEbegged leave to withdraw the Amendment. [" No, no! "]
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 105; Noes 11: Majority 94.—(Div. List, No. 146.)
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 139 (Liability of soldier to maintain wife and children) agreed to.
    Clause 140 (Officers not to be sheriffs or mayors).
    MR. E. JENKINSsaid, he wished to move, as an addition to the clause, after the words " United Kingdom," in line 43, page 75, of the words " or and sit as the Representative in Parliament of any county or borough." The Amendment could not be a surprise, because it had been on the Paper for a considerable time, although it did not happen to be there now. He knew it was impossible for the Committee to make so serious a change as that proposed, and he merely moved it in order to ventilate the subject. Everyone who had sat in that House must have seen the effect upon all military questions, and especially upon the questions touched in this Bill, of the presence among them of hon. and gallant Gentlemen belonging to the Military Profession. They must feel that that Profession had a very large, and, possibly, a very unfair influence in that House. It was time, in his opinion, when the country should consider whether, as civil servants were excluded from Parliament, there was really any reason why military officers should be allow ed to represent, not only a con-

    1625
    stituency, but really the Military Profession in the House. The influence of the Army was really abnormal, and was altogether too great. Many military questions were decided in the House in a manner which was inherently unsatisfactory in principle, and was, certainly, very often injurious to the true interests of the country. It would not be difficult to show that, in this Session, instances of military influence had been allowed to stifle discussion, and to prevent certain matters being properly brought before the judgment of the House and the country. This had really brought him (Mr. E. Jenkins) to feel that they could not have a fair discussion on military questions so long as an enormous number of military officers were allowed to sit in the House. He had restricted his opposition to officers on full-pay, and who, therefore, ought to be on active service; and he thought the House must feel, in regard to them, at any rate, that there was a greal deal to be said against allowing officers to absent themselves from their duties in order to take part in their discussions. On the contrary, he had observed how very closely officers were kept to the grindstone in Austro-Hungary. Officers, Counts and Barons, were turned out every morning at 4 o'clock, and kept at drill for five hours; then they had to see that the horses were properly attended to; and then some six or eight of them might be ordered to ride 60 miles, and on the next morning make a sketch of the road, with military notes. It could not but be believed that there was an advantage, to both officers and soldiers, in keeping the officers close to the grindstone. In the Report of the Commission of 1869, they would find a statement by Major General Crealock, with reference to the German Army, that the esprit de corps was very great in consequence of the closeness with which the whole of the regiments were kept to their work. He could not but think that English officers on full-pay should not be allowed to indulge in the luxury of Parliamentary life. He simply raised the question; but he believed the day would shortly come when this change would be made.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped the Committee would not attempt to discuss the point, for it properly was not an Army question, but
    1626
    was rather of a constitutional character, and ought to be settled when some electoral measure was before the House, if not made a separate measure by itself.
    MR. E. JENKINSexplained that he merely wished to raise the question.
    MR. C. BECKETT-DENISONregretted that the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) was not in his place to hear what his Friends were saying about him.
    MR. SULLIVANreplied, that the Friends of the hon. and gallant Member (Major Nolan) were present, and could speak for him, if necessary; but they did not want to waste time over a purposeless discussion.
    MR. R. POWERsaid, if the Amendment were carried, they would, of course, lose the services of his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Nolan), and they would very much regret it; but if they on that side lost his services, hon. Members on the other side would also lose those of the hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir William Edmonstone).
    COLONEL ALEXANDERpointed out that officers serving in the Army, and who, of course, had had long practical experience, were the very men who could criticize the Bill with advantage. It would have been a very great disadvantage to the Committee if they had lost the services of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan).
    MR. BIGGARremarked, that the Amendment was moved on the general question, and with no reference to any particular Member.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLwas inclined to agree to the Amendment, although, undoubtedly, the military Members of the Committee had been most useful in the discussion of the Bill, and they could not well have got on without them.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.

    Court of Requests in India.
    Clause 141 (Military court of requests in India).
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEmoved, as an Amendment, to leave out sub-section 3. These courts only existed in India, and they were most useful. He could not see why, therefore, they should not be made available to soldiers as well as

    1627
    civilians. It very often happened that officers going home sold their furniture and equipments to another officer, and then could not get the money. The mere threat of a summons before the court of requests would very often be enough to insure payment.
    COLONEL STANLEYwas not personally acquainted with the working of these courts; but he understood they were to protect individual officers and soldiers where there were not courts for small causes. The law had been in existence for some considerable time, and as it had worked very well he thought they had better not interfere with it.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEhighly approved of the courts, and it was because they were such excellent things that he wished to extend their influence.
    MR. HERSCHELLpointed out that there might be some difficulty, in a court consisting of officers, in one officer suing another. There might be a question about the impartial nature of the inquiry. That, he imagined, was the reason for the exclusion of actions between officers and soldiers.
    MR. SULLIVANthought the possibility was the other way. If a court composed of officers was competent to deal with claims between civilians and military men, surely, it could deal with questions in which both parties were military men. Why should the Courts in Westminster be held competent to try questions between civilians, if the same thing did not hold good for military men also? It was not, however, a question of importance; but was simply a matter of convenience.
    COLONEL STANLEYthought the reason suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell) was the true one. To strike out these words would also be to act in opposition to the spirit of the former clause, that courts martial should not consist of officers of the same regiment.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEpointed out that there was not the slightest necessity that these officers should be of the same regiment. Nothing was easier than to get them from another regiment, and to make the persons in the suit pay the travelling expenses.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that, although he had had very great ex-
    1628
    perience of military men in India, he had, curiously, never had his attention drawn to this law at all. The existing law worked very well, and it would surely be dangerous to change it in a hurried way. Clearly, it was a longstanding policy, not to allow officers who had incurred debts to recover them in this way, and as it might be contrary to good feeling he thought it better to keep the law as it was.
    MR. BIGGARpointed out that the alteration was suggested for the convenience of officers, and to give them a speedy remedy; otherwise, they might have to go to the Law Courts, and be put to an expense for lawyers and so on.
    MR. PARNELLasked, whether the time had not now come to ask the Government fairly to report Progress? It was a Saturday Sitting, and, of course, if the Government chose, they could go on he, (Mr. Parnell) supposed, all Sunday; but, looking at the progress made, and the very important questions settled, and the number of hours the Committee had been sitting, and that that was the usual time for suspending the Sitting by the Standing Orders on other days, he would ask, whether the Government would now object to report Progress? He begged to move that.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, undoubtedly they had been sitting for some time, and they were making progress. As, however, the Committee were now fairly engaged upon the Bill, it would really be a saving of time if they were allowed to continue the Sitting, and to work through the clauses now before them.
    MR. PARNELLadded, that perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say how much of the Bill he wished to get through?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied, that, of course, he did not wish to keep them sitting to an unreasonable hour—not after 11 or 12. If they were allowed to go on and make real substantial progress with the Bill they might rise earlier.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to keep them there till 11 on Saturday.

    1629
    He would respectfully suggest to the Committee to re-consider whether that was reasonable; and next, whether it was practicable? He thought, considering the progress made, they might now be allowed to go home.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEhoped the Motion to report Progress would not be persisted in. If it were an early period of the Session, the suggestion would be perfectly legitimate; but they must consider the general condition of Public Business. They had been engaged for the greater part of the Session upon the Bill. It had received very thorough discussion from some hon. Members; and though some hon. Gentlemen might fairly object, and assert that these discussions had been drawn out to a considerable extent, still, no doubt, great and material improvements in the law had resulted, more especially in regard to flogging. But the condition in Parliament of Public Business had now become almost intolerable, and he was sure hon. Members did not wish to make the House the laughing-stock of the public. He was not disposed to join in the cry that there was other important Business besides this Bill before the House. There was one measure which he was very anxious to see carried, the Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Bill. [" Question, Question! "] There were other measures which he should be very sorry to see dropped, such as the Valuation Bill, a measure which was of great importance to those of them who lived in the country.
    MR. SHAWthought they had some reason to congratulate the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) upon the specimen which he had just given them of obstruction. He did not see what a lecture on Public General Business had to do with reporting Progress. Of course, some people were born orators, and others were made orators by experience. On this question he had every wish to help the Government; but he also had some consideration for hon. Gentlemen who had been sitting there all day, and were now asked to sit till 12. He suggested that they should adjourn till 9; and after they had eaten their dinners he would be quite willing to sit till 12, or they might do some more Business, and adjourn at 8 o'clock.
    MR. E. JENKINSsuggested that they should go on with the Bill up to Clause 144, the last of the Indian clauses, after which there were some important Amendments which must give rise to considerable discussion. As they had worked very hard, he thought they might be allowed to go after that. Personally speaking, he was quite prepared to sit there till Monday morning, if necessary; but he hoped the Government would not make any attempt to push the measure in that way.
    MR. ASSHETONthought they ought to do a fair day's work. When the House met on Saturdays it usually sat at 12 o'clock; but on this occasion, owing to circumstances to which he need not allude, it did not meet till half-past 1. He, therefore, thought it might fairly go on for some considerable time further.
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERobserved, that they were now on Part IV. of the Bill, and that there were no important Amendments which were likely to occupy any considerable time until they came to Clause 166, which was the first clause in Part V. He thought they might fairly go on until they reached the end of Part IV.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would willingly agree to that, if the Committee would proceed with its work at once.
    MR. BIGGARasked how many clauses were contained in Part IV?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the proposal was to go on up to Clause 165.
    MR. BIGGARdid not think the proposition was at all reasonable. They had already been there six hours, and he thought hon. Members were entitled to some rest. He did not think the Government had any right to complain of the progress which had been made with the Bill, considering all the time that had been wasted by the Government themselves. [" No, no! "] Why, what had been done last week? Long discussions, it is true, had taken place on some Amendments; but, on the other hand, a long discussion had taken place as to the production of the cats. What had been the result of that discussion? The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty came down yesterday and agreed to what had been fought for, apologizing for what had

    1631
    taken place before, so far as the right hon. Gentleman himself was concerned. The Valuation Bill was of no importance until they had a satisfactory tribunal in the counties to carry it out; while the Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Bill was a very short matter. He thought they might go to the end of Clause 144, which would, he believed, satisfy the hon. Member for Meath.
    MR. PULESTONhoped the Government would not give way. He could inform the Committee that a number of hon. Members on one side had arranged to remain in their seats to assist the Government in getting the Bill through the Committee. He hoped the Committee would, therefore, sit and do its work.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL, while disapproving of any such arrangement being made, pointed out that this was scarcely a proper point at which to report Progress. It would be better to go on until they came to a suitable point to raise it.
    MR. SULLIVANalso thought they should go on until they came to some substantial Amendment. He should object to any proposition to go to this particular clause, or to sit till that hour; but there was a good deal in the Bill which they might get through, and he was willing to make progress till a reasonable hour. It was their duty to pass any Amendments to which they could not make fair exception.
    Mr. PARNELLwas quite content to go on until they reached some Amendment which required discussion; but he considered the statement of the hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne) was one which required attention and consideration; although, as the matter related to India, it was one on which many hon. Members were ignorant. There were, however, certain matters in Clause 145 in which ho (Mr. Parnell) took considerable interest, and if the right hon. Gentleman would go as far as that clause he would then be willing to report Progress. They had already sat up to the time at which, ordinarily, the House would adjourn. [Sir WILLIAM EDMONSTONE: Oh, oh!] The hon. and gallant Admiral said " Oh, oh! " but he (Mr. Parnell) was sure that he would be willing to respect the wisdom of his ancestors, who had
    1632
    made these Standing Orders. He did not wish to inconvenience the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he must point out that they had already been there a very long time, and were becoming exhausted. If the right hon. Gentleman would give them an interval of two hours, or even an hour, so that they might go to dinner, it would show some consideration; but he (Mr. Parnell) objected to this Bill being forced upon them in the way it was, by a sort of vi et armis process, or to ask them to submit their Amendments when they were faint with hunger.
    MR. E. JENKINSsuggested to the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) that they should go on until they reached some substantial Amendment. One or two important Amendments, he understood, were likely to be accepted by the Government.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEalso hoped they might be allowed to go on.
    MR. PARNELLunderstood that it was not possible for them to adjourn for an hour, and then resume the Sitting. [An hon. MEMBER: No, we cannot, and if we could we should not.] He did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be stubborn, as the Government had not been treated badly that day. Many most important Amendments had been withdrawn, and considerable progress had been made. He, therefore, had no other course but to press his Motion to a Division.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 5; Noes 76: Majority 71.—(Div. List, No. 147.)
    Question again proposed, to leave out " Sub-section 3."
    MR. R. POWERhoped that the Government would not keep them there all night. The Committee ought to remember that the greatest obstruction to this Bill had come from the Treasury Bench. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might sneer and laugh; but the Government had wasted the best part of one night in discussing the conduct of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), and then had taken no action in the matter. They had wasted the best portion of another night by refusing to produce the cats; the very

    1633
    next day had had to give way to the general feeling of the Committee. If they went on till 9 o'clock, they would do all in their power to facilitate progress.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, if hon. Gentlemen would address themselves to the Question before the Committee, they would get home long before 9. He intended to leave out Clause 145, and he had no objection to the Amendment on Clause 146. The remainder of the clauses in Part IV. were merely procedure clauses; and he did not think it was unreasonable, there being so few Amendments down, that they should proceed to the end of that Part.
    MR. SULLIVANremarked, that this debate was beginning to take a turn that he did not like. An intimation had been plainly made across the floor of the House that an organization was in existence to provide the Government with a sufficient amount of physical force to snatch the Bill through. It was clear that there was this organization in existence. [" Oh, oh! " and No, no! "] Yes, that intimation had been made plainly and frankly by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Puleston), and he (Mr. Sullivan) honoured the hon. Gentleman for his candour in making the statement. If the Government were going to try and sweep the Bill through in this way, he would advise them to consider the matter before they began to get warm and lose their tempers. They had better really do at the beginning what, if this scene were continued, they would find at 11 o'clock had not been done. He would appeal to his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) to let them go on until they came to some substantial Amendment likely to require much discussion. When he fought, if he was forced to fight, he liked to fight with his back against a rock; and he did not wish to fight until he was forced. The Government ought not to meet them in this spirit of sitting till 11 or 12 o'clock, in conjunction with the intimation that an organization had been prepared to force the Bill through. That could only result in failure. If they might go on till they came to an important Amendment, he was quite ready to sit till 12 o'clock on Sunday night to resist any unfair attempt on the part of the Government to carry out the design which had just been so unfortunately avowed.
    MR. ONSLOWhad not been asked to lend himself to any system of organization, and his hon. Friend (Mr. Puleston) merely said that his object was to assist the Government in passing the Bill. If hon. Members would allow the Government to take a certain number of clauses that afternoon, in all probability there would be no need for another Saturday's Sitting.
    MR. SHAWheard the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston) say quite distinctly that he was prepared to sit all night. That was not the way to facilitate Business. He (Mr. Shaw) was quite prepared to help the Government, and if they would name an hour which was not unreasonable he would be quite willing to assent. For instance, ho would not object to 9 o'clock, or even to 10, in order to get the Business done; but already they had spent an hour in these discussions, in which it would have been much easier to have gone on with the work.
    MR. HERSCHELLsaid, he came down to the House that day, because, as he served on the Committee on the Mutiny Act, he felt bound to give such assistance as he could. He was not in the least disposed to sit there. He had been working hard all the week, he had not been in bed any night before three o'clock, and he was not disposed to work any harder than was necessary. Still, he did feel that unless they made more progress than 10 clauses a-Sitting their self-sacrifice would be thrown away, and the Bill would be thrown over. He thought the suggestion that they should go on until a substantial Amendment was reached was a fair one.
    MR. MONKhoped the Government would not agree to the suggestion that they should go on to a certain hour, because they all knew the way in which work could be stopped from their experience in the past. They ought to go on until some fair and reasonable progress had been made, and he was himself perfectly ready to sit until 12 o'clock.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he was not unwilling to accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell)—to go on with the Bill until they came to a substantial Amendment; but the Amendment proposed to the present clause by the hon. Member for Leith was one of very much import-

    1635
    ance, and he did not think that either the hon. and learned Member for Durham or himself was a good judge of it, because it was an Indian question. But even if they went on until they came to a substantial Amendment, how did he know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would fulfil his promise? The difficulty was, the Government never considered any Amendment which came from that side of the House as important. There was evidently an attempt being made that night to carry the Bill through by physical force. [" No, no! "] It was all very well for hon. Members to say " No, no!" but that had been admitted by an hon. Member opposite. He (Mr. Parnell) remembered very well what came of the 26 hours' Sitting on the African Bill, and he saw that precisely the same arrangements were being made now as on that occasion. He was not going to wear himself out as uselessly as he did then, but intended to keep up his strength. He should not speak again; but he should use every Form which the House allowed in order to prevent the Bill being hurried through Committee without being properly discussed. He could assure the Government that it would take them much longer than 26 hours to press the Bill through Committee by physical force. During the 26 hours' Sitting, he and several other Irish Members were, unfortunately, subjected to great provocation and the most scandalous charges; and, of course, it was not in human nature to stand some of the things which wore said to them at that Sitting.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must point out to the hon. Member that what he was now stating had no reference to the subject before the Committee.
    MR. PARNELLthought there was every reason for his course, which he intended to end in a Motion to report Progress. He submitted that they would never reach an Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer considered important, because he considered none of them important. He (Mr. Parnell) and his Friends had been left repeatedly in minorities of 15, 25, and 35—none of them having exceeded 40—yet now it turned out that they had been right all along, and that the Government had been wrong. For instance, the whole of the evening of Thursday was spent by one or two of the Irish Members, until
    1636
    the conscience of the Committee was aroused; and when it was aroused, after a time the Chancellor of the Exchequer attempted to turn the whole question into a personal matter; yet the effect of that discussion was that the Government had now made fresh announcements, and had actually gone so far as to give great hopes that the flogging clauses would be entirely withdrawn. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to act up to his word as an English Gentleman, and to keep the pledge which he gave to the House. [" Oh, oh! "] Well, did hon. Gentlemen mean to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not an English Gentleman? On the 19th June the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that no objection would be made to any fair discussion on the principle of each clause as it was reached; but was it fair that they should be asked to go on discussing clauses when they were exhausted in this way, and when they had been in the House since half-past 1, and when they had been in the House also up to half-past 3 during the week? This was simply a monstrous proposition. Now, the Government were asking the Committee to do that which was directly contrary to the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When the Bill was introduced, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War anticipated it would take three days' discussion; to that he (Mr. Parnell) replied that it was impossible to discuss such a Bill in the time, and to that the Government at last agreed, and so on throughout the history of the Bill. He wished to argue the Bill fairly and fully; but if, instead of argument, the Government were determined to resort to force, why they would use what little force they had in return. Of course, they would be beaten in the end; but they would fight very hard. There was not a single thing he had done through the whole history, since he first commenced his opposition to this law four years ago, in a minority of three or four, that he regretted, or that had been proved to be wrong, although the majority had thought so at the time. Therefore, he could not regard the opinions of educated and intelligent Gentlemen on this subject so highly as he might on others.
    THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Member that it was only by the indul-

    1637
    gence of the Committee he had been permitted to continue his remarks. He must point out that these observations were not in Order. Had the hon. Gentleman concluded with the Motion?
    Mr. PARNELLsaid, he was under the impression there was a Motion before the Committee; but if there were not he would move it.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved, that if the energy and ingenuity which had been spent by hon. Members in discussing whether they should go on had been exercised in proceeding with the clauses, they would probably have pretty nearly by that time have got through their work. In reference to the suggestion that there was an attempt on the part of the Government to force the Bill through the House, he wished to say that the proposition to go on to the end of Part IV. was made by an hon. Member on the other side, which seemed to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) a very reasonable one, considering the Amendments on the Paper, and considering that it was made by a Gentleman who thoroughly understood the Bill. He believed that an hour or so would fully suffice to complete that part of the Bill. He also entirely repudiated the charge of organized obstruction. Certainly, a certain number of hon. Gentlemen had arranged to sit during the dinner hour; but that was all that had been done. It was entirely with the Committee to decide whether they would or would not make progress; and he would call attention to the remarkable fact that in the last Division 76 Members were in favour of going on, against 5 for not doing so, which proved that force was not being used in order to continue the work of the Committee.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: — Ayes 4; Noes 67: Majority 63. — (Div. List, No. 148.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Major 0'Gorman.)
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: — Ayes 4; Noes 67: Majority 63. — (Div. List, No. 149.)
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    Mr. BIGGARmoved that the Chairman do leave the Chair. They had already been seven hours at work, and material progress had already been made; yet they were asked to pass some 30 clauses more, without any reference to Amendments which might be proposed on them. That was a thoroughly untenable contention; besides which it was impossible to debate the merits of particular Amendments when a Committee had been sitting for seven hours and was tired out. Recently, on an Amendment, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War made an answer which had no reference to the Amendment, which showed that he was, even then, physically unfit, to some extent, for the proper consideration of these Amendments. Their object was not merely to pass a Bill, but to make an Act as nearly perfect as possible. As far as he was personally concerned, he did not wait to hear the debate on agricultural depression the previous night, with which he might have been more or less—probably less—edified. He thought the primary reason of agricultural depression was the enormous rents charged by landlords.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the hon. Member was not in Order in referring to the debate of the previous night upon another question.
    MR. BIGGARreplied, that he was only pointing out what he would have said if he had spoken.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERasked whether the hon. Member was not avoiding the decision of the Chair?
    MR. BIGGARsaid, on that branch of the subject he had really said all he wanted to say. Instead of waiting for that debate he went home to his lodgings; and, therefore, he was now in such a frame of mind that he was prepared to sit down as long as the Government might think it convenient. He had no private engagements that evening, and he would sit there until any time, rather

    1639
    than allow the Government to pass the Bill unargued and unexamined. He had no Amendments down himself; but there were many down in the name of hon. Members not present.
    Motion made, and Question put, " That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Biggar.)
    The Committee divided:— Ayes 5; Noes 68: Majority 63. — (Div. List, No. 150.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. R. Power.)
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that some progress had been made with the Bill tonight, and there he was of opinion that the further consideration of the measure might well be now adjourned until Monday. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, proposed to continue sitting some few hours longer; and, for his own part, he (Mr. Biggar) was quite willing to go on. He, and those who acted with him, formed a very small Party, and by continuing to sit for some hours longer only about half-a-dozen of them would be inconvenienced; whereas, on the Government side of the House, some 60 hon. Members were subjected to the inconvenience of a prolonged Saturday Sitting. The balance of inconvenience, therefore, rested with the other side of the House. He did not know whether that argument would or would not influence hon. Members opposite; but there was also the inconvenience to the Chairman and to the officials of the establishment. He had not heard the Government offer any argument in support of the principle of tired-out Members of Parliament attempting to legislate. It certainly was not for the interest of the country that hon. Members should undertake to do that which was virtually impossible—namely, to pass a good measure when they were worn out. It was far better to have a good Bill, after due consideration had been given to it, than a bad one, hastily passed on a Saturday afternoon. For these reasons, he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would not be as well that Progress should be reported, and that the Committee ask leave to sit again, to take the further
    1640
    clauses of the measure into consideration on Monday. It was altogether impossible to give a Bill of this importance the fair and full consideration which it deserved after such a prolonged Sitting, when they were all tired out. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to wish that they should take the clauses which he asked them to pass without examination.
    MR. GRAYsaid, that in discussing the clauses of the Bill he had been most anxious not to unduly take up the time of the Committee; but he now felt called upon to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. R. Power). For his own part, he should give his best attention to any Amendments on the Bill which might be brought forward either that evening, or in the course of to-morrow. He had left the House some hours ago, thinking there was no necessity for his presence; but a message had been sent to him to the effect that Divisions were being taken on the adjournment, in consequence of an hon. Member on the left—on the Government side—having stated in his place publicly in the House that relays of Members had been organized to enable the Government to force the Bill through at that Sitting.
    MR. PULESTONrose to Order. The hon. Member was misquoting the observation he (Mr. Puleston) had made. He denied that he had stated that the Government had organized relays of Members to enable them to force the Bill through at that Sitting. [" Order, order! "]
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston) was not entitled to rise to Order to correct a matter of fact. The hon. Member could state his case further on.
    MR. GRAYsaid, that it was within his recollection that, two years ago, a similar attempt had been made by the Government to force a measure through that House during a single Sitting by means of physical force. He was at that time one of a small minority who opposed that attempt, and he had resisted it to his utmost. He was prepared to adopt a similar course now, and as often as it might be necessary to do so; because such an attempt on the part of the Government was unconstitutional, and utterly destructive to the liberty of Parliament. That these attempts would be made had been

    1641
    spoken of and had been written of. They were not matters of gossip. It was complained that there had been undue criticism of the Bill, and that there had been so-called obstruction; but those who had made these complaints could not deny that substantial Amendments on important points had been carried by those who had criticized the measure, and whose criticism was objected to. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now wished to compel them to pass some 20 odd clauses more of the Bill, whether they wished to do so or not, and that on a Saturday, the only night which hon. Members had at their disposal, and perhaps would force them to sit all through Sunday. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman was at all justified in adopting such a course; and, for his own part, he should resist to the utmost every such attempt on the part of the Government. He was not one of those who thought that, in all circumstances, a small minority was justified in resisting the will of the majority; but there were occasions—and that, in his opinion, was one of them—when a minority, however small, was amply justified in availing itself of all the Forms of the House to resist, à outrance, all attempts to force a measure through without time being given for its due consideration. This was an occasion of the kind. The Government had refused to listen to the arguments of his hon. Friends. He wished to point out, however, that they were all in a good humour so far; if the discussion degenerated into a wrangle, as it did on Thursday, he doubted if the Government would come out of it with any greater credit than they did that night.
    MR. PULESTONsaid, he rose in consequence of the remarks which had just been made by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Gray) in reference to the statement which he had made. The hon. Member was in error in assuming that he (Mr. Puleston) had said that the Government had arranged for relays of hon. Members to come down and relieve each other for the purpose of enabling the Committee to sit all through the night. He had never said anything of the kind. He had, as he had already explained privately to the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), simply got up in his place, and stated that he, amongst others, had arranged to remain so as to insure
    1642
    that a House should be kept for the conduct of Business, and that, having made that arrangement at great inconvenience to themselves, he hoped that the Leader of the House and others would enable them to carry out their object—that of making substantial progress with the Bill. That was the arrangement that had been entered into. There was no secret agreement of any sort. It was the desire of hon. Members on that side of the House, as well as on the other, that the Business of the House should be carried on, and he hoped that they would be allowed to attain that end tonight, so that no more of these exceptional Sittings would be required.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, that he hoped that they were not going to have a repetition that night of the discreditable proceedings of 1877. He had been away from the Committee for the last three or four hours, and he sincerely regretted that he had left, because he should have wished to have argued the point as to the propriety of reporting Progress at a reasonable hour. That being Saturday night, he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would assent to the proposal for adjourning; for he, like the majority of people, was in the habit of making different arrangements on the Saturday from those of Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, when he expected to be in the House until late. It was ridiculous for the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Puleston) to talk about relays of Members being brought there by the Government to enable the Committee to sit up all night.
    MR. PULESTONsaid, he had already positively denied that he had made any such statement.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, he was glad to hear the hon. Member say so. He hoped that the Government would not resort to any such practice. Two of the clauses which the right hon. Gentleman asked the Committee to pass in this hasty manner had been postponed, and he had several very important Amendments to propose on them; and he hoped that the Government were not going to try and force them through in a thin Committee. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to have some little mercy on hon. Members and on himself, on a Saturday night, and not to require them to sit to an unreasonable hour.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he was bound in fairness to the hon. and gallant Member who had just spoken (Major Nolan) to say that the remarks made by the hon. Member for Devon-port (Mr. Puleston) did appear to hon. Members on that side of the House unfortunate, because they certainly were liable to be misunderstood. He did not himself understand the hon. Member for Devonport to say anything about relays of Members being brought down to the House.
    MR. PULESTONsaid, that he had never used the word " relays."
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he had not understood the hon. Member to use the word; but it was, nevertheless, just possible that some such construction might be placed upon the words he had used. Considering the hypercritical mode in which hon. Members opposite had treated the Amendments which had been proposed by hon. Members on that side of the House, he thought that they themselves should be somewhat guarded in the expressions they used. At the time the hon. Member made his remarks, he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had said to an hon. Friend near him that he expected that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say—" Save me from my friends." The matter, however, had now been made clear by the statement of the hon. Member, and it ought to be accepted that the hon. Member did not intend to imply that the Government were prepared to force the Bill through by means of physical strength. That being so, hon. Members on that side of the House might consent to waive the point, and the painful impression which the language of the hon. Member for Devonport had left upon their minds having been removed he hoped that they might now get on with the Bill.
    MR. RITCHIE, said, that he desired to point out to the Committee that this Bill was a very urgent matter, inasmuch as he understood that the present Act expired about the 25th or 26th of this month, and that, therefore, it was absolutely necessary that either this or another Bill should become law before that time. The occasion, therefore, being urgent, hon. Members should agree to get on with the Bill until a reasonable hour for adjourning had arrived. He was satisfied that if substantial pro-
    1644
    gress were made with the Bill the Government would have no desire to keep hon. Members in attendance beyond a reasonable hour. He, therefore, asked hon. Members opposite to assist the Committee in getting on with the Bill, so that they might dispose of at least some clauses, instead of wasting their time making Motions for the adjournment of the Committee. He might remind hon. Members opposite that they might just as well be discussing the provisions of the Bill as to spend time in wrangling over the hour for adjourning. If the Government desired to go on until a reasonable hour for adjourning had arrived, he was sure that the hon. Members around him would support them. In the circumstances of the case, the Government might have expected to have received some support from those who usually occupied the Front Bench on the Opposition side of the House; but he regretted to see that its sole occupant was the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins).
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, that he understood that the Government were willing to adjourn at a reasonable hour; but that the Chancellor of the Exchequer objected to fix any particular hour for adjourning, through fear that hon. Members who sat opposite to them might avail themselves of the opportunity of talking out the Bill. He was anxious to offer a suggestion to the Government which would prevent that course being adopted, and that was, that when a certain number of clauses had been passed the Committee should report Progress. He was in favour of making a sensible progress with the measure; and, therefore, he would repeat what lie had said an hour or two ago to hon. Members who had moved to report Progress. He promised the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) that if he would allow the discussion on the clauses to go on until a reasonable hour for adjourning had been reached, if there was any attempt on the part of the Government to force the Bill on beyond that time, he would vote with him to the last. Clause 141 was now under consideration, and if that clause and Clauses 142, 143, 144, 145, and 146 were disposed of, he should consider that reasonable progress had been made with the Bill on a Saturday Evening Sitting. He made the proposition in the hope

    1645
    that both the Government and his hon. Friends would consider it a reasonable settlement of the dispute between them.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not appear disposed to come to any compromise on the question; and, therefore, he felt bound to state for the information of those hon. Members who had entered the House since the discussion had arisen how matters stood. The hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), who had sat in his place without intermission since the Chairman had taken the Chair, had moved to report Progress about a quarter past 7 o'clock. The hon. Member had very reasonably pointed out then that ho was physically tired, and that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Bill was also very much exhausted by his labours, and that, therefore, it was only reasonable that Progress should be reported. But what was the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the proposal? He said that he would agree to report Progress when 24 clauses had been passed; and ho more than insinuated that if those clauses were not agreed to he would withdraw that offer. In his (Mr. Biggar's) opinion, that offer could scarcely be regarded as being a very liberal one. With reference to the observation of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), that this was a very urgent Bill, it appeared to him that it was far more important that a measure of this kind, which was permanently to supersede the existing law, should be a good and well-considered one, than that Parliament should be able to get through a large number of crude measures during the present Session. The practice of passing Bills hurriedly through the House led to an enormous waste of time, because some half-a-dozen Bills had afterwards to be brought in to amend and re-amend and to consolidate the first ill-considered measure; and thus the same thing had to be done over and over again, because it was deemed necessary to press Bills through that House as rapidly as possible. He submitted that any Bill that came before that House should be strictly and carefully examined from one end to the other, and then it would not require to be amended subsequently, and would not give rise to the unfortunate differences
    1646
    of opinion which lawyers and Judges so frequently entertained with regard to the meaning of Acts of Parliament. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) had adverted to the controversy which had arisen in that House with regard to the South African Bill. That measure had been pushed through that House by means of physical force, practically unexamined in its details, and the result was—the annexation of the Transvaal and the present Zulu War.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that he must remind the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) that the Question before the Committee was that Progress should be reported, and that, therefore, he would be out of Order in adverting to the state of affairs at the Cape.
    Mr. BIGGARsaid, that he must respectfully submit to the Chairman that the subject to which he was adverting was one which had considerable bearing upon the Question before the Committee. It was perfectly indifferent to him to what time the Committee sat that night; but what he contended was, that the very fact that the Chairman had stopped him showed that he had been as long in the Chair as any Chairman should be asked to sit.
    THE CHAIRMANrose to interrupt the hon. Member.
    MR. RITCHIE: Order, order!
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he also rose to Order. Was the hon. Member in Order in making such a reflection as that upon the conduct of the Chairman?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the language of the hon. Member, as he understood it, was unseemly, and did not appear to him to be such as the Committee ought to hear addressed to the Chairman, upon whose conduct and ability to be in the Chair it seemed to reflect. What he understood the hon. Member to have said was that, from his manner of conducting the Business of the Committee, it appeared that the Chairman had been long enough in the Chair. Language like that ought not to be addressed to the Chair; and, therefore, the expression ought to be withdrawn.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that, of course, he was willing to withdraw any language that he had used which could be construed into a reflection upon the conduct of the Chairman.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONrose to Order, and said, that the hon. Member should be called upon to withdraw the words he had used reflecting upon the Chair.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that the hon. Member had withdrawn the expression. He must protest against these attempts, on the part of the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon), to exercise terrorism over hon. Members. The hon. Member, he must repeat, had withdrawn the words. [An hon. MEMBER: He has not.]
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICErose to Order. Was the hon. Member for Meath justified in using the word "terrorize," as applied to the action of Members of the Committee?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the word " terrorize " was not a proper one for the hon. Member for Meath to use towards any Member of the Committee, and, therefore, he should withdraw it.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, certainly he would withdraw the word; only the word he had used was " terrorism, ' and not " terrorize. He wished, however, to point out to the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) that the hon. Member for Cavan County (Mr. Biggar) had distinctly withdrawn—[An hon. MEMBER: Disclaimed.] [" No, no!"] —the expression which had been objected to as being supposed to reflect upon the conduct of the hon. Gentleman in the Chair. [Mr. ASSIIETON CROSS: No!] He begged the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; but the hon. Member for Cavan County had distinctly withdrawn the expression.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must point out to the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) that he was not speaking to a question of Order, but to one of fact. The hon. Member for Cavan County (Mr. Biggar) had better speak to the question of fact, being best able to do so. He (the Chairman) had certainly not understood the hon. Member for Cavan County to withdraw the expression. He, therefore, thought it would be proper for him to state that he did so now.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, it appeared to him that the Committee were proving rather clearly that the time had arrived
    1648
    when Progress should be reported. Several Members of the Committee—["Order, order! "]
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. Member for Cavan County had used an expression to which exception had been taken by other hon. Members, on the ground that it reflected upon the Chair, and that the hon. Member had risen, he (the Chairman) understood, with the view to withdraw that expression. He thought, therefore, that the hon. Member, before he offered any further remarks, would see that it was only respectful to the Committee that he should withdraw the expression.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that he freely withdrew any expression which could be supposed to reflect on the conduct of the Chair, although he really did not exactly recollect the words he was supposed to have used. The discussion, however, that had just taken place proved to him that certain bon. Members of the Committee were, from some cause or another, not in a fit state of mind to closely examine the details of this Bill. What he wished to point out to the Committee, with the leave of the hon. Gentleman in the Chair, was this—that the proceedings which had resulted from the South African Bill afforded an illustration of the dangers which often followed upon hasty legislation. They were now asked to pass 24 clauses of an important Bill, after the Committee had been sitting for nearly seven hours. He, therefore, felt bound to warn the Committee against hasty legislation, and he wished to illustrate his argument by showing what had been the result of the South African Bill. He did not wish to refer to the policy or impolicy of the Zulu War, much as he objected to it, because that must be argued on some future occasion by those who were more qualified than he was to speak upon it; but he wished to point out, with reference to the South Africa Bill, that a great many clauses—
    MR. RITCHIErose to Order. He wished to know whether the hon. Member for Cavan County was in Order in referring to affairs in South Africa after the ruling from the Chair?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the point of Order to which he had thought it his duty to call the hon. Member for the County of Cavan's attention was that he was not entitled upon this question to deal with South African politics. He had

    1649
    informed the hon. Member that he would be out of Order in adverting to that subject on the Motion for reporting Progress. He could not, however, say that the hon. Member was out of Order in referring to what had occurred during the passing of the South African Bill as a precedent.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that his intention, in referring to the South African Bill, was merely to exemplify the evils of hasty and ill-considered legislation, and that he had no desire whatever to refer to South African politics on that occasion. There were other hon. Members who wore far more competent to deal with South African politics than he was, and, therefore, he would not offer any remarks upon that subject; but, at the same time, he might go so far as to say that events which had recently occurred in South Africa had resulted mainly from the policy put forward in that Bill and confirmed by it. Had the arguments put forward at the time of the passing of that Bill by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) been attended to and acted upon by the Government of the day, probably matters at the Cape would have been in a very different position from that in which they now stood. And yet Her Majesty's Government was now proposing to pursue precisely the same course with regard to the measure before the Committee as was adopted in reference to the South African Bill—namely, to force it through Committee as rapidly as possible. Thus, while only four or five clauses of the Bill had been got through in six or seven hours, while hon. Members were fresh to the work, the Government now asked them to pass some 24 clauses at the end of a prolonged Sitting. He did not know what was in those clauses, for he had not read them; but he was satisfied from the Amendments on them, which had been placed on the Paper, that there was a good deal of work to be done before they could be got through. It was then past 9 o'clock, and probably, if the clauses down to Clause 146 were passed, the Government would consider that 10 o'clock was a sufficiently late hour for the Committee to sit. But the proposition that they should take 20 additional clauses was a most unreasonable one; and he should not advise the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), whose opinion on this
    1650
    subject he valued so highly, to yield to what the Government proposed.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that he had only one remark to make in reply to what had fallen from hon. Members opposite, and that was that this was not a question of hasty legislation at all, nor one upon which the opinion of the Committee had been invited by a Notice upon the Paper, but of proceeding with the consideration of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, some two and a-half hours ago, adopting a suggestion which had come from the other side of the House, had said that ho did not propose that the Committee should sit to an unreasonable hour, and that, under any circumstances, they should not go beyond the end of Part IV. What was the position of affairs at that moment? They were then on Clause 141, and, with reference to that clause, one Amendment only had been placed upon the Paper, which had been substantially accepted by the Government. This was not a question of passing 20 or 30 clauses, but whether the Committee should go on with the Bill, or should be compelled to listen to the same thing over and over again. He thought that the country would understand that four or five hon. Members said that, entirely contrary to the constantly expressed wish of an enormous majority of that Committee, they were determined that the Bill should not be proceeded further with that evening.
    MR. HERSCHELLsaid, that he was sorry that the lion. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) should have thought it necessary to make the reflection he had done upon the state of the Opposition Benches.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that in making that reflection he had only been referring to the Front Bench.
    MR. HERSCHELLsaid, that it scarcely came well from an hon. Member, whom he (Mr. Herschell) saw for the first time that evening, to make any such reflection upon the empty state of the front Opposition Bench. He himself had been there at considerable personal inconvenience, doing his best to assist in the passing of this measure, which, upon the whole, he believed to be a desirable one, in the interest of the public. As regarded sitting to an unreasonable hour, he had frequently formed one of a very small minority in favour of report-

    1651
    ing Progress, when he felt that there was an undue attempt to force a measure on. It could not, therefore, be said that lie was one of those who was afraid of being in a minority, or who desired always to act with the majority in unduly pressing forward a measure of this kind. He fully agreed that there were many cases in which, where a question of principle was involved, a minority was justified in using all the Forms of the House to enforce their views. There was only one occasion on which he had joined in sitting up to a very late hour, and then, certainly, he did sit up all night, and that was when he was assisting the majority of the Irish Members to pass a Bill which, it was said, had the approval of the Irish people generally. He, therefore, felt that, in these circumstances, he had a right to make an appeal to the Irish Members then present. There was, undoubtedly, a general desire to go on with the Bill to a reasonable hour, and when that hour arrived he would join them in moving that Progress should be reported. He had no doubt that the present discussion had originated in the fear that some sort of organized pressure was about to be brought to bear by the Government.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that that was certainly the case.
    MR. HERSCHELLsaid, that, if when two or three hon. Members thought that the time had arrived when it was not desirable to proceed further, they adopted a course calculated to prevent the further progress of a Bill, the result would be that it would always be in the power of a very few Members to set at naught the wishes of the majority, which would be most inconvenient, and would greatly interfere with the transaction of the Business of that House. If that position of things was reversed, hon. Members below the Gangway would think that they were being hardly dealt with. He proposed that they should go on with the Bill, say, for an hour from that time, when he would join in the desire that Progress should be reported.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell) had put many matters before the Committee with his usual ability; but he had forgotten one very important one—namely, that this was Saturday, when working men were accustomed to have a holiday. He had himself worked
    1652
    hard during the week, and he was anxious to obtain some little relaxation from his labours. There was, however, another point to which he desired to draw attention. There were 13 right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, which was crammed to overflowing, so much so, that the Secretary to the Treasury was obliged to sit elsewhere, the Under Secretary of State for India was obliged to stand behind the Chair, and the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, finding no place for him in the House, thought it better to remain outside. Looking to that side of the House, what did they see? Why, there was not a single one of its usual occupants on the front Opposition Bench, the only hon. Members on it being the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) and another hon. Member. Was that a fair state of things? Did not the state of the front Opposition Bench indicate that the Sitting was an exceptional one? Why had the Government fixed upon Saturday for taking the Bill? For the last 14 or 15 years there had not been a real Saturday Sitting. During the whole of that Parliament no Saturday's Sitting bad lasted beyond 12 or 1 o'clock, and he believed that Saturday Sittings were unknown during the previous Parliament. How could the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer feel himself justified in pressing any important principle involved by the Bill, when the Leaders of half the country were conspicuous by their absence? He believed that the course adopted by the Government with regard to the South African Bill had inspired the officials in all parts of the Empire with undue confidence, and bad resulted in war. He was afraid that the course which the Government were now taking with regard to this measure would inspire those who were the heads of the administration of the Army with undue confidence, and that the result would be much to be regretted. He had objected very strongly to the Bill when it was first introduced; but he was now beginning actually to have an affection for it, it having been so much improved by the Amendments which had been introduced into it by his hon. Friends below the Gangway. But if the Government intended to force the Bill through, it would be perfectly impossible for himself and his hon. Friends to contend against

    1653
    them; they were too strong for them. If the usual occupants of the front Opposition Bench were staying away because they did not know that there was to be a prolonged Sitting of the House on the Saturday, it was deplorable; but if they did know it, and remained away in the face of that knowledge, it was still more deplorable. He wished that the Government would make some reasonable proposal as to the number of clauses which they would be content to pass; but as to taking all the clauses down to Clause 165, that was rather too strong a proposal. An hon. Member had suggested that they should stop at Clause 149, because there was an important Amendment to be proposed in Clause 150. He (Major Nolan) thought that something between Clause 146 and 149 would be a satisfactory compromise.
    MR. J. COWENsaid, that he entirely sympathized with what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell), and he would appeal to hon. Members to cease this needless talk. If any principle were at stake, he could understand the opposition that was offered to the measure; but, really, there was no principle whatever at stake on that occasion. It was only fair to state, after the observations that had fallen from hon. Members on that side of the House, that it appeared to him that, instead of endeavouring to get the Bill through by the use of physical force, the Government appeared to have submitted it to the Committee in perfect good faith. This really was not a measure of the Government, but of the House itself, brought in for the purpose of improving the regulations of the Army. The Bill, indeed, had originated in the remarks of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) with regard to the Mutiny Bill; and, therefore, instead of opposing it, that hon. Member should have struggled to get it passed, in order to put an end to the objectionable parts of the Mutiny Bill which he himself had condemned. In his opinion, a very unnecessary resistance had been offered to the proposal of the Government that they should progress with the Bill up to a point where substantial opposition would arise. Ho would appeal to hon. Members not to continue their minute and tedious criticism of the Bill, and to allow the will of the majority to prevail. If the rights of the minority
    1654
    were to be continued to be respected, the rights of the majority must receive equal consideration.
    MR. MONKsaid, that since he had had the honour of having a seat in that House he had never heard such sheer and absolute nonsense as that which had been uttered by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan).
    MR. CALLANsaid, he rose to Order. Had the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) a right to say of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Nolan) that he had addressed " sheer and absolute nonsense " to the Committee?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) had expressed the opinion he had formed of the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) in rather strong and in rather unusual language; but he could not say that the language of the hon. Member exceeded the limits of Parliamentary debate.
    MR. MONKsaid, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Major Nolan) had spoken of the conduct of the Government as an endeavour to intimidate that side of the House.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, be rose to Order. He wished to ask when he had used such an expression, which he did not remember having uttered?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) could not rise to Order on a question of fact.
    MR. MONKsaid, that the hon. and gallant Member had pointed to the fact that the Treasury Bench was full, whilst the front Opposition Bench was empty; but that was the natural consequence of some four or five hon. Members announcing that they would avail themselves of all the Forms of the House for preventing the further progress of the measure that night. Many hon. Members on that side of the House were unwilling to allow a few hon. Members to make use of such threats for the purpose of intimidating the House.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that he rose to Order. He wished to know whether the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) was entitled to charge hon. Members with attempting to intimidate the House?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) would at once see that he was not in Order in making use of the expression.
    MR. MONKsaid, that he at once withdrew the word " intimidating." But when hon. Members said that they intended to use all the Forms of the House with the object of stopping the further progress of the measure that night, it seemed to him something approaching intimidation. If the Forms of the House were to be used in that manner, it would be utterly impossible for legislation to go on. He thought that England, Scotland, and Ireland would want to know why the House of Commons was to be prevented from continuing the legislation of the country. The absence of the Leaders of the Opposition had been referred to; but he begged to state that there were a sufficient number of Liberal Members present, who were prepared to support a Conservative Government in carrying on the Business of that House—[Cheers and counter-cheers]—aye, and they were ready to stay to any hour of the night, or even, if necessary, of the morning, in order to support that Conservative Government when, in their opinion, that Government was doing its duty to the country. He protested altogether against the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), and the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) attempting to dictate to the House at what time they should rise, or whether the Committee should go through three, or four, or five clauses of the Bill. For his own part, he should prefer to follow the advice of the authorities who had charge of the Bill.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, that it was always unpleasant to be attacked once by an hon. Member; but it was rather pleasant to be attacked twice. He recollected that when the South African Bill was under discussion—he was not ashamed of that measure, although hon. Members opposite did not appear to be very proud of it—he had been attacked by the hon. Member (Mr. Monk) with all the bitterness of which he was master. When the hon. Member attacked him the second time it must be put down to political differences, and he was glad to say that he differed from the hon. Member on general politics as much as possible. The hon. Member appeared to think that hon. Members below the
    1656
    Gangway should act in the same way) whether the front Benches were full or empty. When their proceedings had arrived at such a stage that the hon. and gallant Admiral behind the Treasury Bench (Sir William Edmonstone) yawned, it was clear that the time had arrived when they should adjourn. He wished again to remind the Government that, in consequence of previous hasty legislation, the country had been put to the expense of many millions of money, which would have been saved had the arguments of the Opposition been listened to.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) had kindly given them his opinion, when, unfortunately, he was not present during the discussion, and, therefore, did not thoroughly know the facts. What had happened? The Chancellor of the Exchequer asked to have a certain number of clauses passed, or that the Committee should sit until a certain hour. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: I did nothing of the sort.] He (Mr. Biggar) would not contradict the right hon. Gentleman; but the Secretary of State for the Home Department certainly said that they must work until a reasonable time, meaning 11, or 12, or 1, on 24 clauses. That was rather a Jewish bargain. His hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), who, it must be remembered, had been in the House the whole of the day since half-past 1, had offered to go up to Clause 146. They were told there were no Amendments on the rest of that Part IV.; but he (Mr. Biggar) knew of some important Amendments to Clause 150 to be proposed by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne). Besides, there might be many important Amendments of which Notice was not on the Paper. He never offered advice, because it was always considered a thing of no value; but he did think it was not in the interests of Public Business that clauses should be passed through Committee without examination.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwished to correct one of the statements the hon. Member had just made. At 7 o'clock a conversation arose as to whether the Committee should proceed or not; and he himself, then speaking in very general terms, said ho thought the Committee had better go on to a reason-

    1657
    able hour. He declined to name any hour. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bath (Sir Arthur Hayter) suggested that they should go to the end of Part IV., and that proposition was accepted by the Government, on condition that they went on at once. On that proposition the conversation ensued which had lasted to the present time, very nearly three hours. He never asked the Committee to sit to an unreasonable hour, and Part IV. certainly could have been completed in half-an-hour or so, certainly long before the time which they had now reached. He merely would ask the Committee whether they had not now had sufficient amusement, and whether they would not now go on with the few clauses? It must be remembered that it was not the pleasure of the Government that they should go on in this way. It was no pleasure to them to sit on a Saturday, and they knew that hon. Members sat at great inconvenience. They had much better go on, without saying how long they would sit, or at what particular clause they should stop.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had just come to the House, having found to his surprise that the light in the Clock Tower was still burning. Seeing that, he took it for granted that something important was going on, and holding it his duty to be present he accordingly came to take part in the discussion. He found, however, that the subject in dispute was whether the Committee should sit for one or two hours longer on Saturday or not. He agreed that it was not a convenient thing to sit on a Saturday at all; and they only did so because it was of public importance that they should get on with this Bill. It raised several questions of high interest, and he was glad to say that they were in a more satisfactory position in regard to them than at the beginning of the day. But it seemed to him almost absurd to meet on Saturday and not to try to do Business. Now, as he had said, the real question they were discussing at present was, whether they should sit an hour or two longer or not. There was, he was sorry to hear, an hon. Member absent who had an important Amendment to propose. But he suggested whether that hon. Member's opinions might not be represented by his Friends, so as to allow them to proceed. But what they had really to consider was how they
    1658
    were going to get through the Business. That was a matter of vital importance. There wore only three or four Amendments on the Paper in Part IV., which he understood were accepted by the Government, and then they got to the Part where it was proposed they should leave off. Hon. Members must remember that they might discuss amongst themselves whether they were right or wrong, and he would not say which was which; but he would point out that the country was forming an opinion about the House which was exceedingly unpleasant. They were beginning to institute comparisons between what went on at Westminster and what went on at Versailles, and he did not like those comparisons. Hon. Gentlemen ought to recollect that the House of Commons was the greatest Representative and Parliamentary Assembly which had ever existed. They had a very high character to maintain, and he not consider they would act quite consistently with that character if they thought that when they met on a particular day it was important to discuss at great length the question whether they should sit half-an-hour or, perhaps, two or three hours longer before the Sitting was suspended.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the suggestion now made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), that they should go on until they came to important Amendments, was one to which he had assented a long time ago. He would make no bargain with Government whatever. He would remind the Committee that when there was a proposition that they should go on until they came to a certain clause which they intended to dispute he had risen to support it. At the time he was not sufficiently fortunate to catch the Chairman's eye, and the temper of the Committee had not reached the point which it afterwards attained. He then suggested that they should go on as far as Clause 146, although there were some debatable points between the point where they then were and that clause. He was willing to do so still. After that he would ask that Progress should be reported, as he hoped to make some important alterations on Clause 147. He would like to say a word in reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), whose opinion he always valued. He had rather chided them for the

    1659
    course they had taken. But he (Mr. Parnell) would remind the Committee that neither the hon. Member for Newcastle nor the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had been present until quite lately, and did not know what had taken place. He might now repeat, for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, that they had expressed their willingness to go as far as 147 at a quarter past 7. They had even offered to go on until then, if the Government desired it; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer said" No, we shall go on till 11 or 12, or as soon as we come to Clause 165 we shall consider whether we have done enough." Now, that he (Mr. Parnell) did not think right; after they had sat on Saturday for a greater number of hours than they had ever before sat on a Saturday, he did not think it reasonable to ask them to treat that day as an ordinary week-day, and as if they had met at a quarter-past 4, instead of half-past 1. Let them look at the work that had been done. As to all this talk by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, lie (Mr. Parnell) did not know whether " contemptible " was a Parliamentary word, and, therefore, he would not use it; but it certainly was utter nonsense for the right hon. Gentleman to talk of a small minority being opposed to a vast majority. Their (the Irish) Party consisted of 60 or 70 Members, of whom they had 10 present; while, with all their vast majority, forsooth, the Government had only between 60 or 70, so that there was just as good a proportion of one Party as of the other, and that being so the right hon. Gentleman need not talk about his " vast majority." What had this small and insignificant minority done? Had it not compelled the vast majority, over and over again, to admit that they were wrong—that was, the small and insignificant minority, by insisting upon what they knew to be right and just, had beaten this great Conservative Party with its following of Members who would go into the Lobby without knowing anything about the question, who would fight as blindly as any Party ever fought in that or any other age? They might talk about the character of the House of Commons as much as they pleased. Was there ever, he would repeat, any Party in any Legislative Assembly which ever voted
    1660
    so blindly as the present majority of the Government. He (Mr. Parnell) and his small and insignificant minority, had shown to the whole country that that majority, with its opinions, was not worth a farthing, while they had been repeatedly forced to admit that they had been wrong, and that they had been wasting the public time. They had held out against their own convictions; against every dictate of reason, of common sense, and justice; and only when they had been driven back, only when they could hold out no longer against the force of public opinion, had they admitted that they were wrong. That was the worth of their great Conservative majority.
    MR. CALLANthought a great deal of this unseemly altercation might have been avoided. Only one thing had led to more disorder and altercation than even the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that was the conduct of one who, placed in a position of authority in the House, had allowed un-Parliamentary language to be used. When he (Mr. Callan) entered the House, ho heard the words " sheer nonsense."—{Mr. PARNELL: Utter nonsense.] — Yes, " utter nonsense," applied with reference to what had been said by an Irish Member. When the Chairman had been called upon to decide upon it, he had ruled that the hon. Member was not out of Order in using it. The result was, that they had heard the same phrase applied to one of the Leaders of the House. Thus they had seen the Chairman, sitting calmly and judicially in the Chair, and allowing, without the smallest sign of objection on his part, language to be used, which, when he was called upon to decide, in the case of the Leader referred to, he was forced to admit was un-Parliamentary and should have been withdrawn. There was a feeling amongst his Friends that fair play was not administered—[Cries of " No, no! " and interruption.] If you will allow me to conclude my sentence—
    SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHrose to Order. He submitted that if a question was to be raised respecting the conduct of the Chairman it must be heard with Mr. Speaker in the Chair.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must say that the observations of the hon. Member for

    1661
    Dundalk (Mr. Callan), as far as they apply to myself, are such as I should naturally be reluctant to impugn; but I must point out to the Committee that it will be impossible, either for myself or for any other Member of this House, to discharge the duties imposed upon them by the House, if such a direct attack can be made upon the fairness of his conduct, without being noticed and dealt with by the Committee or by the House.
    MR. CALLAN: Excuse my interrupting you, Sir. On Thursday night, we had an example of the disadvantage of interrupting a Member in the middle of a sentence. ["Order, order!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member for Dundalk that my attention has been particularly directed to the observation which he has used, charging me, in direct terms, with not giving fair play. ["No, no!" "Order, order"] I, in reply to the inquiry of the hon. Baronet (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth), pointed out to the Committee my opinion with regard to that phrase? I have left it to the Committee to pronounce what course they think proper to take with regard to the expression used.
    MR. CALLAN: I beg pardon; I was interrupted in a sentence. The language I used, and the words "fair play," were not intended to apply to you, Sir, but to our treatment by the Government. I did not intend to apply to you, and had I done so I would fearlessly avow it, and, if necessary, defend it. The language I used was applied to Her Majesty's Government—that fair play did not seem to be administered by that side of the House to hon. Gentlemen sitting on this side. If you wish to take down the words, so that their accuracy may be unquestioned, I will write them for you.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I rise to Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman to be rising for the purpose of withdrawing or explaining the words that had been objected to. I did not myself precisely catch what the words were; but I understand them to have been to this effect—that the charge upon the Chair—[" No, no! On the Government."] — Very well, then, instead of interrupting me, if the hon. Gentleman will rise, and say that he did not charge the Chair—[Mr. PARNELL: He has said so.]—or did not intend to
    1662
    impute to the Chair any unfairness—[Mr. PARNELL: He has said so already.] —I imagine we shall be satisfied; but I understand the general tenour of the hon. Gentleman's observations to be a complaint against the fairness of the Chair.—["No, no!"]—[Mr. PARNELL: Against your fairness, not of the Chair.] If that is distinctly understood, my objection falls to the ground. Any charge against the Government is one thing, as to which we are not surprised; but it is impossible that we should allow the position of our Chairman to remain impugned by any hon. Member without a distinct disclaimer from that Member. As regards ourselves, we are quite content to leave our conduct to the opinion of the Committee.
    MR. CALLAN: I decline to be lectured by the Chancellor of the Exchequer into any course of procedure that I myself may not think fit to adopt.
    MR. PARNELL: I rise to Order. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken on the point of Order, and I think that other hon. Members in this House are also entitled to speak on the point of Order. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan). The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not hear him. He admits that he did not hear, and yet he calls upon the hon. Member to disclaim doing that which he has never done. What were the words of the hon. Member for Dundalk, when he was interrupted in the middle of his sentence? His words were these—" that fair play was not administered." When he had got as far as that, he was interrupted at once by the hon. Member—[Loud and continued interruption.]—Now, I shall recommend hon. Members of the Committee to take the advice offered to them the other evening by the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), to have a little patience, and not to interrupt a Member—even although he is a poor Irish Member, who can, perhaps, be easily trampled upon—in the middle of his sentence. This will save a good deal of time and trouble. The hon. Member for Dundalk, in this case, was saying that "fair play was not being administered;" and the conclusion of his sentence would have been" by the Government."
    MR. RITCHIEthought the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had quoted words to which exception had not been

    1663
    taken. What he (Mr. Ritchie) understood the hon. Member for Dundalk to say, with reference to the Chairman's conduct in the Chair, was that he came into the House and heard language used by hon. Members of that House that was altogether un-Parliamentary, without being called to Order.
    MR. O'DONNELLrose to Order also. He had, in the first place, to say that he was quite satisfied that the observations of the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) were not addressed to the Chairman's conduct in, or management of, the Chair. Had there been any reason to find fault with that conduct, the Constitutional course for bringing that conduct before the proper authority would have been fearlessly adopted. But his hon. Friend had no reason to take exception to the Chairman's conduct, and all the attempts of hon. and right hon. Members to throw them aside from the path of Order would utterly fail. They were quite satisfied with the Chairman's ruling, and the only thing that ever tended to weaken his authority was that his rulings were ingeniously misrepresented by the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the House. He (Mr. O'Donnell) ventured to suggest that there should be no further reference to words that were not taken down immediately on their being uttered—that being the Rule of the House. The only question in dispute was that with regard to the Chairman's ruling, and it arose out of a misconception. There was no objection to that ruling. He suggested, therefore, that the question of Order should be let alone, and that the clauses should be proceeded with. A little Business might be proceeded with. Let there be no further waste of time in recrimination.
    Motion and Amendment severally negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 142 (Constitution and proceedings of military court of requests) agreed to.
    Clause 143 (Execution of judgment of military court of requests).
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he wished the Committee to understand that he was not moving Amendments to these clauses, because he felt that it would be quite useless to do so.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 144 (Courts of small causes and civil courts in India) agreed to.

    Legal Penalties in Matters respecting Forces.
    Clause 145 (Punishment for pretending to be a deserter).
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERmoved, as an Amendment, in page 78, line 28, to leave out the words " or absentee without leave."
    MAJOR NOLANasked for some explanation of the Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMANexplained that the Amendment proposed affected the 145th clause, page 78, line 28.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, it was not on the Paper, and its effect ought to be explained by the hon. Member.
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, his Amendment would restore the law to its present position with regard to absentees without leave.
    MAJOR NOLANagreed with the Amendment; but explained that he felt it necessary to be cautious in allowing Amendments not on the Paper to pass. He had feared that its object was one of an opposite tendency.
    Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERmoved, as an Amendment, in page 78, to leave out all the words after the word months," in line 30, down to the end of the clause.
    Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 146 (Punishment for inducing soldiers to desert).
    MR. O'DONNELLmoved, as an Amendment, to omit, in page 79, line 6, the words " directly or indirectly." The clause contained a severe penalty, which might be imposed on almost anybody by stretching the application of these words.
    Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERmoved, as an Amendment, the omission from subsection 1, lines 7 and 8, of the words " or absent himself without leave."
    Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERmoved, as an Amendment, the omission from subsection 3, lines 32 and 33, of the words " or absentee without leave."
    Amendment agreed to; words struck, out accordingly.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 147 (Apprehension of deserters or absentees without leave).
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERmoved, as an Amendment, to omit from page 79, line 17, the words " or absentees without leave."
    Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
    MR. PARNELLhoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would now agree to report Progress. This was a very important clause. It would be necessary to ask the Government to make considerable alterations in the clause. He moved that Progress be reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    COLONEL STANLEYprotested against such a proceeding at a time when there were no disputed Amendments, and hoped the Committee would proceed. The Committee would be perfectly willing to consider the Amendments of the hon. Gentleman, although they were not on the Paper, if he would explain them.
    MR. O'DONNELLthought fair progress had been made to-day—a progress not to be counted by the number of clauses only, for a foundation had been laid for future progress, by means of an agreement on the most contentious parts of the Bill. There would now be a disposition to treat the subject of flogging as calmly as possible next week, and with the desire to come to terms regarding it. There were important Amendment to this clause, and he was certain that to proceed with them now would not be fair. If the Government had given warning that they were going to have anything like a late Sitting, their Friends might have been fairly consulted as to the support they were prepared to give to those Amendments; but the position in which the Government had placed some hon. Members, by
    1666
    threatening an all night Sitting, had come upon them by surprise, and completely upset all their arrangements. That was not calculated to save time; because there were quite enough of his Friends in the House to prevent any progress, although not enough to secure what they desired: but they did not wish to be guided by a consideration of the position from that point of view, but by the consideration of the support which they wished their Amendments to receive. A number of hon. Members, who would, undoubtedly, support some of their Amendments, were not present, having had no notice as to the length of the Sitting. It was all very well for the Government to speak of the exigencies of Public Business. Bandyings were not Public Business; and a Bill that there was not the opportunity of fairly amending was not to be considered a good Bill. Let the Government weigh their responsibility, and consider whether they were prepared to force on a Bill at such an hour, without due notice to the body of the House. This threat of the Government to resort to physical force, without giving Notice of their intention, must materially injure the progress of Public Business. The Government was attempting to bring pressure to bear on the Committee, and for that purpose they had evidently taken into their confidence a number of hon. Members of their own Party, and, perhaps, some of the more subservient Members of the Opposition. [Cries of " Order! " and " Withdraw! "]
    THE CHAIRMAN: Such language cannot be permitted. The hon. Member will see that it is not respectful to the Committee to speak of any of its Members as " subservient."
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he would withdraw the words " more subservient," and substitute " more facile," " more disposed to listen to the powers that be," or anything of that sort. But the Government had kept back their intention from the majority of the Committee, and that reduced the legislation by Parliament by deliberation to legislation by previous confederacy. That, he submitted, amounted to a confederacy against the liberties of the individual Members.
    EARL PERCY: Mr. Chairman, I rise to Order. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) has used

    1667
    words to the effect that certain Members of this Committee are more subservient than others, and you have ruled that those words are out of Order. I ask you, whether he has withdrawn those words, or whether he has not?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I understood the hon. Member to withdraw them.
    MR. O'DONNELL: I substituted other words. ["Withdraw, withdraw!"] I have already withdrawn them; and I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he brings his faithful followers down, might, at least, induce them to listen to what is going on in the Committee. I might have concluded by this time; but they, apparently, neither listen to your ruling, Sir, nor to what I am saying. They might keep their eyes on the Chair, and, when they see the Chairman is well satisfied, rest content. It is nothing short of being disrespectful to the Chair to be continually lecturing the Chairman on this, that or the other. I think our respected Chairman is quite able to take care of the Order of this Committee, without being continually lectured on his duties, and appealed to by the professional conversationalists below the Gangway. Some compact appears to have been entered into that has not been communicated to the general body of the Committee.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I only want to make one observation to hon. Members. At present we are settling nothing. The hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) says ho has certain Amendments to propose in the clause. It may very likely be that his Amendments may be accepted by the Government. He has given us no Notice of them; and I presume, therefore, that something has struck him now that has not struck him before. If it had struck him before, it would have been only fair to the Committee to have put it on the Paper. If not, the Committee should, at all events, know what it is before he asks us to report Progress. It is quite clear that, at this time of night, there can be no long discussion; but if it is not a very important matter, we might be able to deal with the proposed Amendments at Once.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, he had previously appealed to the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) to allow substantial progress to be made, on the
    1668
    understanding that if any attempt were made to detain Members an unduly long time, he would afterwards join him in resisting that attempt. Substantial progress had since been made, and now he was ready to join his hon. Friend in the most strenuous and protracted resistance to what was unreasonable. It was nearly 11 o'clock on Saturday night, and it was unreasonable either to ask anyone to state his Amendments, or to propose to go forward. He hoped there would be no attempt, by physical force, to keep hon. Members sitting.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he opposed the former Motion for reporting Progress; but there was certainly a difference between 7 o'clock and 11. He did not understand the Secretary of State for the Home Department to offer any determined opposition to the Motion for reporting Progress, but merely to suggest that the Amendments should be stated. It was rather extraordinary that, having studied the Bill as he had done, the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) should not be able to state to the Committee the Amendments he wished to put. Perhaps, however, he wished to draft his Amendments very carefully; and it was the duty of the Committee to give the hon. Member the benefit of the doubt. He hoped, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having substantially carried his point that Progress should be made, would now consent to the Motion.
    MR. CALLANsaid, ho had a proposition to make with regard to the Amendments on the clause. Those Amendments raised serious questions. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would consent to the postponement of the clause, upon which the Secretary of State for the Home Department had an Amendment which would cause a long discussion, he (Mr. Callan) and his Friends would not object to Clauses 148, 149, and 150 being proceeded with, provided that after Clause 150 had been agreed to Progress should be reported. He hoped the Government Bench would not refuse to accept this reasonable proposition.
    MR. GRAYsaid, that was an admirable suggestion; but there was this against it—that there was an important Amendment on the Paper on Clause 150, and the hon. and gallant Member (Major O'Beirne), in whose name it

    1669
    appeared, was not present. He (Mr. Gray) did not think, under these circumstances, that the clause ought to pass sub silentio.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Government were willing to consider the suggestion which had been thrown out; but there was a technical difficulty in the way. The clause had been amended, and, therefore, it could not be postponed. The Government were not anxious to keep the Committee sitting into Sunday; but what he would ask of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was, that he should comply with the rather reasonable request which had been made, to tell the Committee what the Amendment was that he proposed to move. If he would do that, they should know what they were doing.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought that was very reasonable, and he had not the slightest objection to comply. Indeed, he must apologize for not having put his Amendment on the Paper; but it must be remembered that the Bill had been taken very quickly through the Committee. Consequently, those who had taken an active part in the Committee, as he had done, had not been able to draft all their Amendments. There was a vagueness about the words " reasonable suspicion," in the first place, which he desired to see corrected; and, next, he should like to leave out the words " any officer, or soldier, or other person," in line 22. That was a matter of some importance; for, in his opinion, it was the duty of the police constable to make these arrests. But he did not now wish to argue the Amendment; he merely wished to indicate his objections.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he thought the clause was not too strongly drawn. Did the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) deliberately mean to put the proposition before the Committee that if an officer or a soldier of a regiment met a man belonging to the same regiment, knowing him to be a deserter, he should take no step to arrest such deserter? Was such a proposition conceivable? He asked the hon. Member to pause before he advanced it. Seeing what proportion the crime of desertion held among military offences, he (Colonel Stanley could not see that there was anything unreasonable in the clause, unless objection should be taken to the words " if absent without leave."
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the matter was not so simple as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to think. It was a great thing to give to an ordinary soldier the power of arresting any man whom he suspected of being a deserter. A deserter was supposed to be a tolerably desperate sort of person, and the clause would offer the provocation to a deserter to put out of the way a soldier who was attempting to arrest him. If, on the other hand, they were to make a provision that the arrest was only to take place in the presence of a constable, they would bring in the direct influence of the law to bear on the arrest, and that was a very different thing. To allow an arrest to take place when it was only man against man would encourage to rioting, and such power had often led to deplorable consequences. The power of making arrests ought to be jealously guarded; and he could see many reasons why the provisions suggested by the Secretary of State for War should be carefully surrounded with safeguards.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, that in the matter in question the old Act was better drawn; it said " a constable, soldier, or other person," and he did not see any reason why it should not be so, instead of specific mention being made of " officer." But he objected to the way in which the whole clause was drawn, and the clause, as a whole, required careful consideration. A constable could be trusted in the ordinary administration of the law; but there was a money reward for the apprehension of a deserter, and that introduced a difficulty. The clause greatly extended the old power, because of the words " absentee without leave," which ran through the clause; and when these words were struck out in one part, the whole clause required to be re-modelled. The loss of time in this discussion was really to be laid to the charge of those who allowed a very objectionable provision to run through the whole clause. He thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was an important one. Of course, the money reward would make no difference to an officer; but it was a different matter to offer a soldier 40 s. for arresting another soldier for being an absentee without leave. The Secretary of State for War ought to state whether he proposed to strike out those words, which he had

    1671
    struck out in one place, all through the clauses. If the words " absentee without leave " were retained at all, any soldier who was a mile or two from barracks would be at the mercy of every constable he met. He thought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should be afforded an opportunity of re-modelling the clause.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he understood that the question before the Committee was that of reporting Progress. He did not know what the Government would consider a suitable hour; but he thought it was now time that Progress should be reported. Some general remarks had been made as to sitting up all night; but he did not suppose that there was any intention to do that. He could understand that the Government wished to make substantial progress with the Bill, and he was not surprised that the Government should have expected to get this clause passed, and also one or two other clauses, because no Amendments had been put on the Paper. He hoped hon. Members below the Gangway would excuse him if he made a remark on this point. He had not much knowledge with regard to the military details of the Bill, but he had had sonic little experience with regard to passing Bills through the House; and he did not think that, up to the present time, it had been a very usual thing to occupy the time of debate much with Amendments which were not on the Paper. The Government, when it was a question of getting on with the Business, and when a Bill had been so long before the House as this one, and had been so effectively considered as this had been—by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) himself, for instance—had almost a right to ask that the Amendments should be put on the Paper. Neither was it quite fair to the Committee that they should not have the Amendments before them. But he thought the Government might be content with what they had done that day, seeing that there would be a good deal of discussion, and that it was now too late an hour to go on. Much real progress had been made, and lion. Members who wished to amend the Bill might consider by Monday what Amendments they would put on the Paper.
    COLONEL ARBUTHN0Tsaid, he thought the Amendments of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) were
    1672
    not of very great importance. He would, therefore, suggest that they might stand over until Report, and that the clause might be passed, together with the other clauses, to which the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) had said there would be no objection. The Government might then, he thought, be willing to report Progress.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he had been about to rise to make a similar proposal. So far as he could judge, he thought the words " absentee without leave " might come out consequentially, and the clause would then be precisely the same as that which had been administered for many years. The clause could not be postponed, because it had been amended; but if the Committee would pass the clause, ho thought Clauses 148 and 149 might also be agreed to, and then there would be no objection to reporting Progress. He thought that was a fair proposition to make.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he should not oppose the suggestion if they were likely to make considerable progress; but Clause 148 was one as to which there was some difference of opinion, and it was to carry into effect important details with regard to the abolition of purchase.
    MR. PARNELLsaid that, of course, in the opinion of the hon. and gallant Member for Hereford (Colonel Arbuthnot), no Amendment which he (Mr. Parnell) could offer was worthy of consideration. He never yet knew a Cabinet Minister who did not attempt to amend the Bill he had in charge. He quite admitted the force of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), and he assured the Committee that he had striven very hard to put his Amendments on the Paper; but, owing to the protracted Morning Sittings, the only day which he had had for that purpose was the previous Sunday. He had been hardly worked, night and day, ever since. He had thought to have a chance of drafting some Amendments that day for Monday; but here he was again detained all day in the House. He regretted that he should be obliged again on Monday to move Amendments not on the Paper; he had hoped that, by working on Sunday, he should have a sufficient number drawn to get over Tuesday: but the Bill was really going

    1673
    on so fast that it was extremely difficult to keep up with the Government. He thought that the Secretary of State for War was treating him rather cavalierly, as he had other Amendments on the same clause. It was unreasonable to ask the Committee to go on further at present. He had submitted his objection to the clause, and he did not intend to argue it, lest he might be pounced upon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and have his words taken down.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, he thought it was very undesirable that his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) should be in any way manœuvred into a discussion on his Amendment, after he had, at the outset, stated that he was unable to enter upon it. It was an extremely clever strategical move on the part of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. [" Oh, oh! "] It was surely consistent with all possible courtesy, and with Parliamentary usage, to credit a Minister for War with strategic ability; but, if it was an offence to do so, he would withdraw any such imputation, and would say that it was a good piece of Parliamentary tactics to draw his hon. Friend the Member for Meath into a discussion on his Amendment. He would now request his hon. Friend not to discuss it. He (Mr. Sullivan), for one, would have to speak on this point, and he would state the line he desired to take, but which he could not take that night. It was on the doctrine of allowing indiscriminate arrests by private soldiers; but he was not going to be entrapped into the discussion. The Motion was one to report Progress; and he hoped they would be allowed to go home, and that it would not be necessary, some half-hour hence, to move that the Chaplain be called to preside at proceedings, as he would be the Chairman more befitting a Sunday Sitting.
    MR. HERSCHELLsaid, that if the Committee could make any real progress he would be prepared to go on; but they could not do that, and he hoped the Government would consent to report Progress.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not help feeling that the appeal of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Herschell), who had supported them so well that evening, was one that deserved the attention of the
    1674
    Committee. It was also to be borne in mind that when Progress was reported the House could not rise until the Speaker had again taken his seat. That would bring the time to past half-past 11, an hour beyond which it was not decent to sit. Under the circumstances, and considering the near approach of Sunday morning, he would agree to accept the Motion to report Progress.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he just wished to say a word on the question The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had made a statement with regard to Amendments being on the Paper. Now, he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) appealed to the right hon. Gentleman, as one of the most prominent Members of the late Government, to say whether in his recollection and experience—for he had had as long an experience as most Members of the House, and had had practical experience of the conduct of Business—Amendments had been brought forward without Notice during the progress of an important measure? He remembered the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Green with (Mr. Gladstone) saying that such a course was unfair to the Committee, and that it was one which the Committee ought not to tolerate for a moment. He hoped that hon. Members would not come forward with Amendments in that way, because he considered that it was done simply to delay the Bill. He would go further; he would say that he knew it was with the intention to delay the Bill.
    MR. O'DONNELLrose to Order. He must presume that the hon. and gallant Baronet did not mean to imply anything un-Parliamentary?
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he spoke his mind. He believed he was perfectly in Order. It was his opinion that it was to the interest neither of hon. Members opposite, nor of the Committee, nor of the country, that they should be detained night after night on plainly fanciful Amendments. It was all very well to say that they were very important Amendments. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) came down quietly and placidly, and pretending to be very good-humoured—[" Order, order! "]
    MR. CALLANrose to Order. [Mr. PARNELL: Oh! but it is an unfinished

    1675
    sentence.] As it was not, he would ask the Chairman if it was Parliamentary, and within the bounds of Order, for an hon. and gallant Gentleman to state, with reference to the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), that he was pretending, or acting a part?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the words of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, as they reached him, were that the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) was pretending to be good-humoured. That did not appear to him to be in any way un-Parliamentary.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he perceived that the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) himself took the expression in that sense. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) were so important, then the hon. Member, seeing the position he occupied in the House, ought to have put it on the Paper. If he considered it important, then—and he was not now speaking of the Government, but of the House—he said he should not have omitted it from the Paper. He did not wish to lecture anybody—[" Oh " and laughter]—but anybody with experience—ho did not care whether the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) laughed or not—if that hon. Member had any common sense, he would agree that the Amendment ought to be on the Paper. The Committee should not be called upon to consider Amendments which he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) firmly believed had never been considered, but wore simply brought forward to obstruct the progress of the Bill.
    Mr. CALLANagain rose; and Mr. ASSHETON CROSS rose at the same time.
    THE CHAIRMANcalled on Mr. ASSHETON CROSS.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would not detain the Committee more than one minute; but he would make an appeal to the Committee, and to hon. Members opposite, on an extremely important matter with regard to the Business of the House. He had had charge of Bills that had taken a long time, and had been of great importance, and he thought it was absolutely essential to the conduct of Business that any Amendment involving a question of principle should be put on the Paper. Not to put
    1676
    such Amendments on the Paper was unfair, not only to the Committee, but to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who had charge of the Bill, and who ought to be able to know beforehand what it was that he was to come down to discuss. He appealed to hon. Gentlemen, did they not feel that was absolutely essential?
    MR. CALLANsaid, he rose to Order. It had been ruled in that House that when it was moved that words be taken down it could not be done if other Business intervened. It was also an invariable rule that when an hon. Member rose to Order he should have precedence over any other hon. Member who did not rise to Order. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department did not rise to Order, while he (Mr. Callan) did rise to Order, but he was put down; and now the ruling might be, that because of the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman, who did not rise to Order, the Motion which he (Mr. Callan) was about to make would be ruled out of Order. His Motion was that the words used by the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), containing a charge which had been ruled to be an offence to the House, be taken down. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had charged an hon. Member with a deliberate intention to obstruct the Business of the House. That was the charge—that was the offence charged against hon. Members of that House; and he rose for the purpose of moving that those words be taken down, when the right hon. Gentleman interposed; and if he was precluded by the Forms of the House from moving that, it was because the Chairman would not protect him when he first rose to Order. [" Oh, oh " and " Order! "]
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he would appeal to his hon. Friend (Mr. Callan) not to press his Motion to take down the words of an hon. and gallant Member, which were certainly very absurd. The hon. and gallant Baronet occasionally gave them a little curtain-lecture, and perhaps one who was so much their senior was not always conscious of his actions at such a late hour. [" Order!"] He meant to say his inclinations had somewhat carried him away. At any rate, Motions for taking down the

    1677
    words of hon. Members were very inconvenient, and he was sure his hon. Friend did not mean to press the Motion.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) was quite wrong as to the ruling in that House. The ruling of Mr. Speaker had reference to hon. Members who " wilfully and persistently " obstructed. The hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) did not use the words " wilfully and persistently " obstruct, but only the word " obstruct." Wilfully and persistently" were grave words, and the distinction was an important one. In the second place, Mr. Speaker had ruled that the accusation must have been brought against one or more particular Members, but no such accusation had now been brought; it was a general accusation that certain hon. Members were obstructing the Business of the House.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that when the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) rose at the same time as the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he (the Chairman) certainly was not aware that the hon. Member rose to Order, as no intimation of that kind reached the Chair. If any such intimation were given, he did not catch the words. If he had understood that the hon. Gentleman rose to Order, he should undoubtedly have given him the precedence to which he was clearly entitled.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he did rise to Order; but he accepted the explanation of the hon. Gentleman fully and freely. He knew, of course, that if the Secretary of State for the Home Department rose he would be prevented from fastening the charge he wished to make on the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot). The fact arose from the Chairman having called upon the right hon. Gentleman, although he (Mr. Callan) himself rose upon a point of Order, so that he was prevented from moving to have the words of the hon. and gallant Baronet taken down. Those words were—" with the intention to obstruct the Business of this House." He differed very much from the noble Lord the Member for Calne; and he believed that his assistance offered to the Government was that some day he might tide into Office. He hoped it might be
    1678
    very far distant; for, differing from the Government as he did, he thought it had better Representatives than the noble Lord who represented Calne.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped he might now be allowed to conclude his observations. Of course, if he had understood the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) rose to Order, he would not have kept his place at the Table, but should have sat down at once. He had risen to appeal to the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) if he could not put the whole of his Amendments on the Paper before Monday to be good enough to put the substance of them, in order to guide the Government in coming to some conclusion. He was bound to add that he was extremely struck by what fell from the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen.) This was the most popular Assembly in the world, and all nations looked up to it. They had great institutions—Household Suffrage. [" No, no! Germany, America."] They were far freer than any other country. [Mr. O'DONNELL: No, no! Germany, America.] He was not going to argue that question with hon. Members. They saw what he wished to say, practically, that they had great institutions, which they had long looked up to and respected; and he did put it to the Committee that they should conduct their Business in such a manner that they might again win the respect of the country. He was sure that was the wish of hon. Members; and he hoped when they met again that all that would have been passed over and forgotten.
    MR. BIGGARquite agreed that it was desirable to get Amendments on the Paper; but in the progress of the Bill the Committee had an illustration of the difficulty of doing that, by the very action of the Government itself. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Colonel Stanley) undertook to supply them with Schedules something like a week ago, and he had always since excused himself from doing so on the ground that the continuous attention required by the Bill had prevented him from drawing them up. As to the speech made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), that hon. Gentleman admitted he made the speech without knowing anything of the facts, for he explained he was not present when

    1679
    the matters to which he referred were taking place. It was, therefore, comparatively of little value; and, consequently, it was not to be wondered at that the statements were considerably inaccurate.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he rather hoped now, from the good-humour and amusing remarks, that the discussion had come to an end, and he did not think they need go into the question of what was obstruction. He thought he was somewhat to blame for the little difficulty that had arisen, and for having brought on the discussion, which arose from some remarks he made on the advantage of putting Amendments upon the Paper. The hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), thereupon, had appealed to him to state his experience as to the question at issue. He, of course, had had some experience, having had charge of Bills at various times; but he should be very sorry to refer to all the interruptions and obstacles—something like the present—which he met with in charge of them. He believed there was a general impression, on both sides of the House, especially below the Gangway, that Members of the front 0pposition Benches, and Members of the Government, had a common interest with regard to the conduct of Business. To some extent that was true; and, of course, he and his Friends could not help having some sympathy with their opponents, when they were placed in a similar position to that in which they had been. It was a fair thing that Amendments should be put on the Paper; but ho did not think that this suggestion as to their being put upon the Paper quite justified the very strong outburst—if he might so speak of it—of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex. Having once been in the West of Ireland ho went to an assembly, at which he was told there would be a row. Everything went off very quietly, and speaking to a friend of his about it his friend said—" I will take care to say something which shall bring it up." In like fashion, his hon. and gallant Friend, who had been sitting there all day, thought he could not let the Committee depart without rather strongly expressing his views. The Bill had now, however, been before the House so long— [Mr. PARNELL: Two months]—that he did not think any
    1680
    hon. Member who took an interest in it had any excuse if he had not learnt every clause, every word, every line of it, or did not know exactly what Amendment he wished to put with respect to it. The hon. Member for Meath said he had to spend last Sundey upon the Bill; but he (Mr. W. E. Forster) should have thought, from his ability, that long before that he would have found out all the Amendments he would wish to move. He did not know it was much in the interest of the Government saying that, for the result might be they would have a long list brought in on Monday. But they had now got to the stage of the discussion when they had a right to expect that Amendments brought forward should be put upon the Paper of the House, so that they might know what they were.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERhoped that between that day and Monday the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would re-consider the clause, for in it a very dangerous power was given to a soldier to arrest any person whom lie suspected of being a deserter; and, what was still more dangerous, a reward of 40s. was given him for doing so. He knew, in his own experience, that it led to collusion; and so strongly did he feel on the matter, that he should very strongly oppose it. That power did originally exist; but it was taken away some time ago, and left to the police constables, and he did not now think it should be restored.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had, in well-chosen words, hit the point which he (Mr. Sullivan) informed the Committee was the serious one underlying the clause; but he rose to call attention to the fact that exactly 29 minutes had been wasted by the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) in consequence of the speech he had made, and the lecture which ho had administered to them, in a tone which did not at all become him. At 20 minutes past 11 the Chancellor of the Exchequer closed that wild scene, and things were then peaceable; but up rose the hon. and gallant Baronet. It was very hard, indeed, to please the hon. and gallant Baronet. He complained of his (Mr. Sullivan's) good-humour—of which he was a judge, indeed—and had gone so far as to say that his good-humour was only pretended. He did

    1681
    not know that the hon. and gallant Baronet was entitled to judge the genuineness of his good-humour, or his ill-humour; but, certainly, ill-humour ought not to be shown in that House, and that was what the hon. and gallant Baronet had done. The Leader of the House had an exceedingly embarrassing and unfair position forced upon him. Whenever lie attempted to take a wise course—such as that which had been suggested to him—up rose some hon. Member, like the hon. and gallant Baronet, to intimate that he was wanting in what they called firmness; and supposing he followed the fatal advice of his followers, The Times pitched into him next morning for lacking judgment. All that was a waste of time, and that was what had been done by the hon. and gallant Baronet. He complained, and charged, that he (Mr. Sullivan) was failing in his duty, because he had not put Amendments on the Notice Paper. Was it a complaint? Did the Government feel there were too few on the Notice Paper? He would remark that none had been put on by him, yet he had supported several Amendments in the Committee. And why? Because he had belonged to the class of Members who had other avocations to pursue. He had not the leisure of the hon. and gallant Baronet, who might in the evening of his life be able to study Amendments and put them on the Paper. But the hon. and gallant Baronet had not made a single Amendment, or even offered a single useful suggestion whatever.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, as it was not desirable they should go on with the Business on Sunday, he hoped they would now consent to the Speaker being called into the Chair before 12 o'clock.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he listened attentively to the remarks of the Secretary of State for the Home Department with respect to the question of household suffrage, and if he continued to go on in that way he would go far towards conciliating that side of the House. He was very pleased with that, and also the Home Rule declaration of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, as a very new Member, he had listened with amusement, and, in the old-fashioned sense, with something like admiration, to the discussion of the last two hours. He should like to ask the Leader of the
    1682
    Government what he thought he had gained by refusing to report Progress two hours before? for it seemed to him that they had spent the whole of the time in discussing every conceivable question except this Bill. They had gone through all and every sort of information—every hon. Member who had spoken suggesting some different topic. They had raised questions of household suffrage; they had discussed questions of geography, geometry, and the niceties of the English language — whether it was in Order to say a man should be good-humoured — as implying that he was not good-humoured—and whether to impute the pretence of good humour was a breach of good manners. Then they had discussed the Constitutions of all the countries in the world—whether America had advanced; whether they, themselves, were going to have household suffrage for the counties as well as the boroughs; and they had ranged over a very encyclopedia of information. He did not wish to make any charge against any body of Members; but he did charge the whole Committee generally with something very like combined, though unintentional, obstruction; and he must say he did think Her Majesty's Government were especialy responsible for that, in not seing long ago that the time had far passed when there was any chance of carrying any more clauses through, and for not closing the debate and allowing the Committee to go home.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, it had been a matter of the greatest possible concern to him that he had been unable to get his Amendments on the Paper. He might explain, that when it was first introduced he determined to take a very active part in its discussion. Subsequently, he determined to confine his attention to one or two points, such as flogging. He went over to Ireland, and remained there till just before Whitsuntide. On his return the Bill was in full swing, and he had since found it impossible to catch it up. Progress had been so continuous, from day to day, that he had found it exceedingly difficult to prepare his Amendments, and he had only done so last week by working all Sunday. He would promise to send copies of his Amendments by Monday to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War and to the Chairman, so that they might

    1683
    not be affected by their absence from the Paper on Monday; and he trusted that they would have sufficient time to meet the exigencies of the discussion from day to day.
    MR. CALLANrepudiated any idea that he joined in obstruction, and suggested that it was now quite time for them to go home and prepare themselves for their duties on Sunday. He congratulated the Committee upon having created a precedent that had not been created since the days of Cromwell.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the speeches of the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), and of the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander), showed how important was one of the clauses which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War wished to push through.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. SULLIVANhoped it would be known that this attempt at obstruction came from one of the ablest and most prominent supporters of the Government, who filled an influential position inside and outside the House; who was in the confidence of the Government; and who, if it remained in Office much longer, might be a Member of it; yet that hon. Member had moved the count which, if it had succeeded, would have rendered the Bill a dropped Order.
    House resumed.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday.
    MR. CALLAN, in reference to the cats which had been placed in the House, said, that they did not now bear the endorsement which they bore when he inspected them on Thursday week.
    MR. W. H. SMITHhad simply sub. stituted a fuller and more explicit label as that to which the hon. Gentleman referred would give no information to them House.
    House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock, till Monday.