Sitting of 10 July 1879

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Poor Removal [No. 282].
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Supreme Court of Judicature (Officers) * [235]; Metropolitan Board of Works (Water Expenses) [204].
Select Committee—Report—Coroners [No. 279]; New Forest Act (1877) Amendment.
Committee—Army Discipline and Regulation [88]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Slave Trade (East African Courts) * [232] Children's Dangerous Performances * [229].
Considered as amended—Customs Buildings * [228].

QUESTIONS.

  EXHIBITION COMMISSIONERS, 1851, v. THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SO-CIETY.—QUESTION.
  MR. J. R. YORKEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is true that Her Majesty's Commissioners for the Exhibition of 1851 have commenced a suit in Chancery against the Royal Horticultural Society, with the view of recovering possession of the Gardens at South Kensington now in the occupation of that Society whether it is the fact that this proceeding, if carried into effect, would extinguish the liability of Her Majesty's Commissioners to pay the holders of the Horticultural Society's Debentures, ten shillings in the pound in 1892, provided Her Majesty's Commissioners should at that date decline to renew the Society's lease; and, whether, if the facts be as stated, Her Majesty's Commissioners propose to make any compensation to the Debenture Holders, for the security now held by them, which it is thus proposed to extinguish?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Commissioners have commenced an action in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice for the purpose of recovering possession of the Gardens at South Kensington, formerly agreed to be demised by them to the Royal Horticultural Society. The Commissioners never have been, and are not, and never can be, under any liability to pay the holders of the Royal Horticultural Society's debentures 10 s. in the

  13
  pound, or any other sum, because any possible liability to do so was contingent on the Society having performed the covenants in the agreements, which they have not done. Having regard to that fact, and to the fact that the debenture-holders have no lien or charge upon the property comprised in the agreements, the Commissioners, who hold their funds as trustees for the public, do not propose to make any compensation to those gentlemen.

  PRISONS ACT, 1877—PRISON LABOUR.

    QUESTION.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKasked the Secretary of Sate for the Home Department, Whether he is aware of the circumstances and conditions under which the Governor of Her Majesty's Prison at Maidstone is endeavouring to obtain orders for printing and bookbinding; whether this is done with the sanction and approval of Her Majesty's Government; and, whether it is part of a system which has been authorized in the prisons through out the Country?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, the authorities of Maidstone Prison might, for all he knew, be endeavouring to obtain orders for the kind of work referred to by the hon. Baronet in his Question. The practice in regard to prison work was to spread it over as many branches of labour as possible, so as not to press unduly on any particular industry of the country.

  GENERAL PRISONS (IRELAND) ACT—SURGEONS.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. BRUENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Surgeons of Gaols in Ireland who were appointed by Boards of Superintendence, and who have performed the duties of their office before and since the 1st day of April 1878, are recognized by Her Majesty's Government as "Officers attached to Prisons" within the meaning of s. 27 of "The General Prisons (Ireland) Act, 1877;" whether surgeons not so appointed, but obliged as surgeons of infirmaries to perform medical duties in gaols, and who have performed them before and since the 1st day of April 1878, are so recognized; and, whether any salary will be paid to Prison Medical Officers for duties performed from the 1st day of April 1878 to the present
  14
  time; and, if so, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a scale of the salaries to be paid for the performance of these duties?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: My answer to all my hon. Friend's inquiries is in the affirmative; and, in addition to the table of salaries, will lay upon the Table an explanatory document, which will make the matter clear.
  MR. ERRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether a Memorial was presented to the Irish Government from the Irish College of Physicians, protesting in the interests of the medical profession against the proposed amalgamation of the offices of surgeon and compounder in the Irish gaols; and, whether, in spite of this Memorial and of the strong feeling on the subject among the prison surgeons themselves, it is still intended to combine the two offices?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, the Memorial referred to by the hon. Gentleman has been received. The intention, however, is not to make the amalgamation compulsory in the case of existing officers but only in the cases of fresh appointments.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—INSPEC-TION OF EMIGRANT SHIPS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the circular of July 1873, by which emigration officers, surveyors, and medical officers were directed under certain circumstances to inspect outward-bound vessels on Sundays so as to avoid the detention of those vessels, and extra lees for this extra work were ordered to be paid to the Mercantile Marine Fund by the owners of those vessels, On what ground the Board of Trade can justify the withholding from an emigration officer his share of those fees, long since paid to the Mercantile Marine Fund, for extra work done by him between August 1873 and February 1875?
    VISCOUNT SANDON: The claim alluded to was raised some years ago, and disallowed by the Office. These fees for Sunday work were, am informed, placed at a high rate, with the view of discouraging such demands upon the services of the officers, except in cases of necessity. No fees for overtime

    15
    or for Sunday work have ever been paid by the Board of Trade to any salaried officer holding the position referred to by the Question. There are various salaried officers who have done Sunday work, and who are liable to have to do it in the future. None of these salaried officers have received the fees alluded to and it appears to me impossible to make an exception in favour of one particular officer without giving up the general rule which has been hitherto adopted, and which we see no cause for abandoning.

  ROYAL VICTORIA PATRIOTIC ASYLUM SCHOOLS, WANDSWORTH.

    QUESTION.
    GENERAL SHUTEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that upwards of £ 15,000 a-year are expended on the Schools of the Royal Victoria Patriotic Asylum at Wands-worth under the administration of the Executive and Finance Committee of the Patriotic Fund; and, whether he will authorise an inquiry into the management and cost of these Schools by the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the expenditure of the Wellington College?
    COLONEL STANLEY,in reply, said, that, as far as he had been able to ascertain, about £ 15,000 a-year was expended on the schools referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He was informed that the managing body had taken steps already, by the appointment of a committee, to make a very searching inquiry into this expenditure that the committee had reported, and had made recommendations which would probably lead to a very material diminution of the expenditure. He did not consider it desirable to authorize an inquiry into the management and cost of these schools by the Royal Commission of the Wellington College.

  ARMY—THE AUXILIARY FORCES—VOLUNTEERS UNDER CANVAS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. LEIGHTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, considering the inconvenience to Volunteer companies about to go under canvas which arises from want of information re-
    16
    garding the amount of the Government grant, he will be good enough to say whether the grant this year will be two shillings per man per day, or only two shillings and sixpence per man for the whole period of camp service?
    COLONEL STANLEY,in reply, said, he was sorry to say that he had to give the same answer that he had given a few days ago—namely, that he could not make any definite statement at present. A draft regulation had been framed and submitted to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury; and his hon. Friend (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had just informed him that the regulation had been approved.

  MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (IRELAND).

    QUESTION.
    MR. GRAYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, in connection with the fact that by letter, dated the 18th of June, in reply to a letter from the Corporation of Dublin, dated the 22nd of April, he informed the Corporation that the law advisers to the Crown in Ireland were of opinion, that the Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Act of 1875 did not extend to Ireland, he is aware that serious confusion and doubts have arisen as to the procedure to be adopted in municipal elections in Ireland, and that the Corporation of Dublin are advised that they must, if this opinion of the law advisers be correct, revert to the procedure with regard to nominations prescribed by the Municipal Corporations Act of 1859, long since repealed as regards England; whether he is aware that a candidate has been nominated by a single burgess, and the nomination in pursuance of this advice accepted as valid, that no effective means appear to exist for testing the validity of nominations, that a candidate may nominate himself, that nominations and elections must take place so rapidly after the occurrence of a vacancy as to be a cause of public complaint, and to deprive the burgesses of reasonable opportunity of selection; and, whether he will take steps during the present Session to assimilate the procedure with reference to municipal and parliamentary elections and nominations in Ireland to that prescribed for England and Wales by the Act of 1875, or otherwise to remove the inconveniences which at present exist?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: Yes, Sir; it is the case that the Law Officers have expressed the opinion that the Municipal Elections Act, 1875, does not apply to Ireland; but the hon. Gentleman is in error in alluding to that Act as the Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Act of 1875, since the Act in question was one passed by a private Member, and has no reference to Parliamentary elections. As to an assimilation of the law in Ireland to that prevailing in England, should be prepared to introduce a short Bill with that object, provided that had reason to think it would not lead to discussion and Amendments extending beyond the proposal for extending the English Act to Ireland. If, however, it is to give rise to any controversy, should not feel justified in attempting to deal with the matter at all in the present state of Public Business.

  PRISONS (IRELAND) ACT—CASE OF PATRICK GRIMES.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. GRAYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, considering the verdict of the jury in the case of Patrick Grimes, who died in Armagh Gaol on the 13th ult. that, though the treatment of the deceased in prison was humane and proper,
  "Yet the new scale of diet and attendance to sick in hospital which has deprived prisoners of the new milk diet, and substituted a food not sufficient for the support of life, they highly condemn,"
  and, considering that this declaration was based on the evidence of Dr. Palmer, surgeon to the gaol, that the withdrawal of the new milk diet was a serious loss to the prisoners, and that
  "The new scale of diet adopted by the prison board is not sufficient for any ordinary man,"
  is it intended to make any change in the dietary in Armagh Gaol and other prisons in Ireland where a similar scale is now enforced?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: The scale of diet in force in gaols in Ireland is the same as that which was, after full inquiry before a Commission, adopted for English prisons. With reference to the particular case alluded to, was astonished to find—and the House will be very much surprised to hear—that upon the Coroner's Jury there were impan-
  18
  nelled six convicted prisoners actually undergoing their sentences in Armagh Gaol at the time. It is, therefore, scarcely to be wondered at that these persons availed themselves of the opportunity of making suggestions upon a subject in which they had so strong a personal interest. The attention of the parties responsible for the constitution of the Jury will be called to the impropriety of the course adopted in impan-nelling prisoners upon it, especially as, in addition to the manifest disadvantages attaching to such a proceeding, it happens to be in direct opposition to the express terms of an Act of Parliament; and measures will, therefore, be taken to prevent its recurrence.
  MR. CALLAN: Sir, may ask the Chief Secretary, whether his attention has been called to the evidence of a medical witness at that inquest?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: NO, Sir; my attention has not been called to that.
  MR. CALLAN: Then beg to give Notice that to-morrow I will ask a Question in reference to that subject.

  COAL MINES—ACCIDENT AT THE CWM AVON COLLIERY.

    QUESTION.
    MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to an accident which occurred at the Cwm Avon Colliery, South Wales, whereby six men were killed by the breaking of a wire rope, which was stated to have been at work for five years; whether it is true that the Inspector of Mines stated at the Coroner's Inquest that it ought to have been removed years ago, and that the engineer stated that he had frequently complained of the condition of the rope during the last two years, but no notice was taken of his complaints; and, what steps he has taken, if any, to punish the employer or agent who continued to use a rope of the character indicated by the engineer and the Government inspector?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, no doubt there had been gross carelessness and negligence in this case, and he had some days ago placed the paper in the hands of the Solicitor to the Treasury, in order to see what course should be taken.

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT—CONTINUANCE.—QUESTION.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTHasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, When he proposes to introduce the Bill dealing with the expiring Endowed Schools Act; and, for how many years he proposes to continue their operation?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON,in reply, said, he was unable to state when the Bill would be introduced. It would be unadvisable to continue the expiring Acts for one year. He would endeavour to apportion the continuance of any new Act to the natural work it had to do.

  BOARD OF CUSTOMS—THE SECRETARY.

    QUESTION.
    MR. BAXTERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If any steps have been taken to fill up the vacant office of Secretary to the Board of Customs?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes, Sir; Mr. Smith, the assistant Secretary, will be appointed Secretary.

  POOR LAW—PAUPER LUNATICS—CASE OF BENJAMIN HARRISON.

    QUESTION.
    MR. MUNDELLAasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the inquest held on Tuesday last, on the body of Benjamin Harrison, at the South Yorkshire Pauper Lunatic Asylum, who, according to the verdict,
    "Died seventeen days after his admission, from inflammation of the lungs, accelerated or caused by a fractured breastbone and three broken ribs, but as to where or when the injuries were inflicted there is not sufficient evidence to show;"
    and, whether he will cause further inquiry to be instituted to ascertain by whom these injuries were inflicted?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, there was no doubt that the affairs of this Asylum ought to be thorougly inquired into, and he had been in communication with the Earl of Shaftesbury and the Lunacy Commissioners on the subject. It was their intention to hold a personal inquiry into the subject; but, as several of the lunatics might have to be examined in their own rooms, it would be impossible to have a public inquiry.
    20
    The Lunacy Commissioners had declared that due notice should be given to all the relations and friends of the deceased, as well as to other persons interested, and that a solicitor would be allowed to watch the proceedings on their behalf. When the Report was made the Commissioners stated that they would not have any objection whatever to make it public and if further inquiry should then be considered necessary, he (Mr. Assheton Cross) would take care that it should take place.

  ARMY—DESERTION AND FRAUDULENT ENLISTMENT.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL MUREasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Her Majesty's Government will direct the Departmental Committee of Officers, at present investigating the system of enlistment in the regular Arm)', also to investigate the system of enlistment, discipline, and efficiency of the Militia, in order to ascertain if some check cannot be placed on the desertion, fraudulent enlistment, and absence without leave, which exhibit in the last two years respectively 10,000 men in a state of desertion and 10 commissioned officers, 40 non-commissioned officers, and 15,000 private soldiers absent without leave; and, if not, what steps, if any, are under consideration to remedy this state of things; and, whether the Committee will be empowered to consider and report on the relations at present existing between the regular Army and the Militia, with a view of making the latter force a more certain and efficient reserve in times of emergency?
  COLONEL STANLEY: The primary object of the Departmental Committee of Officers is to investigate the system of enlistment in the Regular Army in connection with other measures which are subsidiary thereto. The second part of the Question is, undoubtedly, under reference to the Committee; but the general question of the enlistment and discipline of the Militia do not hold to be necessarily a part of that inquiry. Some of the officers who sit upon the Committee have come home on temporary leave from foreign stations, and it will be desirable that the Departmental Committee should conclude its inquiry within a reasonable time. As regards the question of the Militia, that,

  21
  of course, has not ceased to occupy our attention but am not able to say that it would be a distinct or separate subject to be referred to the Committee. Any steps to be taken to remedy the state of things with regard to desertion must follow the Report of the Committee, as that Report must materially affect the circumstances under which the Militia was enlisted.

  POST OFFICE CONTRACTS—THE PENIN-SULAR AND ORIENTAL COMPANY.

    QUESTION.
    MR. J. HOLMSasked the Postmaster General, In what proportion the annual loss, which has amounted to over£ 200,000 a-year upon the postal contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Company, has been shared between India and England respectively whether any estimate has been made of the loss likely to result from the proposed new postal contract with the Company, and in what proportion this loss is to be shared between India and England; and, when this new contract will be submitted for the consideration of the House?
    LORD JOHN MANNERS: In addition to the loss incurred by the Mother Country upon the Peninsular and Oriental Company's contract, estimated at over £ 200,000 a-year, the Government of India have had to bear a charge which has amounted to about £ 76,500 a-year on the average between 1868 and 1876. No estimate has been prepared of the loss likely to result from the proposed new postal contract with the Company but it has been suggested that India should bear 23·84 per cent of the total' cost to be incurred under that contract. should wish to name a day when the contract will be brought under the notice of the House; but in the present state of Public Business cannot do so. The Secretary to the Treasury will take the earliest opportunity of naming a day available for the purpose.

  RAILWAY PASSENGER DUTY.

    QUESTION.
    MR. W. H. JAMESasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the case that the Oystermouth Railway, now the Swansea and Mumbles Railway, has been assessed by the Board of Inland Revenue to the Railway Passenger
    22
    Duty; and, if not, if he would state on what grounds?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: Yes, Sir; the railway in question is assessed to that duty.

  CANAL BOATS ACT, 1877.

    QUESTION.
    MR. PRICEasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board, Whether he is in a position to state what progress has been made by the different registering authorities under the Canal Boats Act of 1877 in registering canal boats; whether any Return has been called for as to the number of boats registered under the Act; and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay it upon the Table of the House; and, if not, whether he will direct such a Return to be called for?
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,in reply, said, that a Question had been addressed to him in the early part of the Session as to the progress made in registering canal boats. He called for information, which had been supplied. It had been laid on the Table, and its substance would be in the hands of Members in a few days. He might state, however, that out of 99 districts registration had been effected in two-thirds. The number of boats registered was 5,000, with accommodation for 22,000 persons.

  ARMY—THE 61ST AND 28TH REGIMENTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. PRICEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that repeated applications have been made to the Military authorities at home that, inasmuch as the 61st regiment was considerably under its proper establishment of subalterns, the vacancies might he supplied by the posting of supernumerary subalterns of the 28th regiment, its linked battalion, which was considerably in excess of its establishment of subalterns; whether it is true that at the time the 61st regiment was four subalterns below its establishment, and that in addition one subaltern was detailed on police duty at Cyprus without being seconded, one subaltern was superintendent of gymnasia at Malta, and consequently struck off duty, and one under orders to be transferred to a regiment in India; whether four officers

  23
  were eventually transferred from the 28th. to the 61st, and whether, at the same time that the transfer was notified, it was also notified that the four officers so transferred would still continue to do duty with the 28th whether it is not a fact that the transfer has been made upon paper only; and, if he can state why the excess in the one regiment has not been utilised to supply the deficiency in the other linked battalion, especially as the 28th is serving in England and the 61st in the trying climate of Malta?
  COLONEL STANLEYwas understood to say that, owing to the proposal that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into Army organization, it was not required that the officers who were to be transferred from the 28th to the 61st Regiment should be transferred unless vacancies occurred in that corps meanwhile. From that answer it was plain that the transfer had been on paper only.

  CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY COMMISSIONERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. RATHBONEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the representations made in the Debate on the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Bill in the House of Commons, and that the House might trust the Commissioners and the University to make such modifications in the terms of residence as should make the Universities more generally available, the Cambridge University Commissioners have, contrary to the wishes and recommendations of the Senate, proposed in the new statutes to fix the present terms of residence and, whether he will communicate with the Commissioners on the subject?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, he did not see how he could interfere with the free action of the Commissioners. He had, however, communicated with the Secretary to the Commission, who stated that no statutes had as yet been made by the Cambridge University Commissioners. It was true that it was proposed the former period of residence required for a degree—nine terms—should be continued; but the Commissioners had still under consideration the propriety of altering the exceptions to the rule.

  PRINTING CONTRACT WITH MESSRS HANSARD.—QUESTION.
  MR. DILLWYNasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether any and what steps have been taken with regard to the contract with Messrs. Hansard for printing for the House of Commons, and which will expire in the course of the present Year?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, there had been a good deal of correspondence between the Treasury, the Speaker, and Messrs. Hansard, with regard to the contract for printing for the House of Commons, in order to obtain a more favourable contract for the public; but the corre-pondence was still going on, and no arrangement had yet been concluded. The correspondence would be produced before any contract was signed.

  THE TRANSVAAL PAPERS—"WHITE v. RUDOLPH."—QUESTION.
  MR. COURTNEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can arrange to publish, in the forthcoming Transvaal Papers, a Copy of the Judgment of Mr. Justice Kotzé, in the case of White v. Rudolph, delivered at Pretoria on the 17th of May?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH,in reply, said, that he had not received a Copy of the paper referred to; but he would send for a Copy.

  RAILWAYS—AUTOMATIC BRAKES.

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. J. COWEN (for Mr. J. W. BARCLAY)asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he will procure and lay upon the Table of the House Copy of a Report, dated April 24th 1879, by Mr. T. E. Harrison, C.E., to the North Eastern Railway Company, on the Westinghouse Automatic Brake adopted on the North Eastern Railway; and, whether the Board of Trade will be represented at the experiments with this brake proposed to be made near York by the North Eastern Railway Company on Monday next?
    MR. MACDONALDalso asked, Whether it was the custom of the Board of Trade to send representatives to witness experiments with other brakes that were candidates for public favour, especially as the Westinghouse brake was

    25
    a foreign brake, and not one of home manufacture?
    VISCOUNT SANDON: The North Eastern Railway Company have sent us a copy of the Report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and if he will move for it, shall happy to lay it on the Table of the House. The Board of Trade will not be officially represented at the brake trials proposed to be held by the North Eastern Railway Company near York; but Mr. Farrer, the Secretary to the Board of Trade, and two of the inspecting officers of railways, have accepted invitations from the Railway Company to be present on the occasion. I need hardly add that, by their presence, no opinion is expressed, or intended to be expressed, as to the comparative merits of the brake which is the subject of the experiment; and that, in the present condition of this question, should not think it right that the Board of Trade should show any preference whatever for any particular brake.

  EGYPT—NUBAR. PASHA.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. OTWAYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have any information to the effect that Prince Tewfik, recently recommended by them as Khedive of Egypt, has forbidden Nubar Pasha to return to his country whether there were any grounds for this arbitrary proceeding; and, whether Her Majesty's Representative in Cairo was cognizant of the order of banishment stated to have been issued by the Khedive? He might also ask when the further Papers promised with regard to Egypt would be ready?
  MR. BOURKE: With regard to the first Question, no information has been received that Nubar Pasha has been forbidden to return to Egypt. With regard to the Papers, can only tell my hon. Friend that the Papers are being prepared and will be produced before long.
  MR. OTWAYinquired whether the Government had received any intimation from our Representative in Paris with regard to the matter?
  MR. BOURKEreplied in the negative. The Government had received no information of Nubar Pasha having been forbidden by anybody to return to his country.

  THE LATE PRINCE IMPERIAL.

    QUESTION.
    MR. CALLANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will direct the Chief Commissioner of Police to make arrangements so as to enable Members of the House to attend the funeral of the Prince Imperial, which is to take place on Saturday next, the South-Eastern Railway having intimated their readiness to place a special train at the disposal of the Members who desire to attend?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I think that the hon. Member is mistaken as to the character of the funeral. It is to be entirely a private funeral, under the charge of the authorities at Camden House, and the Government have no power to interfere. All can say is that if a special train goes to take Members of Parliament, no doubt the First Commissioner of Police will take care that every attention is paid to them, and that they are not crowded and inconvenienced so far as he is concerned.

  ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL—FLOGGING.—QUESTIONS.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKwished to ask the Secretary of State for War a Question of which he had given him private Notice. It was, Whether it had escaped his observation that under the arrangements contained in the Paper circulated the day before flogging could not henceforth be inflicted for the crime of drunkenness on duty under arms in the immediate presence of the enemy; whether it was intended to retain corporal punishment as a deterrent for the commission of this crime and, if not, whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would consider the advisability of abolishing flogging altogether, it being desirable to relieve the Army from the stigma of being the only Army in Europe? [" Order! "]
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the Question was of a controversial character, involving matter of argument, and could not, therefore, be put.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKsaid, that as there were only a few words more, he might be permitted to finish his Question. ["Order!" "No, no!"] The hon. and gallant Member gave Notice

  27
  that he would put the Question, with such modifications as the Speaker, in his discretion, might point out.

  GRAND JURIES (IRELAND) BILL.

    QUESTION.
    MR. D. TAYLORasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If (considering the lateness of the Session and the state of Public Business) it is his intention to proceed any further with the Grand Juries (Ireland) Bill?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: I confess, Sir, that the present condition of Public Business does not make me very hopeful as to the passage of this Bill. It will, doubtless, shortly be necessary for the Government to make an announcement as to what Bills we shall be able to proceed with and, meanwhile, will confer with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House as to the position of this Bill.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—QUESTIONS.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAasked, If the Banking and Joint Stock Companies Bill would be taken to-night?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No.
  MR. BENTINCKasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he would have the goodness to state what Business would be taken next week?
  MR. DILLWYN: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question of which have given him private Notice. A paragraph has appeared in two of the morning papers to the effect that arrangements have been made to carry on a continuous Sitting of the House until the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill has been passed through Committee—a continuous Sitting; and wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has made, or is cognizant of, any such arrangement?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: have not seen the paragraph to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and am not cognizant of any such arrangement. What we hope is this—In one sense, we must have a continuous series of Sittings on the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill, because it is now so near the time at which the temporary
  28
  Act expires that we must postpone all other Business in order to proceed with the Bill. That makes it difficult to answer the Question with great positive-ness, because if we are not finished by Monday we shall be obliged to go on with it. I hope the House, in consideration of the state of Business and the period of the Session, will assist us to make serious progress with this Bill this evening, and, in that case, I hope we may be able to complete the Committee to-morrow at the Morning Sitting. We do not propose to ask for a Sitting on Saturday. If, on Monday, we shall have completed the Committee on the Bill, we shall propose to take the Estimates—the Civil Service Estimates—and probably some of the Irish Estimates on that day. Last year, on the 15th of July, we made the request, customary at the end of the Session, that Government Business should take precedence on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and I propose on Monday, at the meeting of the House, to make a similar proposal. It will be the same day of the year as the proposal was made last year; and, certainly, the Business this year is not at all further advanced than it was last year. I trust the House will be willing to entertain that proposal. I do not ask the House to express any opinion on it at the present time. I only give Notice that will I make the Motion on Monday.
  MR. BENTINCKasked, What other Estimates than these already mentioned would be taken next week?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am afraid I am hardly in a position to say what other Estimates will be taken. If, however, my hon. Friend refers to the Navy Estimates, I may tell him that we do not propose to take them next week.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, progress had been made with the Civil Service and the Army Estimates but only one night had been devoted to the Navy Estimates, which he never remembered to have been dealt with as they had been this year. Why was it impossible to proceed with them?
  MR. W. H. SMITHexceedingly regretted that it had fallen to his lot to be later than usual with the Navy Estimates but it was not his fault that they had not been proceeded with. The ground for proceeding with the Civil

  29
  Service Estimates next week was that there was an actual want of money on account of the Votes to be proposed. Therefore, there was no alternative but to go on with them. As soon as he could get the opportunity, he should only be too glad to bring on the Navy Estimates.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: I wish to ask the Government, Whether it is to be distinctly understood that the report which has appeared in all the newspapers as to a continuous Sitting to-night is not correct? Of course, that statement has not been made officially, and I presume that the House will not sit beyond 12 or 1 o'clock?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I stated that I was not cognizant of any such arrangement as that referred to. As to the particular hour to which we should sit to-night, that is a matter for the convenience and the discretion of the House itself. I hope we shall be able to make good progress with the Bill.
  MR. HIBBERTasked, Whether the Valuation Bill would be taken at the Morning Sitting next Tuesday?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I would rather not say.
  MR. CALLANwould address the Question of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston), since he was understood to have identified himself with such arrangements, and would ask, Whether it had been arranged that the House was to be kept by relays of Members throughout the night?
  [No answer was given to the Question.]

  ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL—CORPORAL PUNISHMENT—THE SCHEDULE.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. SULLIVANasked, with reference to the Schedule which had been issued as to persons liable to be flogged for certain special offences, Whether it was intended that every person committing any of those offences, and therefore liable to death, should be flogged, whether he were an officer or not?
  COLONEL STANLEYexplained that the Paper referred to was a mere Memorandum which he had promised the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) he would lay upon the Table to show the offences referred
  30
  to in the Schedule which the Government intended to propose.
  MR. SULLIVANasked, Was it to be understood that the offences specified would be so punished?
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, they would be governed by the clause.
  MR. SULLIVANgave Notice that on the clause referred to by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman he would move such Amendments as would secure that where an offence liable to be punished by death was committed there should be no distinction made as regarded the infliction of flogging between an officer and a private soldier.

ORDERS 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 8th July."]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    PART V.

      APPLICATION OF MILITARY LAW, SAVING PROVISIONS, AND DEFINITIONS.
      Persons subject to Military Law.
      Clause 166 (Persons subject to military law as officers).
      COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that several Amendments appeared upon this clause, the general effect of which was to preclude half-pay officers from the operation of the Act. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that when he brought in the Bill he stated that he believed the law in reference to half-pay officers had never been brought into operation. He found there was considerable objection to bringing officers upon half-pay under this Act; and he, therefore, proposed to leave out the words from "full pay," in line 37, page 91, to the end of line 2, page 92, and to insert—
      "And if not otherwise subject to military-law, officers on the staff of the army, and officers employed in military service under the orders of an officer of the regular forces."
      He thought that would cover the case of all officers who ought to be made amenable to discipline.
      COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, lie had the first Amendment upon the Paper; but the statement just made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was entirely satisfactory to him, because it conceded the principle he had intended to call attention to—namely, that, in future, no officer upon half-pay should be subject to military law. As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had conceded the point, he would not take up the time of the Committee by arguing it further, more especially as he spoke upon it at considerable length on the second reading of the Bill.
      MR. CHAMBERLAINdid not rise to speak to the Amendment, but merely to ask a question of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. He was anxious to know whether he would undertake, after the Sitting that night, to have the Bill reprinted as far as it had been got through the Committee. Amendments had been proposed and accepted upon every clause and it was a difficult matter to ascertain how the Bill now stood. It would be a great convenience to the Committee if, unless the sanguine hope of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they would get through the Bill that night were realized, the Bill could be reprinted, showing the Amendments which had hitherto been adopted.
      COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he had no objection to place a copy of the Bill, as amended up to the present, in the Vote Office; but he did not think he could undertake to have the Bill reprinted.
      SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked, if there would only be one copy, or would the Bill be printed and distributed to Members?
      COLONEL STANLEYcould not guarantee to have it distributed to Members but he would place one or two amended copies in the Vote Office for reference by Members.
      Amendment agreed to.
      MR. CHAMBERLAINasked for a little explanation respecting a subsequent section of the clause they were now discussing. On page 92, the 4th sub-section was as follows:—
      "Provided that nothing in this Act shall affect the application to such persona of any Act passed by the Legislature of a Colony."
      32
      From that Proviso it would appear that the Legislature of a Colony might pass an Act including in its provisions corporal punishment, and that in that case the provisions of the Imperial Act would not apply. He did not quite understand why the Legislature of a Colony should be allowed to override the provisions of an Imperial Act in relation to persons serving Her Majesty under military orders.
      THE CHAIRMANasked if the hon. Gentleman proposed to leave out the sub-section?
      MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.
      COLONEL STANLEYsaid, it had been understood that the Legislature of a Colony almost always followed; in effect, the Imperial law. A right hon. Gentleman opposite had stated that, in his great experience, he had found that Colonial legislation, in all matters, was very similar to that of the Mother Country.
      MR. E. JENKINSsaid, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had not quite understood the point raised. If he would turn his attention to the clause, he would find it there stated that—
      "All such persons not otherwise subject to military law, as may be serving in the position of officers of any troops or portion of troops raised by order of Her Majesty beyond the limits of the United Kindom and of India, and serving under the command of an officer of the regular forces; "
      and then it went on to say—
      " Provided that nothing in this Act shall affect the application to such persons of any Act passed by the legislature of a colony."
      That was to say, that an officer so serving would be under the Imperial Act; but the Imperial Act reserved to the Colony, which raised and paid Forces, the right of legislating with regard to the discipline of those Forces. He hoped his hon. Friend would be satisfied with the explanation given, and would withdraw his opposition.
      MR. O'DONNELLwas not quite clear as to the bearing of the clause, as it now stood, after the explanation just offered. He thought it would be desirable that in the case of Colonial troops or Colonial officers, serving in an Imperial Army, and under Imperial command, and for Imperial purposes, should be subjected to the same common and general discipline that was maintained for the Imperial Forces. He took

      33
      it that when a war arose in one of our Colonies, and was of such a character as to require the interposition of the Imperial Forces, then, in consideration of the Imperial assistance extended to that Colony, the least we could require from the Colony was that all the Colonial Forces serving under our command should be absolutely subject to the general provisions of our Imperial Discipline Acts. This was a matter of the first importance; for if we were conducting an Imperial war for the defence of one of our Colonies, it was quite intolerable that that Colony, or any portion of it, should have power to conduct the war according to conditions prohibited to the Imperial Forces. He would venture to give an instance. In The Standard newspaper of yesterday it was reported by a correspondent, in relation to the recent surprise of the Colonial Forces by the Basutos, that after the defeat the Colonial Forces in the morning rallied, and went out to discover the Basutos; but none of the enemy could be found, except two wounded men, who, the correspondent wrote, "were forthwith shot." The correspondent proceeded to say—
      "It is to be hoped that these wounded Basutos were only shot for resistance to capture; but, I must admit, the Colonial opinion would fully justify the knocking on the head and shooting of wounded natives without more ado."
      Well, now, the discipline of the British Army did not, and could not, tolerate the assassination of wounded enemies; therefore, were they to allow an exception to be introduced between the Imperial and Colonial Forces, by which the latter, whom they were protecting and assisting against an enemy, who would otherwise overpower them, should practice acts of atrocity of that description, which would not be tolerated, and could not be tolerated, within the scope of the Imperial authority? He thought that they ought to insist, that where the Colonies asked for our assistance, in cases where the Colonial Forces required to be aided by the Imperial Forces, so long as we were aiding them—so long as we were holding the aegis of Imperial power over them—we ought to insist that they should do nothing which should disgrace the Imperial name. He thought hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite would recognize that if Colonies
      34
      could raise troops and volunteers of all descriptions, and could refuse to submit to the authority of the Imperial Discipline Acts, that, then, the door was opened to the very gravest abuse. He could give two other instances directly bearing on the point. He would not be in Order in referring explicitly to a Question addressed to the Secretary of State for War, and to the answer given; but he could put the case hypothetically. A Member of the House, on inquiring from the Secretary of State for War as to the use of dynamite, and some other forbidden engines of war, in a Colonial war, received for an answer—
      "That such Colonial officers using these forbidden engines of war are in no way under the control of the Imperial Government."
      Why, there at once a serious difficulty was presented. In the one common Imperial enterprize we could have one portion of the Forces bound by Imperial Discipline Acts, and another portion of the Forces feeling themselves at liberty to have recourse to methods of warfare discarded by this country. They ought to render it impossible for any Force—Colonial or otherwise, when engaged in the same field of war—to adopt any mode of warfare than that recognised by the Imperial Parliament. Again, an instance had just been reported in reference to another body of Colonial Forces. The Cavalry, known as Lonsdale's Horse, had been the subject of comments in this country for their conduct and yet the Government, through the responsible Minister, had been unable to assure the House that they could in any way control the action of those Forces. The intelligence had justreached home that Lonsdale's Horse, in consequence of their incurably bad conduct, and in consequence of their not being bound by any Discipline Act, had had to be entirely disbanded, as a set of worthless fellows, capable of the most reprehensible practices. They had been accused of thieving, highway robbery, continual drunkenness, disobedience to orders; and yet these men had been raised under a Colonial Act, which did not press upon them any obligation to obey discipline; and because of the inability on the part of their commanders to insure discipline in their ranks, they had had to be disbanded, Now, he took it,

      35
      that in order to prevent cruelties which would disgrace the Imperial name, in order to prevent want of discipline and bad conduct amongst Colonial Auxiliaries acting with Imperial Forces, they ought to insist that these Colonial Forces must be absolutely subject to our Discipline Acts, the existence of Colonial Acts notwithstanding. He did not think he had said one word more than was required, for this was a point of the very first importance. He thought that where a Colony required Imperial assistance in any grave matter—and for less than a grave matter Imperial assistance ought not to be rendered—the Colony ought to submit to the common discipline imposed on the Imperial Forces.
      MR. SULLIVANthought they ought to be very careful about interfering with the Home Rule principle on the part of the Colonies. Yet, on the other hand, let them contemplate whether Colonial troops engaged under the Imperial standard could not bring disgrace upon it. He would ask the Government to recollect the recent troubles in Jamaica, where Governor Hennessy came into contact with the Legislature. And it was true, although he was sorry to have to say it, that even in South Africa the locally-raised troops were proved to be more severe and less humane than the Imperial troops themselves.
      MR. PARNELLsaid, the point raised was one of considerable importance, although he could not exactly say whether it could be dealt with by the omission of the words at present under consideration. Undoubtedly, it might be necessary to secure respect for the Legislature of a Colony, so that their resolutions might not be entirely interfered with by an Act of this House; but, at the same time, they could not shut their eyes to the fact that in carrying out the Imperial policy of the present Government wars were undertaken in different parts of the world; that in those wars the Colonial Forces took a very considerable part; and that if they excepted those Colonial Forces from military law they could not have the same discipline kept up; and they would not have the same respect for the laws and usages of war on the part of those Forces as they would have from their own or Regular troops. At the present moment there was a very good example in Zululand. A war was being carried on there—not a Colonial,
      36
      but an Imperial war—a war which, had been entered into as part of the Imperial policy of the present Government. Of course, he did not mean to say that the Colonists were not entirely in favour of it. They were favourable to it, because it put money into their pockets. It was not, strictly speaking, a Colonial war, but an Imperial war, which would not have been undertaken by the Colonists by themselves. In the first place, they would have been unable to undertake it; and, in the second place, they would never have afforded it. Under those circumstances, they proposed, by the Bill as it now stood, to leave the Colonial troops, who were fighting side by side with the British troops, exempt from the operation of the military law, and subject only to the law of the Colony. That was a very great mistake. He would draw a distinction between a war which was being carried on by Colonial and Imperial Forces combined, and a war conducted by Colonial Forces alone. If the war at the Cape was being carried on entirely by Colonial troops, we would have no reason to seek any right to interfere in the conduct of the war. The Colonists would be responsible for it; they would be responsible for any act committed; and they would be liable for the result of the war. He would, therefore, not include the Forces engaged in such a war under the operation of the present Army Discipline Act; but when they had a war that was being carried on by the Imperial Government, and Colonial Forces were assisting the Imperial troops, then those Forces, whether they were fighting side by side with the Imperial soldiers, or whether they were carrying on the war separately in another district of the country—so long as the war was an Imperial one, the Colonial troops should be subjected to the provisions of the Army Discipline and Regulation Act. Were they going to insure that? If they left out the words proposed, he agreed with the remark of a previous speaker, that they would establish a very serious interference with the Colonial Legislature; that the interference so made would be of too wide and too general a character; and that, perhaps, it might be possible to provide for the matter in some different way. What he would suggest would be this—that after the word "Colony" there should be inserted—

      37
      "Always provided, that whenever Colonial Forces are acting in conjunction with, the Imperial Forces the former shall he subject to the conditions of this Act."
      He thought that by the adoption of an Amendment such as that they would meet the difficulty of the case which had lately arisen in Zululand. The other day his hon. Friend the Member for Dun garvan (Mr. O'Donnell) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention had been drawn to the operations of the Colonial Forces in Basuto-land against the Basutos, in which those Forces had used dynamite for the purpose of blowing up the caves in which were women and children, and had also lighted fires at the mouths of other caves, proceedings which, at the time, caused great consternation in this country, rivalling, as they did, the exploits of Marshal Beaugeaud in Algiers some years ago. Undoubtedly, our troops could not escape from the odium caused by excesses. Though the Imperial Forces might not be responsible, yet the state of the law was responsible and so long as these troops were allowed to act in concert with Colonial Forces, and the latter were governed by a different military law, there must be a lax state of discipline. The contagion of example must spread; and if the Colonial Forces committed atrocities towards the Natives—if they applied fire to the mouths of caves, or used dynamite to the caves where Natives had taken refuge, or made use of explosive bullets—of which there was evidence in Zululand—then the Imperial Forces would come to do the same things; and thus the discipline of the Imperial Army would become destroyed, and a bad name become attached to the Army and the country. Therefore, it was an important question by the hon. Member for Birmingham and to meet it, he would propose to leave out the words at the end of the section, in order to add a Proviso—
      "That wherever the Colonial Forces are acting in conjunction with Imperial Forces, all shall be subject to the military law of this country."
      In this way would be met that difficulty which had been referred to as arising in Zululand. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, a few days ago, said the Government had no control over the Colonial Forces, and was not respon-
      38
      sible; but he said he would make representations to the Colonial Government, to request that the operations might be carried on in accordance with the rules of war. But this was not sufficient. Let there be a clause that would show every Colony that if they expected aid from the Imperial Forces of the Crown, then the whole Force in the field must be subject to the rules and regulations of the Bill.
      MR. E. JENKINSpointed out that the present section referred to officers only and asked the Committee to consider what would be the position of an officer selected to serve in a Colony, and in command of Forces raised under a Colonial Act? Necessarily, that officer would be governed by the regulations and discipline of the Colony in which he served. Ultimately, of course, his allegiance would be to Her Majesty; but his direct allegiance, in the meantime, would be to the Colony in which he was serving. By this section it was provided that he would remain under those regulations and that discipline, even though he might temporarily come under the command of an officer of the Regular Forces. Surely this was absolutely necessary, and what was desired by the Amendment was really secured. The moment an officer commanded in the Regular Forces, he came within the purview of the Bill; and while in a Colonial Force, he remained under the Colonial Act. The words in the section implied he would come within the purview of the Act they provided that the persons mentioned were subject to military law as officers, and then the section went on to declare—
      "All such persons not otherwise subject to military law as may be serving in the position of officers of any troops or portions of troops raised by order of Her Majesty beyond the limits of the United Kingdom."
      The hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) said troops raised in Canada or the Cape were not troops raised by order of Her Majesty; but these would come under the Colonial Act, and to these the present Act was not intended to apply. The clause appeared to him a reasonable one, and he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
      MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, no doubt the last explanation was an admirable one but it was not consistent with that given by the Secretary of State for War,

      39
      The right hon. and gallant Gentleman in answering the Question—for it was only a Question originally—said there were always discrepancies between the treatment of troops serving partly as Colonial and partly as Imperial Forces, and he said usually the Colonial Legislatures deferred to the Imperial law. But he (Mr. Chamberlain) supposed that, in some cases, this deference was not shown; and if not shown in all cases, then it might fail to be shown in any case. Then they would have the Colonial law either more or less stringent than the Imperial law; they would have British troops serving under the same General Officer with Colonial troops and they would have the British troops flogged under this Bill, while the Colonial troops, for the same offences, escaped scot-free. The hon. Member for Meath had suggested his object might be obtained by retaining the Proviso in the Bill, and adding another thereto; but the effect of that would be to make the Colonial law, in every case where the Colonial Forces acted with Imperial troops, as stringent as the Imperial law. He was not certain that would be an advantage and he did not think that any English-speaking Colony would adopt the barbarous punishment of flogging, and he was not anxious to increase the severity of Colonial military law. But he would not trouble the Committee to divide, because he was willing to leave the point to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether it was desirable to assimilate the Colonial military law; and not having given Notice of the Amendment, he had no wish to take the Committee by surprise. He, therefore, asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL,in reference to the hon. Member's (Mr. Chamberlain's) remarks upon the different treatment of Colonial and British soldiers, said, if the Amendment was carried, the result would probably be that under both Codes a soldier would be fined first and flogged afterwards. In the allusion made to the war against the Basutos, it should be remembered that those operations were carried on under Colonial authority and by Colonial, not Imperial, Forces. In Natal, however, it was not so for there the troops were under an Imperial commander, subject to military law. He would like the
      40
      Attorney General to clear up a doubt as to whether a Colonial Force, raised under such circumstances as the Force known as "Lonsdale's Horse," came under the Colonial administration, or came within the meaning of the paragraph referring to troops "raised by order of Her Majesty?"
      MR. O'DONNELLthought that the argument of the hon. Member (Mr. Chamberlain) would defeat his own object. If the Act should be extended, without limitation, to the Colonies, then Colonial troops would come within the flogging clauses of the Bill; but if, on the other hand, there was this contract that Imperial troops were subject to flogging—a punishment to which Colonial troops refused to submit—this would work in the direction of the policy supported from these Benches—the abolition of flogging altogether. Government would find that they would, in every case, have to make it part of the bargain with the Colony that flogging should be abolished. Besides, the Bill had not yet passed; and it was by no means certain that the flogging clauses would remain in the Bill until the end. The Government might appeal to the country on this issue—flogging in the Army or not? So there was not the slightest reason for the hon. Member to be anxious about the flogging not yet having existence in this uncompleted Bill. In all probability, before the Bill became law those clauses would disappear.
      MR. CHILDERSsaid, it had recently been the recognized policy to encourage our Colonies to provide for their own military defence, and, under their local Acts, provisions for pay, clothing, promotion, & c. had been made. When the Army was in the field, brigaded with Her Majesty's Army, it became necessary that the whole Force should be under one discipline, and this the Bill would provide. But if some such words as those in the Bill were not introduced, then the Colonial Acts would be inoperative, and the Imperial Government would have to provide for the charge and internal economy of the Colonial Forces. It was necessary, therefore, to put all the Forces under one Act for purposes of discipline, leaving the internal arrangements under the Colonial Acts.
      SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, this difficulty had only arisen through

      41
      changing the words of the original Act into the words now proposed—"troops raised by order of Her Majesty." Troops raised in the Colony could not be said to be raised by order of the Sovereign, and the clause gave rise to much uncertainty.
      MR. O'CONNOR POWERwas rather inclined to oppose the withdrawal of the Amendment, for the matter had been very fairly ventilated and if the discussion was closed now, to be revived on Report, all the ground would have to be travelled over again. He could not quite understand the argument of his hon. Friend, unless he proceeded on the assumption that the discipline in the Imperial Forces was more humane than that in the Colonial Forces, an assumption not altogether proved. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had referred to instances of cruelty practised by the Colonial Forces; but this was cruelty practised towards the enemy, not upon their own men, and how were they to make provision so that such cruelties might not be repeated? This point required clearing up. The Imperial Government did, of course, exercise influence over the Colonial action in that respect; and, indeed, it was not an unusual thing, when any cruelty was practised under the Government of any State in Europe, it was not unfrequently the case that the Government made certain representations to prevent a repetition of such cruelties. This course was followed in the case of Turkey, and in the case of Russia as against Poland. Surely, it was presumable the same thing could be done with the Colonies, even though the Colonial Army were not directly included under the authority of Her Majesty the Queen. He could see that much difficulty would be removed by the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Meath.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLagain expressed a hope that it would be clearly defined by the Law Officers how far the Act was to apply to Colonial Forces.
      COLONEL STANLEYsaid, such Forces could only be raised under the authority of an Act, and an Act required the assent of the Crown. He was sorry if he had misunderstood the hon. Member's (Mr. Chamberlain's) Amendment; but it had been so well answered by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins), and the right hon. Gentleman opposite
      42
      (Mr. Childers), that it was unnecessary to add more. He looked upon this as a protection clause for the Colonies, and giving to the Colonies such jurisdiction as was necessary. With regard to his general assertion, that Colonial law usually followed Imperial law, of course it was covered by the understanding that in all cases the assent of the Crown was required to local Acts.
      MR. E. JENKINSsaid, Her Majesty was Commander-in-Chief in every Colonial Act of Parliament.
      MR. PARNELLwas sorry that the Secretary of State for the Colonies was not present. Upon the Colonial law, of course, it was not to be expected that the Secretary of State for War had any practical knowledge, and the Committee were left to the guidance of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins),who had taken a personal interest in the Colonies, and gave the Committee the benefit of his information. Now, the question had been raised with regard to India—
      THE CHAIRMANhoped the hon. Member would see he was going beyond the scope of the Amendment.
      MR. PARNELLthought that the officials of the Crown in charge of Departments should be present when those parts of the Bill connected with their Departments came on for the consideration of the Committee.
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had not felt it his duty to interpose before but the hon. Member would not be in Order in discussing the general conduct of the officials of the Crown.
      MR. O'CONNOR POWERrose to a point of Order, and suggested that if his hon. Friend thought it necessary that the Secretary of State for the Colonies should explain the point, then his hon. Friend might move to report Progress until the right hon. Gentleman could be present. At the same time, he did not advise such a course.
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member was at liberty to move to report Progress, if he thought proper to do so.
      MR. PARNELLmoved to report Progress, not for the purpose of taking a division, but in order to express his opinion with regard to the Officers of the Crown, who were responsible for parts of this Bill. He thought the Under Secretary of State for India, and the

      43
      Secretary of State for the Colonies, should be in attendance -when parts of the Bill were reached which affected their Departments. Otherwise, the Committee was placed in a very false position and it was the business of those Gentlemen, who were in receipt of large salaries, to inform the House on questions affecting their Departments. Some Members of the Government appeared to take an interest in the discharge of their duties. The Home Secretary, for example, had always attended when clauses of this Bill were under consideration which related to his Department. On the other hand, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and the Under Secretary of State for India treated the Committee and the Bill with that lofty disdain with which they seemed to treat every question which was asked of them in reference to their Departments. As the Secretary of State for War, of course, knew nothing about those points, they were driven back upon the opinion of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins), who, although he was acquainted with these subjects, yet could not deal with the matter with the authority of a Member of the Government. They wished to avoid what had happened recently in Zululand, and to provide that when Colonial Forces were serving with British troops in the field, they should be subject to the same laws and regulations as the British troops. It was a very important question, whether these Colonial Forces were exempt or not. Yet they were entirely dependent upon amateur assistance for an explanation of the point.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.)
      MR. O'DONNELLdid not think the presence of the Secretary of State for the Colonies would result in the communication of any information to the Committee. All the Officers of the Government could not be considered to hold important positions; for, in his opinion, the Judge Advocate General and the Chief Secretary for Ireland simply filled sinecure posts, intended for the more ornamental Ministers of the Administration. They were receiving most discordant views from the Treasury Bench. They were now told that
      44
      the Colonial Forces in the field under Imperial command would be subject to this Army Discipline Bill; yet the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War told them, a short time ago, that he was not responsible for throwing dynamite into caves in which were women and children. He should like to know which of these two statements was the correct one?
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL,on subsection 5, suggested that it might be amended so as to read—
      "Officers of the yeomanry, and officers of the volunteers, whenever they are in actual command of men, who are in pursuance of this Act subject to military law."
      That would meet the case of trainings; and then he would also add the words—" or when their corps is on actual military service."
      Amendment agreed to.
      COLONEL STANLEYmoved, in page 92, line 27, before "orders," insert "general or special." His object was to cover a point raised the other day.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, the clause seemed to have a most serious and important effect. By it a political officer, or a Civil Commissioner, or even an envoy travelling with Military Forces, was liable to be tried by court martial, and that seemed to be very extraordinary. Sir Bartle Frere, according to this clause, if he were with the troops, might be tried by martial law. He would like to know whether it was the intention, if, for instance, a political officer differed from an officer in charge of the troops, that he should thereby subject himself to be tried by court martial?
      COLONEL STANLEYobserved, that this clause placed certain persons in the position of officers.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that was all very well; but he wanted it clear, whether officers, such as he had mentioned, were to be tried by court martial?
      Amendment agreed to.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLmoved, in page 92, lines 27 and 28, after "Governor General of India," to insert "subject to military law."
      COLONEL STANLEYhoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment, for it seemed to him absolutely indispensable that persons accompanying a Force should be under the control of the officer in command. Nothing could be more dangerous than to have a person accompanying the Forces not under discipline and with no recognized status. He himself, and the First Lord of the Admiralty, were subject to Naval law when on board ship; and it would be enforced against them if they violated it. He was quite willing to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt).
      MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANpointed out that this might produce very serious results.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLwished to understand whether a Governor or Ambassador, travelling in one of Her Majesty's ships, was liable to be tried by court martial, if, for instance, he failed to put out a light?
      COLONEL STANLEYsaid he would be.
      MR. HOPWOODpointed out that there were a number of provisions in the Naval Discipline Act which were very peculiar to which he had, at an earlier period of the Session, called attention, and which the Committee ought not to sanction. Under certain circumstances, even a Colonial Bishop on board a ship commissioned by Her Majesty might, it was said, be liable to be flogged; and, for some reasons, it was to be hoped that a Bishop might be placed in such a position, because nothing could so perfectly demonstrate the extravagance of such law.
      MR. PARNELLopposed the Amendment. If they agreed to it, they would require a new scale of punishments. The present scale only referred to officers and soldiers, not to other persons who were now proposed subject to martial law.
      Amendment negatived.
      MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the early parts of this clause subjected certain persons to military law as officers, followed by a qualification that where such persons were Natives of India they should be subject to the Indian military law. This was one of several clauses which took Native Indians in the employment of this country out of this Bill and relegated them to what was
      46
      called the Indian military law. He thought that ought not to be, and that the Natives of India ought to enjoy all the benefits of any amelioration of our Military Code, and not be subject to the mercies of vague Articles of War. Englishmen were far too prone to regard persons with black skins as entirely different beings. In the Cape papers he found the Zulus constantly described as "niggers" and he had often seen similar language used with respect even to the Natives of India. Under these circumstances, the House of Commons ought to be very careful to give Native soldiers exactly the same protection that they gave their own countrymen. He moved, in page 92, line 30, to leave out from the word. "seas," to the end of the clause.
      Amendment proposed, in page 92, line 30, to leave out from the word "seas," to the end of the clause.—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLremarked that, so far as his recollection went, the Indian Code was less, not more severe, than that in force in this country.
      MR. E. STANHOPEprotested against the impression that the Indian Code was more severe than English military law. That was not at all the case and, if he were in Order in discussing the point, he should be able point out that it was not by any means so severe. He should also like to observe that this exception was favourable to the Natives—as, for instance, a Native of India could be tried by court martial composed partly of Native Indians.
      MR. CHAMBERLAINremarked, that he did not intend to press the matter; but he might point out that the Indian Army was subject to Articles of which they in that House knew nothing; and he should be glad to know whether there was any objection to lay them on the Table of the House?
      SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, the Indian Articles of War were printed and in the Library. The hon. Member was incorrect in another point, for he said that it was the custom of Indian officers, and other public servants, to speak of the Natives as "niggers."

      47
      No Native was ever so spoken of, except by some young Englishmen, just come out, who knew nothing of the Service.
      MR. CHAMBERLAINbegged to correct the hon. and gallant Gentleman. His statement was that he had seen it in the Cape papers in reference to the Natives of Africa.
      MR. E. JENKINSobserved, that the clause, as it stood, was unnecessary. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would look at page 97, he would find that it was there stated that—
      "Nothing in this Act shall prejudice or affect the Indian military law respecting officers or soldiers or followers in Her Majesty's Indian forces."
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEunderstood that his hon. Friend did not wish to divide but he had no doubt that any modification of the law which was necessary, in consequence of the changes in this Bill, would, as far as circumstances justified, be recommended by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. E. Stanhope).

  PRIVILEGE—PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE—NOTE-TAKING IN THE MEMBERS' SIDE-GALLERY.

    QUESTIONS. OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. SULLIVAN: I believe, Sir, you are aware that no stranger in the Galleries is allowed, by the regulations of this House, to take notes of our proceedings. The question was asked, with the Speaker in the Chair, the other day, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it was by his orders, and by his permission, that a new functionary was introduced? It was pointed out that a person was making certain notes with pencil and paper in one of the Galleries, and more especially was noting the words of certain, and only certain, Members of this House. He noted when they rose, and how long they spoke. Mr. Raikes, I wish to ask you whether it is in Order, and whether such a practice should go on? I wish to know, from whoever can tell me, by whose direction this new functionary has been constituted, and with what purpose? I now call attention to the fact that the young gentleman is now engaged in the Gallery on your left. As regards the young gentleman intrusted with this delicate and responsible work, I am sure
    48
    he has not done it without proper direction, and to him, personally, not the slightest blame can be attached. But we desire to know in what character this proceeding is attempted; why this—I do not want to use the word in any offensive way—sort of espionage is to lead up to any punishment, or to any menace of punishment, to a Member of this House? I now ask, Mr. Raikes, if it is allowable any more to such gentlemen than to any stranger s who happen to be present at our debates to take notes of our proceedings? In calling your attention to this serious matter, I would beg to remind you that when complaint was made about the want of accommodation for the legitimate representatives of the Press of the country in this House, barely a year ago, that an application was made, or rather it was suggested, that the representatives of the Press might be allowed to take notes in the ordinary Strangers' Gallery, and that that application or suggestion was refused, on the ground that no one whatever outside the Reporters' Gallery should be allowed to take notes of our proceedings. I have seen gentlemen of importance immediately rebuked by the ushers in attendance, and ordered to give up their papers and pencil. I believe it, Sir, to be unprecedented, and appeal to you for direction in this matter. I ask, by whose authority this is done? Let the person on whose authority this has been done avow it and tell us his purpose.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member has put a question on a point of Order, which certainly, under ordinary circumstances, is one which should be rather addressed to the Speaker in full House than to the Chairman of the Committee. But I would point out to him that the Rule to which he has referred is one which is not an actual Order of the House, but a recognized Rule, which prohibits strangers from taking notes of the proceedings of this House in the Galleries. I did not understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the person to whom he has referred is a stranger. [Mr. SULLIVAN: Yes.] But if he is an official of this House he is not a stranger, and his performance of any act in this House must, in the first instance, be presumed to be done with the sanction, and under the authority, of those under whose respon-

    49
    sibility such a person is covered. It would be impossible for the Business of this House to be carried on if the subordinate officials of this House were to be, in the first instance, responsible to the House for their conduct. The Speaker is presumably the fountain and source of the action of all the officials of this House and it seems to me that if the hon. and learned Member wishes to raise any question on the subject, that the question should rather be addressed to the Speaker, than to any Member of this House.
    MR. SULLIVAN: In order that we may have the Speaker in the Chair, I beg to move to report Progress. I am simply carrying out your suggestion.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWER: I would respectfully suggest that, if possible, the Motion should be accepted without any unnecessary debate. I am sure my hon. and learned Friend has no desire to interrupt the progress of this Bill; and wish, at the outset, before any discussion on the subject is raised, to point out that if this Motion is assented to, we shall have an opportunity of having an authoritative statement from the Speaker, and have an opportunity of debating it before the Speaker. If hon. Gentlemen choose to exercise it, they have, no doubt, a right to debate the question whether we shall report Progress. Undoubtedly then, however, we shall have a long discussion, and then, probably, have the debate all over again, with the Speaker in the Chair. I merely rise, in the interests of the despatch of Business, to suggest that no undue obstacle should be placed in the way of making an appeal to the Speaker in the Chair.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I understand the hon. and learned Member to move to report Progress, not for the purpose of stopping the Bill, but to ask a question of the Speaker; and, therefore, it would be better that he should put on paper the Motion he will make—namely, that I should report Progress, with a view to report the circumstances to which he refers to the Speaker.
    MR. SULLIVAN: will bring up the words.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Chairman do report Progress, in order that, with Mr. Speaker in the Chair, a
    50
    question may be raised as to notes being taken by a person, in the Members' Side Gallery of the House, not being a Member of the House."—(Mr. Sullivan.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is clearly desirable that this point should be disposed of without delay, if, by doing so, we do not interrupt the progress of the Bill—that we resume our work when the question is disposed of. I think we ought clearly to understand that the Motion being agreed to, and the point decided, that you, Sir, can again take the Chair, and proceed with the Bill.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out that when a special reference is made with the object that the conduct of Members, or any similar matter, may be taken into consideration—after that has been disposed of, the Committee can resume its sitting.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think then, Sir, we should save time by agreeing to the Motion.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Mr. SPEAKERresumed the Chair:—and Mr. RAIKES reported Progress accordingly.
    MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, with the Chairman of Committees in the Chair put a question which, I believe, may be more fitly put to you, and more efficiently answered by you. I believe there is a Rule that, except in that portion of our House set apart for the legitimate representatives of public opinion—namely, the representatives of the Press—no one who is not a Member of the House has a right to take notes or records of our proceedings with pencil or with pen and paper. Nevertheless, a Question was put the other evening in the House, calling attention, on the part of the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan), to the appearance, in one of our side Galleries, of a gentleman, not a Member of the House, engaged in taking notes—notes, apparently, of a very peculiar kind—namely, notes having reference to the conduct of special individuals of the House. I, myself, have seen and called the attention of the Chairman of Committees to the fact that there was present in the Members' side Gallery—not in the Gallery of the gentlemen of the Press—

    51
    a stranger, not a Member of the House, engaged in making such, notes and record of our proceedings. I was desirous of knowing, Sir, whether this was not, in the first place, an unusual proceeding, whether done by or without authority? If done by authority, wanted to know by whose authority it was done; and wanted to know, secondly, with what purpose or object such proceedings were taken? I, myself, saw the young gentleman so engaged. at once addressed him, and said—" Of course, if take any notice of your proceedings in the House, it must not be considered that am casting any reflection upon you." thought it right to indicate to him that some notice must be taken of his proceedings. do not wish to cast any blame upon him. That young gentleman is a stranger to me; but, presume, he must be engaged in some way about the House, and that he is acting by authority, and intend to deal with that authority as far as respectfully may. Sir, the question of reporting our proceedings is, as you are aware, a very old and very ancient consideration in the House of Commons of England. It has been very jealously guarded in the way of bringing men to the Bar of the House, from time to time, for the offence of making a record of our proceedings. The representatives of two of the greatest journals of the country were once brought to the Bar of the House for this offence. If this is a fair report of all that was passing in the House, certainly should be blind and deaf to it; and, need hardly say, should not raise any objection on the technical point of its being written in the Members' side Gallery but if this is to be an instruction to note any particular individuals in this House—their rising and sitting down, the words they use, the Amendments they speak upon, and how often they speak—then, Sir, resent it as most offensive. resent it as being, in some way, as though intended to lead up to censure and punishment; and resent it as not being the open-handed way of dealing with Members which ought to characterize punishment, or any step towards punishment, by the House. And now, Sir, respectfully ask you if it is in Order for anyone, not a Member of the House, to sit in the Members' side Gallery, and be habitually
    52
    employed, with pencil and paper, in making notes and records of our proceedings, and especially with reference to particular Members of the House secondly, by whose authority this unusual course has been taken; and, thirdly, with what views such course is being taken?
    MR. CALLAN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to supplement these questions. I can fully corroborate the hon. and learned Member who has just spoken. Last week my attention was directed to the matter, and I noticed that the arrangement only applied to the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill. Sir, I remember, before I became a Member of this House, when seated in the Gallery, receiving a peremptory order not to take a note in my book. Since I became a Member of the House, I have repeatedly seen the officers of the Sergeant-at-Arms exercise the same control over others. We have a Gallery for the reporters. "We have had a Committee sitting on the question, of reporting, and we are now waiting for their final decision upon the Report. It is within the recollection of all the Members of the House that you, Sir, decided that the seats in the side Gallery were seats within the House, and that from them any Member so pleased could address you therefore, they are as much the seats of hon. Members as the seats upon, which we sit. But it is not a stranger who has been taking notes in that Gallery; it is one of our own officers, who has been directed, by some authority in the House, to take notes. It is of no use blinking the question. An attempt has been made to intimidate Members by infringing upon the freedom of debate, and by means of officers of this House appointed, I am sorry to say, not by this House, but by the Chief Clerk, as understand. Those officers, in communication with some higher officials, have been directed to spy—and it has not been thought derogatory to the officers of this House to set them to spy—upon a particular section of Members of this House. Sir, we resent that; and those of us who are connected with the Press are proud to think that the individuals who have been so deputed are not members of the Press. This charge is made against Mr. Jenkinson and Mr. Le Marchant, two of the Committee Clerks of this House, who have, on Monday and Tuesday of last week,

    53
    during the time that the Army Regulation and Discipline Bill -was in Committee, taken notes of the number and duration of the speeches of Irish Members.["Hear, hear!"] Am I to take that "hear, hear!" to mean that Conservative Members approve of this system of intimidating Irish Members? Am I to take it that they approve of a Clerk of the House being used as a spy upon the Irish Members? I again say, Sir, that on Monday and Tuesday I saw one of these gentlemen taking notes, and he is again taking them to day. But, yesterday, he was remarkable for his absence, for there was an English question before the House, and no note was taken of the speeches made upon that occasion. I hold it to be a most improper and dishonourable proceeding to allow a Clerk of this House, sitting in the place of a Member—
    MR. SPEAKER: I hope the hon. Member does not apply the epithet of "dishonourable" to any officer of the House.
    MR. CALLAN: I spoke of the act, and not of the officer. believe the two Clerks who took the notes are as honourable—
    MR. DODSON: I rise to Order. I wish to know, Sir—apart from the question whether the taking a note—[Mr. CALLAN: Systematic] Systematic, or otherwise—is or is not inconsistent with the Rules and practice of the House—whether such an act as that which has been referred to should be characterized as dishonourable?
    MR. CALLAN: I am sorry, but not surprised, at the support given to these proceedings by the right hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson).
    MR. DODSON: I rise to Order. gave no support to the act—I expressed no opinion concerning it, except that I asked whether such act—and I ask it again—can be fairly characterized as dishonourable?
    MR. SPEAKER: In my, judgment the hon. Member for Dundalk is bound to withdraw such words used towards an officer of this House.
    MR. CALLAN: I never intended to apply it to any officer of the House, and, therefore, I have no hesitation in withdrawing it. I said that had not the slightest intention of applying it to any officer of the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: I think the time has now come when I ought to interpose in this matter, and to say that if the act in question be dishonourable it is an act done by my authority. If the House will allow me I will state, in very few words, what I authorized to be done; and after I have stated what have authorized I am persuaded that I shall give satisfaction—at least, I trust so—to every quarter of the House. As the House is aware, according to the practice of the House, Minutes of our proceedings are taken from day to day. These Minutes are published in the Votes as hon. Members see them every morning. Lately—for some time at least—it has come to my knowledge that there has been great delay—unexpected delay—in the progress of the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill through Committee; and on my own responsibility, and for my own information, I desired that Minutes should be taken of the proceedings on that Bill of a more full character than those which are taken from day to day. I may say that those Minutes have no reference whatever to particular Members of the House. They are fair and impartial reports of the proceedings of the House—and I am surprised that any body of Members should suppose that I was having reports taken in reference to particular Members. I should be exceeding my duty if I were so to do. I again say to the House that the Minutes I have had taken have no reference whatever to individual Members of this House—whether Irish, Scotch, or English Members—that they are fair and impartial reports of the proceedings of the House, and taken upon my own responsibility.
    MR. PARNELL: Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to ask you a question. You have just now informed the House that, acting upon your own responsibility, you have directed certain Minutes to be taken of the proceedings of the House, and that those Minutes are not in reference to any particular Members, or to any particular section of Members. May I ask you, Sir, as to the nature and extent of those Minutes—whether they constitute a verbatim report of what is said by each Member of the House in the course of the debates upon the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill? And

    55
    if that be not so, may I ask you to describe to the House the nature of those Minutes?
    MR. SPEAKER: I can only say, in answer to the hon. Member, that there was no idea of making verbatim reports of what is said in the House. I can only describe them as Minutes more enlarged than those which hon. Members see upon their tables every day, specifying the Members who speak.
    MR. PARNELL: All?
    MR. SPEAKER: All.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWER:Mr. Speaker, I think it will be generally admitted that the House has always been jealous of allowing its proceedings to be reported, and I think it will be also admitted that the act which you were pleased to authorize is without precedent in the history of the House of Commons.[" Oh, oh !"] If I am wrong in making this statement, hon. Gentlemen will have ample opportunity of contradicting me. I make that statement again, and believe it cannot be contradicted. At all events, it can be tested by reference to the Records of the House. It appears to me, Sir, that if you felt it would be an assistance to you, in the discharge of your duties as Speaker of this House, to have a more enlarged report of its proceedings, it would have been only fair to the House to have come down and asked for the consent of the House to a proceeding which, however necessary it might be, was without precedent in the annals of Parliament. I must say, as one of the Members of this House, that I do not see, Sir, from the statement which you have been pleased to make
    MR. SPEAKER: The Committee has reported to the House a question to be submitted to me. That question has been put to the Chair and has been answered from the Chair; and I presume that the proceeding is thus terminated, and that the Committee will resume. If the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), or any other hon. Member, desires to raise a discussion on the proceedings of the Speaker, he is entitled to do so by Motion in the House. That is the proper course to take. The Report of the Committee has been made to the House, and I consider that the question has been fully answered. The House will now pro-
    56
    ceed to the consideration of the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill in Committee.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWER: Mr. Speaker. I rise to Order. I protest against this.
    ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL, again considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Amendment again proposed, in page 92, line 80, to leave out from the word "seas," to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. Chamberlain).
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. O'CONNOR POWER: Mr. Raikes, beg leave to move that you do report Progress. The reason why I make this Motion is that I am not satisfied with the proceedings of the Committee at an earlier stage—namely, that of reporting a certain matter by you to Mr. Speaker. Well, Sir, the Speaker decided that the Business for which the House was called upon to resume, and the discussion which followed upon, the Report from the Committee, had concluded when he had answered the question which was put to him; and I was, therefore, unable to make, as I had intended, a Motion for the adjournment of the House. The hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) explained to you the grounds upon which he moved that you do report Progress. I am not entitled to say whether there were other grounds in his mind or not; but I supported his Motion, because was thoroughly dissatisfied with the discovery which he made of a person engaged in the Gallery in reporting our proceedings. I feel it is a restriction upon the Privileges of the House for any gentleman sitting in the Gallery to report our proceedings, whether authorized to do so by the Speaker or anybody else. I rise to move that Progress be reported, in order that the House may not be deprived of its jurisdiction on a matter unheard of in the annals of the House of Commons, and that it may resume the full exercise of its functions.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. O' Connor Power.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I hope, Sir, that the Motion will not be pressed, or made the beginning of what I think may become a very unseemly discussion. I must remind the Committee that the position is this. A question was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Louth, upon, which it was thought right that the Committee should report Progress, in order to put a question to the Speaker as to certain notes which were being taken in the Gallery. The question was put, and the Speaker has answered it—he has stated that it was by his authority that the notes were taken. I presume we are not thinking of disputing the ruling of the Chair? [Mr. PARNELL: Yes.] At the same time, the Speaker pointed out that if any Member of the House desired to dispute his ruling, and had a desire to bring this matter before the House, the proper course for him to take would be to submit a Motion on the subject: and I apprehend that if the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), or the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), or any other Member, wishes to raise the question, the proper action would be to take the course pointed out by the Speaker. I apprehend, however, after what has been said, that there will be no necessity for taking any such step; but this is a matter upon which I do not presume to speak with authority, and, possibly, some ton. Members may take a different view of it. I hope that we may not have the Business which we are upon interrupted by a discussion which may take a very irregular range. We must consider that we are now discussing the clauses of a Bill, and that we are not competent to discuss a question of the character which has been raised.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The course which has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman appears to me not only convenient in reference to the course of Business this evening, but absolutely necessary, from the point of view of common fairness. Nothing can be a more well-known and recognized
    58
    rule of our proceedings than that, when the conduct of any Member of the House is called in question, it should be done upon Notice, and when the House is fully prepared to take into consideration the matter which is thus raised. I understand, from some observations by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was interrupted, that it is proposed by some hon. Members to call in question the conduct of the Speaker. Well, Sir, I have nothing to say against the right of hon. Members to take that course but, surely, it is perfectly obvious that that course ought not to be followed without due Notice? I must say, after the statement of the Speaker had been made, that I expected the discussion would, at all events for the time, have concluded, and that the hon. and learned Member for Louth would at once have risen to express his regret at having inadvertently accused the person whose proceedings have been mentioned of taking one-sided and partial notes in the Gallery, when he had been told that those notes. were of a general and impartial character. I cannot help thinking that a decision upon this subject in Committee would be extremely inconvenient, and I think, also, scarcely fair to the highest authority in the House, whose conduct in this matter is impugned—whose conduct ought not to be impugned—and whose conduct, I am sure, no one would wish to impugn—except in the most deliberate and solemn manner.
    MR. CALLAN: The statement of the noble Lord is just one which I should have expected to hear from him, and the course suggested by him is one in which I entirely concur. It is the course which I intended to adopt, with this exception. If you give Notice of bringing a matter of this kind before the House, you lose your right of privilege and precedence. Therefore, I intended, before raising the question, to give private Notice to the Speaker, and the other parties who may be conceived to be interested in the case. It is quite evident that Notice will be given but I advise my hon. Friends to give private Notice, so as not to lose their right of precedence, and of bringing it forward as a Breach of Privilege. But, pending that decision, I ask, is it respectful to this House, that any portion of the House itself, set apart exclusively

    59
    for Members of Parliament, and laid down by the Speaker himself as a portion of the House from which hon. Members can speak—is it right and proper that we should have, what we conceive to he, a kind of intimidation and restriction on the freedom—
    COLONEL STANLEY: I rise to Order. I ask whether, after the Speaker has, from the Chair, stated that the course to which the hon. Member refers is one taken by his directions, it is right for the hon. Member to refer to it as "a course of intimidation?"
    MR. CALLAN: I make no imputation whatever on the Speaker.
    THE CHAIRMAN: When the right hon. and gallant Gentleman rose I was about to point out to the hon. Member for Dundalk that the word "intimidation" is one which is never allowed in this House to be applied to any Member of this House. Do I understand the hon. Member to say it is not so applied?
    MR. CALLAN: It is not so applied. I said it was conceived by the Members of the House that the course complained of had been taken for that purpose. I may say that nothing of the kind would intimidate me. But pending this question, which is to be raised at an early date, I ask, is it not right that the party who is conceived to have offended should be asked to withdraw from the portion of the House which is the property of Members?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I beg to point out to the hon. Member that the question which he now proposes to put is one which should have been put at an earlier stage of the Business of the House, and not in Committee. It is not in the power of the Chairman of Committees to exercise the jurisdiction to which the hon. Member refers.
    MR. CALLAN: I believe that if a stranger—a bucolic farmer from the Agricultural Show, for instance—were to sit down in that Gallery, it would be the duty of the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove him?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The two questions are entirely and wholly dissimilar. The authority of the Chairman of Committees can unquestionably be exercised with regard to strangers but when an official is performing a duty to which he has been appointed by the highest autho-
    60
    rity in the House, it is clearly not within the power or the duty of the Chairman of Committees to interfere.
    MR. PARNELL: The advice of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition—I do not want to enter into the debatable question whether he is Leader of the Opposition or not—is one which we might be better disposed to take if it was in accordance with the Rules and precedents of the House, and if it had not come from one who has shown himself, during the discussions of this Bill, a deliberate partizan of the Government in attempting to carry it through the House with all its imperfections. He has upon several occasions shown himself to be such a Government partizan—such a Government supporter—that, at first sight, any advice that came from him must be more or less tainted or discredited. How can we go on with this thing hanging over us? It will be in the recollection of the Committee that the Speaker left the Chair without giving an opportunity to Members of this House to raise the question of Privilege, which they desired to raise. This is a question of Breach of Privilege by the Speaker of this House.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I must ask you, Sir, whether that is language which ought to be applied to the Speaker? The words were "Breach of Privilege by the Speaker of this House."
    THE CHAIRMAN: The words appear to me to be extremely improper, and such as trust the hon. Member, upon his attention being called to them, will be prepared to withdraw. I did not understand the hon. Member absolutely to impute to any Member of the House direct Breach of Privilege. What I understood the hon. Member to say was, that it was a question whether such Breach of Privilege had been committed. I am not prepared to say that, in putting the question in this form, the hon. Member is directly out of Order; but think he will see, on reflection, that the words were such as he would be sorry to have used in reference to a Member of the House.
    MR. PARNELL: I said this was a question of Breach of Privilege, and we feel that we cannot go on any longer with the discussion of this Bill without having the decision of the House upon

    61
    the question. The Speaker of the House is no more than the servant of the House. He is for certain purposes—on questions of Order, and so forth—the mouth-piece of the House; but the Speaker has no original jurisdiction whatever. He has no jurisdiction but what is given him by the existing Orders, Rules, and Regulations in this House; and any Member has at any time the right to call in question the conduct even of you, Mr. Raikes; and any Member of this House is entitled to call in question the conduct of the Speaker of the House. And we do call in question the conduct of the Speaker of the House, and we do impugn the conduct of the Speaker in having directed
    MR. DODSON: I rise to Order. I wish to submit to your judgment whether, in Committee of the House on this or any other Bill, it is in the power of hon. Members to discuss the conduct of the Speaker of the House, or the Rules and Forms of the House?
    MR. PARNELL: May I explain? ["Order!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: I point out to the hon. Member that he may speak to Order after the question which has been addressed to the Chair has been answered. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson) has asked me whether the hon. Member for Meath would be in Order in impugning the conduct of the Speaker? I have just pointed out to the hon. Member for Meath that such a course would not be in Order. A Committee of the House is not the place, and this is not the occasion, when such a course could, with propriety, be taken; but I must also point out to the hon. Member and to the Committee that the practice of endeavouring to raise questions as to what has passed in the House on the Motion to report Progress is one which ought to be avoided. The hon. Member and other hon. Members have alleged, as reasons for reporting Progress, their dissatisfaction at the course taken in the House, and I have not felt it my duty to stop them. The reference, however, to what has taken place in the House as a matter of discussion would be entirely out of place and out of Order.
    MR. PARNELL: We wish to impugn the conduct of the Speaker of the House, before the House, and with the Speaker in the Chair. We do not wish to take
    62
    that step in Committee, and I am aware that the Committee has no authority to take such a course, or entertain such a proposal. We wish the Committee to consent to the Motion to report Progress, in order that we may raise the question with the Speaker in the Chair. The gentleman alluded to sits in the Gallery, and, as I am informed, has resumed the practice. Whether that information is correct or not, we shall continue to do our duty under circumstances of great disadvantage as long as that one-sided practice is continued.
    LORD JOHN MANNERS: I rise to Order. The hon. Gentleman asserted that the practice to which he objects is one-sided. He says that, having distinctly heard Mr. Speaker say that it was impartial and applied equally to ail Members. I wish to know whether the hon. Member is in Order in making such a statement?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The observation of the hon. Member is one which I cannot say is out of Order. The hon. Member expressed his opinion as to this practice, and so long as it is expressed in Parliamentary terms I cannot say it is out of Order. At the same time, I point out that it cannot be considered respectful to the Committee to indulge in the tone which he has throughout the whole of his address manifested, in declaring himself openly against the decision of the highest authority of the House.
    MR. PARNELL: But there is a still higher authority, and that is the House itself. We desire to submit to the House, and we are willing to abide by its decision, a question of importance to hon. Members. We ask from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he will give us an opportunity, without further delay, to take the opinion of the House upon a question which is of the highest importance to us in the discharge of our duties. I presume the young man now taking notes takes down the name of each Member who rises; but, so far as I know, he does not take down what they say. I submit that that practice is surely derogatory to the power that we enjoy as Members of a Committee of this House. It renders it exceedingly difficult to us to discharge our duties, and it renders us exceedingly liable to misapprehension. This practice is not sanctioned by any Rule or

    63
    Order of the House—on the contrary, it is directly forbidden. No outside persons can take notes of the proceedings of the House. And if we allow such a practice to continue now it will grow into a precedent, and, as a precedent, it will become the rule of Parliament. We desire that the House of Commons should, at once and without further delay, be afforded an opportunity of pronouncing an opinion, "Yes" or "No," as to whether the practice which the Speaker has directed is an authorized practice or not, and as to whether it is according to the law of Parliament. This is a very simple request. The absurd opposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Leader of the Opposition is really standing in the way of the conduct of Public Business, and, but for this, we might have had the opinion of the House long ago. We are told we can raise this question at the proper time; but when will be the proper time? If it is not a question of Privilege, no hon. Member would have time to raise it during the Session because Government have announced their intention of annexing all the Tuesdays and Wednesdays during the remainder of the Session. Now is the proper time for raising this question; and we ask the Government to agree to the Motion to report Progress, in order that, with the Speaker in the Chair, we may put the question to the House.
    MR. SULLIVAN: The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has expressed his astonishment that I, who brought forward this question, did not rise on hearing the explanation of the Speaker, and express my regret at having made use of the term "one sided." I wish to make my position in this matter clear. I desired to bring this question before the Speaker, without making any reflection upon the conduct of the young gentleman alluded to. I move in this matter entirely from a Parliamentary point of view. With reference to the remarks of the noble Lord, I beg to say that did rise to express regret, but found that the Speaker had left the Chair. I should be glad that we should have an opportunity of discussing this question, but not necessarily immediately. And have no doubt, if the Leader of the House could satisfy my hon. Friend that he would not be precluded from raising it
    64
    as a matter of Privilege, that the Motion might be withdrawn. The question is a grave one. I believe that a precedent has been established to-night reflecting on the freedom of Parliament; but I appeal to my hon. Friends not to hasten on a discussion of the subject to-night.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: There will be no difficulty at all in raising this question in a way which will give it precedence of other questions. I believe I am right in saying that it is so. At all events, no objection will be raised to such a course on the part of the Government. I wish to impress upon hon. Gentlemen the hope that, now they understand that is to be the course taken, they will not waste time by further discussion of that point. We agree that the matter shall be brought forward as a question of Privilege, and it will, therefore, take precedence.
    MR. GRAY: I think we ought to be satisfied with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if the right hon. Gentleman will give us his assurance that the objectionable practice will be discontinued until the decision of the House be given. If that cannot be done without the authority of Mr. Speaker, then I trust that my hon. Friend will persevere in his Motion to report Progress. We have an objection to be spied upon in this way. And we are not inclined to wait until to-morrow to have this matter decided. If, however, the practice is at once discontinued, agree that the matter should be laid before the House to-morrow, and that the Motion to report Progress should be withdrawn.
    MR. O'DONNELL: I am perfectly sure that it is within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman that a considerable body of Members of the House object to the presence of this unprecedented reporter. We trust that the right hon. Gentleman the Speaker of the House of Commons—whom we all so much respect—will withdraw this reporter, pending the decision of the House. I do not, in making this suggestion, even imply that it is wrong; but everyone will agree that it is unusual; and, pending the decision of this unusual matter, I trust that the reporter in question will leave the Benches of Members of this House.
    MR. CALLAN: I think I may ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion to report Progress, for this reason—that since we alluded to the fact that the officer of this House had returned to his place I find that the official has disappeared. I suggest to my hon. Friend that the Motion should be withdrawn, on the distinct understanding that it will be renewed when next that official takes his place in the Gallery.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWER: I have noticed that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has ventured to give advice on many occasions, and that his advice has been rejected. He has joined in the appeal addressed to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer but I wish to point out that I shall not accept suggestions because the Leaders on both sides of the House have recommended them. Both have endorsed the same comments, and both agree that we are wrong. But this is a question of Order. I have acted throughout—as I shall be prepared to show on a future occasion—thoroughly in accordance with precedent and strictly in Order. I have been appealed to to withdraw my Motion to report Progress, on the ground of Order. I reject that appeal, because it is recommended to me on the ground that my Motion is not in accordance with Order but I am willing to withdraw it, because I believe it will be more in accordance with the convenience of the Committee that I should do so. On that ground I will ask leave to withdraw the Motion. But I must protest against the disorderly character of the proceedings that seem to find favour with certain hon. Gentlemen. I contend that it would have been right to have gone on with the question of Privilege. The highest authority in the House is compromised in that subject; for, without putting the Motion that "I do now leave the Chair," he left the House. I am in a peculiar position—I have shown that, technically, I am in Order; but think it better that the Rules of Order should be subservient to the convenience of the Committee. There has been already—or it is said that there has been—so much disorder on both sides of the House that I think we may appeal to Mr. Speaker that as this question has been raised—and it is one on which differences of opinion may arise—whether it would
    66
    not be courteous to withdraw this obnoxious person until the House has assented to the arrangement? If my hon. Friends are correct in saying that this objectionable person has been withdrawn—of course, for other reasons than the considerations that have been pressed upon me, and not at all upon the ground of Order—I shall ask leave to withdraw my Motion to report Progress. It is difficult to talk to a great many persons at the same time on the same points; but I wish to point out that in asking leave to withdraw my Motion to report Progress I do so for the convenience of the Committee. I say that, because I am informed that that gentleman has been withdrawn from the Gallery; but if the gentleman re-appears in the Gallery I shall hold myself at perfect liberty to renew my Motion.
    MR. PARNELL: I do not wish any misunderstanding to arise on the form in which this Motion is withdrawn. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he believed that if the Motion were withdrawn this question could be raised at the commencement of our proceedings to-morrow as a question of Privilege. That I believe is the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed himself; but I wish to ask him, supposing his belief is not well-founded, and that we cannot raise this Motion at the commencement of our proceedings to-morrow, will the right hon. Gentleman afford an opportunity for its being raised?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes, Sir; we will give the opportunity referred to by the hon. Member.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment again proposed, in page 92, line 80, to leave out from the word "seas," to the end of the Clause.
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. GRAY: I beg leave to move that the Chairman do report Progress, as the young gentleman has re-appeared in the Gallery. So far as my powers go, I shall endeavour to prevent the continuance of the discussion of this Bill in Committee while this young gentleman remains in that portion of the House

    67
    reserved to Members, and takes no subordinate place.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Gray.)
    MAJOR O'GORMAN: I want to ask a question which will require a simple answer only. Sir, is any Member of this House, including Mr. Speaker, privileged to seat in this House—in the very body of this House—a stranger?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The question can be easily answered. No Member of this House, including Mr. Speaker, has any power of seating a stranger in the body of the House. But the person to whom the hon. Member refers is an official of the House, and is charged, in performance of his duty, to take a place in some part of the House.
    MR. SULLIVAN: May I suggest that there are parts of the House set apart for Members, and that there are other parts from which they cannot speak or vote, and that it is to the former portion that this gentleman has access. I appeal to the hon. Member for Tipperary to withdraw his Motion on that ground. I think we can better accomplish the object we have in view, and save ourselves from misconception, if we adopt the course of raising this matter as a question of Privilege; but I give fair Notice that I shall spy strangers in the Gallery so long as this young gentleman remains.
    MR. O'DONNELL: Hon. Members have not touched upon one side of this question, for it should be remembered that this person is not a stranger. With great deference to your ruling, Sir, believe the officers of the House stand either below the Chair or in the Stranger's Gallery; they might find places amongst the gentlemen of the Press, and I do not know why they might not shelter themselves in a still more sacred precinct. But we object, Sir, to this sort of reporter being placed in the seats of hon. Members. Any hon. Member who chose might take his seat in the Gallery, and those seats should not be occupied by officials of this House. If this man is still in the House, we do consider, Sir, taking the views we do, that there is very scant courtesy being shown to Members of this House. We are perfectly desirous of proceeding with Business; but after
    68
    the excitement that has evidently been raised on this subject, I do think that it is surprising to find this person still taking notes of our proceedings. There are two sorts of reports—a fair official report, taken at the Table of the House, and the reports of the Press; but we do object to this amateur sort of reporting. I fully sympathize with the position taken by the hon. Member for Tipperary; and I do not think he would be doing his duty unless he persisted in his Motion.
    MR. WHITBREAD: I wish to suggest to hon. Members that we should uphold our dignity in approaching this question by treating it in a calm and formal manner after fair Notice. The course of spying strangers may be open to some misconception out-of-doors, if adopted by hon. Members. The part of the House to which reference has been made has, within my knowledge, been often used by officials of this House. I can call to mind having seen the Chaplain and a number of Clerks sitting there; and I think, so far as I can see, we should not mix up any question of this sort with a really secondary consideration. As far as my experience goes, a Clerk of the House would be perfectly in Order in being there, so long as no inconvenience was caused to hon. Members. That being the ease, and considering the heated character of this discussion, would it not be better for hon. Members who wish to impugn the action of the highest authority of this House to do so in a calm and temperate manner, after we have had time to consider the precedents? I do think that hon. Members would consult our dignity, if they would allow us to proceed with the Business before us. There is no question of reporting our speeches outside, or of any communications being made to strangers. The question is entirely one of Privilege, and we ought to discuss it in a proper spirit.
    MR. CALLAN: We all cordially agree with the advice addressed to us by one whom we so much respect, and who is such an authority in this House as the hon. Member who has just spoken. I think it has been assumed that it is a mistake to bring this matter forward in the manner it has been without previous Notice to Mr. Speaker. I had intended to give private Notice of it; but, Sir, as attention has now been called to the matter, I hope that no hon. Member will

    69
    espy strangers, but will allow our proceedings to be reported. If strangers were spied, we should be sitting here in camera—a mode of procedure we so strongly objected to yesterday in the case of even a small Committee. I hope that the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) will, however, use his influence to endeavour to obtain a discontinuance of this objectionable practice as to this young person. It is a small concession, and so eminently one of good feeling towards Members of this House, that I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer should rise in his place and add the influence of his position to ours, and join in the suggestion which has been made, that this objectionable practice should be discontinued pending the decision of the House.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWER: I do not want to take the responsibility of initiating these proceedings. The knowledge of Parliamentary procedure shown by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) and the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), and other hon. Members, do not make me disposed to take the initiative.
    MR. CALLAN: Though I suggested to the hon. Member for Mayo that he should withdraw his Motion to report Progress, in order that we might proceed to Business, pending the decision of the House to-morrow upon the point, yet will appeal to the hon. Member for Tipperary to persist in his Motion to report Progress, even at the risk of delaying important Business, if the practice, which we cannot but regard as anything else than an attempt at terrorism, is persisted in.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The word "terrorism," used by the hon. Member, is entirely out of Order, as applied to the conduct of any hon. Member of this House.
    MR. CALLAN: I stated that it would be regarded as an attempt at terrorism.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out that the hon. Member must withdraw the expression.
    MR. CALLAN: I withdraw it; but I do feel that the person in the Gallery, spying on my proceedings here under exceptional circumstances, is a proceeding that certainly must influence me, and exercise a deterrent influence upon me in my place here.
    MR. DILLWYN: I now rise respectfully to appeal to the Chancellor, of the Exchequer, whether it would not be desirable that he should suggest to the highest authority of the House that this person should be withdrawn from the Gallery until such a time as the House should arrive at a decision upon the matter? What is the position in which we are now placed? Circumstances have taken place, and the action of the highest authority of the House has been called in question. I am not going to state my own opinion—we shall all have an opportunity of discussing the matter at the time to which it has been postponed. The question of Privilege has been raised, and it is agreed now that it shall come on to-morrow. Pending that discussion, is it desirable that the proceeding in question shall go on? Whether right or wrong, it is a question affecting the Privileges of this House—a very serious and large question—which I do not wish to express any opinion upon now. It may prove a very serious matter to call in question the action of the highest authority of this House and the question is one of such a serious nature that it is upon all hands agreed that we shall be acting rightly in postponing it until to-morrow. Will it not be better—as there can be no great object in continuing the services of this person—that the practice should be discontinued in the meantime? I will venture to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would facilitate the proceedings of the House, which we all wish to do, if he will lend the great weight of his influence to the suggestion which has been made that this practice should be discontinued.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not see, Sir, in what way I can interpose in this matter. The question which has been raised was originally addressed to Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Speaker informed the House that the gentleman who had been introduced into the Gallery was acting under his orders, and that he was employed in taking certain notes for the private information of Mr. Speaker himself. It has been known, apparently, for some time, that this practice has been going on because the hon. Member for Dun-dalk (Mr. Callan) called attention to the circumstance by a Question, and had communications with Mr. Speaker on the

    71
    subject. Mr. Speaker has told us that he considers that he has authority to employ this gentleman in the -way in which he has been employed. It is, as I understand, the intention of some hon. Gentlemen to bring forward a Motion to the effect that Mr. Speaker ought not to take that course, and when the time comes—as it will to-morrow—for that Motion to be made, it will be made and discussed. At the present moment, however, we are quite incompetent—and I do not think that it would be courteous—to call back Mr. Speaker to make this proposal to him. As to making such a suggestion privately, I must altogether decline to do so for to take such a course would be to commit an imprudence. If hon. Gentlemen think it necessary to divide the Committee upon the question of reporting Progress they can do so, and it will then be seen whether the Committee desire that Progress should or should not be reported. I venture to submit that hon. Members are entirely out of Order in discussing now the details of the matter of which I have been speaking.
    MR. GRAY: I wish to substitute a Motion, which I will read to the House, for the one which I have already moved. It is—
    "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again, in order to report to the House that an Official of the House is engaged in taking notes of the Proceedings of the Committee, without the authority of the House or of the Committee, from a place reserved for Members of the House, and that, in consequence, the Proceedings of the Committee are interfered with."
    A great breach of Privilege has been committed; and it is desirable that a Member should not be liable to misrepresentation in discharging what he considers to be his duty. I think there has been a certain amount of misunderstanding on this matter; it is my belief that it was agreed on all sides that it was a great inconvenience for the matter to be raised now, and that it would be better raised to-morrow. I, for one, understood that, in the meantime, the objectionable practice would be discontinued. I find, however, that I am mistaken in that belief; and I am now desirous of placing upon the records of the House the fact that one Member of this House, at least, objects to the transaction as a breach of Privilege.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member propose to substitute this for his former Motion?
    MR. GRAY: Yes.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again, in order to report to the House that an Official of the House is engaged in taking notes of the Proceedings of the Committee, without the authority of the House or of the Committee, from a place reserved for Members of the House, and that, in consequence, the Proceedings of the Committee are interfered with."—(Mr. Gray.)
    MR. O'DONNELL: While I originally agreed with the Motion for simply reporting Progress, as a protest against the continuance of this proceeding, I cannot agree to the Motion which has been now made by the hon. Member for Tipperary, for I think that Motion distinctly commits the Committee to the re-opening of the whole question which we have been considering, and upon which both sides are agreed that the consideration should be reserved until to-morrow. Although I was in favour of reporting Progress, in order to call attention to the continuance of this proceeding, I am not in favour of any further step tending regularly to re-open this question. I shall, therefore, suggest to the hon. Member for Tipperary that, in deference to the views such as we have just heard from one of the most respected Members of this House, he should not persist in his protest against the continued presence of this person, but should let us go on with the Bill for the rest of the evening. I think, however, that it is not courteous to continue this proceeding to which objection has been taken when so much has been said with regard to it. But if it is continued, we must do our best to put up with the inconvenience and proceed with the discussion.
    MAJOR O'GORMAN: wish to say one or two words in defence of this unfortunate official who now remains in this House taking notes. It is his duty—he is here by the order of the Speaker; and he cannot retire without orders. But I must say this—that it is disrespectful to the House on the part of the Speaker, and after what has taken place, not to remove this person from the Gallery.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWER: If I may make a suggestion to the hon. Member for Tipperary it is that he should allow

    73
    his Motion to be negatived. If he allows his Motion to be negatived without going to a Division, his protest will be recorded, and will appear upon the Journals of the House, and that will be sufficient.
    MR. PARNELL: I think that the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer all through the proceedings has been unfortunate. If he had agreed at the commencement to allow Progress to be reported, we should have had the question decided a whole hour ago, and we should now have been proceeding with the clauses of the Bill. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has deliberately-wasted public time—an observation very frequently applied to us—we can only make the best of a bad business, and after the protest—the very proper protest—of the hon. Member for Tipperary has been placed on record, I think we shall have to submit for the rest of the evening to the inconvenience of the unauthorized presence of this gentleman in the Gallery. If we are to be afforded an opportunity to-morrow of discussing the whole question, I think, under all the circumstances of the case, we may allow the Motion to be negatived, and proceed to discuss the clauses of the Bill.
    MR. CALLAN: The Government have not acceded to the course which we have suggested, and I cannot but think that the silence of the Government shows some kind of complicity on their part in this objectionable course of procedure. There are rumours afloat as to the use which has already been made of the notes taken up to this time. It is rumoured—and I wish to give public notice of the rumour, in order that, if not true, it may to-morrow receive a full and ample contradiction—that the superior authorities of this House, other than Mr. Speaker, have met and considered, and that a form of indictment has been drafted recording the number of times certain hon. Members have spoken, and stating that their conduct amounted to obstruction of the Business of the House—a course which is in contravention of the ruling of Mr. Speaker two years ago. It is also rumoured—I will not say Mr. Speaker, but that the high officials of this House have made use of these notes—I will not say that they conspired, but they have met together and consulted as to how they can best
    74
    utilize the information which they have obtained from the lists that have been made, and that the form of the indictment has been already drawn up for the purpose of being utilized, if occasion shall arise. There is also a rumour that the Government have complicity in these proceedings, and also that the superior officials of the House have already utilized the information for the purpose of entrapping Irish Members into some breach of Order. Unless contradicted to-morrow, I think these rumours may be taken as facts.
    MAJOR NOLAN: As this practice will probably go on until Mr. Speaker takes the Chair to-morrow, I should like the Committee to know what is really being done. I have made it my business for the last half-hour—being at liberty to go to what part of the House I like—to sit next the official who is engaged in taking notes, and to observe the manner in which he takes them. It seemed to me that his proceeding was an entirely novel one. I saw it stated in the Press the other day that certain Members had spoken so many times, and certainly I was surprised to find that was I credited with having spoken 18 times; but now have seen how the notes are taken can understand the matter. If, for example, the hon. Member for Meath got up to address the Committee he was credited with speaking once. If the hon. Member for Mayo got up to interrupt him for a moment and he got up again, being still in possession of the Committee, this was marked down as a second speech. You Sir, will perhaps then call the hon. Member for Meath to Order, and the hon. Member explains. This is put down for a third speech, and so it goes on. I think it necessary to point this out; because, when we are discussing this matter to-morrow, it is well that we should know the system upon which these notes have been taken for some time. I do not consider that the system upon which they are taken is a candid one. It is not a nice thing to have to go and sit next an official of the House to observe what he is doing. I have not the slightest fault to find with the official who was taking the notes, and who was, no doubt, strictly obeying orders; but the whole circumstances are unpleasant. I have, to the best of my ability, informed the Committee of what I believe is being done.

    75
    It is, however, a very miserable thing for us to have to go into.
    MR. GRAY: I do not wish to occupy the time of the Committee unnecessarily, and I do not think it would be just to take a Division upon my Motion unless the Committee should desire it. If my Motion is put and negatived by the Committee it will go upon the records of the House, and I shall be quite content. I do not wish to trouble the Committee unnecessarily; I only wish to place a protest on this matter permanently on the records of the House.
    MR. PARNELL: I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for Gal-way for the information which he has given us as to the manner in which these notes are being taken. After what we have heard from him, the Committee must not feel surprised if my speeches should be considerably longer while this person remains in the Gallery than they have been up to the present time. Hitherto, I have been in the habit of endeavouring to compress my observations as much as possible. But the habit of compressing observations is, unfortunately, attended with this disadvantage—that you are liable to omit some things that you require to say, and which you are obliged to say afterwards, in answer to some false argument brought forward by the other side. Henceforward, I shall answer all arguments that may be advanced against my contention, so that there shall be no reason for my speaking a second time, and making myself liable to a charge which, I suppose, will be brought against me in what I must call a most un-English fashion.
    MR. CALLAN: To-morrow we shall discuss this matter as a question of Privilege. I hope that these notes will not be used to-morrow, but that they will be left with the Librarian for our inspection. We ask for an inspection of the notes taken officially by one of our paid officials for the use of the House. Are we to have the Star Chamber back again? Are Irish Members to be prevented from seeing the official notes taken by the direction of the Speaker—by the paid officials of the House? I But will not further discuss the question now, for I am quite certain that my suggestion will be sufficient to cause these things, like the cat-o'-nine-tails—and these things are a moral cat-o'-ninetails—to be produced. The cat-o'-
    76
    nine-tails were left with the Sergeant-at-Arms for our inspection, and I ask that this moral cat also shall be left with the officers of the House for our inspection.
    MR. SULLIVAN: I have listened with pain to the statement made by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan); and I can only say that if such a statement had been made in the House of Commons in the days of Pym and Hampden, I know who would be in the Tower on the morrow morning.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, that the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had asked a question with regard to a matter upon which it would be satisfactory that the Government should give an assurance. He asked whether, in case the Indian Articles of War should be found more stringent than this Bill, the Government would use its influence with the Indian Government in order to modify them?
    COLONEL STANLEYcould not answer the question at the present moment. At the same time, he had no doubt that after his right hon. Friend had inquired into the matter he would give such directions.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he had the authority of the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment.
    MR. PARNELLremarked, that this question had been before the House on a previous occasion, and the hope was held out that the Government would place the Indian Mutiny Act upon the Table of the House, so that they might really know what it was.
    COLONEL STANLEY: It is in the Library.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, it had not been distributed to hon. Members. It was only right that the Act should be laid on the Table of the House.
    Amendment (Mr. Chamberlain), by leave, withdrawn.
    COLONEL STANLEY,in the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice—namely, in page 92, line 32, at end, to add—

    77
    "(8.) Any person, not otherwise subject to military law, accompanying a force on active service, -who shall hold from the commanding officer of such force a pass revocable at the pleasure of such commanding officer entitling such person to be treated on the footing of an officer."
    MR. PARNELLhoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would have the kindness to inform the Committee who the persons were to whom the clause would apply, and what the exact position was which it was intended they should occupy?
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he could not tell the hon. Gentleman exactly who all the persons might be to whom the clause would be applicable. The question was one which had, on a recent occasion, been the subject of discussion for several hours, and the Amendment which he proposed was the result of that discussion. The clause would cover such cases as those of newspaper correspondents or photographers accompanying the Army. Persons of a superior class would be treated on the same footing as officers, while others would be placed on the footing of private soldiers.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he did not think the explanation of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was at all satisfactory. It was now proposed to make a change in the law which, in his opinion, it was by no means advisable to introduce. Newspaper correspondents were not placed under the operation of martial law either by the provisions of the old Mutiny Act or the Articles of War, and he objected to the alteration as affecting them to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman asked the Committee to assent. He should be glad to see the position of newspaper correspondents with the Army improved; but he did not think' the Amendment would effect that object, and he should deem it to be his duty to take a Division upon it. He should like to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether newspaper correspondents accompanying the Army in the field were now subject to military law?
    COLONEL STANLEYreplied, that they did not come under the operation of the Mutiny Act, but that they were liable to be governed by the law of the camp. All, he might add, that it was sought to do by the Amendment was to place them under the protection of military law, and to give them a recognized position.
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERpointed out that the Amendment would not only give those to whom it related a recognized position, but that it would enable them to draw rations and forage as officers. Under these circumstances, newspaper correspondents ought to be placed under the operation of military law. He should like, however, to ask whether the case of newspaper correspondents accompanying the Army did not come within the scope of sub-section 11 in the next clause?
    MR. PARNELL,having referred to the statement of the Secretary of State for War, that newspaper correspondents were now liable to be governed by the law of the camp, expressed a wish to know what that law was? Were they under the jurisdiction of the provost marshal? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to say so but he would submit to the Committee that neither under the Mutiny Act nor any other Act was a newspaper correspondent with the Army subject to the provost marshal. When the right hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of the law of the camp, did he mean that newspaper correspondents might be tried by the provost marshal? If so, he could only say that he doubted the accuracy of such a statement exceedingly. It had no foundation in either the Articles of War or the Mutiny Act. It appeared to him to be simply an invention of the Secretary of State for War.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order! The hon. Member is not entitled to speak' of a statement made by any other Member of the House as an invention. I must call upon the hon. Member to withdraw that expression.
    MR. PARNELL: Certainly. His object was merely to direct the attention of the Committee to the ingenuity of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and he did not intend to use the word "invention" in any offensive sense. He was under the impression that it was a very harmless phrase and he would point out that there had been a recent ruling from the Chair which, in his opinion, would, if strictly acted upon, very much limit the freedom of discussion.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The expression which I called upon the hon. Member to withdraw was one in which he attributed invention, to the

    79
    right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for "War, as applied to a statement made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in this House. The hon. Member, in using such an expression, appeared to me to be casting an imputation on the good faith and honour of another Member of this House, the Secretary of State for War. [Mr. PARNELL: Absurd.] The hon. Member then proceeded to comment on the ruling of the Chair, and to put upon the words which he used some exceedingly remote and far-fetched interpretation. I must say that the hon. Member seems to me to be trifling with the Committee.
    MR. PARNELL: I altogether deny that you are entitled to put such a construction on anything that I have said.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSrose to Order. He wished to ask the Chairman whether, if the hon. Member for Meath disputed the correctness of his ruling, it would not be necessary, if the matter was to be discussed, to have the Speaker in the Chair.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The expression used by the hon. Member to I which called his attention was not in Order, and he has no right to dispute the ruling of the Chair in the matter. He is out of Order in doing so.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he had done nothing of the kind, and contended that the noble Lord the Postmaster General had not the slightest ground for stating that he had disputed the ruling of the Chair; for the moment the Chairman called upon him to withdraw the word to which he objected he did so. Really, before a Member raised a preposterous point of Order he ought to be sure that he was acquainted with the facts of the case, and ought to be able to substantiate the charge which he made. He (Mr. Parnell) had cast no imputation whatever on the good faith or honour of the Secretary of State for War and, at the request of the Chairman, he had at once withdrawn the allegation with respect to invention on the part of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, because the Chairman was of opinion that the word which was used was un-Parliamentary. He altogether denied, however, that the phrase was intended to be of an offensive character. Certainly not. He should be very sorry to use any expression of that kind with regard to the
    80
    right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He had been a witness, a constant witness—a more constant witness, at all events, than, perhaps, any other Member of the House during the last two months—of the courtesy, kindness, and forbearance of the Secretary of State for War, and he should very much regret making any imputation against him. But he felt he must say he was excessively indignant that one of the Colleagues who sat by the side of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who was so rarely in the House as not to be in a position to form a just opinion on the bearing of any of its Members, and who had no knowledge whatever of the Bill under discussion, should obtrude himself, as the noble Lord had done, on a point of Order which he had no justification for raising.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he must again rise to Order. The point to which he had called attention had been ruled by the Chairman against the hon. Member for Meath; and he wished to ask the Chairman whether, in his opinion, the hon. Member was justified in contesting that ruling? The hon. Member, he submitted, was out of Order in doing so.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he had not contested the ruling of the Chair. He begged distinctly to deny that he had done anything of the kind.
    MR. J. BROWNrose to Order. He thought the hon. Member for Meath was out of Order in making any further remarks on the point. He might add that he had distinctly heard the hon. Member use the word "absurd" while the Chairman was giving his decision.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for Meath wish again to address the Committee?
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he would not trifle with the time of the Committee by continuing so absurd a discussion.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have to state, in answer to the noble Lord the Postmaster General, who addressed a question to me on a point of Order, that it appears to me the hon. Member for Meath was certainly out of Order in contesting the decision of the Chair, and denying the justice of its ruling as to the un-Parliamentary character of the expression which he used.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he desired to make a few remarks on the Amendment, as he supposed the point of Order which had

    81
    been raised might now be regarded as having been disposed of. He could not help thinking that it was very undesirable that persons who accompanied the Army as representatives of the Press, for the purpose of giving what they believed to be a fair and correct report of what they saw, should be subject to the operation of military law. It was perfectly reasonable, of course, that such persons should be required to conform, as far as possible, to the conduct which was expected from officers and gentlemen, and that the commanding officer should have the power of removing them from the camp if they were guilty of any transgression which rendered such a course expedient. That was the course which had recently been taken by General Roberts in Afghanistan in the case of a correspondent for pursuing a line of conduct to which he objected. For his own part, he thought there was considerable inconvenience in allowing irresponsible persons to be with the Army at all; and the justice of that view was borne out by what had occurred in the instance of the Prince Imperial. But it was absurd that the agent of a London, or any other newspaper, should be subjected to military law in the way in which was proposed.
    MR. PARNELLwished to point out to the Committee that the Amendment, if agreed to, would make a decided alteration in the existing law. Newspaper correspondents accompanying the Army had never hitherto been put under any description of military law. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War talked about the rule of the camp but he must be aware that it was a rule which was never enforced, in the way that it could be, against the correspondents of the newspapers. The Amendment, in fact, was nothing more or less than an attempt to place a bit in the mouth of newspaper correspondents, and to keep them under the control of the military authorities, so that they might send home no intelligence of which the General in command did not approve, and which was not subjected to his criticism and alterations. The justice of that view was borne out by what had been done in Afghanistan, where a newspaper correspondent—who refused to do something, for not doing which the Committee was now asked to subject an
    82
    offender to military law—was turned out of the camp. Well, let a correspondent be treated in that way, by all means, if his acts were of such a kind as to prejudice or imperil the operations of the Army; but let him not be subjected to a code of law which it was never intended should be applied to a person occupying his position. He should like, for a moment, to call the attention of the Committee to some of the provisions of the Bill which they were asked to extend to the case of newspaper correspondents, under the operation of military law. It was provided, for instance, that any person subject to military law who "gives intelligence to the enemy" should be liable, on conviction by a court martial, to the punishment of death that was to say, that if a newspaper correspondent, in the discharge of his duty, unwittingly wrote anything which was afterwards published, and which, in the opinion of a commanding officer, came within the definition of "intelligence to the enemy," the correspondent might have sentence of death pronounced upon him. Now, that he could not help regarding as a monstrous proposal. If it were deemed to be necessary that a correspondent's letters should be inspected before they left the camp, there was ample power to exercise that supervision over them; but that a correspondent should be made liable to have the penalty of death inflicted on him, merely because he happened to have written something in one of his letters which might be held by a court martial to be in the nature of "intelligence to the enemy," was a proposal which was perfectly preposterous. Again, the provision of the Bill that any person subject to military law who "knowingly" did anything calculated "to imperil the success of Her Majesty's Forces, or any part thereof," was liable to be put to death, would also apply to the case of newspaper correspondents if the Amendment before the Committee were agreed to; and the question, whether the Act complained of was or was not of the nature set forth in the Bill, would have to be determined by a court martial, who would have the power of deciding whether the letters of the correspondent of a London newspaper, written under circumstances of great difficulty, came under the operation of the sub-section

    83
    which contained the words which he had just quoted. He could very well imagine that a court martial in the field might, owing, perhaps, to some spite entertained by its members against a particular correspondent, give a verdict in such a case of which they might afterwards have cause to regret. Clause 4 of the Bill also provided that every person, subject to military law,
    "Who treacherously holds correspondence with or gives intelligence to the enemy, or treacherously or through cowardice sends a flag of truce to the enemy,"
    should, on conviction by a court martial, be liable to suffer penal servitude. Now, what, he would ask, was the vocation of a newspaper correspondent? His vocation was to furnish intelligence to the public, and the necessary consequence of the publication of that intelligence was that it must come to the knowledge of the enemy. In these days of newspaper enterprize, anything which appeared in a newspaper, or anything which was sent through the telegraph wires by a correspondent, must, from the very nature of the case, be intelligence to the enemy; and there was nothing said in the Bill as to the meaning which was to be attached to the word "intelligence". It was absurd, on the face of it, he contended, to subject the correspondents of newspapers, under such circumstances, on conviction, it might be at a moment's notice, to the punishment of death or penal servitude. Even Cetewayo, he had seen it stated, had all the Cape newspapers at his camp, or kraal, containing the most minute intelligence as to the movements of his opponents. Yet the intelligence thus supplied might be twisted by a court martial into intelligence given to the enemy, and the correspondent who had supplied it to the newspaper of which he was the representative might be condemned to death for an act which he had done in the ordinary discharge of his duty. Now, that was a proposal so monstrous that he hoped the Committee would not tolerate it for a single moment. It was sought to put down, in black and white, a provision in the Bill which would, he repeated, make a complete change in the law as it now stood, and which was open to the greatest objection. The right hon. and gallant Gen-
    84
    tleman the Secretary of State for "War said that newspaper correspondents accompanying the Army were at present subject to the ordinary law of the camp but nobody knew what that law was. It had never been embodied in an Act of Parliament, and rarely or never been enforced against any of those persons. Of course, the officer in command had the power of turning a correspondent out of the camp if he considered that he had done something which was prejudicial to the interests of the Army; but no correspondent had ever been put to death because it was supposed he had furnished intelligence to the enemy and there was nothing, he might add, to show that the intelligence supplied must be of a harmful character, in order to render the correspondent liable to be so punished. It was, further, provided in Clause 5 of the Bill that every person subject to military law,
    "Who, by word of mouth or in writing, spreads reports calculated to create unnecessary alarm or despondency,"
    should, on conviction by a court martial, be liable to penal servitude. But how often, he would ask, had not correspondents sent reports to the journals in London, or elsewhere throughout the country, which were calculated to create alarm and despondency with respect to the position of the Army? Did it not happen that letters of that kind were brought by almost every mail which arrived from the Cape? Were the authors of such letters, he' should like to know, to be muzzled by Act of Parliament, and to be placed at the mercy of a court martial in the field? The clause was not limited in regard to time. Any man who, six months previously, had used words calculated to create alarm or despondency, might be sentenced to death. There were a variety of other offences mentioned in the clause, none of which ought to entail a punishment of this kind. The Government, instead of seeking by this section to implicate newspaper correspondents, ought to bring in a separate Bill relating to newspaper correspondents in the field and they should take council with those officers who had had experience of these gentlemen. No doubt, there were plenty of officers who were capable of giving advice to the Government on a matter of this kind, and who would

    85
    assist them in drawing up a Code of Rules for the regulation by Government of newspaper correspondents during war. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the Government, he should feel it his duty to divide the Committee.
    MR. E. JENKINShoped the Secretary of State for War would re-consider this clause; because, although he was not prepared to go so far as the hon. Member who had just spoken, yet he thought it would be a pity to introduce into this Act a clause about newspaper correspondents. The 166th and 167th sections appeared to him to give ample powers for dealing with all persons who accompanied an Army in the field. At present, it was admitted that, supposing a newspaper correspondent indiscreetly conveyed information to the enemy, it was in the power of the commanding officer to order him out of the camp. Then came the question, was it advisable or politic, in view of the relations existing between the Press and the public in this country—there being no doubt that the Press had done great service in exposing the weakness of military commands and operations in the field—to put a clause into an Act of Parliament which, seemed to recognize the right of a commanding officer to bring these gentlemen before a military tribunal and subject them to the penalties of military law? He did not think this was a politic thing to do and it would be far better to leave the matter in the general terms in which it at present stood in the Bill. These general powers were amply sufficient to deal with the cases which might arise.
    COLONEL STANLEY: I wish, in the first place, to say, the hon. Gentleman was not in the House when I explained why, in the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), I moved his Amendment. Having accepted it in principle the other night, I was bound to carry out the undertaking I had made with him. The question originally arose in this way. The Select Committee on this Bill recommended that all camp-followers, and all persons accompanying the Forces, should be brought under military law where the offences and procedure would be specified, and the punishments limited. They would, in fact, be brought under a regular Code and it appeared to the
    86
    hon. and learned Member for Oxford and the other Members of the Committee—for I believe they were unanimous on the point—that this would be a protection to them. It was, however, suggested that a distinction should be made, and that these persons should be placed rather on the footing of officers than that of common soldiers, and in that I agreed. These persons must be under some law, or no law and if they are brought under military law it is a distinct protection to them, and it is not unreasonable that they should be treated as officers. That is the reason why I accepted the words proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, it was quite true, in all respects, what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had just stated. The discussion originally arose on Clause 36; and it was promised that, at a later stage of the Bill, some words should be proposed to meet the case of these newspaper correspondents.
    MR. E. JENKINSasked, whether they desired to put newspaper correspondents in the English Army on a worse footing than they would be if they were accompanying the Russian Army? There was no doubt no Russian General would think of shooting an English newspaper correspondent. They all knew perfectly well that a number of correspondents accompanied the Russian Army during the late war, and that the Grand Duke, who was in command, felt aggrieved at much of the information conveyed to the public; but he did not put these gentlemen under military law. He hoped the Committee would forgive him for pressing this matter. It was one of policy and good-feeling, rather than one of mere technical rigidity. A newspaper correspondent, to a certain extent, ought to be a privileged person; but all they proposed to do in that direction was to place him on the footing of an officer, the result of which must be that he would write with a sort of cord round his neck. He was certainly not to be liable to be flogged: but he was to be liable to be sentenced to penal servitude if he committed an error. At present, if a newspaper correspondent committed an improper act, he should be treated as General Roberts treated the correspondent of The Standard, and ordered out of camp. If General Roberts had had such

    87
    a clause before him as that now proposed he would have felt obliged to treat the correspondent under military law, and subject him to military discipline. Now, would it be advisable to do such a thing as that? Would it not be far better to leave the matter as it at present stood?
    SIR HENRY JAMESwished it to be understood that this Amendment was not intended in any way to restrict the powers of military correspondents. It was rather intended to protect them, and give them a status which they had not hitherto enjoyed. If such a clause was not passed, these correspondents would be liable to be dismissed from the camp by any commanding officer who felt annoyed at them. No doubt, it was proposed that they should be subject to the punishment of officers; but they would also receive the protection of officers, and no commanding officer would bring them arbritrarily before a court martial. All who had the interests of these correspondents at heart would vote for this clause, because it was clearly a distinct protection which was about to be given to them.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsuggested that they should postpone coming to a final decision on the matter until the Government had communicated with the parties likely to be concerned, and ascertained what their view of the matter was.
    COLONEL STANLEYcould not consent to a postponement, and could not withdraw the Amendment, because it was part of the understanding that he should move it in the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCKsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Oxford had taken this Amendment from some words which he himself had suggested in the course of one of the previous discussions; and he suggested those words distinctly in the interests of the newspaper correspondents, and that was the direction in which he believed the clause would work.
    MR. PLIMSOLLsaid, if the Committee divided, as at present advised, he should not know how to vote. He was extremely anxious that newspaper correspondents should receive the fullest protection whilst abroad, or anywhere else; but he thought the insertion of this clause would tend to give an officer
    88
    an undue control over them, and they might incur very disagreeable consequences by speaking out fully. No doubt, it was said the clause was intended for the advantage of these gentlemen, and if that was really so he should be glad to support it; but, under all the circumstances, he thought it would be advisable to postpone the matter until they could get the opinion of those who were best able to judge whether the adoption of the clause would be to their advantage or not.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERthought it would be a most unusual thing to postpone the decision of the House of Commons until they had ascertained what the opinion of certain newspaper correspondents was. From an occasional reading of the newspapers, he must say he was not very much enlightened as to what was the way in which he ought to conduct himself. Therefore, instead of referring their differences to the newspapers, they had better settle them amongst themselves; because if they were to shape their conduct according to the opinion of the newspapers, they would often find themselves in a position of great difficulty. In the interests of the passing of this Bill, he protested against any postponement. The simple question for them to decide was, whether it was to the advantage or not of newspaper correspondents to be brought under the operation of military law? As things at present stood, a commanding officer might expel a correspondent from the camp; while, under the proposed new clause, it was proposed there should be power to place him under military law, and elevate him to the status of an officer. Now, for his part, he thought it would be better to let matters stand as they were now. It would be far better for a man to be expelled the camp, if he did anything wrong, than to be continually writing under restrictions which must affect his liberty of thought and action. Under the new law, the correspondent would be in a worse position than he had ever occupied before. He was not in favour of civilians criticizing the operations of commanders in the field, and he did not sympathize with fireside criticisms; but he did approve of any machinery whereby newspaper correspondents, or anybody else, would be enabled to give an independent

    89
    review of military operations of which they might have no other report than that of the officers themselves. If they put these correspondents under military law, they would be entirely at the mercy of the officers.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONpointed out that this matter had already been once postponed. On a former occasion, he had pointed out that, as the Bill then stood, a correspondent was liable to be tried and flogged just the same as a private soldier, and he said he thought that an improper power to give to the military authorities. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford agreed in that, and supported the suggestion that newspaper correspondents should be omitted from the class of private soldiers; and he promised at a later stage to propose words placing them on the footing of officers, and that was the Amendment now before them, and he thought it would fully meet the case.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, such a thing as a newspaper correspondent was unknown during the Peninsular War, and their presence with an Army was of quite a modern date. The question they had to consider, therefore, was, how were military operations promoted by their presence? and he repeated that he thought the best thing to do would be to postpone the decision on the matter until the opinion of the gentlemen themselves had been obtained.
    LORD ELCHOunderstood that if this Amendment were carried General Roberts would not have been able to act towards the correspondent of The Standard in Afghanistan as he did, and to tell him he should not be with him in the Army any longer. If that was so, he should be disposed to vote against it, more especially with reference to what took place in the War in the Peninsular. It was evident that a General must have absolute control to decide whether correspondents should or should not remain with his Army; and he hoped they were not going to do anything which would take away or minimize that power.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, there must be a certain amount of give and take; and if a newspaper correspondent made his position one such as was not consistent with the public welfare, a General in command would naturally feel it his duty to request him to leave the Army. Of course, the Public Service must come
    90
    first; but, subject to that, they were now going to put these persons clearly in a better position than they occupied before. He might be biassed, but he did not think correspondents could be better off than when occupying the position of a British officer.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the Public Service got very great benefit from the independent comments of the newspaper correspondents. Our commissariat and transport service was in the most wretched state in the Crimea, and, but for the reports of the newspaper correspondents, would have continued so. They wanted independent reports by gentlemen who wrote of what they saw; and, for that reason, he thought it was very undesirable that correspondents should be liable to be tried by courts martial. If that were done, each man would always be writing with a rope round his neck, liable to be called before a court martial and subjected to personal inconvenience that must interfere with his independence as a writer.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEshould certainly vote for the Amendment. It was a power that must be given, and nothing more.
    MR. E. JENKINScould not advise his hon. Friend to go to a Division, as on this point he did not see his way to vote with him.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, there was nothing in the Amendment to prevent a correspondent from being ejected from a camp. His proposal would not have that effect. It left to the commanding officer all the power which he originally had of ejecting a newspaper correspondent from the camp if necessary; and, at the same time, gave him, or any field officer, the power which he did not now possess of bringing the newspaper correspondent before a court martial on any of the charges which were breaches of this Army Discipline and Regulation Act. He wished to point out to hon. Members, who supposed they were doing newspaper correspondents a benefit, that they were giving additional powers to the commanding officer, and taking away none which already belonged to him. They were making these persons subject to military law and unless they passed this clause, or passed new clauses, they would not be subject to military law. Therefore, no case whatever had been made out by the Government, or its supporters, for their contention that they

    91
    were putting correspondents in a better position than they occupied before. If they wished to extend the powers of officers in this respect, they should do it, not by a few words extending the provisions of the whole Act to newspaper correspondents, but by special clauses dealing particularly with them, and then they would know what they were about. This sub-section would have been smuggled through, and nobody would have known anything about it, but for his question. Hon. Gentlemen must remember how wide were these powers. If this section were passed, they could try a correspondent for conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. [" No, no ! "] The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock) appeared to be going into hysterics over that statement; but it was nevertheless the fact. [" Oh! oh ! "] They could also try him under the Devil's Clause. That seemed to him absurd. He knew the Committee would be against him but, so far as logic and argument went, they had proved this sub-section to be a monstrous absurdity, which ought to be rejected by the Committee.
    Amendment agreed to; sub-section inserted accordingly.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 167 (Persons subject to military law as soldiers).
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONwished to amend the clause by inserting the following sub-section:—
    "(12.) All civil officers "who may be employed by or act under the Secretary of State for War at any of Her Majesty's establishments in the islands of Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, Sark, and Man, and the Islands thereto belonging, or at foreign stations."
    He did not see why these officers should not be on the same footing that they were on in the existing Mutiny Act. He had had occasion to state, more than once, that a variety of persons were in this Bill to be tried under the operation of the Mutiny Act, who had not hitherto been brought under the operation of that law. The tendency of this Act was to draw more persons under military discipline than formerly. Here they found, however, with regard to civil officers, a contrary course had been adopted. Those officers had had the very good sense to take themselves out
    92
    of the Act. The effect was, that civil officers in charge of stations could not be tried by court martial, and could only be disposed of by the civil law.
    COLONEL STANLEYreplied, that though, technically, these civil officers had been subject to military law, that had never been enforced, and they had always been tried by the civil power. He, therefore, thought it better to put them on the footing on which they were to be treated.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONthought he could find cases where civilian officers could be tried by court martial. He rather thought he had tried one himself.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he would not put his experience against that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman; and if he said there had been cases he was bound to take that as a statement of fact; but he was sure it was not generally the case.
    MR. E. JENKINSobserved, that there was, undoubtedly, a strong feeling in the Army that the clerks at the War Office should be brought under the discipline of the Military Act; but, of course, it would not do to propose that just now.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERmoved, in page 92, line 36, sub-section 1, after "all," insert "non-commissioned officers and." He did not wish to raise this question again but he might point out that in the very next sub-section they had the words "all non-commissioned officers and men." The omission here seemed to make the clause read very badly.
    COLONEL STANLEYdid not think these words were wanted, as, in the interpretation, the word "soldier" would include non-commissioned officers. It was rather a matter of drafting; but if his hon. and gallant Friend would leave the matter, they would deal with it in the Interpretation Clause.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. DILLWYN,in sub-section 3, proceeded to move an Amendment dealing with the cases when British and Colonial Forces were serving together. He thought it was very unreasonable that the British soldiers should be placed in an inferior position to the Colonial soldiers when they were serving together.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is questionable whether this Amendment can be moved at this point. This clause only contains definitions of the meaning of different persons.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, if that was the opinion of the Chairman, he would ask when it would be proper?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, it had better be moved as a new clause.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he would move it as a new clause.
    MR. E. JENKINSasked to be allowed to say that he did not quite see why this Amendment should not be moved, and he thought it would be better to take it at once.
    COLONEL STANLEYrose to Order. The Chairman had ruled that this Amendment was not admissible, and he submitted that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee was not in Order in rising.
    MR. E. JENKINSwas only respectfully submitting a point, and did not intend to challenge the decision of the Chairman.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANmoved, in page 93, line 20, to leave out "or their corps."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEmoved, in page 93, sub-section 7, to leave out lines 26 to 31. The effect of that was, he said, to place all non-commissioned officers and men of the Yeomanry Force under military law. He hardly thought it was necessary, in time of peace, to place this Force under this regulation. He was afraid it would cause unpleasantness, and he did not think there was any necessity for it, as the men in that Force were usually of a superior class.
    COLONEL STANLEYhoped the Committee would not assent to the Amendment. It was necessary, if these Forces were called out, that they should be under discipline and he could not conceive why the Committee should wish them to be treated in a different manner to all other Forces. He did not think the Committee would wish him to go into any arguments on the subject, for he thought it was self-evidently important that these men should be placed under military discipline.
    MR. HOPWOODcould not agree that this was a matter to be settled off-hand and at once. Why were these thoroughly voluntary Forces placed under this stringent Act of Parliament? Government ought to be content with the concluding part of this clause, which placed every corps under the Act when it was on actual military service. That, he thought, was highly necessary; and that also, of course, would only be in a time of public need, which would make every man a soldier.
    MR. EVANS,as a Yeomanry officer of long experience, hoped this sub-section would not be omitted. He believed he could say that both officers and men, of all things in the world, would dislike nothing more than this proposal. It would be very injurious to the corps, for it would place them in an unpleasant comparison with the Militia. Speaking from a good deal of experience, he should be exceedingly sorry to see the Amendment carried.
    Amendment negatived.
    COLONEL STANLEYmoved the insertion of an Amendment which would have the effect of rendering members of the Yeomanry Service subject to military law as long-as they were serving in aid of the civil power of the country.
    MR. E. JENKINSsaid, the Amendment proposed was quite new, and must not pass unchallenged. No explanation had been given of the matter, which was not in the Mutiny Acts as they existed.
    COLONEL LOYD LINDSAYsaid, he should like to observe that the Yeomanry, when they came out, were under the Mutiny Act.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he must object to the insertion of the words, because he thought that the Yeomanry was not a body that ought to be brought in to the aid of the civil power. They were not trained men, and were not fitted to deal with a turbulent mob. They were liable to lose their patience and he could not imagine circumstances arising when men in their senses would bring in the Yeomanry to aid the civil power. They knew that trained and disciplined soldiers, when called upon to suppress riots, were with the greatest difficulty able to keep their temper and restrain their action. Under no circumstances whatever should the Yeomanry be brought in to cope

    95
    with civil disturbances. He objected to the words sought to be inserted, not so much because they gave power to bring in the Yeomanry, but because they indicated that Yeomanry might be brought in. They had evil recollections in Ireland in connection with the Yeomanry of 1798. Nearly all the atrocities of 1798 were committed by Yeomanry. The Regular soldiers were distinguished for their quiet and forbearing demeanour; but the Yeomanry behaved in the most scandalous fashion, their atrocities being handed down as tradition. He objected, in consequence, to any sub-section bringing in such an objectionable body to the aid of the civil power.
    COLONEL STANLEYthought the hon. Gentleman misapprehended the point. It was now under the Act to call out the Yeomanry. That was the law; and now it was proposed, when they were called out, to put them under the Mutiny Act.
    MR. HOPWOODrose, and was received with a groan of disapprobation from a Member opposite. He asked, whether the sound which came from the hon. Member opposite was to be tolerated to repress his expression of the views he entertained on this question?
    THE CHAIRMANcalled for Order, and said he had, as the hon. and learned Member must have heard, called Order to reprove the noise referred to.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, he was met, on rising, by a noise which disturbed Order, and he protested against that gross breach of Order. He would now proceed. This was a most unfortunate Amendment. This sub-section was put in as a reminder to the military authorities that this was a power which not only might be called into force, but which it would be laudable and desirable to call into operation. He thought it undesirable; and he should take the opinion of the Committee on the point. He objected in toto to the calling in of the Yeomanry to the aid of the civil power. It was said—" Oh ! we want to put them under the Mutiny Act when they are called out; "but why call them out at all to aid the civil power? There was no doubt this was a scheme for giving direct sanction for using the Yeomanry in aid of the civil power. Let him remind the Committee that this was one of the Volunteer Services but they would not venture to
    96
    call out the Volunteers in case of civil strife; and there was nothing in this Bill which referred to the Volunteers in the same sense. Yet there was this attempt to include the Yeomanry. So far from this being a well-considered proposal, it was clear that it had only been thought of at the last moment. He challenged the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to deny this statement.
    MR. EVANSsaid, the Yeomanry was not a Volunteer Force in the strict sense of the term. Since he had been a Yeomanry officer, it had been found necessary to call out the Force and he was old enough to remember, in his own county, three several occasions on which the Yeomanry were called out, and rendered very efficient service, and that at a time when the police was entirely inadequate. He could not admit what had been said of the Yeomanry was altogether justified. It was not justified so far as England was concerned—he said nothing about Ireland. He was speaking of his own personal knowledge.
    MR. MACDONALD,who was met with cries of "Oh! "and other sounds, said, it struck him that some of the Gentlemen on the opposite Benches were unwell, and he might have to take the opportunity of asking that Progress be reported in order that they might have time to look to the state of their health. If allowed to proceed, he would state his strong objection to bringing in the Yeomanry to the aid of the civil power. The hon. Member above the Gangway who had just spoken said these Yeomen had rendered useful service. Well, in his (Mr. Macdonald's) time, he had seen the Yeomanry out in the County of Lanark something like a dozen times. It was said it was to aid the civil power; but the fact was, they were set to watch potato fields. Now, it was notorious that more potatoes were stolen when the Yeomanry were out than when they were not out. That was their efficiency. He had seen them out in the County of Ayr, and he did not think they were in the slightest degree better than in the County of Lanark. So far as his experience went, the Yeomanry corps was not an efficient corps, and ought never to be brought out to aid the civil power. The military was trusted and respected but the Yeomanry was despised, distrusted, and condemned.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, in the absence of the Law Officers of the Crown, he wished to ask the right hon. and learned Judge Advocate General—the only learned person present on the Ministerial Bench—a question on a point of law. He wished to know whether the power of calling out the Yeomanry was a power that was given by Common Law or Statute? [An hon. MEMBER: Statute.]
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: By Statute.
    MR. PARNELL: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would add to his kindness by informing me what Statute?
    COLONEL STANLEY: The Statute of 1804.
    Amendment agreed, to.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he could not think that the Government had sufficiently considered this portion of the Bill, which, if passed into law, would have a very bad effect on the enlistment of Volunteers. That Force had been admirably successful up to the present time. It was continually increasing in numbers; and he did not think the Volunteers would submit themselves to the considerable penalties and risks involved in the clause as it was now drawn. When "on active military service," it seemed to him, there ought to be no distinction. But it was customary for crack regiments of Volunteers to train at certain periods with the Regular Forces; and, under these circumstances, they would at once be brought under military discipline as defined in this Bill. He was, at first, afraid that the Volunteers might subject themselves to corporal punishment; but, clearly, that was not the case, for corporal punishment was only to be inflicted when the troops were on active service. That, of course, would not cover the mere calling out of the Volunteers for training with the Regulars. But they subjected themselves to very penal clauses, indeed. For instance, take drunkenness. The offender was subjected, for drunkenness, to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a period not exceeding two years. Now, he did not think that the ordinary artizan in our towns would ever join the Volunteer Force if he was aware that for yielding to temptation when off duty on one of these training occasions he would
    98
    render himself liable to imprisonment for two years. In the same way, he was liable to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, at the discretion of the court, if he "disobeys any garrison, general, or other orders." This was a very wide phrase, indeed; and he could conceive that some Volunteers might easily commit some slight breach of discipline, might break some order, which would at once bring them under the purview of this clause. All offences against general discipline in Clause 40 subjected the soldiers of the Regular Forces to imprisonment for two years, and the same offences would, under this clause, subject the Volunteers to the same imprisonment. This appeared to him to be a matter which had not been sufficiently considered by the Government. He could conceive of lengthened terms of imprisonment being given for, apparently, very trivial offences in the case of the Regular soldier; but he could not conceive that it was desirable to extend such power to the case of a Volunteer who had offended. Anything that would in the slightest degree discourage the Volunteer Force would be a very serious mistake. He begged to move that sub-sections a and b be omitted.
    COLONEL STANLEYhoped the Committee would not assent to leave out these words, because they would, practically, by so doing, repeal the Army Regulation Act, 1871. He did not think the hon. Gentleman appeared to know what the provisions of the Army Regulation Act of Lord Cardwell were. Section 9 of that Act provided—
    "That any part of the Volunteer Force training and exercising with the Militia or Regular Forces, the Articles of War shall apply to them in the same manner as to the Regular Forces."
    Carrying out the spirit of that Act, he understood that the hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) intended to move that when men were brought under this provision they would be given clearly to understand that they would not be brought under it without their previous consent. No harm, therefore, could possibly ensue for, if a Volunteer did not wish it, he was not obliged to come under the operation of the Act. The Volunteer could not be placed under military discipline against his will. Well, as to the other point, when they came up for training with the Regular Forces, were

    99
    they not to be brought under military discipline? Were they to place men side by side, under different regulations? He did not believe, for a moment, that the Volunteers wished to escape from military liability. So far as he had the opportunity of consulting men, he had found, so far from any indisposition to resent coming under this clause, the "Volunteers, on the contrary, had a strong feeling to be placed under the same law as the Regulars. The hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs seemed to clear up the only point of difficulty—namely, that the men should know beforehand that they were placing themselves under the Mutiny Act. He did not think it necessary to take up the time of the Committee further. He wished to point out that these sections carried out the Act of 1871, and that they were in accordance with it.
    MR. WHITWELLsaid, he could only state, from some little experience, that he had not heard a man or non-commissioned officer state the slightest objection to come under the Act under the circumstances.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, that the objection to this provision was very strong, because it seriously endangered the Volunteer movement. There really was no necessity whatever for' such a power as was asked for being given. Suppose an artizan in Lancashire joined the Volunteer Force, and left his home expecting to have, say, three days' outing in camp with the Regulars, and, through intemperance, or irritation by arbitrary conduct, was tempted to use language not, perhaps, quite consistent with military discipline. That man, not like the Regular soldier, trained and drilled to the control of his feelings, would then be tried by court martial; and though by the law under which he was enrolled he might get rid of his services in 14 days, he would be liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for three or six months. He thought that that was an absurdity. It ceased to be a Volunteer Force the moment they coupled it with this military enactment. It was their duty to encourage, not to discourage, the Volunteer Force to train with the Regulars and he was sure it was not the wish of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to weaken the inclination of the Volunteers to do so. But that would be the effect if this
    100
    proposal became law. It would damp the ardour of the Volunteers to act along with the Regular Forces. He thought the precaution was quite unnecessary.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONwould like to know exactly how this clause would be interpreted? Would a Volunteer, each time he was called out for training with the Regular Army, have to give his consent, or would it be understood that on his entering the Volunteer Service there would be occasions when he would come under this law?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the meaning of the Amendment which he intended to move was that it should be imperative that any Volunteer, non-commissioned officer or man, should know what he was doing when he went out to join his corps in connection with the Regular Forces. It was not a question of the ordinary training or drill; but it was a question as to whether, when they joinedt he Regular Forces, these Volunteers were to be under an entirely different system to that of the others? His own impression was, that they would not like to be placed under different regulations. They could not make Volunteers go to Aldershot unless they chose to do so and it was only right, when the man engaged to go and serve in conjunction with the Regular Forces, that he should know exactly what he was doing, and not be allowed to say afterwards that he had been led into a trap. It was with a view of preventing anything of that kind that he had placed his Amendment on the Paper.
    LORD ELCHOapprehended that this would not affect the position of the Volunteers under the Act of 1871. Previous to 1871 the Volunteers only came under the Mutiny Act when they were called out for active service. Before that time they had been brigaded with the Regular Forces, and there had been no difficulty in maintaining discipline. In 1871, however, the feeling appeared to be that when they were brigaded with the Regular troops or Militia, they should, as far as it was possible, be placed under the same law. They could not be placed under the same law entirely, because the Army and Militia were in receipt of pay, while the Volunteers were not. In the old Mutiny Act there were fines and punishments

    101
    which, could only possibly be made applicable to Forces in receipt of pay, and which were utterly inapplicable to the Volunteers. The Volunteers, however, accepted the change which was proposed in 1871 and he hoped the Government would be very careful in making any further alteration in that direction, because it should be borne in mind that Volunteer officers held in their hands a power which no General commanding either the Regular Army or the Militia had, and that was the power to dismiss a man who might misbehave. While on the subject of the Volunteers, he should like to touch upon another important point, and that was how were the Volunteers to be tried? Was the court, constituted for the trial of a Volunteer, to be composed of officers of the Regular Army or of the Militia, or were Volunteer officers to be included in the judges of the court? To restrict the court to officers of the Regular Army might be a very serious matter; because, he was sorry to say, there were some military men who did not look with the greatest possible favour on the Volunteers. Therefore, he hoped the Secretary of State for War would be very careful as to making any such change; and that he would look to the constitution of these courts as being such that there would be some security that when the Volunteers had to be tried some Volunteer officers would form the court martial. This was essential in the interest of the Volunteer Force itself.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, if the Secretary of State for War was about to accept the Amendment to be moved by the hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), of course the objection which he had urged would be removed.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he did not intend to move the exact words which he had placed on the Paper, but other words to the same effect. What he proposed was this—after "service," in line 42, to insert—
    "Provided, That it shall be the duty of the commanding officer of any volunteer force, except when on actual military service, to obtain the consent of every non-commissioned officer and man belonging to such force before such non-commissioned officer or man shall enter on any service in which he shall be subject to military law."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 93, line 42, after the word "service," to insert the words "Provided, That it shall be the duty of the commanding officer of any volunteer force, except when on actual military service, to obtain the consent of every non-commissioned officer and man belonging to such Force, before such non-commissioned officer or man shall enter on any service in which he shall be subject to military law."—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. PARNELLmoved that the consent of the Volunteer should be in writing, or else it might be of a very informal character.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the word "consent," to insert the words "in writing."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'in writing' be inserted in the proposed Amendment."
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONthought it might save many unpleasant questions before the court martial, if the consent of the man was produced in writing.
    COLONEL STANLEYhad no objection to the insertion of the words "in writing." If the roll was called, and the man signed it, it might be useful evidence before a court martial.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided,:—Ayes 66 Noes 206: Majority 140.—(Div. List, No. 157.)
    MAJOR NOLANwas afraid he had led some of his Friends wrong. He had told them to support Her Majesty's Government, because he understood the Secretary of State for War to accept the words "in writing;" but he found he had gone into the opposite Lobby, and had voted against the adoption of those words.
    MR. PARNELLalso wished to express his regret at having put the Committee to the trouble of dividing, because he did so under the impression that the Government would support the proposal which he had made. Had he known in time that they were not going to vote for it, he would not have troubled the Committee with a Division. Certainly, the Secretary of State for War said "Aye;" yet when the Division took place he voted "No."
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he, too, had told his Friends, under a misapprehension, that they could not do better than follow the Secretary of State for War.
    MR. SULLIVANhad thought he was about to enjoy the rare luxury of supporting Her Majesty's Government, when he was told the Secretary of State for War had accepted the Amendment, which it now appeared he had voted against.
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERconsidered they were discussing a mere bagatelle. The consent of the Volunteer would have to be formally obtained, which was, practically, the same thing as obtaining it in writing.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he was not present in the House during the discussion; and upon asking, not how he should vote, but what was the question? he was told the Secretary of State for War had accepted this Amendment. Now the question was, did he accept that Amendment or not? If he had, why should his decision be overriden by the after-dinner audience below the Gangway?
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. PARNELLmoved, in page 94, to leave out sub-section 10, stating that the sub-section would have the effect of extending military law to a class of persons who had not hitherto come within its operation, and who ought not, in the opinion of many competent authorities, to be so included. For instance, if the sub-section was agreed to, wagon-drivers, whether in military service or not, would be under military law if employed beyond the seas. If military law was to be made so stringent as was now proposed, it would not be possible to induce persons to take service in such capacities as that to which he was alluding. Under existing circumstances, it was often difficult to get transport—and this had recently been the case in South Africa—but if all persons engaged in that service were to be put under military law, the difficulty would be largely increased. The plan which had been pursued hitherto had worked very successfully and he was not able to see any reason why it should be altered, no evidence having been adduced to show any necessity of the kind.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the subsection had been introduced for the purpose of dealing with persons who were employed in connection with the Army in a semi-civil capacity—such persons, for instance, as storekeepers, sutlers, and others, of a similar kind. Both this and the next sub-section were carefully considered by the Select Committee which inquired into the whole question, and which recommended that these persons should be brought under military law.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. PARNELLmoved the omission of sub-section 11. He said, the proposal of the Government would make a very extensive alteration in the class of persons who were in future to be subject to military law; and, therefore, he thought the alteration ought not to be made until after very careful and serious consideration of all the circumstances. He saw no reason why a special set of rules should not be adopted in relation to wagon-drivers, camp-followers, and persons of that kind, who ought not to be brought under strict military law, which included penal servitude, flogging, and shooting, in its list of punishments.
    SIR HENRY JAMESthought this was an important question and, on the whole, he was of opinion that camp-followers should not be subject to martial law, but should be under military law, when in an enemy's country. At the present time, camp-followers were under the sole and arbitrary power of the commander of a Force, and he might exercise that power humanely and well; but, on the contrary, he might do no such thing; and it would, therefore, be wise, in his opinion, to put such persons under military law as was proposed in the Bill.
    Amendment negatived.
    On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he had intended to make a proposal in reference to newspaper correspondence published in Great Britain and Ireland but as that question had been discussed on a previous clause he should not move his Motion, and the more so, because he thought such an account would be given of corporal punishment as would have the

    105
    effect of putting an end to it altogether. There was one point, however, on which he must make an observation. Throughout the Bill it was provided that Native Indian troops should remain under Indian military law, and should not be included in the provisions of the present Bill. "When, on a previous occasion, he called attention to this fact, he was met by the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) that he knew very little about it. That was perfectly true but it was also true that the hon. Gentleman was wrong in his notion that the Indian military law was more lenient than the present law in this country. That not being the case, he thought it important that the Indian military law should be assimilated to that of this country.
    COLONEL STANLEYexplained, that he had no power to alter the Indian Articles of War; but he was able to say that any representation made to the Secretary of State for India would receive careful consideration.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL,referring to the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), said, he had not described the Indian military law as being more lenient than that of this country. What he (Sir George Campbell) did say was that it was in advance of the English law; and in support of that view he pointed out that corporal punishment in time of peace was abolished, as far as the Indian troops, including the Sepoys in the cantonments, were concerned, long before British soldiers were exempted from this degrading punishment.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he should like to know, in regard to the statement which had just been made, whether blowing Sepoys from guns—which had been done in India—was a distinct step in the direction of leniency and humanity in the treatment of soldiers?
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, still further security had been afforded by the fact that when the constitution of the Council of India and the powers of the Governor General in Council were fixed, a limitation was provided to the effect that no laws should be passed in India which were subversive of the Mutiny Act for England. That was a direct precedent for bringing the laws of the two countries into harmony and, therefore, it might be fairly
    106
    assumed that the authorities would insure the realization of that which was asked.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 168 (Mutual relations of Regular Forces and Auxiliary Forces) agreed to.
    Clause 169 (Modification of Act with respect to Royal Marines).
    MR. W. H. SMITHmoved the insertion of the words—
    "Unless such officers and men are serving as seamen under the immediate command of a naval officer on shore."
    The object of the words was that when officers and men of the Royal Marines were serving with the Land Forces they should be subject to the Marine Mutiny Act; and that when they were serving with sailors under the command of a naval officer they should be subject to the Naval Mutiny Act.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 170 (Modification of Act with respect to Her Majesty's Indian Forces).
    MR. E. JENKINSmoved the omission of all the words after "India," inline 9,to the end of the clause. It would be within the recollection of the Committee that when the discussion took place with regard to the removal of the Indian troops to Cyprus the question was asked, under what Act the troops would come, the reply being the Indian Mutiny Act. The present seemed to be an entirely new clause; and what he wished to inquire was this—seeing that Her Majesty's Government had introduced a new policy, and proposed henceforth to assume the right to employ Indian troops outside India, would those troops, when brigaded and serving with English troops, come under the English or the Indian Mutiny Act? It appeared to him that they ought to be brought under the English Act, especially after the decision which had been arrived at with respect to the Colonial Forces; but he simply raised the question for the purpose of enabling the Secretary of State for War to make an explanation.
    COLONEL STANLEYwas not perfectly conversant with the Indian Articles of War; but understood, from the best

    107
    information he had been able to obtain, that this clause substantially re-enacted the present law. He had no power to make any change in the Articles of War relating to India.
    SIR HENRY JAMESpointed out that if the Amendment were agreed to, it would utterly break the contract of every soldier in the Indian Army.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLadmitted that, at first sight, it seemed an anomaly that Indian soldiers serving Her Majesty out of their own country should be subject to a different law than was applicable to English soldiers. On further consideration, however, it would be felt that the thing was right, inasmuch as Indian soldiers had manners and customs peculiarly their own; and it would be inexpedient, if not dangerous, to put them under the same laws as applied to soldiers whose manners and customs were entirely different.
    MR. E. JENKINSregretted that Her Majesty's Government had lately introduced the policy of employing Indian troops on service outside India. The Secretary of State for War had assured the Committee that there was nothing in the terms of the clause which interfered with the existing law. But the existing Mutiny Act had never contemplated the use of Indian troops outside India; and the question was, whether, if those troops were employed, say for the purpose of suppressing a rebellion in Canada, or quieting disturbances at the Cape, they would remain under the Indian Mutiny Act, or come under the cognizance of the English Act? The question was an important one because, if the Indian differed from the English Act, there would be an unfairness with reference to the Colonial Forces who, when acting with English troops, came under the English Act, and, at the same time, remained under the Colonial Act.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the Indian troops would remain under their own Articles of War. This subject was not in any way affected by questions of policy. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) went to the very root of the matter, when he said that the Indian Articles of War differed from the English, because they applied to persons whose manners and customs were entirely different from our own.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) was quite mistaken in supposing that it was an entirely new thing for Indian troops to be employed out of their own country. Sixty or 70 years ago, for instance, they served in Egypt. The Colonial troops were in a different position. As most of the Colonies had independent Legislatures, there was no guarantee that they would provide an efficient Mutiny Act; but in the case of India, England could control legislation, and Her Majesty's Government would take care that the law was as it should be.
    Amendment negatived.
    MAJOR NOLANwished to call the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the 4th paragraph of the present clause, and the end of Clause 42. Contrasting the two, it would be perceived that they ran on parallel lines, and as one had been left out the other ought to be. The only variation in the two cases was that different channels were prescribed for the making of complaints. He moved the omission of the paragraph he had referred to.
    COLONEL STANLEYwas quite ready to deal with the paragraph in the manner suggested. The two clauses ran on the same lines. He had overlooked the retention of this paragraph, and he would see to the matter before Report.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 171 (Modification of Act with respect to Auxiliary Forces).
    MR. A. H. BROWNsuggested that if a court martial should be held on a Volunteer, when the Volunteers were brigaded with the Regulars, the court should be composed of a certain proportion of Volunteer officers. Under the Bill, as at present framed, it was possible for the court to consist entirely of military officers. He would be satisfied if the Secretary of State for War would undertake to consider the matter before Report.
    COLONEL STANLEYwas bound to admit that the subject was fairly one for consideration, though he could not pledge himself to deal with it in the Bill. Where it was found practicable, the suggestion of the hon. Member might

    109
    be acted upon; but it would be unwise to lay down any hard-and-fast line, as a prisoner might then sometimes be subjected to a long period of detention before trial. It was desired to raise the status of the Volunteers, and to put Volunteer officers on the same footing as the Regulars when serving with them and, provided they were properly qualified, there was no reason why they should not take part in the ordinary duties of Regulars. But, of course, if this rule were applied one way it ought to be applied the other, the officers being made interchangeable.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 172 (Special provisions as to warrant officers).
    MAJOR NOLANmoved the omission, from line 34, of the words "to be reduced to the ranks or." This clause gave power to a court martial, among or punishments, to reduce a warrant officer to the ranks. The power would be injurious to warrant officers, who held a very important position. There were not a large number of such officers in the Service, though in the Artillery there were many who held somewhat similar positions. They often had stores under their charge, and were jointly responsible with the commanding officer. It would be utterly ridiculous to make such men liable to be reduced to the ranks. They might be reduced to the ranks nominally, but not for the purpose of serving there. He would have no objection to the clause if it were so framed that warrant officers might be reduced to the ranks only for the purpose of being dismissed the Service or imprisoned.
    COLONEL STANLEYcould not speak with positive certainty; but his impression was that, practically, a warrant officer was discharged if reduced to the ranks. He would inquire into the point.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would consent to put in the words on the Report he would withdraw his Amendment.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he would consider the matter, and make a statement on the Report. He could not undertake to put in the words now.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 173 (Special provisions as to non-commissioned, officer).
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that he had proposed two Amendments in the clause, which he thought practically met the views of many Members of the Committee, and especially of several hon. Gentlemen behind him. He proposed, in page 101, line 14, to leave out "in the case of," and insert—
    "His commanding officer shall not reduce a non-commissioned officer more than one grade, and that in the case of such "
    and in line 16, before "court martial," insert "district." The effect of that would be that a non-commissioned officer could not be punished except by reduction of one grade. He proposed to leave power in the hands of the Commander-in-Chief, and of the Commander-in-Chief in India, to reduce at once to the ranks; but the reduction of a non-commissioned officer by a commanding officer would not be as it now stood in the clause. It would simply be by one grade. [Colonel ALEXANDER: That is from sergeant to corporal.] That was so. He had known cases where it was very hard to try noncommissioned officers by court martial, and yet where an officer could not pass over everything. He would accept the Amendment, giving an appeal in every case to a district court martial, and not to a regimental court martial.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERwas very sorry that, as far as he was concerned, he could not accept the proposal of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He proposed to keep the law as it now stood, and to prevent an arbitrary exercise of power by a commanding officer. He had referred back, curiously enough, to the year 1750, and found a debate then arose on the Mutiny Bill, and that Colonel George Townsend then proceeded to add a clause to prevent any non-commissioned officer being broke, or reduced to the ranks, except by sentence of court martial. They were told that certain persons attended on that occasion at the House of Commons who had been broke without trial, or without any cause assigned, and that he expatiated not only on the iniquity of such proceedings, but on the danger of leaving such arbitrary power in the hands of one individual. It did seem a curious thing that in the year 1750 a strong protest was made against such arbitrary power being committed to

    111
    one person, and that now, in the year 1879, it was proposed to confer that power upon commanding officers. He could not only quote this old authority, but also a much more recent authority against the proposal—and no less an authority than His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, who was examined before the Committee which sat last year to consider this subject. He was asked by the Financial Secretary to the War Office—his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berkshire (Colonel Loyd Lindsay)—
    "Would your Royal Highness think that the power given a commanding officer should he as much as that?"
    That is to say, the power of reducing non-commissioned officers to the ranks. His Royal Highness replied—
    "I think it should not he so much as that. I am of opinion that you ought not to give a summary power to a commanding officer to break a non-commissioned officer. It should he done by a regimental court martial, because, otherwise, you might have very arbitrary acts. I do not say it would be so. It is quite possible a commanding officer might take a dislike to a non-commissioned officer for some small matter, and if he had power to break him offhand the result might be serious. If he was a non-commissioned officer, and particularly if he was a sergeant, I think he ought to be broken by a regimental court martial, and not by the authority of a commanding officer."
    In face of that evidence, given by no less a personage than the Commander-in-Chief, he contended that the Committee were entitled to know who were the unknown individuals who had recommended the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to take this step? If there were any commanding officers of opinion that they should be intrusted with this power, why were they not called before the Committee of last year? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman did certainly propose to make one concession, by allowing a commanding officer to reduce a noncommissioned officer only one step. He thought the concession really was not a concession at all. What the non-commissioned officer required was security in his position and without that security the position lost more than half its value. Further, he wished to remind the Committee of what a noncommissioned officer would be liable to lose; that not only would the non-commissioned officer be liable to lose his position at the pleasure or caprice of his
    112
    commanding officer, but also of an acting commanding officer. When the commanding officer went away on leave his representative at once acquired all the powers of a commanding officer; so that when a colonel went away, and a major was left in command, or perhaps even a captain, they would have the power of summarily reducing a noncommissioned officer from the rank of sergeant to the rank of corporal, or from corporal to the ranks. That was a power he did not think ought to be given to commanding officers. It had been stated that some non-commissioned officers turned out failures. But whose fault was that? In most cases the fault of the commanding officer himself because non-commissioned officers were always appointed, in the first instance, on approbation to acting rank—such as lance-sergeant, and lance-corporal. While they were so acting, it was the duty of the commanding officer to find out if they were fit to be promoted to either of these grades. In his opinion, if this power were given, it would only encourage carelessness on the part of the commanding officer. A noble Friend of his near him said that the power which made should be able to unmake. Surely, that proposition, if carried out, would be a great blow at the irremovability of Judges. The Crown could make them, but it could not unmake them. They had the greatest difficulty, even now, in getting good non-commissioned officers; and if this power were conceded they would have ten times more difficulty. Therefore, unless the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would accept his Amendment he must divide the Committee as a protest against this change. He might add that ample power was at present given, in the event of necessity, in the 137th Article of War. The commanding officer of a regiment might, in a case of urgent necessity, or of proved inefficiency, apply for special leave for the purpose to the Commander-in-Chief, or the full colonel commanding the regiment, and so reduce a man. That power had worked well up to the present time, and it would be much better to leave it as it was.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCKsaid, as he had an Amendment of precisely the same character to that which had just been proposed, perhaps he might be allowed to add one or two words to what had been said. The position of a non-

    113
    commissioned officer under this clause was very unsatisfactory. They now had greater and greater difficulty in obtaining non-commissioned officers, among the young men who were now serving, in consequence of the system of short service; and it was to him inconceivable that this should be proposed. He served as a Member of the Committee which sat last year; and if there was one thing more than another which they desired to impress upon the future military law, it was that the position of non-commissioned officers should be fenced about in every possible way, and be made so secure that they might be certain that nothing could reduce them except the sentence of a court martial. The one case in which exception was made was that of the 137th Article of War, which was intended to apply to the case of a non-commissioned officer who had been promoted without sufficient inquiry into his capability, or who had subsequently been found to be totally incompetent. In such cases, generally by the consent and by the desire of the individual himself, he was allowed to retire to the ranks. That, however, had nothing to do with the proposal now made; and he must express his astonishment that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should suppose that this alteration would, in any degree, be for the benefit of the Army, or tend to raise the position of the noncommissioned officer. To his mind, it cut at the very root of that position, and rendered the rank of a non-commissioned officer insecure. It would, therefore, add to the difficulty, now already experienced, of obtaining proper men for non-commissioned officers and, therefore, he trusted the Committee would not assent to it. The non-commissioned officer should be in such a position that, when accused of any crime, he should have a guarantee that he should only be tried by court martial, and only punished by court martial.
    COLONEL STANLEYreplied, that that was the case now, for an appeal was given to a district court martial, and the point he particularly cared about was that a non-commissioned officer could not be reduced to the ranks altogether. He felt rather strongly upon that point. He had very often seen cases where an offence by a non-commissioned officer had been passed by, because the punishment of reduction to the ranks was
    114
    really disproportionate to the offence. They ought not to pass offences over; they ought to be dealt with; and, at the same time, they ought not to be punished too severely.
    COLONEL MUREobserved, that it was quite true that the power of appeal was given; but, still, the clause left the noncommissioned officer in the power of his commanding officer, unless he appealed. He was a Member of the Committee which considered all these questions, and he knew how earnestly they desired to raise the status of the non-commissioned officer. He was, therefore, astonished to find, when he read this Bill, that this clause had been put in. He should really like to ask the Secretary of State for War on whose authority he had included the clause? He had no hesitation in saying that if an appeal to the Army were made the clause would be condemned. It would make it far more difficult even than it was now to get men to serve as non-commissioned officers, and he should certainly support the Amendment.
    MAJOR NOLANremarked, that this clause turned the man from a respectable soldier into a flunkey; and it would be hardly safe for him to differ from his commanding officer in religion, smartness, or anything. A private soldier was protected against the caprice of his commander, because he was protected by court martial in all matters of pay and clothing, and because he did not so much rub up against the officer; he rubbed up against the non-commissioned officer. The commanding officer depended very much on the non-commissioned officers for the smartness of his regiment, and he got very indignant if they did not follow his views. No doubt, those views were generally right; but, still, there were some commanding officers who had fads. In a good climate, where all enjoyed good health, that did not matter so much; but in a bad climate, where men got ill, the non-commissioned officers would lead a very bad life, if they did not become entire flunkies. The appeal to a court martial was quite illusory. It might be satisfactory in some gross cases; but he might say that he had known some thousands of private soldiers receiving punishment for which they could legally appeal, and yet he only knew of one case in which a man appealed, and there the non-commissioned

    115
    officer was going mad. If the commanding officer, however, were merely unmerciful, it would never do for the man to appeal; for, unless he was absolutely innocent, the court martial would feel bound to support the commanding officer, and would, probably, give an increased punishment. The men did not appeal, because they knew it was not then a question of getting one, two, or three days' imprisonment, but that the court martial would give them 21 days while the sergeant would never appeal, because he knew the sentence would be total reduction to the ranks. Besides, by this clause, they destroyed the public opinion of the regiment. At present, a man did not like to send a bad case to a court martial, and was ruled in that way by the public opinion of the regiment. It was one thing to do an act on his own authority, and quite another to submit his action to four or five other people. Besides, in some cases, the officer might decide in a pet, and when angry. The appeals then would be very few, and would give no practical control; while this clause would have the very unfortunate effect of taking away from the noncommissioned officer the idea that he had a fixed position, and of making him think he must toady his commander, or else he might get broken. Even if he did not toady his commander, the idea would get abroad that somebody else had the commander's ear, and he would toady that somebody else. If a man spent 10 or 12 years in climbing to the rank of sergeant, why should he be treated differently from the ensign or lieutenant just appointed? He might not hold quite so important a position; but he ought to have the same protection. It could not be said that the clause was necessary to deal with extreme cases, because those cases were already provided for. He would not yield to anybody in. his desire to keep up the position of the non-commissioned officer; and he, therefore, thought they would do well to leave out the words "and also any officer in any case." He also proposed to leave out sub-section 2.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he would suggest to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to put in the word "colonel."
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that, practically, the colonel of the regiment took action upon the officer in command of
    116
    the regiment, and he imagined that that would amount to exactly the same thing as if the action were taken through the Commander-in-Chief. Perhaps that was a question which he might be allowed to reserve for the Report.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that he was very glad the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had acceded to the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member opposite. He, however, was waiting for the discussion to terminate, in order to ask the Secretary of State for War when he intended to report Progress. He need not remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman of the arduous labours the Committee had undergone since they met in the afternoon at 4 o'clock, and the very important work that would require their presence in the House at 2 o'clock the next day.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MAJOR NOLANinquired whether the Secretary of State for War had made arrangements as to taking power for the convening officer to remit punishment?
    COLONEL STANLEYreplied that that would be done.
    On Motion of Colonel STANLEY, the words "corporal punishment" were omitted from sub-section 4.
    On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill? "
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he would not now consent to report Pro-Progress? ["No, no!"] In consequence of that expression of opinion, he would move to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    COLONEL STANLEYhoped that the Committee would consent to go a little further. They had proceeded very fairly up till then; and, so far as he could see, there was every reason to believe that the Committee was disposed to discuss the remainder of the Bill in a fair spirit.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that Members would have to come to the House at 2 o'clock on the next day; and if they were to go on for another hour, the Government might tell them just the same

    117
    thing at the end of it. He wished to know how far the Government proposed to proceed? One hon. Member said—"Finish the Bill." That was his idea. It was not his (Mr. Parnell's) and he thought they ought to understand what the Government wished to do, how far they wished to go, and at what time they intended to stop.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he hoped that, at all events, they would be allowed to proceed to the end of the Bill. He did not think it was a very great request to make to the Committee. As regarded the postponed clauses, if there were any that were not substantially opposed, he thought they might make some progress with them. At any rate, they were now on Clause 174, and he did not think there was anything that would lead to prolonged discussion up to Clause 180.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he thought the disposition shown by hon. Members opposite was really not a very fair disposition. He considered, when a temperate appeal was made to the Secretary of State for War, that hon. Members opposite ought not to shout a speaker down, and to cry—"The Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill." He apprehended that that was not the spirit in which the Government intended to deal with the opposition. He thought the statement of the Secretary of State for War was very unsatisfactory. They had made very satisfactory progress with the Bill; and he trusted that after they had disposed of the very important question they had to argue the next day—which he hoped would not take long—they would be able to proceed with the further consideration of the Bill. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had not only suggested that they should endeavour to get through the remaining clauses of the Bill, but also had hinted at some postponed clauses. If that was to be the declaration of the Government, he did not see how they could answer it in any other way except by dividing on the Motion to report Progress. He was as much disposed as any Member of the Committee to take a fair and impartial view of the situation; but he, for one, could not accept that proposal. He presumed that if the majority of the Committee wanted a Division they would go to a Division; and, so far as he was concerned, he had no objection to one Division or 20; but he was prepared to
    118
    go on so long as there was a prospect of making fair and intelligible progress.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, it seemed to him that their great object should be not to waste time. If he understood the Secretary of State for War aright, he proposed that they should go on with the Bill till they came to the postponed clauses, and then take some of the least objected to of these. He would suggest that they should not proceed with those clauses, because, if they began them, they would very soon arrive at contest-able matter. He hoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would accept the suggestion now held out to him, and only go through the clauses to the Schedules, and leave the postponed clauses for another day.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he thought that was a very fair proposal. As the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out, the mere fact that the clauses had been postponed showed that they contained debatable matter, and, therefore, he would not press them at that time.
    MAJOR NOLANhoped this suggestion would be acceded to by the hon. Member for Meath. He must confess that, during its progress, his mind had become very much changed towards the Bill, and he now considered it to be very much better than the old Mutiny Acts.
    MR. PARNELLthought that, on the whole, they might agree to the proposal. There was no necessity for them to sit up all night discussing whether they should go on with the Bill or not. The few remaining clauses of the Bill were not very important; and as the Secretary of State for War had now conceded what he (Mr. Parnell) had asked him to do, and had said how far he wished to go, he (Mr. Parnell) could say how far he, for his part, was prepared to go. He supposed that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would himself move to report Progress when the 180th clause had been passed.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 174 (Special provisions as to application of Act to persons not belonging to Her Majesty's Forces).
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLmoved to omit certain words, of which the effect would be to place civil and political functionaries, such as special Commis-

    119
    sioners accompanying bodies of troops, under the command of the officer commanding the troops. He said it would be very startling to find that a high official of the Diplomatic Service should, under that section, and for the purposes of that Act, be under the command of the commanding officer of the party to which he was attached. He had some knowledge upon the point. He had himself been a special Commissioner, with large powers, accompanying troops; and, as he had thought at the time, in a higher position than the colonel or major, or whatever officer it was in command of the troops and he should have been somewhat surprised to learn that he was in a subordinate position.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he did not quite like taking the words out of the clause, because, under the section, and for the purposes of discipline, would come Staff clerks and other officers not borne upon the regimental pay list. He would, however, take a note of the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, and would see whether it could be arranged upon the Report.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 175 (Special provisions as to reserve man).
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, that he always looked with very great suspicion on any method of dealing with their Reserves which was not employed by Continental nations. So far as he knew, all that they did was to pledge the Reservist to keep the authorities informed of his address. So long as the soldier did that, he did not think he ought to be subject to punishment for not coming up to receive his pay.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he quite granted that they should be very careful as to how they proceeded with those men; but he thought there was nothing very unnatural in saying that a man should assign a reasonable cause for absence. As a matter of fact, a letter, or other communication, would be sufficient to assign a cause; and he was glad to find that, as the Reserve Regulations were becoming better known, the men were dropping more into the regular system.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 176 (Special provisions as to application of Act to Ireland) agreed to.
    Saving Provisions.
    Clause 177 (Saving of 29 and 30 Viet. c. 109, s. 88, as to forces when onboard Her Majesty's ships) agreed to.
    Clause 178 (Saving as to prerogative of Her Majesty).
    COLONEL STANLEYasked leave to withdraw the clause, as it was proposed to bring up another in exactly the same terms as the old Act.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Definitions.
    Clause 179 (Application of Act to Channel Islands and Isle of Man) agreed to.
    Clause 180 (Interpretation of terms). MR. J. BROWN moved, in page 104, after line 30, to insert—
    "The expression 'in the execution of his office,' as applied to an officer or non-commissioned officer, means whenever he is with his regiment, or with any regiment to which he may he attached for duty, or with any part thereof, respectively."
    He said that his object in moving the Amendment was to obtain from the Judge Advocate General an opinion upon the subject of the expression of "an officer in the execution of his duty."
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, it seemed to him that an officer would always be in the execution of his office if this Amendment was put into the Bill, and it would be a certain protection to the non-commissioned officer as against the private soldier but it would, at the same time, be somewhat of a hardship upon the non-commissioned officer, who would be liable to conviction for offences which would be no offence whatever, if he happened to hold a commission, or to be in the position of a private soldier. In saying this, he did not, for a moment, deny that there ought to be a difference in the punishment for offences committed by soldiers when on and off duty.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the paragraph in the clause to which objection was taken seemed to be a relic of an order introduced by the late Duke of Wellington, in reference to the time at, and during which, a non-commissioned officer was to be considered to be on duty with his regiment. He could

    121
    not see that the Amendment proposed would advantage the non-commissioned officer, inasmuch as it was necessary to provide that when in uniform he must be considered to be on duty with his regiment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    COLONEL STANLEYmoved, in page 104, line 32, to leave out the definition of a soldier, and insert—
    "The expression 'soldier' does not include an officer as defined by this Act, hut, with the modifications in this Act contained in relation to warrant officers and non-commissioned officers, does include a warrant officer not having a honorary commission and a non-commissioned officer, and every person subject to military law during the time that he is so subject."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONmoved to amend the clause by the insertion of words to except the Island of Cyprus in time of peace, in order to protect the soldiers serving there, Cyprus being, technically, a military and a foreign country.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the Amendment was not necessary, because the provisions as to military occupation did not apply to the circumstances of Cyprus.
    MR. CHILDERSasked, if this was so, whether Cyprus would be considered in the light of a Colony?
    COLONEL STANLEYreplied in the negative, and added that though there were a few British troops on the Island it did not follow that they were even, technically, "on active service."
    MR. H. SAMUELSONinsisted that some words should be inserted to provide for possible contingencies in Cyprus. They had it on the authority of the Prime Minister that it was "a place of arms," for which this country paid a rent, and to the fee simple of which they had no more right than he had to a house which he hired in town for the season.
    COLONEL MUREthought the question was one which required clearing up, and suggested to the Secretary of State for War that he should re-consider it, and make some proposal on the Report.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSremarked, that as his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War had stated, the question had already been considered, and no alteration in the clause was thought necessary. He would,
    122
    however, undertake that the Law Officers of the Crown should be consulted on the matter between now and the Report, and, if thought necessary, words could be inserted.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNmoved, in page 108, line 7, after "court," to insert—
    "Or any magistrate or magistrates to whom jurisdiction is given by 'The Summary Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1864.'"
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. J. BROWNmoved, in page 108, at the end of the clause, to add—
    "For the purpose of deducting pay a part of a day shall not be reckoned as a day unless it consist of six hours or upwards."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (WATER EXPENSES) BILL.— [BILL 204.]
  (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg, Sir Charles W. Dilke, Mr. Rodwell.)
  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (WATER EXPENSES) BILL.— [BILL 204.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: I cannot expect, at the time of night we have now arrived at, to enter into a full explanation of this Bill; and think the best thing for me to do is to move the second reading, and very briefly to state what I know the Board wish to do. With regard to my hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), who has removed his Notice from the Paper, I may say that, as long as I have the honour of holding the position I do, I will never again put down my name to any Bill without some consultation with the Government. With regard to my hon. Friend opposite the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), I know he objects to the expenses but I will take care to put in a Schedule in the Bill in Committee explaining the whole matter, and I may tell my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester that a large question like this, of the supply of fresh water for the whole of the Metropolis, was very ex-

    123
    pensive, and we found it necessary to consult the best engineers and the bestchemical analysts to test the various qualities of water. When we went into the question it appeared desirable to provide a double source of supply and, after a long consultation, we found that a saving of upwards of £ 130,000 a-year would result from the adoption of a double supply, as compared with the cost of the necessary alterations in the existing supply. My hon. Friend wishes to make a statement, and I think I shall best consult the convenience of the House by reserving any observations I may have to make for my reply, although am prepared to go into the whole question. I beg, therefore, to move the second reading.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir James M' Garel-Hogg.)
    MR. MONK: The Amendment that I have had on the Paper for the last fortnight, or more, I removed at the request of my hon. and gallant Friend, who undertook to make a statement in defence of the action of the Board of Works in promoting the Water Bills of last Session. I am a little surprised that my hon and gallant Friend has made so brief a statement, and one not in any way explaining the merits of the case but as he has said he will reserve his defence, I will, as briefly as I can, state the allegations I have to make against this Bill; and I shall conclude by moving the Resolution that has been standing in my name—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, no justification is shown in this Bill for the large expenses incurred by the Metropolitan Board of Works in the preparation and in the abortive promotion of the two Bills for which they ask an indemnity from Parliament."
    It will be in the recollection of the House that last year the hon. and gallant Member introduced two measures into Parliament—one was introduced as a Public Bill, and the other, I believe, as a Private Bill; but I am not quite certain about that. [Sir JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: It was so.] In the case of the public Bill the expenses ought not to have been very great; because the promoters were spared the Parliamentary fees and costs that any other town or Corporation in the Kingdom would have had to bear inasmuch as they would have to bring in their Bill as a Private Bill; but that
    124
    is a small part of the objection I have to this proposal of my hon. and gallant Friend. The Metropolitan Board of Works having brought in these Bills they were, as a matter of course, read a first time, and subsequently a discussion took place on the second reading but I am sorry to say those hon. Members who took part in the discussion on the Water Supply last year are now conspicuous by their absence. I do not know why that is the case; but, probably, they were not aware a Bill of this importance would be brought on at 2 o'clock in the morning. I have no doubt the Metropolitan Board of Works were actuated by the best motives in seeking to provide a pure supply of water for the Metropolis; but whether they were the proper body to undertake that duty is a very different question, and one upon which, I think, it was obligatory on the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works to have consulted Her Majesty's Government. But my hon. and gallant Friend did not take that course. He introduced these Bills, and has been good enough to place in my hands the Schedule which I believe he intends to move in Committee, showing in what way those costs were incurred. Amongst them is a very large item for counsel's fees. I cannot but think if my hon. and gallant Friend had expended a small part of that sum in taking the opinion of counsel as to the legality of the proceedings of the Metropolitan Board of Works, it would have been a wiser course than that adopted; but I presume he did not do so, for if he had, he would have found out that the course the Board had adopted was certainly illegal. I am astonished my hon. and gallant Friend has not alluded to the Acts of Parliament under which the Metropolitan Board of Works were called into existence, and in which all their duties and all their powers are carefully accurately defined; but in this case, I think, he has been found wanting. If he had looked at the Acts that regulate the proceedings of the Metropolitan Board of Works, he would have seen they had no power to acquire Water Works, buy Gas Works, and initiate important schemes of that nature. In this Bill the Metropolitan Board of Works take credit for having incurred those expenses in good faith, and believing they were, in promoting the

    125
    Bills, making application to Parliament for further powers for the public benefit of the inhabitants of the Metropolis. Why has not my hon. and gallant Friend given us some reason for not having consulted the counsel who are usually consulted by the Board? Why did the Board incur those enormous expenses? For, although my hon. and gallant Friend has not stated what the amount is, in the account he has placed in my hands I find the amount to be between £ 15,000 and £ 16,000, and I shall presently have to call the attention of the House to some of those items. In the first place, the amount which is paid to counsel is £ 1,045. Then, there are two distinct accounts; but one is of the amount paid in 1878, and the other which is paid, or payable, in the year 1879. That which was paid last year has been disallowed by the auditor, and, therefore, that payment is illegal; yet, notwithstanding that, I find in the Bill before us it is stated that questions have been raised, and are still pending, as to the legality of the Metropolitan Board of Works defraying those expenses. I ask the House, if such questions are still pending, is it not premature to introduce a Bill of this nature? I should be glad to know whether this question is still pending. Is my hon. and gallant Friend prepared to admit that the act the -Metropolitan Board of Works have committed is illegal; or is he prepared to submit to a court of competent jurisdiction the question whether they were justified in incurring these expenses or not? If he is prepared to abide by the latter course, say at once the Preamble of this Bill is not proved, and we ought not to proceed further with the Bill, at all events this evening, until the question has been decided. Now, the items are remarkable. We have, first, the amount paid to engineers, which is very small—100 guineas but I find there is another for chemists of £ 1,438, and for Parliamentary Agents of £ 1,378. I have stated that engineers have been paid 100 guineas; but an item is still owing to them re new works and purchase of existing works, and as witnesses, amounting to £ 6,320 7s. 8d. I should be glad to know what are those new works which have been executed by the engineers without the sanction of Parliament? Let me remind the House
    126
    that the Bills were read a first time. [Sir JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: One was read a second time.] One was, but the other was not; and it is really trifling with the House for my hon. and. gallant Friend to make that remark, inasmuch as he dropped both the Bills at an early stage. Yet I find that £ 6,320 was spent upon works, and my hon. and gallant Friend is not justified in coming to this House and asking it to indemnify the Board for an expense of that nature. Now, Sir, I want an answer to this question. The Metropolitan Board of Works, I understand, were divided on the question as to the propriety of bringing in these Bills in 1877. I do not know—for I have not inquired—as to the number of members of the Board of Works who opposed the proposal—but I believe there was, at all events, a considerable dissentient minority. The Board of Works were warned, over and over again, that their proceedings were illegal before they brought in those Bills, and yet they persevered with them; consequently they do not come with a good grace, when they seek to saddle the ratepayers of the Metropolis with the expense. I speak on this as a public question; and I say it is not fair to seek to saddle the ratepayers with £ 15,000 or £ 16,000 in respect of schemes which they were not justified in bringing forward. Well, Sir, having done with the engineers, I find an item which has already been paid for costs—£ 1,438 for analysis; district surveyors, £ 270 Parliamentary costs, £1,378—a considerable item maps and plans, £ 400 and advertisements, £ 1,100. What on earth were those advertisements for? I must ask the question, for I have some doubts on the subject. Were they in respect of the purchase of land for the erection of works, or were they connected with the Parliamentary requirements in reference to the Private Bill? Well, Sir, the whole of those costs amounts to £15,146. Of course, it would be a great hardship, and I do not for a moment say that it ought to fall on my hon. and gallant Friend, or on his Colleagues individually; but, collectively, I think they are liable to blame for what they have done and I think there should be some guarantee on their part that such steps shall not be taken by them in future—at all

    127
    events, they will now have received fair warning, if they go beyond the letter or spirit of their Acts, that such expenses will fall upon them. This is not the first time the Metropolitan Board of "Works have exceeded their powers. Some few years ago they expended illegally some £4,000 on the erection of a pavilion and seats in Hyde Park on the occasion of a National Thanksgiving; that offence Parliament condoned.; consequently, it is not with the best grace possible that they come again before Parliament to ask for another indemnity—at all events, it is a great hardship on the ratepayers of the Metropolis. The first objection I have to the Bill itself is that no sum is named in it. The 2nd clause provides that the Metropolitan Board of Works may defray the expenses incurred by their order in the promotion of the said Bills, and preliminary and incidental thereto. I object to the wording of that clause and do so because it asks Pariament to affirm the legality of that which is illegal ab initio. You cannot make what
    has been done illegally a legal act. You may condone the offence of the Metropolitan Board of Works and defray those expenses, and override the decision of the Auditors; but you cannot, even by an Act of Parliament, say what is done illegally is legally done. The costs or expenses preliminary to, and incidental to, the preparation of this Bill are to be paid by the Metropolitan Board of Works. I ask, what are the expenses of preparing a Bill of this nature? Would five guineas be the total expense? Let us know what the amount is. I object to such a clause being inserted in a Public Act, even though it is promoted by the Metropolitan Board of Works.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. MONKresumed: I shall not detain the House much longer. I wish to draw attention to the fact that no amount is mentioned; but I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend undertakes to insert in the Bill a Schedule, giving the items of expenditure in detail. He has given that promise to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), who asked for the statement. If,
    128
    however, there is a question pending with regard to the legality of those expenses, I think that should be first decided. The words are, "questions have been raised and are pending." I will not press the matter further, if, as I understand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will move to expunge those words in Committee. There is no doubt that the functions of the Board of Works are most important—they are most useful—and have been carried out with general approval. They are a very important body—at the same time a very costly body, in some respects an extravagant body—and I believe that is the general opinion of the ratepayers of the Metropolis. I am very sorry to see there are so few of the Metropolitan Members present; but the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) is present; his name I see is on the back of this Bill, and, no doubt, he will speak on behalf of the ratepayers; indeed I hope he will urge—as I have endeavoured to do—that the Board will be more careful in the future in taking steps of a similar nature. Petitions have been presented, and meetings have been held in the Metropolis in regard to this Bill, and resolutions have been passed by the Livery of the City against the conduct of the Board of Works; but I do not consider it necessary to take up the time of the House by reading them. I have raised this question as a public question, one which, I think, is well worthy the consideration of the House. I will not further detain the House, but beg to move the Resolution I have placed in your hands.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, no justification is shown in this Bill for the large expenses incurred by the Metropolitan Board of Works in the preparation and in the abortive promotion of the two Bills for which they ask an indemnity from Parliament,"—(Mr. Monk,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR HENRY HOLLAND: I will not detain the House for more than two minutes; but as I had my name down for a short time as opposing the second reading, I wish to point out that I was

    129
    fully justified in -withdrawing it, in consequence of the full statement of the hon. and gallant Member, that he will undertake not to put his name to any Bills like those of last Session in the future without the consent of Her Majesty's Government. These Bills have cost the ratepayers some £16,000. They cost the Water Companies—although they combined with a view of reducing the expenses of opposition—some £11,000; and that money, therefore, has been simply and entirely wasted, because of those Bills having been brought in. The second Water Supply Bill was only brought in by a majority of 3—on the Metropolitan Board the numbers being 20 to 23—and on the 8th of December, when the draft was brought before the Board, the Preamble was only carried by 5—the numbers being 12 to 17, I think those circumstances fully justified me in putting down the Notice of opposition to the second reading of the Bill. The statement, however, of my hon. and gallant Friend, that he would not apply again in this way, has justified me in withdrawing it.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think it would be desirable some considerable reduction should be made in the recitement of the Preamble, and I should propose to strike out a considerable portion of it. I should also strike out "now pending," and add, at the end of Clause 2, "that such expenses be duly audited." I give Notice of those in Committee, and, with that qualification, I think we may agree to the second reading but, at the same time, I think it is a matter in which they have exceeded their powers.
    MR. LEEMAN: When the Bill is known throughout London—which I expect it will be after the discussion of to-night—there will be a strong opinion against it. It is idle, at this time of day, for the Metropolitan Board of Works to tell the people of London that they could not know they were doing that which was an illegal act. Sir, it happens in the country, when public Bodies like Municipal Corporations take upon themselves to exceed their powers, they are visited—and I do not see why the Metropolitan Board of Works should be placed in a different position—with the consequences, and could get no bill of indemnity such as this. I object to this Bill; and I am quite
    130
    certain, when it is known throughout London, the people of London will set their faces most strongly against it. I, for one, will divide the House on this question, and will not allow it to pass the second reading without a protest.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I am not aware why the hon. Member for York should speak for the ratepayers of London.
    MR. LEEMAN: I have been for years a ratepayer of London; and on that ground, if on no other, I am entitled to enter my protest against this Bill.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: As a Representative of a London constituency, I have a right to support this Bill; and if the House think well to go straight to the question, or ask why these Bills were introduced last year, I may say it was because the people of London are poisoned by the water supplied by the Water Companies, and wronged by their charges. There is the strongest feeling against the treatment the people have received at the hands of the Water Companies.
    MR. BARING: I wish to say it will be a very wrong thing to pass, at this hour of the night, a Bill for the allowance of such an expenditure by so important a public body, which ought to have availed itself of the means it had to get proper legal advice.
    MR. ONSLOW: I hope the House will pass this Bill. These Bills were brought in—I may say it was almost the result of that Committee on I which have had the honour of sitting—namely, that on the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, for, though we did not go into the question of the supply of water for domestic purposes, we could not help seeing that the water supply of the Metropolis was in a very bad state. It should also be remembered by the House that the expenses for consulting the most experienced engineers are very heavy, and that the Metropolitan Board of Works have to find the best help they can among the civil engineers, and, as we all know, they charge a very high price indeed for their professional services. I am not interested, in any gas or water shares, and, at the present time, I am not a ratepayer; so that I can speak perfectly independently from the facts brought before me when sat upon that Committee, and I hope that the water supply of London, by some plan or other,

    131
    may be improved. I hope the House will agree to the passing of this Bill, as I think it is perfectly necessary.
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: I think I may appeal to the sympathy of the House in the course I have taken in bringing my case before them. I was perfectly prepared to enter fully on the whole question; but I refrained from doing so at so late a hour. As to the legality which has been questioned, allow me to ask the House to have patience, and hear the 144th Section of the Metropolis Management Act, which is as follows:—
    "The Metropolitan Board of Works shall have power to make, widen, or improve any streets, roads, or ways, for facilitating the passage and traffic between different parts of the Metropolis, or to contribute and join with any persons in any such improvements as aforesaid, and to take by agreement or by gift any land, rights in land, or property, for the purposes aforesaid (or otherwise) for the improvement of the Metropolis, on such terms and conditions as they may think fit; and such Board where it appears to them that further powers are required for the purpose of any work for the improvement of the Metropolis or public benefit of the inhabitants thereof, may make applications to Parliament for that purpose, and the expenses of such application may be defrayed as other expenses of the said Board."
    We have been for the last 23 years doing our best for the good of the Metropolis we have, by our action with regard to gas legislation, been the means of improving the quality and reducing the price of gas we have done, year by year, all we could to improve the general condition of the Metropolis, and the auditor has passed the accounts. There has never been a single question raised as regards the power of the Board to promote Bills, until the present occasion; and it is by no means clear that the decision of the auditor is right. We have had counsel's opinion, and there is great variance in the views expressed on the subject; but, in order to set the matter at rest, we thought it right to come to Parliament for an Act of Indemnity; and I hope, next Session, Her Majesty's Government will introduce a Bill for the purpose of letting us know what our powers really are.
    MR. BOORD: I wish to explain the reason for my vote. I shall vote for the Bill; and I shall do so because I understood, the hon. and gallant Member has promised that such a thing shall not occur again. I think the Metropolitan
    132
    Board are a very extravagant body; and though they do some good, they do that good in a most extravagant and costly manner.
    COLONEL MAKINS: I wish to refer to one remark of the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke). He says the water of London poisons the persons who drink it. Whatever else the Water Companies have done—whether they have robbed and poisoned the people or not—they have done all they could—they have carried out their bond; and I think it is a strong way of putting things, when they have done all they could, that they should be accused of robbery and murder.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 37; Noes 12: Majority 25.—(Div. List, No. 158.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time and committed for Monday next.
    MR. MONK: I wish to ask my hon. and gallant Friend if, before Monday, he will place on the Paper the Schedule which was asked for by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson)?
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: The Schedule will be put in the Bill.
    MR. MONK: Unless the Schedule is placed on the Notice Paper, I beg to give Notice that I shall move that the Bill be committed on that day three months. I do that because the hon. and gallant Member gave a distinct pledge that he would place the Schedule in the Bill.
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: I said I would have it put in the Bill.
    MR. MONK: Then I withdraw my Notice.
    House adjourned at Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Conveyancing and Land Transfer (Scotland) Act (1874) Amendment* (141); Cork Borough Quarter Sessions * (142); Highway Accounts (Returns) * (143); Public Loans Remission * (144).
Second Reading;—Sale of Food and Drugs Act (1875) Amendment* (127).
Committee—Report—Public Health Act (1875) Amendment (Interments) (123).
Report—Wormwood Scrubs Regulation* (128).

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT (1875) AMENDMENT (INTERMENTS) BILL—(No. 123.)
(The Earl Stanhope.)
PUBLIC HEALTH ACT (1875) AMENDMENT (INTERMENTS) BILL—(No. 123.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Earl Stanhope.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYrose to move that the House resolve itself into Committee that day three months; and said, that, although his noble Friend the Leader of the Opposition in that House had taken a Division on the second reading of this Bill, he had thought it right to give Notice of his intention to take the sense of the House on the measure a second time, because, in the debate on the second reading, their Lordships were not favoured with the opinion of the Government. He hoped they would now hear that opinion, and especially the opinion of the Local Government Board. The Bill was not a very important one; but it was not one that ought to pass without its provisions being thoroughly understood. It was extremely short. The operative clause was in these terms—
  "The provisions of the principal Act, as to a place for the reception of the dead before interment, in the principal Act called a mortuary, shall extend to a place for the interment of the dead, in this Act called a cemetery; and the

  3
  purposes of the principal Act shall include the acquisition, construction, and maintenance of a cemetery. A local authority may acquire, construct, and maintain a cemetery, either wholly or partly, within or without, their district, subject as to works without their district for the purpose of a cemetery to the provisions of the principal Act as to sewage works by a local authority without their district. A local authority may accept a donation of land for the purpose of a cemetery, and a donation of money or other property for enabling them to acquire, construct, or maintain a cemetery."
  The Public Health Act of 1875 provided for the supply by the local authority of a mortuary for the reception of dead bodies; this Bill extended that provision to cemeteries, and being construed with the 141st clause of the principal Act, enacted that the local authority might, and when required by the Local Government Board should, provide a cemetery. If the Bill became law, there would be three classes of burial places—the churchyards, the cemeteries provided by the Burial Boards, and the cemeteries to be established under this Act. The sanitary authority, which might be the Board of Guardians, would be enabled to provide cemeteries at the expense of the ratepayers and subject to none of the provisions of the Burial Acts. It might provide an entirely consecrated burial ground or an entirely unconsecrated one. The Bill, so far from remedying, would, in his judgment, aggravate the evils that at present existed in connection with the Burial Laws. It was an insidious Bill, for under the guise of an apparently simple clause in this short Bill the whole Burial Law of the country would be altered. Though a Poor Law Guardian himself, he ventured to think that the machinery of a Board of Guardians was not the best one for such a purpose as that. Many persons thought that this was an injudicious Bill, and one calculated to increase the grievance of which the Dissenters now complained. The Nonconformists claimed to have their dead buried in churchyards in such a manner as should not violate their consciences and they were offered cemeteries in substitution for churchyards, to be provided at the expense of the ratepayers. He was certain that no contrivance of the kind would be satisfactory to the Nonconformist bodies. The noble Earl concluded by moving that the House do resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill that day three months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months.")—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, that this Bill, like all the Burial Acts which had ever been passed, had been introduced on grounds of public health. Up to this time, under the operation of the previous Acts, some thousands of burial grounds had been closed, and from 3,000 to 4,000 cemeteries opened. This Bill was introduced into the House of Commons in December last, and passed a second reading and went through Committee without opposition. On the third reading, a Motion was made for its rejection by the hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan), who seemed to have a vested interest in the burial question but the vote which carried the third reading was not a Party one, for the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), and others of his Friends, voted against him. The Bill was a well-considered one. The noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) appeared to think it was not necessary; but he would ask whether any noble Lord opposite who had filled the Office of Home Secretary had ever arrived at any definite understanding of the Burial Acts? It was true that under the existing Acts the Burial Boards were compelled to have unconsecrated burial ground; and there could be no doubt that the Local Government Board, who had control over the sanitary authorities in this matter, would give the fullest consideration to the wants of Nonconformists, and would never sanction a burial ground in which provision was not made for their wants. There was no existing Act to compel any district to have a burial ground, and at this moment the large town of Northampton was without a public one. Under the Bill, for the first time, where there was a local authority, and the Local Government Board ordered the closing of a burial ground as dangerous to public health, the Board could compel it to establish a cemetery. From his own experience at the Home Office, he did not think the Home Secretary was called on to perform any more painful duty than that of deciding on-the application of persons to have interments made in the family graves of closed

  5
  cemeteries. He hoped that the question of passing this Bill would not be made one between Churchmen and Dissenters—that no such attempt would be made to amplify a little measure; but that their Lordships would agree to the Bill as one which was required to meet a necessity of the public health.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYasked, where was the clause in the Bill which gave the Local Government Board a controlling power in the matter?
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, that it would be found in the Acts incorporated with the Bill.
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, the contention on his side of the House was that no provisions for the equal burial of Churchmen and Dissenters were to be found in the Bill. If he were only convinced that both sides would receive equal advantages, he would support the Bill. Then the manner in which the Bill had been brought forward looked very like legislation by surprise, and its very title was misleading. There were many things included in the measure which had nothing to do with public health. He denied, also, the statement of the noble Viscount that all the Burial Acts which had been passed had been passed in the interests of public health. Surely a measure proposing so important an alteration in the existing law Should not be sanctioned until it was thoroughly understood, especially as it was proposed to take money from the local rates. So far from this, however, eminent Nonconformists, including Members of the other House of Parliament, now expressed their astonishment at the Bill, which had not been looked into, and was not understood by them, before it passed the House of Commons. Under the Cemeteries Act, which was to be incorporated with this Bill, no provision was made for equality as regarded Church and Dissent; for if the Bishop of the diocese called on the local authorities to provide a cemetery and chapel they were compelled to do so; whereas, in all other cases, it was provided that they "may," if they think fit. He asked the right rev. Prelate opposite (the Bishop of Peterborough) whether, under the existing law, there was not equality, as a portion of the cemeteries now established must be consecrated?
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGHsaid, he would not trouble their Lordships by entering into a discussion of the principles of the Bill; but the challenge just thrown out to him by his noble Friend was one which he could not pass by. His noble Friend appealed to him as to the correctness of his statement that under the existing Cemeteries Act there was perfect equality, inasmuch as private companies formed under that Act could be compelled by the Bishop to set apart a certain portion of the ground in their cemeteries for consecration at his hands. He could furnish a fact that was conclusive against that proposition. In Northampton, which was within his own diocese, and where for years all the parish grave-yards had been closed by Act of Parliament, there existed no public cemetery, but the cemetery in the hands of a private company. That private company, the majority of which were Dissenters, had not only not been compelled to have a portion of their ground consecrated, but they had repeatedly refused to do so; and at that moment Churchmen in Northampton were by his open connivance interred in unconsecrated ground with the service of the Church. He thought there ought to be equality towards all. For himself, he would be perfectly content to see a cemetery no portion of which was consecrated, and in which all might be buried without distinction, with their own forms. He mentioned that to show that it was in no illiberal spirit he expressed his opinion that the existing law did not do justice to Churchmen who desired to have consecrated ground.
  LORD SELBORNEsaid, that under this Bill every Town Council, without any control, and Board of Guardians throughout the country, subject to a certain limited control, could do the very same thing, either in favour of the Church or against the Church, as had been done at Northampton. Under the existing Burials Acts, when a new cemetery was established, it must be done on equal terms as between Churchmen and Dissenters; but under this Bill the local authorities would have the power of establishing out of the rates—that was, by public taxation, purely sectarian burial grounds; so that, instead of removing or mitigating any existing sense of grievance, the Bill would merely in-

  7
  troduce a new element of discord. If they wanted to enlarge or alter the powers of the Burials Acts, let them do so but he deprecated their going back, from the policy of the Burials Acts, to the imperfect policy of earlier Acts, enabling companies to make cemeteries throughout the country because, if they reverted to such a policy, sectarian questions would arise under colour of a Bill professedly intended for the purposes of public health. And to enable this to be done out of rates was quite a new thing in public legislation; it was, in fact, to reverse the policy of the Church Bates Abolition Act.
  LORD NORTONsaid, that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Aberdare) had forgotten the Acts later than the only one he cited; which, in acknowledgment of the failure of the attempt to insist on posthumous schism in grave-yards, and of the enactment that there should always be unconsecrated as well as consecrated ground in every cemetery, and chapels for each, had provided that there might be either the one or other, or both, just as any locality desired. The principle of these later Acts was the principle of this Bill. The noble and learned Lord who had just spoken made the same mistake; and the Northampton case only showed the necessity of some authority being made to act, where no one was inclined to make requisite provision for burials at all. He, however, supported the Bill on sanitary grounds. It was distinctly a sanitary measure, and the first attempt to carry into full effect the recommendations of the Sanitary Commission over which he had presided for two years to make it part of the duties of local authorities to provide proper interment of the dead. He must point out that this Bill would only enact in respect of cemeteries what was already law in the case of mortuaries.
  EARL COWPERobserved, that the fact that this Bill had passed through the House of Commons without discussion, except upon its third reading, was hardly surprising, inasmuch as some Bills were considered in the other House at such enormous length, and with such copiousness, that hon. Members got sick and passed other measures through the Forms of the House at a late hour of the night hurriedly, without giving them sufficient consideration. This, it -was said, was merely a sanitary measure;
  8
  but the only reason given for placing it under that description was that the power was lodged in the local sanitary authorities. For his own part, he objected to any increased power in this matter being given to the sanitary authorities in the rural districts, for their action had certainly not rendered it advisable to increase their power in any way. The default of those bodies he regarded as a fundamental one, due to their constitution—namely, that under their constitution taxation and representation did not go together. Under this Bill, the sanitary authorities would have power to establish cemeteries consisting wholly of consecrated ground and after the decision which that House had come to two years ago, that all churchyards in the country should be open to all religious bodies, provided their funerals were conducted in a Christian and orderly manner, their Lordships would be stultifying themselves if they gave authority to any bodies to establish cemeteries in which restrictions were imposed upon burials. He hoped that the House would divide, and that the result of the hurried Division of the other night would be reversed.
  LORD DENMANhoped that no alteration would be made in the Bill.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 117; Not-Contents 69: Majority 48.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Archp.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queens-berry.)

  Cairns, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  York, L. Archp.

  Dundonald, E.

  Eldon, E.

  Leeds, D

  Gainsborough, E.

  Richmond, D

  Hardwicke, E.

  Harewood, E.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Lanesborough, E

  Lonsdale, E.

  Abergavenny, M.

  Lucan, E.

  Bristol, M.

  Macclesfield, E.

  Exeter, M.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Hertford, M.

  Morton, E.

  Salisbury, M.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Nelson, E.

  Amherst, E.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

  Bathurst, E.

  Beaconsfield, E.

  Powis, E.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Redesdale, E.

  Bradford, E.

  Romney, E.

  Brownlow, E.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Cadogan, E.

  Sandwich, E.

  Coventry, E.

  Stanhope, E. [Taller]

  Dartmouth, E,

  Verulam, E.

  Devon, E,

  Wharncliffe, E.

  Wilton, E.

  Gordon of Drumearn, L

  Bridport, V.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

  Cranbrook, V.

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

  Hardinge, V.

  Hampton, L.

  Hawarden, V.

  Harlech, L.

  Hood, V.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Melville, V.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Strathallan, V.

  Kenlis, L. (M. Head-fort.)

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  Leconfield, L.

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Lilford, L.

  Ely, L. Bp.

  Lovel and Holland, L.(E. Egmont.)

  Llandaff, L. Bp.

  London, L. Bp.

  Manners, L.

  Peterborough, L. Bp.

  Norton, L.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  O'Neill, L.

  St. David's, L. Bp.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Alington, L.

  Raglan, L.

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfarly.)

  Aveland, L.

  Bagot, L.

  Rivers, L.

  Bateman, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Bolton, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Long-ford.)

  Brodrick. L. (V. Midleton..)

  Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Sondes, L.

  Clements, L. (E. Lei-trim.)

  Strathnairn, L.

  Strathspey, L. (E. Sea-field.)

  Clinton, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Denman, L.

  Tyrone, L. (M. Water-ford.)

  de Ros, L.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Walsingham, L.

  Forbes, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Forester, L.

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick)

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Bedford, D.

  Sydney, E.

  Devonshire, D.

  Zetland, E.

  Westminster, D.

  Canterbury, V.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Cardwell, V.

  Northampton, M.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Ripon, M.

  Aberdare, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Annaly, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Blantyre, L.

  Chichester, E.

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

  Cowper, E.

  Breadalbane, L. [E. Breadalbance.)

  Dartrey, E.

  Fortescue, E.

  Carrington, L.

  Granville, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Ilchester, E.

  Kimberley, E.

  Castletown, L.

  Minto, E.

  Churchill, L.

  Morley, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L

  Portsmouth, E.

  Spencer, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  10

  Congleton, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bess-borough.)

  Dacre, L.

  Ebury, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Elgin, L. ( Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Robartes, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Emly, L.

  Rosebery, L. (Rosebery..

  Foley, L.

  Hammond, L.

  Sandys, L.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Hatherley, L.

  Selborne, L.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Leigh, L.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Sudeley, L.

  Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

  Truro, L.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Vernon L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Vivian, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Waveney, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  House in Committee accordingly; Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Tuesday next.
  LORD ABERDAREgave Notice that on the third reading he would bring forward Amendments which, from some unfortunate mistake, had not been printed on the Notice Paper.

THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTIONS.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, it would be in the recollection of their Lordships that Her Majesty Commissioners for the Exhibition of 1851 proposed in the year l860 to let a portion of the ground purchased by them at South Kensington to the Royal Horticultural Society, who were to form the Gardens there; and, by certain agreements between the two Corporations the Society was authorized to borrow £ 50,000 on debentures, and the Commissioners engaged to expend £ 50,000 in forming earthworks and building the arcades. The Society not only spent the whole of the £ 50,000 raised upon their debentures, but also a large sum of money—£ 25,000—received for life-fellowships in building the conservatory and forming the Gardens. The interest on the debenture debt was made payable out of the receipts from the Gardens, as defined by the original agreement, after paying all necessary expenses; and after payment of such interest the balance up to £2,400 was to be paid to the Commissioners as in-

  11
  terest on their outlay by way of rent. The receipts of the Gardens, in spite of the most rigid economy, had unfortunately not been sufficient of late years to pay the debenture interest; and in March last Her Majesty's Commissioners, alleging a right of re-entry, commenced a suit in Chancery to recover possession of the Gardens without compensation to anyone—the effect of which suit, if successful, would be to destroy the security of the debenture-holders and the rights of life-fellows. He wished, therefore, to ask the Lord President the following Questions:—Whether it was true that Her Majesty's Commissioners for the Exhibition of 1851 had commenced a suit in Chancery against the Royal Horticultural Society in order to recover possession of the Gardens at South Kensington, now in the occupation of the Society whether it was the fact that this proceeding, if carried into effect, would extinguish the liability of Her Majesty's Commissioners to pay the holders of the Horticultural Society's debentures ten shillings in the pound in 1892, provided Her Majesty's Commissioners should, at that date, decline to renew the Society's lease and, whether, if the facts were as stated, Her Majesty's Commissioners proposed to make any compensation to the debenture-holders for the security now held by them, which it was thus proposed to extinguish?
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the Lord President had requested him to answer the Questions of the noble Viscount, as he was one of the Commissioners of 1851. It was true that such a suit had been commenced. But with regard to the other matters included in the Question, he had to state that the Commissioners never had been, were not, and never could be under any liability to pay the debentures of the Royal Horticultural Society, and that, this being so, they did not propose to make any compensation to the debenture-holders.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.