Sitting of 14 July 1879

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—East Indian Railway (Redemption of Annuities) * [244].
Second Reading—Turnpike Acts Continuance* [239]; Commons Act (1876) Amendment* [233].
Committee—Army Discipline and Regulation [88]—R. P.; Railways and Telegraphs in India (re-comm.) * [234]—R. P.
Committee—Report—Industrial Schools (Powers of School Boards)* [242]; Artizans' Dwellings Act (1868) Extension (re-comm.) [236].
Considered as amended—Children's Dangerous Performances* [229].
Third Reading—New Forest Act (1877) Amendment * [210], and passed.
Withdrawn—Grand Juries (Ireland) * [199]; County Boards * [105]; Rivers Conservancy * [179]; County Courts (No. 2)* [191]; Patents for Invention (No. 2) * [77]; Criminal Code (Indictable Offences)* [170].

QUESTIONS.

  COMMISSARIAT AND ORDNANCE STORE DEPARTMENTS—RE-ORGANIZATION.—QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKasked the Secretary of State for War, When it is probable that the long-promised Warrant for the reorganisation of the Commissariat Department will be published; whether, considering the great demands which the war in South Africa is making on the services of that department, he will consider the advisability of setting the officers at rest as to their future prospects as soon as possible; and, when he proposes to deal, in a similar manner, with the claims of the Ordnance Store Department?
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL, in reply, said, that the Warrant for the re-organization of the Commissariat Department was now on its way to the Treasury, and he hoped it would be shortly published. The position of the officers of the Ordnance Store Department as regarded pay, promotion, and retirement, would be on all fours with that of the officers of the Commissariat Department. There would be no unnecessary delay in the publication.

  INDIAN OATHS ACT—ALLEGED TORTURE.—QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, with reference to an alleged use of torture in a case tried before an assistant magistrate in India, Whether he can now state the result of the further inquiries into the subject which he undertook to make?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Sir, I received this morning a communication on the subject from his Grace the Governor of Madras in reply to my letter. His Grace informs me that no question of torture was ever raised in connection with the proceedings of Mr. Cox in April, 1878, and there was, in fact, no torture. What happened was this. By the Indian Oaths Act, oaths may be administered in any form common among, or held binding by persons of, the race or persuasion to which the witness belongs. Among the Tamil race the form of oath held most binding is one taken by the swearer in the act of worship with light in hand.

  299
  Burning camphor is frequently used for lights in Temple ceremonies. Mr. Cox, in the course of his inquiry into the malpractices of certain village authorities, found great difficulty in obtaining evidence from inferiors against superiors. In his anxiety to elicit the whole truth he allowed himself to commit certain irregularities. First, he directed the Tahsildar to call up certain persons to Arconum and to detain them there three days in order to remove them from the pressure of objection able influence, which he had no legal authority to do. Secondly, he directed the witnesses to be sworn in their most binding manner, intending it to be done under the provisions of the Indian Oaths Act. He omitted, however, to obtain the offer of the persons to submit to the binding form of oath, but required them to take it. This, although there is no report of any objection, was beyond the law. And he also allowed the oath to be taken in an informal manner. The Sessions Judge made severe comments on these irregularities, and sent up the case to the High Court. The High Court made no order, apparently thinking the notice of the Sessions Judge sufficient. The matter was some months afterwards reported to the Government of Madras; and they, notwithstanding the Judge's remarks, recorded an opinion that Mr. Cox's procedure was:—
  " Most irregular and improper, directly calculated to encourage subordinate officials in a resort to illegal expedients in similar cases,"
  and directed their opinion to be communicated to Mr. Cox. His Grace particularly wishes me to add that throughout seven years' service Mr. Cox has proved himself a good officer and magistrate, no previous overstepping of his authority having occurred, nor any complaint of irregularity of procedure. During a long and harassing course of famine duty he proved himself a good and considerate officer.

  ARMY—ARMY SERVICE—REPORT OF COMMITTEE.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL ARBUTHNOTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has yet considered the Report of the Committee which inquired into the question of the service of Officers under twenty years of age and other matters; if he has arrived at any decision on those
  300
  points; and, whether he has any objection to lay the Report upon the Table?
  COLONEL STANLEY, in reply, said, he could not state in terms the decision at which the Committee had arrived with respect to this matter. A small Committee had sat, presided over by his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, and they had drawn up a very able Report. That Report had been put into the form of a Warrant and was now being embodied in a Circular. That was all he could state.

  CRIMINAL LAW—POISONING BY ALCOHOL.—QUESTION.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of a hawker, named Finley, whose death a coroner's jury has found to have resulted from poisoning by alcohol; whether it is a fact that, on the day of his death, a bottle of whiskey was supplied to him at the Royal Hotel tap, Winchester, for the purpose of consumption on the premises, that he drank the whiskey in about the space of twenty minutes, and died within a few hours; and, whether the conduct of those who supplied this man with drink requires any further investigation by the authorities?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Yes, Sir; I am afraid the facts stated in the hon. Baronet's Question are true, and a most disgraceful state of facts it is. I have called the attention of the Mayor of the town to the matter, and I have confidence from his judgment and right-mindedness that the investigation of the case may be safely left in his hands.

  SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT—UNITED WESTMINSTER SCHOOL OF ART—SUSPENSION OF MR. GOFFIN.

    QUESTION.
    COLONEL BERESFORDasked the Vice President of the Council on Education, Whether, before taking the Vote for the "Science and Art Department," he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of any further Correspondence between the Science and Art Department and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the United Westminster School, in continuation of Papers already presented; and, whether he would in-

    301
    clude the documentary evidence referred to on page 37, Parliamentary Paper, No. 86, consisting of the boys' note-books and notes of their written admissions, and of the notes taken by Captain Abney of the answers of four of the boys?
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, there will be no objection to the production of further Correspondence on this subject, and the Correspondence will itself explain the difficulty of producing the notes and documentary evidence alluded to in the way required. As the suspension of Mr. Goffin has in certain quarters excited a great deal of interest, and as the Governing Body of the school of which he is head-master are dissatisfied with that decision, it may be convenient if I were now to state the course which we propose to pursue. The hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock), who is the head of the Governing Body, has, within the last few days, put a Notice upon the Paper, asking for a Select Committee to inquire into this case. Facts have, within the last few days, also come to our notice which makes it, in our opinion, very advisable that a searching inquiry should at once be instituted into all the transactions connected with Mr. Goffin's suspension. I shall, therefore, propose to move, as soon as is possible, for a Select Committee to inquire into and report upon the circumstances relating to the charges against Mr. Goffin.

  INDIA—DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND COMMERCE.—QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether, since this House has affirmed the need of a Department of Agriculture and Commerce in this Country where there is so much private enterprise, the Secretary of State for India will reconsider the propriety of abolishing the Department of Agriculture and Commerce established by the late Lord Mayo in India, where the people are so much less able to help themselves, and of reforming and improving that Department rather than abolish it?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Sir, at present we have hardly received any information on the subject mentioned by the hon. Member. We know that the Government of India has transferred to the Home Department the duties at present
  302
  discharged in the Department of Revenue, Agriculture, and Commerce. I believe that it is expected, from the diminution of other duties, the Home Department will be fully able to undertake them.

  RIVERS CONSERVANCY BILL.

    QUESTION.
    MR. GARFITasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Rivers Conservancy Bill this Session?
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, he was sorry to state that the Government thought they would not be able to proceed with the Bill this Session.

  ARTIZANS' AND LABOURERS' DWELLINGS ACT, 1875—COST OF METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. FAWCETTasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether, as it has been stated that the loss caused to the Metropolitan ratepayers by clearing six sites under "The Artizans and Labourers Dwelling Act, 1875," will be over £ 550,000, he can inform the House if any estimate has been formed of what will be the entire loss to the Metropolitan ratepayers from carrying out this Act in the Metropolis; whether any representation has been made by the Board to the Home Secretary with a view to such an amendment of the Act of 1875 as will diminish the cost of carrying it into operation; and, if such representation has been made, what was the reply received?
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: Sir, it is impossible to say what will be the entire cost to the Metropolitan ratepayers of carrying out the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act, as there are many cases before the Board in respect of which schemes have not yet been prepared nor estimates made. Up to the present time, of 14 schemes approved by Parliament, the loss on the six sites referred to will be £ 562,061, while that on the remaining eight is estimated at £ 514,409, assuming that the prices received for land equal, and do not exceed, those already offered. The whole matter is under consideration by a Committee of the Board, who propose

    303
    to make a representation to the Secretary of State, with a view to an amendment of the Act.

  EAST INDIA MUSEUM, SOUTH KENSINGTON.—QUESTION.
  MR. GRANT DUFFasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that it is intended to break up and disperse the Museum which was collected by the East India Company and was transferred from the Company to the Crown when the change of Government took place?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Sir, it has been decided by the Secretary of State in Council to remove the collections now in the East India Museum at South Kensington. The distribution of these collections has not yet been determined on, and is the subject of investigation by a Committee in communication with the authorities at the British Museum, South Kensington, and Kew Gardens. The main object which is expected to be gained by this step is the increased utility of the collections to the public. The Economic Section, for instance, could be maintained and perfected with great public advantage in the experienced hands of Sir Joseph Hooker at Kew, where he already has a far better collection of similar objects; while as regards the Zoological, Ethnological, and Art collections, their transfer to departments where they will be more generally seen and appreciated seems better than to retain them in a Museum which, somehow or other, does not attract visitors. I may add that it will have the additional advantage of causing an ultimate saving to the Indian Re-venues of £ 9,000 a-year.

  CRIMINAL LAW—CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SOLDIERS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Secretary of State for War, If there is any record kept by the Military authorities, or by any department of the War Office, of the number and result of criminal proceedings instituted against soldiers before the civil tribunals in the United Kingdom?
    COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, there is no such record in any Department of the War Office, as far as I can ascertain.
    304
    The only record kept by the military authorities is the entries in the regimental books after each man's name.

  DELAYED IRISH RETURNS.

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When the Correspondence between the local authorities, under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, and the authorities of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and with the Chief Secretary, ordered by this House, will be laid upon the Table of the House? Also, when the Return with regard to Admiralty cases in the Belfast and Cork Local Courts, ordered by this House on the 19th ult. will be laid upon the Table?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, I hope to lay the Correspondence under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act on the Table before many days. The Return with regard to Admiralty cases has been furnished; but it is not yet in proper form, although I hope in some few days it will be.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—WRECK OF THE "STATE OF LOUISIANA" ON THE HUNTER'S ROCK, LARNE.

    QUESTION.
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the danger to navigation caused by the wreck of the ocean-going steamer "State of Louisiana," which has lain at the entrance of Lame Harbour since the 26th December last; and, whether it is proposed to take any steps for the speedy removal of the wreck?
    VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, the Commissioners of Irish Lights, who are the responsible authority, have not considered it necessary either to light or to remove the wreck, inasmuch as the Hunter's Rock, on which it lies, is a well-known danger, which is already buoyed and marked by a red sector of light from the Larne Lighthouse, and for the avoidance of which instructions are carefully laid down in the sailing directions. An additional or wreck-buoy has been placed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights, who have stated to me that there is no further danger to navigation than that which has hitherto existed in the rock itself. I am advised

    305
    that, even before the wreck occurred, it would have been a most hazardous proceeding for a master knowingly to shape a course to go over the rock.

  BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND)—SALARIES OF THE STAFF.

    QUESTION.
    COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Government to carry into effect the recommendations (which have now been before them for twelve months) of Lord Crichton's Committee of Inquiry into the Board of Works in Ireland, as regards the salaries of the staff; and, whether there is any reason for delaying further the decision on that part of the Report which deals with the special cases of hardship in the office establishment directed to be inquired into by Colonel Stanley's letter of the 7th January 1878?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: Sir, the Treasury had hoped to be able to deal with the cases referred to before now; but on considering the main questions dealt with by the Committee, it appeared that they involved a consideration of certain of the duties of the Local Government Board, and of the relation of that Department to the Board of Works. It is thought that a better distribution of duties may be made between the two than that which now exists; but it has not been possible during the Session to give sufficient time to the subject to arrange details of the scheme, and it is intended to postpone further action till the autumn. Meanwhile, with such a scheme in contemplation, it is not a favourable moment for re-adjusting the salaries of an establishment which may be seriously affected by it.

  TURKEY—CHEFKET PASHA.

    QUESTIONS.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Chefket Pasha has been appointed by the Turkish Government to an important command in that portion of Thessaly which lies to the south of the line named in the Thirteenth Protocol of the Congress of Berlin.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Chefket Pasha who has
    306
    been appointed to an important command in Thessaly is the Chefket Pasha specially mentioned by the Earl of Derby in an official Despatch to Sir Henry Elliot, dated 21st September, 1877 (Turkey, No. 1, 1877, No. 316), ordering him to demand audience of the Sultan, and to require the punishment of the authors of the atrocities in Bulgaria?
    MR. BOURKE: I do not suppose anyone can doubt that the Chefket Pasha referred to in the Question of the hon. Member for Chelsea is the same person as is alluded to in the Question of the hon. Member for Frome. In November last Chefket Pasha was transferred from Manister to Larissa in Thessaly, where he is serving, we understand, under the orders of Mushir Pasha. That is all I can say on the subject.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIAN ADVANCE ON MERV.—QUESTION.
  MR. C. BECKETT-DENISONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the Government have any reliable information as to the military operations of Russia against the Turkomans in the direction of Merv; and, whether any inquiries have been made at St. Petersburg as to the aim and object of those operations?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government believe that operations have been undertaken lately from the Attrek in the direction of that portion of the country which is inhabited by the Tekke Turkomans. With regard to the second part of the Question, the Russian Government have denied formally to Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg, and the Russian Ambassador here has also formally denied to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that there is any intention to march further towards Merv.

  BURIALS ACTS—CHURCHYARDS (ENGLAND).—QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been directed to the numerous churchyards in England which are full, and therefore unfit for further interment in them; also, that the number of these is constantly increasing, without any adequate remedy to abate this evil being applied by the parishes so circumstanced; whether he

  307
  will grant a Return, in a tabulated form, of the various parishes in which the above is the case; and, whether the Government intend taking any, and, if so, what steps without delay to compel the parishes, where such a state of things exists, to provide a remedy by the enlargement of the existing churchyards or otherwise?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, I have no doubt a considerable number of churchyards in England are very full. Some time ago the Government wished to have a very accurate Return; but it was found such a Return would not cost less than £ 5,000, and we did not think ourselves justified in putting the public to that expense. Certain Returns, however, have been made which there will be no objection to lay on the Table. I have no power when a churchyard is full to order a parish to enlarge it; or to close it; but I hope that this question will in future be treated as a sanitary matter, and that something will be done to remedy the inconvenience complained of.

  CRIMINAL LAW—IMPRISONMENT FOR STEALING FLOWERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. PEASEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the circumstance of two little girls being sent from Camborne Petty Sessions to the county gaol at Bodmin under the following circumstances:—That one girl, named Madden, was about 11 years of age; that the other girl, named Stevens, was only about nine years of age; that they had neither of them ever been convicted before; that they were fatherless and the children of very poor widows; that the crime with which they were charged was that of stealing the flowers, or the plants and flowers, off a grave in the churchyard of Lelant; that they pleaded guilty on the 3rd of June, and were fined Is. and costs; on the 24th of June, in default of payment, they were sentenced to seven days in Bodmin gaol; that they were actually in gaol six days, having arrived there the day after commitment; and whether he thought little children of such an age should, under such circumstances, be sent to county gaols?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, I have said, over and over again, that I am altogether opposed to the sending such
  308
  young persons to gaol. I gave orders long ago that if any such case occurred my attention should be called to it at once. The facts in this case did not come to my knowledge till the term of imprisonment had expired. With regard to the facts stated, I have received a communication from the clerk to the Justices; and it is but just to the magistrates that I should state that, according to that letter, the circumstances of the case are inaccurately put in the Question. I am told that the offenders were not young children of nine and 11, but girls of 14 and 15 years. The offence had been one of frequent occurrence, and it was not only that flowers in graveyards had been plucked, but the plants were torn up and taken away. Such a practice could not be allowed to go on.

  CLERKS OF THE GROWN (IRELAND):—REPAYMENT OF ADVANCES.

    QUESTION.
    MR. MURPHYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, What has been the cause of the delay in the repayment to the several Clerks of the Crown and Peace in Ireland of the amounts which have been disbursed by them to 31st December 1878, in discharge of the expenses of their offices, and for which payments vouchers have been furnished to the Treasury; and, why those officers have been obliged to continue to make advances out of their own moneys to meet expenses necessary to enable the business of their several departments to be carried on?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: Sir, the delay has arisen from a difficulty in determining the amount with which, the Clerks of the Crown and Peace should be debited in respect of the expense of keeping open an office in the Assize towns of their counties, as they are required to do by the County Officers and Courts Act. But it is hoped that this difficulty will soon be removed, and, in the meantime, in order to save the officers inconvenience, the Treasury has authorized payment to them of proportions varying from two-thirds to three-fourths of the amounts of their claims.

  INTEMPERANCE—LEGISLATION.

    QUESTION.
    MR. STEVENSON askedthe Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he is prepared to announce the course

    309
    which, the Government intend to take in regard to the recommendations of the Lords Committee on Intemperance, particularly as to the hours of closing on Sundays; or, if the Government intend to embody their views in a Bill to be laid upon the Table of the House before the close of the Session?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, it is not very convenient to take a particular part of the Report of the Lords' Committee on Intemperance, in order to ascertain the views of the Government upon that Report. I have no intention to introduce a Bill at present, and think it will be quite time for me to express the views of the Government when it becomes necessary to introduce a Bill on the subject.

  INDIA-KIRWEE PRIZE FUND.

    QUESTION.
    LORD GEORGE CAVENDISHasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he would explain why the Return, No. 213, of Session 1876, which does not account for all the movable assets of the ex-chiefs of Kirwee, has been presented to the House as a complete Return of all their movable assets; and, why the amount retained, as a right of war or otherwise, by the local Government, has not been entertained therein as the Parliamentary Orders of Session 1873 and Session 1874 expressly require?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: Sir, I am afraid that I can add very little to a former answer of mine on the same subject. The third and final distribution was ordered to be made on the number of shares admitted to the 31st March, 1876, since which date some few claims have been admitted in addition to that number. Exclusive of these later admissions, the balance against the Treasury on that date was Rupees 15,235 2 6. The Return of 1876 is complete, and:—
    " Shows the amount of all movable property of enemies or insurgents in the territories of Oude or Kirwee, or of the proceeds thereof, which have passed into the possession of the authorities of India since the outbreak of the war in 1857, distinguishing the funds which have been distributed among the troops and the funds which have been retained or otherwise disposed of by the local Government."
    It thus complies in every detail with the Parliamentary Orders of 1873–4. I am informed that the promissory notes
    310
    to which the noble Lord alludes never passed into the possession of the authorities in India. According to the Report of the Advocate General in 1862, there was no seizure or capture of these notes, and they consequently have never become prize.

  AFGHANISTAN—THE CEDED DISTRICTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. C. BECKETT-DENISONasked, Whether the troops had returned within the limits of India proper, and what arrangements had been made for guarding our newly-acquired territory?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I can only give the movements of the troops on the line of the Khyber Pass, and as regards those of particular regiments, I can give no more information than my hon. Friend will find in the newspapers. The garrisons to be maintained for the present on the Khyber line consist of two batteries of Royal Artillery, one regiment of British Infantry, one of Native Cavalry, four of Native Infantry, and one of Sappers and Miners. The remainder of the Force will return to their various stations in India.

  EDUCATION (IRELAND) ACT—ASSISTANT TEACHERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. PATRICK MARTINasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the several declarations made in the south and west of Ireland by so many influential and experienced managers of national schools, condemning the contemplated restriction of assistant teachers in the schools under their charge, and stating authoritatively from their knowledge as managers that the recent change made by the Board of National Education requiring a newly increased average of pupils in the schools to entitle them to the benefit of assistant teachers would be seriously detrimental to the efficiency of the teaching staff, and most prejudicial to the interests of education; can he state on whose suggestions such change was thus made by the Board of National Education, and with what objects; and, having regard to the emphatic disapprovals thus manifested, does he intend to make any suggestions; and, if so, to what effect, in reference to this contemplated innovation on the former practice?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, I am aware that objections have been made in some quarters to the scheme alluded to. The hon. and learned Gentleman asks on whose suggestion the change was made. I am unable to say what suggestions had most weight with the Commissioners of Education; but among others were some made by myself. As some misapprehension appears to exist upon this subject, I wish to point out how the case stands. In England, one assistant teacher is allowed for every 100 pupils. In Ireland, until a few years since, one assistant was allowed for every 75 pupils, when an alteration was made under which one assistant was allowed for every 60 in the case of males, and for every 50 in the case of females. Under the new rule of the Commissioners one assistant is allowed for every 70 pupils, male or female. Before adopting this alteration they caused a conference to be held of the head inspectors, chiefs of inspection, and secretaries, among whom a very general opinion was expressed to the effect that the proposed plan would not operate in any way injuriously to the interests of education. I certainly look upon it as a decided improvement.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.

    QUESTION.
    MR. GRAYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, How many "non-effective" men are now in the Royal Irish Constabulary; how many of them have been non-effective for six months or longer; and how many have served for a period enabling them to retire on pension?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, it is rather difficult to answer this Question in the precise form in which it stands on the Paper, because the number of those coming technically within the definition of non-effective is subject to variation from day to day, from the fact of men being on the sick list for a few days and then returning to their duty. It will probably, however, carry out the hon. Member's object if I take three months' absence from the effective strength as the basis of calculation. I find that there are at present 43 men who have been non-effective for a period of three months and less than six months; 17 have been non-effective for periods ranging between six and nine months, which
    312
    makes a total of 60 in all; 39 of these 60 are men entitled to pension, having served for 15 years or upwards.

  TURKEY—AMOOSH AGA.

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is aware that the Amoosh Aga, who is Chief of the Police under the Turkish Government in the portion of Epirus proposed to be annexed to Greece by the Berlin Treaty, is the same man of whom the Special Correspondent of the "Times" in Thessaly wrote in that paper of April 4th, 1878,that on February 28th, 1878, he had caused to be "hacked almost to pieces" certain innocent inhabitants of Bulgarini, of whom the
    "Bodies were then piled up like a row of wood, a row with feet this way, a row with feet that way, and branches, which had been placed underneath them, fired;"
    And, whether he will make any representations to the Turkish Government with a view to the removal of Amoosh Aga from a post in which he has power over the lives and fortunes of the Thes-salian peasants?
    MR. BOURKE: Sir, we have not heard who is commander of police in that part of Thessaly.
    MR. H. SAMUELSON: Sir, in reading the Question, I substituted Epirus for Thessaly, which I had written by mistake.
    MR. BOURKE: I am sorry I did not hear that the hon. Member made the correction; but it makes no difference to the answer. We have not heard who is commander of the police in either Thessaly or Epirus. In the Papers already laid before the House relating to Thessaly and Epirus, there is a name somewhat similar to that mentioned; but I am not sure whether it is the same individual. We have no means of knowing whether the statement in The Times is correct, or whether the individual therein mentioned is now in command of the police.
    MR. H. SAMUELSON: Will the hon. Gentleman ascertain whether he is the same man of whom Mr. Ogle wrote the paragraph, to which paragraph, no doubt, that gentleman owed his death?
    MR. BOURKE: Sir, I think that must be left to the discretion of Her Majesty's Government. I do not think

    313
    I should be doing my duty if I were not to state that these events are alleged to have occurred a year and some months ago. Already all documents relating to them have been communicated to the House, and I do not think there is any reason now for stirring up these matters again unless some report has reached Her Majesty's Government through official channels. The officers employed by the Government in Turkey are perfectly alive to all these dreadful occurrences, and they report upon them from time to time; but I must say that the harm done by raking up these occurrences—
    MR. H. SAMUELSON: I rise to a point of Order. I wish to know whether the hon. Gentleman, in answer to a simple Question, whether he -would ascertain who a particular individual was, has any right to debate the question whether an inquiry would do harm in Epirus?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member was certainly travelling beyond the limits of a reply. At the same time, I must point out that in regard to a Question of this kind it is expedient that Notice should be given.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONgave Notice that he should renew the Question on Thursday.

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

    PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
    MR. O'DONNELL: I wish, Sir, to make a personal explanation with reference to your calling me to Order on Friday last. I was arguing, Sir, on the general question of the evidence to be supplied to Mr. Speaker with regard to the Business of the House, and I was pointing out the difference between the weighty and valuable evidence that would be supplied by a body of reporters or officials appointed and directed by this House, and that, on the other hand, the evidence supplied by officials or reporters not appointed by this House would, be valueless and worthless evidence. At this point, Sir, an hon. Gentleman opposite rose and declared that I had used un-Parliamentary language. I did not notice the point; but you, Sir, immediately replied that I had used un-Parliamentary language, and that the gentlemen in question were gentlemen
    314
    as well as ourselves. I did not understand the point of your censure either, Sir, until I read it in the newspapers containing the report of the discussions. Then I found that the hon. Gentleman opposite had understood me to use the words "worthless agents," while I used the words "worthless evidence." There may be some similarity between the sounds of the different words; but I wish to explain that I did not use the words imputed to me. My objections were in no way directed towards the individuals you employed, Sir, whose characters I have nothing to say against; and, therefore, I beg to state most respectfully that you were quite mistaken by thinking that I used the words "worthless agents." I spoke entirely of worthless evidence, Sir, and I wish it to be understood that I am not to be judged of being guilty of bringing anything against the character of these gentlemen, whom I must conclude are honourable and respectable men.

MOTION.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS—ORDERS OF THE DAY—TUESDAYS AND WEDNESDAYS.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have now to move:—
  "That, for the remainder of the Session, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motion upon Tuesdays, Government Orders having priority; and that Government Orders have priority on Wednesdays.".
  As I mentioned the other day, this is the same day of the year upon which a similar Order was made last year, and I need not detain the House by pointing out how very much we have still of Business to get through in the few weeks that remain before the natural termination of the Session. I would say that the first Business we have still before us is the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill. Hon. Gentlemen are perfectly aware of the position in which that Bill stands in relation to the expiry of the Continuance Act which was passed in April; and I would remind the House that unless we are able to get that Bill through the House in the course of this week very great difficulty and inconvenience will arise. I hope it may be possible to conclude the Committee on the Bill, if not to-night, at all events, to-morrow,

  315
  and that we may be able to take the Report on Thursday. Well, then, Sir, there are the Estimates, which are considerably in arrear. We have a great number of Votes still to take, including some important and pressing Votes, for which our Votes on Account are running out or have run out; and we shall proceed with these as speedily as we can. Amongst the Estimates there will be one which is not already before the House, but for which hon. Members will be prepared—that is, a Vote of Credit in respect of the War in South Africa. These Estimates will, of course, require some time for discussion. Then we have the two India Loans Bills, which will, no doubt, take a day or two for discussion. Then there is the Public Works Loans Bill. There is a good deal of opposition offered, I am aware, to that measure, which is upon the Table; but whether that measure passes in its entirety or not, it is absolutely necessary that a Bill should pass, because, otherwise, we shall have no funds out of which to make advances to local authorities that are expecting them. The advances last year are nearly exhausted, and the time has come to proceed with the matter. I pass over other minor matters which will take some little time; but the House will see that there is a good deal of urgent Business, and I think that the circumstances justify me in making the request which I now make to the House. There are upon the Order Book a considerable number of important measures. Some of these we had hoped at an earlier period of the Session we should be able to pass; but, from various circumstances which I need not now enter into, including, of course, the length of time which one Bill has occupied, it is obviously impossible that we should proceed with all of them. My hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General has already stated that we should not attempt to proceed with the Criminal Code Bill. We are very sorry indeed to lose the opportunity of passing so useful a measure this Session; but we hope it will not be the worse for waiting another year. I am sorry to say that the Patents for Inventions Bill is another Bill that we are not able to proceed with, and we must abandon the County Boards Bill, and the Irish Grand Juries Bill, and, as the House has already been informed by my right hon.
  316
  Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth), we shall not be able to proceed with the Rivers Conservancy Bill. I will not attempt at the present moment to make an exhaustive catalogue of Bills that we hope to proceed with; but there are two Bills that are, I think, of general interest, and which it will be desirable, if possible, that we should pass this Session. One is the Banks Bill. I do not know whether it will pass exactly in its present shape; but I hope it will be found possible to pass, at all events, an important portion of it. The other is a Bill which is of very great interest to the mercantile community and the country at large. I mean the Bankruptcy Bill. We hope it will be found possible to pass that Bill. I am aware that we have both the Bankruptcy and the Valuation Bills. It will be exceedingly difficult to get them both through. I will not say whether it will be possible; but, at the present time, we give precedence to the Bankruptcy Bill, and I hope the House will assist us in passing it. I have said I will not attempt to make an exhaustive catalogue of measures now, but I think, if the House will allow us the day's we are now asking for, and if we are assisted in endeavouring fairly to make progress, we may be able to close the Session somewhere about the usual time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed' "That, for the remainder of the Session, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motions upon Tuesdays, Government Orders having priority; and that Government Orders have priority upon Wednesdays."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Mr. O'DONNELLsaid, he had listened with attention to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and the reasons which he had given; and he could not but think that he had given the House no sufficient reasons for granting to him those days of private Members which he requested. The demand for Members' days came, in his opinion, with singularly bad grace from a Government which had occupied so much of the time of the House with Bills commanding no assent from either side of the House, and which had occupied a still larger portion of public time by proposals provoking discussion, and which, after discussion, "were either altered altogether or abandoned by the Government. The Government could not ask to be exempt from charges of wasting public time, when it brought

  317
  in such a Bill as a sham County Boards Bill, which had never a chance of receiving the assent of the House, and which could have been brought in only for the purpose of convincing everybody that Her Majesty's Administration was unwilling, or more probably incapable, of dealing with the problem of county government. Most of the followers of the Government could not utter a word on behalf of the County Boards Bill, which, nevertheless, had occupied a large part of the time of the House. But if he were to go into all the Bills which had been introduced without any apparently serious purpose, he would unjustifiably trench on the time of the House. Not only had the time of the House been uselessly occupied by Government by Bills of the nature of the County Boards Bill, but by discussions provoked by the Government's foreign and colonial policy. How much time had been absolutely wasted by the Government through their inexplicable indecision and their contradictory policy with regard to the administration of Sir Bartle Frere and the strategy of Lord Chelmsford in South Africa? How long had the Government uselessly occupied the time of the House by defending the indefensible proceedings of such officials and generals? How long had they presented an unyielding front, declaring that they would support Sir Bartle Frere and Lord. Chelmsford to the end, and then, after days on days of public time had been wasted, they turned round and gave up the very positions which they had defended so obstinately and with such disadvantage to the Public Service? Was such a Government entitled to demand the surrender of private Members' time? Some five or six days at the outside would be annexed by the Government. Had not a far larger number been wasted in the proceedings to which he referred? Again, in consequence of the extraordinary policy of the Government with regard to Irish University Education, the time of private Members had already been uselessly wasted, because they had been induced to abandon two Wednesdays to the discussion of that question, which ought to have been treated by the Government and approached on official authority, and which, after the two Wednesdays had been wasted, had been so treated and so approached. The whole of these two
  318
  Wednesdays had been absolutely wasted for utterly incomprehensible reasons. Did the Government base their demand for the surrender of private Members' time on that comic University Bill which had already upset the gravity of the hereditary branch of the Legislature, and which was, doubtless, brought on to afford the humorous Members of the Government opportunities to play with the public time. A more worthy way of meeting any demand for increased time would be met, not by taking away the few remaining opportunities of private Members, but by placing the Public Business in the House in the first place, and then the recreation of Gentlemen who went to shoot in the season. He believed he represented a large body of public opinion in the Three Kingdoms, when he said that if the Business of the House was really so much at heart with the Government, they ought to compass it by lengthening the limits of the Session. He did not presume to interfere with the recreation of hon. Members. Whether hon. Members went to the theatre in the evening, or to the moors in the autumn, that was their business; but he protested against the regular sacrifice of the public convenience to the private convenience of a small section of Members. In saying this, he believed he was speaking the opinions not of tens of thousands, or of hundreds of thousands, but of millions. Hon. Members wished to go and shoot, and the least kind wishes they could offer were that they would shoot with more intelligence than they voted. The Government had wasted days of public time in irrelevant discussions on untenable Colonial policy and upon Bills of a sham character; and he hoped that at least a large minority would go into the Lobby against the utterly unjustifiable request which they now made.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERobserved, that everyone in the House, and nearly everyone in the country, was dissatisfied with the progress of Public Business in this House. [Ironical cheers.] He was glad he had stated a proposition which had been so universally accepted. Everybody was dissatisfied, and he was himself just as as much dissatisfied as any Member of Her Majesty's Government, or anyone outside the House who complained of obstruction. The delay in Public Business had been attributed

  319
  by different Parties to different causes. One Party attributed it to the conduct of Public Business and to the character of that authority which held the reins of Government, and it had been said confidentially that the reins of Government in this House had broken in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that in consequence Business had not been expedited. It was his (Mr. O'Connor Power's) good fortune the other day to assure Mr. Speaker of his respect for his position and authority, and he was proud to avail himself of this opportunity of assuring the Chancellor of the Exchequer of equal respect for his position and authority; and if no one else would repel the accusation brought against the right hon. Gentleman, he would undertake, however feebly, to do it himself. He denied point-blank that the delay in Public Business was owing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had had unusual difficulties to contend with. An indefensible policy had been forced upon him by his Colleagues in the Cabinet. He trusted that however long they might be obliged to remain to finish the Business, the Session would not be unusually protracted. He trusted that the remainder of the Business would not be unduly protracted. He thought it was his duty to come down there and urge that the Session should not be unusually prolonged. He had come down to the House prepared to take his leave of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Knowing the Conservative Party to be a grateful Party, he hoped that before the House should meet again after the Prorogation they would reward the services of the right hon. Gentleman by decorating him with a Coronet, and translating him to that Upper Chamber where Obstructives ceased from troubling and where Ministers were at rest. It was said by some critics that the delay in the Business of the House was due to the protracted opposition of certain hon. Members who sat on this side of the House; but he (Mr. O'Connor Power) repudiated that accusation with almost as much earnestness as he did the accusation levelled against the Leader of the House. The delay which was complained of was really to be attributed to our present system of legislation—a system which had been frequently investigated, but for which
  320
  no adequate remedy had yet been suggested by Her Majesty's Government, or by the numerous Committees which had sat to inquire into the subject. Every year, at this period of the Session, Bills upon which valuable time had been spent, and in connection with which there had been important discussions, were thrown aside; and the House, consequently, had the mortification of seeing that a great deal of its time and labour had been completely fruitless. These circumstances were attributable to the fact that the Paper was each year crowded with a number of Bills for proposed legislation which the House was quite unable to deal with. He suggested, as a remedy, that there should be some division of labour which would enable the Imperial Parliament to devote itself exclusively to Imperial Business, and give local authorities the power to transact local business. The conduct of Business in the House, and the manner in which much of it was shelved year after year, having attracted universal attention, surely the time had come to inquire whether some local machinery could not be set in motion for the transaction of local business, so that the Imperial Parliament might be relieved from the burden of petty concerns. He held that if the English people were not impervious to ridicule, a remedy would long ago have been found for a state of things which left the Government, at the end of every Session, with only one or two paltry or insignificant measures to point to as proofs of the industry of Parliament.
  MR. VANS AGNEWsaid, he proposed to add a few words to the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to accept. The words were as follows:—"Except in the case of Bills which stand for Consideration, as amended, or for Third Reading." Knowing the difficulties that had been in the way of private Members, he was sure the House would not be surprised to hear that only four Bills stood in that position; and the ground on which he would urge the recommendation he had made was that those Bills had been read a second time, their principle had been affirmed, the details had been settled in Committee, and there they remained. But, by the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they would be swept

  321
  away; and there would be no chance of proceeding further with them. Hon. Members who had had charge of a Private Bill would understand what responsibility they undertook, and they would agree with him, when he said it was hard that when the House had affirmed the principle of a Bill any individual Member could stop it from going on by the application of the Half-past 12 Rule. He thought that Rule should not apply to Bills which had passed through Committee. He had no doubt that the motives of any hon. Member stopping a Bill might be the highest with which man could be actuated. It was also true that he might be actuated by a crochet in which nobody else had any faith; and it seemed very hard, and scarcely respectful to the House, that a Bill of which the principle had been adopted and the clauses adjusted by the House should be stopped by a single hon. Member. If, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree to the proposal which he ventured to make, he did not believe that it would detain the House one day after the usual time of breaking up, and yet it would enable Bills affirmed in principle by the House to proceed to their legitimate end.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does any hon. Member second the Amendment?
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: Yes, Sir; second the Amendment, although I did not catch its full import. So far as understand it, it refers to Bills which have been under the consideration of the House, and which could not be considered after half-past 12. But my object in rising was more particularly to point out to the House—
  MR. ONSLOW: I rise to Order. I wish to ask, Sir, whether it is competent for any Member to second a Motion of which he says he knows nothing?
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: I did not say I knew nothing about the Amendment. I said I did not comprehend it quite fully; but I understood from hon. Members around me more or less of its import. I rise, however, more particularly to notice the surprise with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken the House upon this occasion. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman gave Notice of his intention to make this Motion; but it is one of so serious a character that the House can hardly be expected to pass it without comment.
  322
  No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, the Bills which are to be sacrificed. Among them is the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences) Bill; and it is obvious that, as there were no fewer than 280 Amendments on the Paper, it would be impossible to proceed with that measure. I must, however, point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the question which has been raised by an hon. Member opposite, and which, I think, is entitled to grave consideration by the House. I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer has conceded two days for the discussion of important subjects—one to the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and the other to the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett). One of the Motions refers, I believe, to the provisions of the Treaty of Berlin with respect to Greece, and the other to the water supply of the Metropolis. There is another question, which certainly ought to be discussed before Parliament rises for the Vacation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given Notice that it will be necessary to take a Vote of Credit for the South African War. Now, I look upon that question as one of paramount importance to the House and to the country; and I think the Government ought not to be allowed to bring this Session to a close without the Chancellor of the Exchequer granting to Parliament an opportunity of once again fully discussing that question. It would be very inconvenient, and I should be loth to make a Motion for the adjournment of the House in order to bring that question before Parliament and the country; but I do hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see the necessity of granting to Parliament a day, in order that they may discuss a question which has greatly excited this country, on account of the enormous expenditure it must entail as well as on account of the gross mismanagement with which it has been conducted. Why, it was only in this day's papers I read a sermon, I think it was by Bishop Colenso, in which that worthy man prayed that the last serious occurrence, which everybody deplores, might be a harbinger of peace, and might bring to a close an unjust and unnecessary war, which has already occasioned the loss of the lives of 10,000 persons. I am allowed to discuss this question on the

  323
  Motion which has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I propose to do so now, in the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accord the favour to Parliament and the country of knowing more about this question than we yet do. There is one other question to which I wish particularly to refer, and that is with reference to the recent unhappy event which has prevented me from putting a Notice on the Paper, as I had intended to do. That has reference not only to what is now occurring in South Africa, but also to answers given by the Secretary of State for War on two or three previous occasions during the Session. After the Isandlana disaster there was a Court of Inquiry held. It was supposed to be in secret, and it sent home a Report. We were informed that the authorities at the Horse Guards would consider the question of making known the Report; but, up to this moment, no information has been given to the public with reference to that Court of Inquiry. Then there was a Court of Inquiry held on the subject of the Zlobani Mountain disaster, where a gallant friend of mine, Colonel Weatherley, had his whole corps—99 men out of 100—cut to pieces. I hold in my hand copies of two letters from two officers who were present on that occasion, and also a touching letter from the father of a young officer who was killed, and it is distinctly charged that certain of the men ran away, and refused to support the corps of that gallant officer—Colonel Weatherley—although, if they had supported them, as they were well able to do, the whole of the. corps would have been preserved. A Court of Inquiry was held upon that disaster. We know nothing of the result; it has been kept secret. But Parliament and the country ought to be informed what is the result of Courts of Inquiry when they involve circumstances which appear to trench more or less directly on the military capacity of the men who are engaged in conducting operations. In Afghanistan, a whole squadron of the 10th Hussars was swept away in crossing a river. A Court of Inquiry was held, and the Minister for War, in answer to two Questions addressed to him by a military Gentleman in this House, said, in effect—"You ought to know that Courts of Inquiry are secret, and that their results are not com-
  324
  municated to Parliament. Therefore, I cannot communicate to the House what is the result of the Court of Inquiry with reference to the loss of that corps of the 10th Hussars." The results of the Courts of Inquiry to which I have just referred have been kept secret from the time of the holding until the present, and I apprehend they will not be communicated to us. But the other day a Court of Inquiry was held in South Africa, which we are told is secret; yet the result of that Court of Inquiry was published at the Cape, and is known in this country. It was given in detail—article after article, charging a gallant officer almost with cowardice in the discharge of his duties. Upon that I offer no opinion; but I wish to point out the injustice of men, of whatever rank, being placed in that position, and being made the scapegoat of offences which, for aught we know, may be due to others. Let us have justice; let every man, however humble in rank he may be, have justice, and let him not be publicly abused unjustly. That Court of Inquiry apparently held its sittings with open doors. It reported against one man, and not against two. Upon that Court of Inquiry a court martial has been held. Upon that court martial the very man who, perhaps, is most to blame in that transaction, Colonel Harrison, sits as a member. I ask—" Is this justice? "Is this the way in which our military affairs are to be conducted? Everyone who reads the history of that military event, which everyone with a heart must deplore, will see that the man who has been sent home to this country under arrest is not the only man, apparently, who is to blame; yet the result of the Court of Inquiry at the Cape has been made public, and everything has been heaped on his head as if he only were guilty; whereas this country, from the beginning to the close of these proceedings, condemns throughout the whole of the transactions the miserably inefficient conduct of the man who has conducted these military operations—Lord Chelmsford. I would not have lost the present opportunity of once again calling attention to this before Sir Garnet Wolseley arrives to stop, I hope, further loss of life, further mismanagement, and a further incapable display of military enthusiasm. I hope that, at all events, this question which I have

  325
  risen to speak upon will not be lost sight of in the country, and that others here will join with me in endeavouring to point out to the Government how necessary it is that Parliament should have an opportunity of again discussing a question which has so deeply roused the sympathies and feelings of this country. This is the question which I wish to put to the Secretary of State for War, and it is a question which must be answered before we proceed to the discussion of the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill. I have opposed that Bill from the beginning, not for the purpose of obstructing the progress of the measure, but because I believe it is fraught with injustice to the soldier. ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is clearly not in Order in discussing the merits of the Army Discipline Bill now.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: I beg pardon of the Chair. I was carried away by my feelings. I had intended putting a Notice on the Paper; but I deferred doing so till this week. I wish to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will give any explanation as regards these Courts of Inquiry? Concealment, and worse than concealment, has been pursued as regards the Zlobani Mountain disaster, the Isandlana disaster, and also as regards what befell the troops of the 10th Hussars. Why have the results of those inquiries been kept secret, and why, in the case of Captain Carey—for I believe he is a captain now—has the result, as if it were to prejudge the case, been published at the Cape and in all the London papers? On the decision of the court martial, Captain Carey has been condemned and sent home to this country under arrest. This is a question which must be answered; and I again entreat the Government to give a day for a discussion on the War in South Africa. It is a question which goes home to the heart of everybody. It is costing us millions of pounds, and the lives of 10,000 human beings have been lost. The Government gave us assurances that they did not intend to make it a war of aggression, but merely a war of defence; whereas we read in the newspapers that Armies of from 10,000 to 20,000 men are advancing into the enemy's country. Surely those were facts which seemed to be inconsistent with the statement put forth by the Go-
  326
  vernment. Now that the Government have promised to oblige the hon. Members for Chelsea and Hackney with a day for the discussion of questions in which they are interested, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us an opportunity of discussing a question which is of paramount importance at this moment to the honour and interests of this country.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the Question, to add the words "except in the case of Bills which stand for Consideration, as amended, or Third Reading."—(Mr. Vans Agnew.)
  Question proposed, "That these words be there added."
  COLONEL STANLEY: This is not the first time, Sir, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth has thought it convenient, and, I suppose, in accordance with what he believes to be his duty, to make a sudden, and, to my mind, a somewhat unjustifiable, attack upon the Government. He has attacked, without discrimination, all who are connected with the present unfortunate War in Zululand. I will say nothing as to the appropriateness of the occasion he has selected for his remarks. Only a few minutes ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that before long the House would be called upon to discuss and pass a Vote to meet the expenses of the Zulu War; and the right hon. Gentleman ought to have felt, as we all feel, that the proper occasion for the discussion of the conduct of the war will be when that Vote comes on for discussion. This is not the first occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman has come down and, taking advantage of his privileges, has made an attack on persons in command in South Africa without previous Notice. I hope the House will excuse me if I speak with a little feeling; but for any right hon. Gentleman to come down and discuss, without previous Notice to those who might otherwise have been in the position of defending them, the conduct of officers who have been concerned in the war, and to say that this movement, and that, and the other, had been disastrous and disgraceful, and reflected discredit upon all concerned—I say that, for a right hon. Gentleman to do this, and give no opportunity to those connected with the Service of ascertaining and

  327
  making clear those facts which would enable a conclusive defence to be offered—that is, in my opinion, a course that is neither convenient to the House nor rightful towards the Public Service. With respect to the alleged concealment in the matter of the Courts of Inquiry to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, all I can. say is that, as far as that charge is thrown out against me, it will lie very lightly, for I have endeavoured upon all occasions to give the fullest and most ample information to the House and the public by such means as I believed most convenient and the most readily at hand. "With respect to Courts of Inquiry, I have stated on various occasions already what, with the leave of the House, I will state again—namely, that it is not the practice, and I do not think it is right or prudent to lay the proceedings of Courts of Inquiry, as such, on the Table of this House. We have had during the progress of the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill through the House a good deal of discussion with regard to these Courts of Inquiry, and I have never hesitated to express my opinion that they were not to be used as criminal courts, but were to be used for the purpose of enabling the responsible officer, through the means of others, to ascertain facts which he could not easily ascertain for himself; that their proceedings were to be looked upon as communications made to him, and that it was to his opinion only I would look. In the case of the Isandlana disaster, a great many facts were ascertained by the Court of Inquiry; and I did depart from the usual course, and did communicate to the House the substance of the facts which the Court had elicited. [Sir ROBERT PEEL: Zlobani.] With respect to that and other cases, I think the House will not expect me, without Notice, to enter upon a defence which, though I have no fear on my own account or that of others, yet, not having all the facts before me, would not be as complete as I should otherwise make it. As to relieving one officer from blame at the expense of another, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, I will observe that no word has ever escaped me in this House which would lead anyone to think that I would allow a particle of blame to be thrown upon anyone with my knowledge until the facts were be-
  328
  fore me. I have received the same information as other persons about the court martial which sat upon Captain Carey. The evidence is not before me. I have seen the statement that the trial has been held; but I have had no opportunity up to the time when I came down to the House of knowing what the decision of the court martial was, nor have I had any of the facts before me. The proceedings of the court martial Bad not reached the War Office; whether they had reached the Judge Advocate General I do not know. I would once for all deprecate, if the right hon. Gentleman would allow me, this system of making attacks without Notice upon persons whom the Government, from want of Notice, may not be in a position to defend as completely as would otherwise be in their power. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, if he has any other accusations of this kind to bring, will, at all events, do me the courtesy of giving such Notice as will enable me to make a sufficient reply for those in whose defence I am bound to appear.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was very glad that the House was disinclined to take upon itself the command of an Army in the field; but he regretted that, in reference to military matters, and especially those military inquiries, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, and other hon. Members who had addressed the House, should have virtually disregarded that which was a Rule of the House—that the House would not by debate interfere in any matter that was brought to trial pendente lite, lest injustice might thence be done. He had not a word to say in defence of any of the officers mentioned; but he did hold that those officers had a right to a fair trial before competent tribunals, and that this House would do well to show, in their cases at least, the same delicacy which it was its wont to observe as to expressing any opinion with respect to the innocence or the guilt of any civilian whose conduct was likely to be brought before any of the Courts. His main purpose, however, in rising on this occasion was merely to express a hope—having heard that a most important educational measure was likely to reach the House at so late a period of the Session—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had asked independent Members to give up to the

  329
  Government nearly the whole of the time belonging to them; and if any such measure should raise a wide discussion, and was met with many Amendments, it would not be proceeded with in a thin House during the present Session. [An hon. MEMBER: What measure?] He (Mr. Newdegate) would not be in Order if he were to refer to this measure more distinctly. But h would, however, quote an analogous case. He had seen in the last Session of Parliament a very important educational measure, connected with Ireland, passed in a thin House, when not more than one-fourth, or at the most one-third, of the Members of the House could be assembled; and he hoped that, in the instance he contemplated, Her Majesty's Government would not incur the grave responsibility of taking advantage of the weariness and thinness of the House to pass a measure with Amendments that might be attempted, but which the House, when fully assembled, might not, and, he believed, would not approve. With reference to what had been said on the subject of the conduct of the Business of the House, and as to who were responsible for the delay, of which the whole country was sensible, he would only observe that the causes of that delay could easily be traced by an analysis of the proceedings and debates of the House, and that he could conceive of no subject which more than that would be worthy the early attention of the House in the next Session of Parliament.
  Sir JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he did not rise to oppose the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which, indeed, he thought reasonable under the circumstances; but he hoped the Government would give their favourable consideration to the Amendment. He had charge of a measure which had passed several times through second reading, and he continually received letters asking him when the third reading would be taken. He had some difficulty in making his correspondents understand that one Member could, by using—he would not say abusing—the Forms of the House, prevent a measure from passing. He submitted to the House that to accept the Amendment would give effect to the wishes of the House, and the expenditure of a little
  330
  time now would save a great deal next Session.
  MR. BERESFOED HOPEhad supported the Ancient Monuments Bill throughout, and would do so again; but, even to pass it, nothing would induce him to tamper with the Half-past 12 Rule, which he held to be invaluable, not less with a view to the Business, than to the health of the House.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he did not think any time would be gained by taking Tuesdays and Wednesdays if the proposed Amendment were adopted.
  MR. SULLIVANtook that opportunity of reminding the Chancellor of the Exchequer of his promise to produce the instructions given to Sir Garnet Wolseley. Now that he had arrived in South Africa, there should be no further delay in laying them on the Table. It was of great importance, as the House was about to adjourn in two or three weeks, that they should know whether the country was on the verge of a prolonged war. He observed from the latest information that the Army in South Africa was steadily advancing; and it was, therefore, most necessary they should know what really were the instructions which had been given to Sir Garnet Wolseley. He should also like to know whether the Government seriously intended to introduce to the notice of this House the famous University Bill, of which they had heard something "elsewhere?" If they did, he thought they would be like the sailor who cut off a few inches from the top of his blanket and sewed them on at the bottom. A great deal had been said about obstruction; but there was one serious form of obstruction to which sufficient attention had not been drawn, and that was the manner in which certain hon. Members availed themselves of the Half-past 12 o'clock Rule, in violation of the universal sentiments of the House, to stop the further progress of Business. The other day he asked for a Return with regard to the state of public business in Dublin, which he believed the Government were prepared to grant. He had seen sworn affidavits that in certain offices suitors had to wait for three or four years for a return of their accounts in Chancery. He had, however, no sooner put his Notice on the Paper than a Member on the Government side of the House put a

  331
  blocking Notice against it, and thus the public of Ireland were precluded from getting information which they had a right to receive. Again, last Friday he asked for a Return as to the arrests for drunkenness on Saturday in Dublin. The information existed in Dublin, and he believed the Government would have allowed its production, because it was not a matter calling for the expression of any opinion; but it was simply asking for public statistics, which would show their own tale. A Government supporter, however, had availed himself of this vicious system of obstruction, and had placed a Motion on the Paper opposing the granting of the Return after half-past 12 o'clock.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, it is probably convenient that considerable latitude should be given to a discussion of this character; but I must say that some of the subjects introduced, especially in the speech of my right hon. Friend who seconded the Amendment, appeared to me some what irrelevant. I must say I could see no connection between his speech and the Amendment relating to the third reading of Bills which had reached that stage. But, no doubt, my right hon. Friend saw some connection, which he was unable fully to explain to the House.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: Does the noble Lord say I cannot explain the connection? [" Order !"] I beg to explain the connection I saw. The Chancellor of the Exchequer opened the full ground of discussion on the questions that were to come before us, and I took the liberty of calling the attention of the House to one which I thought important.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The speech of my right hon. Friend may have been a protest against the Motion; but, as a matter of fact, he did not speak on that Motion. He seconded the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wigtownshire, which had reference to the third reading of the Bills which had reached that stage. Whether it was appropriate or not, it is to be regretted that a question of the kind he brought forward should have been introduced, as the Secretary of State for War complained, without Notice. My right hon. Friend complained that the proceedings of certain Courts of Inquiry had not been laid on the Table; and he also made some very strong comments on the
  332
  mode in which military operations had been conducted in South Africa. Now, as to Courts of Inquiry, I have not observed that my right hon. Friend has placed any Notice on the Paper for the production of Papers relating to Courts of Inquiry which he desires to see, and if he wishes to call in question the conduct of military operations in South Africa he will have an ample opportunity of doing so when the Vote of Credit is proposed. My right hon. Friend is really the most irregular Member in the House.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: I rise to Order, Sir. I wish to know, Sir, whether those words are Parliamentary in the spirit in which they were uttered, and whether it is justifiable for the noble Marquess to apply them to a Member of this House?
  MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord has made no observation which calls on me to interpose.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: If I have said anything offensive to the right hon. Baronet I should wish to withdraw it. I will withdraw the observation that my right hon. Friend is irregular, and I will say that his conduct is extremely irregular. My right hon. Friend seems to think we are here, not for the purpose of doing any Business, or even for the purpose of formally discussing the Motion on the Paper, but simply for the purpose of hearing eloquent speeches from him at the time and season he considers it most convenient to deliver them. I do not want to go further into the discussion of the subject which has been raised. I would only say, with regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), and the speech of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), that they appear to me to raise some very important questions for the consideration of the House, although they did not do so at any unnecessary length. I have said, in the course of discussions in the present Session, that much of the delay in the progress of Public Business is owing, undoubtedly, to the fact that this House undertakes to do a great deal more Business than it is possible for it to do. I have expressed the opinion that until the House very seriously considers the manner in which it conducts its Business, and is willing to undertake a much greater control over the Business

  333
  which, comes before it, we shall find this a constantly increasing evil. As to the observation of the hon. Member for Mayo, that a remedy may be found in allowing Local Bodies to transact more of their own local affairs than they do now, I do not think there is any very great difference between him and the House upon the subject. We should all be willing to entertain any reasonably conceived proposal to transfer some Business from this overworked House to Local Bodies. There may be a difference of opinion when we come to consider what those local affairs are, and what the Local Bodies which are to transact them may be. It seems to me this House would be willing to give a full and favourable consideration to that subject whenever it may be brought forward. The immediate object with which I rose was to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to let us have a clear understanding as to the engagement he gave the other night about the Motion of the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) about the Berlin Treaty. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be willing, in present circumstances, to give the 22nd of July, for which the Motion now stands in the Notice Paper; but it would be as well the understanding should be made clear, and also that it should be understood whether the Motion stands for the Day Sitting, or only for the Evening Sitting after 9 o'clock. I would even express a hope that the Government would see their way to giving the whole day to the discussion—a course which, in the end, would probably be the most convenient to them, as the subject is a large one; and if the debate were commenced at 9 o'clock a Motion for adjournment could hardly be resisted, and would involve the loss of another day; whereas, if the whole day were given, the subject would probably be disposed of at one Sitting.
  MR. C. BECKETT-DENISONquite agreed with what had fallen from the noble Marquess, that much time would be saved if hon. Members would confine their observations to the subject immediately under discussion. But it was not to be wondered at that when the Government sought to secure all the available time of the House except Friday evenings and the occasions when Supplementary Estimates would be submitted, individual Members interested
  334
  in particular subjects should take the opportunity of offering some remarks on the position in which they were placed. It depended on the arrival of despatches from South Africa when the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to submit Supplementary Estimates; but, no doubt, he would take the earliest opportunity consistent with the demands of other urgent Business. As to the court martial, it appeared to be possible that the subject might pass out of public ken and discussion before there would be an opportunity of saying a word on the subject in the House. The proceedings might be submitted to Her Majesty for confirmation before anybody in the House had the opportunity of asking a question upon them. He did not wish to prejudge anything; but if the court martial should result in pains and penalties to one man only of all the officers concerned in the lamentable occurrence, there would be a strong feeling of indignation in the country.
  MR. E. JENKINSsaid, that when these gusts occurred between Members in high latitudes, Members below the Gangway naturally felt it was their duty to let them blow themselves out. He, however, felt some doubt as to the propriety of the attack which had been made by the noble Lord upon the right hon. Baronet, seeing that every possible obstacle had been put in the way of the discussion of the subject which the right hon. Gentleman wished to bring before the House. The Government must not be surprised if irregular opportunities were taken for bringing forward subjects when other advantages for doing so were regularly refused. He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would adhere to his former assurance that the South African question should be discussed in the month of July.
  MR. HUSSEY VIVIANdesired to know whether it was intended to pass the Noxious Gases Bill?
  MR. CHAMBERLAINasked whether the Government were prepared to drop that portion of the Public Works Loans Bill to which many hon. Members of the House objected, in order to make the Bill similar to that which was usually passed for supplying the necessary funds to the local authorities? If that were acceded to, he believed that the progress of the Bill would be very much accelerated.
  MR. O'CLERYsaid, he wished to say a few words as to the desirability of passing a measure which, in his humble opinion, was one of vast national importance—he meant the Bill authorizing the enrolment of Volunteer Corps in Ireland. It had passed a second reading after considerable discussion; it had been in Committee, and had been brought up on Report; and it now stood for third reading. But Notice of opposition had been given, and that Notice, under the Half-past 12 Rule, virtually took away all chance of passing the Bill into law this Session. He earnestly entreated the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. De la Poer Beresford), who had placed the Notice on the Paper in the exercise of his undoubted right, to withdraw the Notice. The hon. Member was present when the Bill was in Committee, and he never made the slightest sign of opposition, and he was present when the Report of the Committee was submitted, and the question was put whether there was any Amendment, and he was silent. Failing that appeal, he (Mr. O'Clery) must urge on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the expediency of his affording facilities for the Bill to be passed. He ventured to say that there was not a Member in the House, except the hon. Gentleman the Member for Armagh, who was opposed to the measure; and it would cause dissatisfaction in Ireland, if a measure of that kind, to which no one had made any objection, were killed by what he did not fear to call deliberate obstruction. The hon. Member had given no reason whatever for his action. He (Mr. O'Clery) had abstained from opposing the Vote for English Volunteers, because he considered there was a reasonable chance of his Bill being passed; but it must be remembered that at present Irish money was taken for English Volunteers, while Irishmen were denied the right of bearing arms in the national defence. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give him an opportunity of submitting the Bill to a third reading before half-past 12.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he had listened with the greatest possible pleasure to the remarks of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, who had shown that he was quite aware that in every deep there was a deeper still. Hon. Members below the Gangway on
  336
  that side were accused of extreme irregularity, and he was glad that the noble Lord had been able to find an instance of still greater irregularity on the Conservative side. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) begged the House to remark that the only person who had really risen to the height of that great occasion—the sacrifice of the innocents which occurred once every Session—was his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), who pointed out that there was only one remedy for the annual holocaust, and that was to remove from the House a considerable portion of the work which the House was incompetent to pass, not only from want of time, but on account of its ignorance. It was utterly impossible that hon. Members living in Great Britain could know what were the feelings and wishes of persons living in Ireland; and every year irritation was caused by the rejection of measures brought forward by the Representatives of Ireland. Well, who had attempted to remedy that state of things, and to enable the House of Commons to discharge its duties to the country? Only one class of Members—that class called Home Rule Members. When the noble Marquess spoke of its being desirable to adopt some method of removing a great mass of local legislation from the House when local legislation stopped the way, whom had they a right to expect to put out a helping hand? Undoubtedly, the responsible Leaders in the House. They—the Home Rulers—had made their proposition for self-government, and the House rejected it by an immense majority; but the evil still remained, and even those who were most opposed to that proposal now began to feel where the shoe pinched. Year by year it would become more and more impossible to avoid those disagreeable scenes which had occurred in the House this Session, and to prevent the country from feeling that the House of Commons had lost its hold over the people, because it was unable to perform its work. What were the Bills of' the Government? There were, among others, the Army Discipline Bill, the Criminal Code Bill, and a Bill on Banking. Would not these three Bills, if properly discussed, be enough for a single Session? If the whole time of the House had been given to them, it would have been a good

  337
  year's work to pass them into law. But these measures were constantly obstructed by other Bills—Bills relating to other portions of the United Kingdom as well as to England. The noble Marquess had shown that he was alive to the subject, and he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) hoped the Government would become alive to it too. The Government had showered its blessings on Ireland by dangling before that country measures which were to be introduced; but had not brought any of them near enough to be grasped. Let the Government next year bring in a measure to remove from the House of Commons this mass of legislation, or if the occupants of the two Front Benches should change places, let the noble Marquess himself bring in a measure of the kind. But before the Session, closed, and Home Rule Members were sent home with the stigma which it was sought to lay upon them of obstructing the Business of the House, let the Government do them the justice to show that they were the only persons who had ever made a proposition to the House which would radically cure the congestion of Business. Hon. Gentlemen had immense reason to complain that, after they had brought their Bills up to the third reading, they should be unable at the last moment to carry them further; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer might very well accede to the appeal just made to him, and allow facilities for passing the Volunteer Corps Bill, the only measure relating to Ireland which had anything like conciliation in it. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) supposed the appeal would be of no use, and that next Session they would have a similar list of measures introduced which would have to be similarly sacrificed at the close, and that there would be the same wrangling and recrimination as before, because the Government would not take the proper steps to remedy the evil.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I am perfectly aware that every year, when it is necessary to make arrangements for abandoning certain Bills, it is only natural that observations should be made, and that hon. Gentlemen interested in particular measures should criticize the proceedings of the Government. We are by no means unwilling to be criticized, as our Predecessors have been; but I cannot help think-
  338
  ing that on the present occasion the discussion has travelled somewhat beyond due bounds. The South African War is, no doubt, a subject of great importance and interest; but after the announcement I made that a Vote of Credit would be asked for, and considering, as I have to-night been reminded, that I have pledged myself to bring it forward in the month of July, I think it would have been more convenient had the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) abstained from the observations he has made. Fragmentary discussion on the subject is not convenient, and it is rather hard that we should hear observations made which are a prejudging of a case which is not now fully before us. I cannot admit, Sir, that the abandonment of Bills necessarily involves a waste of time. The discussions to which they give rise are sometimes very advantageous in paving the way for the passing of measures in a subsequent Session. For example, the Criminal Code Bill, which the Government were so reluctantly obliged to drop, could hardly fail to gain, when next introduced, by the criticisms which have been passed, upon it this Session. The noble Lord opposite has asked me what we propose to do with reference to the Motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke)? The hon. Baronet has put his Motion down for the Evening Sitting to-morrow week, and I have promised that I should give him that evening, or some corresponding evening, in the event of the House agreeing to the proposal which we now make. I think it would be convenient that the discussion should be taken upon the day originally fixed, and I am afraid it may not be in our power to dispense with a Morning Sitting on that day; but I should be glad to be allowed to think a little over the subject before making final arrangements. At all events, we shall not propose to take that particular evening for Government Business. Should the proposal which we have now made be agreed to, we shall not propose to meet to-morrow until 4 o'clock. A question has been put to me as to the Noxious Gases Bill; and it is our intention to proceed with that measure. In regard to the Public Works Loans Bill, I shall shortly state the course which it is the intention of the Government to take. With respect to the Amendment of my hon.

  339
  Friend behind me, I am quite aware of the mortification which hon. Members must feel when, having brought their Bills to a certain stage, it is seen towards the end of a Session there is some doubt as to their reaching a conclusion. At the same time, it should be remembered that the fate which befalls these Bills is owing, in a large measure, to a Rule which the great majority of the House have decided upon—namely, the Half-past 12 Rule. The Rule is not one which the Government have pressed; but it has been passed, as I have said, by the great majority of the House, though opposed, I am bound to say, by the hon. Baronet the Member for Maid-stone (Sir John Lubbock). For my part, I am always desirous of doing all I can to facilitate the progress of Bills in the hands of independent Members, having due regard to the Government time; and, so far as it is in my power to do so, I have supported the Bill of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. O'Clery). I should be very glad that that Bill, and the other Bills referred to, should make progress; but Her Majesty's Government are specially bound to consider the Bills which they have themselves introduced, and I fear I should lay myself open to the charge of having held out false hopes, if I promised to place at the disposal of private Members time which the Government require for the advancing of the Public Business. I cannot, therefore, accept, and I hope the House will not assent to, the Amendment which has been moved. A question has been asked by the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), as to a Bill which is before the other House of Parliament. I hope that that Bill will pass the other House and be submitted to the judgment of the House of Commons in a way and at a time which will be convenient to hon. Members. It is a Bill which ought not to be dealt with hastily or negligently, and I hope the House will have a full opportunity of considering it. With respect to the second question of the hon. and learned Member, as to the production of the instructions given to Sir Garnet Wolseley, I am not in a position to answer it at this moment, and, probably, the hon. and learned Member will give Notice of the Question for Thursday; but I trust the whole South African controversy will find its proper field when the Govern-
  340
  ment come forward to ask for a Vote of Credit. I wish to express my acknowledgments to hon. Gentlemen for the manner in which the proposal has been received. It is always the desire of the Government so to arrange the Public Business as best to consult the convenience and save the time of the House; and in making this proposal I have only kept that object in view.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had very truly said that discussions upon second readings might materially advance and assist public opinion in arriving at a conclusion, even though Bills were abandoned for the Session; but in dealing with the Amendment of the hon. Member behind him let him consider how often a private Member's Bill should receive a second reading before becoming law. There should be some limitation drawn with regard to Bills repeatedly sanctioned, both in principle or second reading, and in detail by Committee; for it was an obstruction to Business to refuse such a Bill an opportunity of third reading. There was the University Bill, which had four times received the sanction of the House, and to postpone such a Bill indefinitely by relegating it to another Session was to waste all the time spent in bringing the measure up to the stage of Committee, and almost to the point of completion. It was sinking the ship when entering port. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might well have treated the Amendment more fairly, and his reference to the Half-past 12 Rule as a Standing Order deliberately affirmed and adopted, after mature consideration by the Committee on Public Business, was quite beside the question. The Amendment of the hon. Member did not, in any way, meddle with the Rule; but simply asked that Bills in the hands of private Members, having reached the stage of "Report," or of third reading, should be excepted from the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That was a fair proposal. There had been of late a strong and growing tendency to encourage the idea, and to persuade the House, that there was no Public Business, except that brought forward by the Government of the day, every other Business being unworthy of consideration. Yet the business of private Members was often of the most important character, for it indicated the wants and

  341
  the interests of constituencies throughout the country, and such as no Government could hope to deal with. These Bills were to the Government a sort of barometer to indicate the wants of the country. It was impossible to suppose that, with different nationalities and so many different interests represented in the House, Government could be accurately informed; and he really thought that a Bill, having passed through the ordeal of first and second reading and Committee, should have equal opportunities with Government Bills. In fact, the Committee on Public Business recommended such a course; and the Amendment now proposed simply sought to carry out that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not think fit to include in his Resolution at the beginning of the Session. It might be asked, how had the Government utilized the time accorded to them? The Government had surrendered to them by the House the right of moving Motions or going into Supply on Monday, and, in return, Government had undertaken to keep Supply down as the First Order on Mondays until all the Supplies were taken. But Government seemed to have forgotten that promise, and the House was in this position. To hasten the Army Bill, Irish Votes had been postponed to the later period of the Session. For a couple of Sessions Irish Members had been looking forward to the Irish Votes as the opportunity for bringing forward matters important to Ireland; but Irish Votes were postponed till the end of the Session, and then brought forward with a rush. The Government, having secured English and Scotch Votes, they dropped the practice of putting down Supply for Mondays, and pressed forward the Army Bill. He did not know whether he should be in Order in referring to some charges made against a section of the Irish Members in the public Press; but as he might not have another opportunity of referring to the matter with Mr. Speaker in the Chair, he should like, with the permission of the House, to say something which he thought would be appreciated by it. Against a number of them the most flagrant charges had really been made by the English newspapers within the last few days—charges which he thought would have constituted a breach of Privilege, but which he did not wish to
  342
  treat as such, from his desire to save the time of the House, and also because he thought a reference might be made to the matter in the course of the discussion on the conduct of Business. Members of that House had been charged with a deliberate intention to bring Parliament and that House into contempt by endeavouring to obstruct Public Business. Nothing could be more false or unfounded than such a charge. It would, indeed, be an absurd way for an Irish Member to endeavour to obtain the restoration of the legislative rights of Ireland by endeavouring to bring into contempt the proceedings of that House. He denied that he ever had such an intention, and he branded as an unmitigated falsehood the statement that had been made that he intended to damage that House in any respect whatever. He had certainly endeavoured to damage the Government, and at all times to hit as hard as he could with the small means at his command; and if the noble Lord the Member for the Radnor Boroughs (the Marquess of Hartington) had misunderstood his action, he wished to tell him that the only real and effectual opposition which had come from any part of the House, in regard to the measures of domestic legislation introduced by the Government, and which had been justified by results, had proceeded from a section of Irish Members, who had been branded as Obstructionists, and to whom, motives of the most extraordinary character had been imputed. If the noble Lord the Leader—he would not say of the Opposition, but of the casual assistants of Her Majesty's Government—had, with the great weight which his influence and position in the House gave him, devoted his attention, as they had done, to improving the legislative measures of the Government, a vast amount of public time, which had been wasted in the struggle of the Government with a small minority, would have been saved, and there would have been no need for them to have been so pertinacious as they had been in order to overcome the unreasonable opposition of the Government. The noble Lord had, unfortunately, chosen a different course. He had chosen to follow Lord Beaconsfield in his foreign policy. He did not wish to criticize that policy; but he was bound to say that the policy of Lord Beacons-field, which he commenced, not as part

  343
  of his original programme, but after that Parliament had been a year or two old, had been a great deal more successful than had the domestic legislation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that House. The noble Earl had been successful in carrying out his policy against the opposition of the noble Lord the Member for the Radnor Boroughs; but the Government had not been successful in that House in their policy of carrying imperfectly conceived measures without an Amendment. That was notoriously established in the Sessions of 1877–8, and again this Session. He thought it necessary to refer to charges which were as absurd as they were untrue. He, and those who agreed with him, did not wish to throw out the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill. In fact, he should be very sorry if it were thrown out. All they asked was that reasonable time should be given for the consideration of the Amendments to that measure. There was yet ample time, without having recourse to such a measure as that which was adopted on the South African Bill, for which they were now paying the penalty. But even if there should not be time, it would not be difficult to renew the old Mutiny Act, reducing the number of lashes to 25. That would not be so dreadful an alternative to have recourse to. He thought the spectacle of one side of the House embarking in a physical contest—not a contest of brains—against the other would be one that would not result to the honour and dignity of the House. He, therefore, asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give Irish Members English fair play in connection with the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill—a course of conduct which would evoke Irish fair play from himself and his Friends.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that if the announcement of the Government, that they intended to get through the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill, was the reason for making this demand on the time of private Members, he, for one, would suggest that the best thing they could do was to renew the old Mutiny Bill until next year, and have the Army Bill brought in again next year after due consideration. If anyone would compare the simplicity and humanity of the provisions of the German Army Bill with those of the Go-
  344
  vernment Bill, they would be ashamed of the time that had been expended on the latter.
  MR. VANS AGNEWexpressed his willingness to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That, for the remainder of the Session, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motions upon Tuesdays, Government Orders having priority; and that Government Orders have priority upon Wednesdays.

  AGRICULTURAL DEPRESSION.

    HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
    THE COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (The Earl of YARMOUTH)reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:—
    "I have received your Address, praying that a Commission may be issued to inquire into the depressed condition of the Agricultural interest and the causes to which it is owing, whether those causes are of a temporary or permanent character, and how far they have been created or can be remedied by legislation, and I have given directions that a Commission shall issue for this purpose in accordance with your request."

  Ordered, That the Orders of the Day which are appointed for To-morrow, at Two of the clock, be deferred till Tomorrow.
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 10th July.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clase 3 (Division of Act).
    MR. J. BROWNthought that if the definitions of the Bill were brought to the front of it, its provisions would be rendered thereby much plainer and more easily understood by those persons to whom it was applicable. There could be no stronger argument in favour of the Amendment which he had to propose than that drawn from their experience

    345
    of the course of this Bill through Committee; for it would, he thought, be admitted that if hon. Members had had the definitions presented to them in the first part of the Bill, instead of at the end of it, they would have better understood its application, and much time would in consequence have been saved. For instance, it was not until a comparatively late clause was reached that the Committee knew whether the term "soldier "included non-commissioned officers or not, and from that circumstance great confusion had resulted. He was quite sure, inasmuch as the Bill was to tie interpreted by soldiers and not by lawyers, who would, of course, turn to the Definition Clauses at once, that it would be much better understood if the definitions were placed in the front of the Bill. The necessity for a clear view of the application of the Bill was especially apparent in the case of soldiers being called out for the suppression of riot, when, perhaps, without their being aware of it, they immediately entered upon active service, which fact, if it were not made perfectly clear and put plainly before the soldier, might be the cause of his getting into difficulty when so called upon. In these circumstances, and seeing that the Definition Clause had been postponed, he trusted that the Secretary of State for War would agree to the Amendment standing in his name. He moved to insert in page 1, line 14, after "Part I.," the words "Definitions and," for the purpose of securing the object which he had indicated.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaw in the arguments of the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. J. Brown) no sufficient reason for the insertion of definitions in a place which, in his opinion, did not belong to them. He thought that, perhaps, some time had been lost to the Committee by the Bill not having, in some cases, been thoroughly read before hand, which might otherwise have been saved; but he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 69 (Power of Her Majesty to make rules of procedure.)
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, he had rather expected some statement from the Secretary of State for War with regard to this clause. When the Bill was intro-
    346
    duced, a good deal of capital, so to speak, had been made out of the circumstance that the Articles of War were to be abolished; but he wished to point out to the Committee that the new clause referred to by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would, practically, give powers to make Articles of War. The present clause also gave power to alter matter in the Bill of a very serious character, which had been discussed by the Committee. It was true that nothing was to be done contrary to this Act; but it appeared to him extraordinary that the Secretary of State for War should claim for himself power to change the constitution of courts martial. He could not imagine any case in which the Secretary of State for War could exercise the power of changing the constitution of a court martial, without doing a thing contrary to this Act. The power seemed to him to be unnecessary; but if the Secretary of State for War would show him in what cases it would be useful, he would, of course, withdraw his Amendment. He moved, in page 38, line 22, to leave out the words "and constituting," thinking that the constitution of courts martial should remain sacred.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he could not help thinking that the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) had been under a misapprehension with regard to this clause. As far as he (Colonel Stanley) had been able to ascertain, by inquiry from competent advisers, nothing could be more clear than the fact that the section in no way authorized any Secretary of State to depart, in the slightest degree, from the course prescribed in the clauses of the Bill. The powers of the present section referred to small matters of procedure which could not be allowed to encumber the Bill, and which from time to time might have to be altered. For instance, the Volunteers had a right, under certain circumstances, to have courts martial composed of their own officers. That was a rule which from time to time might have to be modified, and, amongst others, afforded an instance in which the power of the clause would be useful. He repeated, that he had been advised, on the best authority, that nothing in the section gave power to the Secretary of State to go one atom beyond this Act.
    MR. HOPWOODwished to point out that the statement of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, that the object of the section was the regulation of small matters of detail, was surpassed by the language used in the clause itself.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsuggested that the following words should be added at the end of the clause:—
    " Provided always, That no such rules shall contain anything contrary to the provisions of this Act."
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment, and would not move the next Amendment standing in his name.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    COLONEL STANLEYmoved, to add after the word "say," in line 21, the words "the assembly and procedure of courts of inquiry."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, that the clause was entirely new, and that reference was made to its provisions neither in the old Mutiny Act nor in the Articles of War. It was a very sweeping thing to say:—
    " Subject to the provisions of this Act, Her Majesty may, by rules to be signified under the hand of a Secretary of State, from time to time, make, and when made, repeal, alter, or add to, provisions in respect of the following matters, or any of them; that is to say … (7.) Any matter in this Act directed to be prescribed."
    The words appeared to him to embody the general sense of the Bill as it existed before it went through the Committee, and to give enormous power to a Secretary of State which had never been conferred by the old Mutiny Act. He moved that sub-section 7 be left out, in order that an opportunity might be given to the Secretary of State for War to afford some explanation.
    COLONEL STANLEYthought that the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) bad overlooked the fact that the rules of procedure were, for the first time, being made Parliamentary. These rules were, in future, to be laid before Parliament. The clause was, undoubtedly, a new one, and alluded to a great many matters which could not possibly be recited in this Act; but he wish to make it clear to the hon. and gallant Member that by it nothing could possibly be done contrary to the Act.
    348
    The sub-section in question was intended to apply to such things as the forms prescribed in cases where regimental returns were required to be made up by officers, and which, from time to time, might have to be modified.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR HENRY JAMESmoved to add after the word "law," in line 35, the words:—
    " Provided always, That such rules shall contain nothing contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act."
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR ROBERT PEELmoved, in page 38, after line 42, to insert:—
    " Whenever a court of inquiry is assembled to investigate any matter affecting the conduct or character of an officer or soldier, such officer or soldier shall be entitled to receive a copy of any opinion which may be delivered by such court; and, if the officer who convenes the court of inquiry shall prefer to instruct the court to receive evidence only and not to deliver an opinion, the officer or soldier whose conduct or character has been called in question shall be entitled to demand that the officer who convenes the court of inquiry shall himself deliver an opinion upon the matter which has been the matter of investigation, and a copy of such opinion shall be delivered in writing to the officer or soldier concerned."
    COLONEL STANLEYremarked, that he had already proposed rules with regard to Courts of Inquiry which had been laid upon the Table of the House.
    SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that they had proceeded so rapidly through the Bill that he was not aware that it was proposed to put these rules in the Bill. He had intended to have put a Notice on the Paper with regard to this matter; but, owing to certain circumstances, was prevented from doing so. With respect to the observations of the noble Marquess, referring to him in the discussion which had preceded this matter, he thought that the Committee would agree with him that they were fully entitled to consider the bearing of these provisions with respect to what had recently occurred in South Africa.
    THE CHAIRMANremarked, that the right hon. Baronet would not be in Order in referring directly to what had passed in the House.
    SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that he wished to point out that he considered it would be very desirable that the proceedings of these Courts of Inquiry

    349
    should be as clear as possible, and in support of this it was only necessary to mention a recent case which occurred at the relief of Ekowe, where a Court of Inquiry was held upon a sergeant, who was sentenced to five years' penal servitude. The sentence of the Court was sent for revision to the Judge Advocate, and the non-commissioned officer returned to this country. It was found, on inquiry at home, that the evidence was so much in favour of the sergeant that he was allowed to join the 3rd battalion of the 60th Rifles. He thought this matter was really in point to show how necessary it was to bring these Courts of Inquiry before the attention of the House. He would point out that it was highly desirable that the Government should lay upon the Table of the House the proceedings of the different Courts of Inquiry that had been held during the course of the present year. A Court of Inquiry was held with reference to the accident that happened to the 10th Hussars in crossing the Cabul River, when a troop was washed away. An hon. Member opposite asked the Government whether the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry which investigated the cause of the disaster had been forwarded to this country to the proper authorities. In reply to an inquiry addressed to them by the hon. and learned Member for King's County (Mr. Serjeant Sherlock), the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War stated that the decisions of those courts had hitherto been kept secret, and that there was no reason, in the particular case referred to, to depart from the ordinary rule. It was very important to notice the reply which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War gave to that question, for it showed how the Government had changed its opinions on this point since the 26th of June. It now appeared by the regulations which had been put into the hands of hon. Members that morning that the Government were prepared to allow the officer or soldier, tried by a Court of Inquiry, to have a copy of the opinion arrived at. This was an important concession, and he wished to point out that as the Government had made that concession now, it would be highly desirable that they should favour the House of Commons, and the country, with the results of the Court of Inquiry
    350
    into the Isandlana disaster. He did not know whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was prepared to consent to lay upon the Table of the House the result of that inquiry. There was another point to which he wished also particularly to bring to his notice. A Court of Inquiry was held in reference to the disaster at the Zlobani Mountain. That was a most serious disaster, as a whole corps was cut to pieces; and from letters which he had received he had no doubt that there was very good cause for holding a Court of Inquiry. He believed the Government were in possession of the results of these inquiries, and he thought it would be far better if they were to adopt his suggestion, and since they had put this Memorandum into the hands of hon. Members that they would also lay upon the Table of the House the results of these inquiries, and it would then be unnecessary to move for the Reports. He wished further to point to a question which arose in connection with the proceedings of another Court of Inquiry recently held at the Cape. A great act of injustice had been done to one officer by the publication of the finding of that Court of Inquiry. He held in his hands a copy of that Report, dated Landsman's Drift, June 10th. It should be remembered that that Court of Inquiry was ordered by Lord Chelmsford. Lord Chelmsford also ordered the Court of Inquiry into the Isandlana disaster; but the Report of the inquiry into the most recent disaster had been published contrary to all previous practice.
    THE CHAIRMANwas bound to point out to the right hon. Baronet that he understood him to be about to move an Amendment of which he had submitted the words. He had then understood that he was about to depart from that intention, and said he would conclude by another Amendment. He wished to say that it would be convenient to the Committee that he should furnish him with the terms of that Amendment; for so far as the right hon. Baronet had gone at present he did not see precisely the connection between the observations he was now making and the subject-matter before the Committee.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENasked, whether observations with reference to Courts of Inquiry that had recently taken place at the Cape were not in

    351
    Order upon the subject-matter before the Committee?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he would be able to answer that question when he had heard the right hon. Baronet propose his Amendment.
    SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he would read his Amendment. It was as follows:—
    "Whenever a court of inquiry is assembled to investigate any matter affecting the conduct or character of an officer or soldier such officer or soldier shall be entitled to receive a copy of any opinion which may he delivered by such court; and if the officer who convenes the court of inquiry shall prefer to instruct the court to receive evidence only, and not to deliver an opinion, the officer or soldier whose conduct or character has been called in question shall he entitled to demand that the officer "who convenes the court of inquiry shall himself deliver an opinion upon the matter which has been the subject of investigation, and a copy of such opinion shall be delivered in writing to the officer or soldier concerned."
    He thought he was perfectly in Order in moving that Amendment upon the proposed clause of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. He had understood the Chairman of "Ways and Means to rule that he was not in Order in moving that Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMANhad understood that the right hon. Baronet had at first intended to move that Amendment, but had changed his intention.
    SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that he had not wished to move the Amendment if the Government had acceded to his suggestion. He thought his remarks were relevant to the subject before the Committee. His contention was, that when the conduct of an officer or soldier was investigated by a Court of Inquiry, then it was just and right that that officer or soldier should receive a copy of the opinion of the Court.
    COLONEL STANLEYwished to interrupt the right hon. Baronet for the purpose of pointing out, if he were in Order in doing so, that there was some misapprehension on this matter. He had promised to put into the Bill the rules of procedure for Courts of Inquiry in addition to the rules of procedure for courts martial. Inasmuch as there had been a good deal of controversy about these matters, he wanted to make his intentions perfectly clear; and he had placed, for the convenience of the Committee, a draft of the regulations which
    352
    he proposed to lay before Parliament in the hands of hon. Members. He had done that in an informal shape, no doubt; but it was for the convenience of circulation. From the Memorandum it would be seen that he proposed that:—
    " Whenever any inquiry affects the character of an officer or soldier, full opportunity must be afforded such officer or soldier of being present throughout the inquiry, and of making any statement he may wish to make, and of cross-examining any witness whose evidence, in his opinion, affects his character, and of producing any witnesses in defence of his character."
    Then, by Section 10 of the Memorandum it was provided:—
    " When, in consequence of the assembling of a court of inquiry, an opinion adverse to the character of any officer or soldier is formed by the officer who determines the case so inquired into, whether such officer be the officer who assembled the court or a superior officer to whom the case has been referred by such last-named officer, such adverse opinion shall be communicated to the officer or soldier against whom it has been given."
    He wished particularly to draw attention to these matters, because a great deal of misapprehension had arisen as to Courts of Inquiry. He wished distinctly to state that a Court of Inquiry was not in strictness a judicial tribunal; but was simply an assembly of persons to collect evidence in any case in which a commanding officer could not himself make the inquiry. He wished to emphasize that fact, because the right hon. Baronet had seemed to suppose that a Court of Inquiry was a tribunal appointed to try an officer or soldier. It was perfectly erroneous to suppose that any person was tried before a Court of Inquiry. A Court of Inquiry was not empowered to exercise any of the functions of a tribunal, and if any such Court assumed those functions, he was of opinion that they would be entirely in the wrong, and the object of the rules proposed was to prevent that being done.
    SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that no doubt the use of the word "trial "with respects to these Courts was a mistake; but he still maintained that the Amendment which he had proposed gave a larger scope to the persons arraigned than that suggested by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, who simply said that:—
    " Whenever any inquiry affects the character of an officer or soldier, full opportunity must be afforded such officer or soldier of being present

    353
    throughout the inquiry, and of making any statement he may wish to make, and of cross-examining any witness whose evidence, in his opinion, affects his character, and of producing any witness in defence of his character."
    He felt very deeply upon these matters, and thought the subject was one which required the serious attention of the military authorities. It would be much better to provide, as was done by his Amendment, that a copy of any opinion which might be delivered by the Court of Inquiry affecting the conduct or character of an officer or soldier should be delivered to him. He could not conceive it desirable that in some cases the results of Courts of Inquiry should be kept secret, and that in other cases, in view of extraordinary circumstances, the results should be known. He thought that in all cases the results should be published at the place where the Court of Inquiry was held. It appeared to him that this was a matter of great importance; and he trusted that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would agree to his very reasonable suggestion that whenever a Court of Inquiry was assembled to investigate any matter affecting the conduct or character of any officer or soldier, such officer or soldier should be entitled to receive a copy of any opinion that might be delivered by such Court.
    COLONEL STANLEYwished again to impress on the Committee the regulations proposed in the Memorandum. By Section 8 he provided that:—
    " A court of inquiry will give no opinion on the conduct of any officer or soldier, and the proceedings of a court of inquiry cannot be given in evidence against an officer or soldier. Nevertheless, in the event of an officer or soldier being tried by court martial in respect of any matter or thing which, has been reported on by a court of inquiry, such officer or soldier shall be entitled to a copy of the proceedings of the court of inquiry."
    He thought that that provision entirely met the justice of the case.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENobserved that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had stated that a Court of Inquiry was only instituted for the purpose of giving a commanding officer information which he could not otherwise conveniently obtain. If that were the case, no reasonable objection could be offered; but, unfortunately, there had been cases in which Courts of Inquiry had been used
    354
    against officers for a very different purpose. It was necessary for him, in illustrating this remark, to mention to the House a case which he knew was not at all popular. He alluded to the case of Colonel Dawkins, an officer of the Guards, whose case had before been brought to the attention of the House. He had performed his duty with credit as an officer of the brigade of Guards; but he had the misfortune to disagree with Lord Rokeby, who commanded the brigade of Guards, and, in consequence of that difference, he was made the subject of a Court of Inquiry. He would say that Colonel Dawkins was tried, were it not certain that he would be told that no trial had taken place. But what happened was, that Colonel Dawkins was sent before a Court of Inquiry, and a man whose commission was worth £ 8,000 or £ 9,000 was taken out of the Army on its recommendation. Not a single statement could be made contrary to the honour of Colonel Dawkins as an officer and a gentleman, and instead of trying him by a court martial a Court of Inquiry was held. His Royal Highness would not go to a court martial, and a secret investigation was held by a Court of Inquiry. He was using this merely as an instance of the way in which these Courts of Inquiry were used. Colonel Dawkins was found guilty by the Court of Inquiry, not of any military offence, not of any want of knowledge of his Profession; and he was removed from the Guards. The fact was, he was unpopular with certain noble Lords and persons in high position at the Horse Guards. They did not want to ask for a court martial; they preferred to use the Prerogative of Her Majesty to turn anybody out of the Army without a court martial. When this man was taken out of the Profession it possibly overturned his mind, for he was found guilty of conduct which no gentleman, in his opinion, would ever attempt to justify. He considered that Courts of Inquiry were the screw which the Horse Guards could put upon any man they did not want in order to turn him out of the Army. He believed it was the opinion of numbers of independent officers of the Army that Courts of Inquiry were not used for the purpose which they were intended for, but as means for getting rid of unpopular men. He thought that the matter to which

    355
    the right hon. Baronet had directed attention deserved the attention of the House, and if he went to a Division on his Amendment he should certainly support him.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that if the hon. Baronet would be good enough to read the 8th of the proposed regulations he would see that:—
    " A court of inquiry will give no opinion on the conduct of any officer or soldier, and the proceedings of a court of inquiry cannot be given in evidence against an officer or soldier. Nevertheless, in the event of an officer or soldier being tried by court martial in respect of any matter or thing which has been reported on by a court of inquiry, such officer or soldier shall be entitled to a copy of the proceedings of the court of inquiry."
    He would also wish again to draw attention to the 10th rule, which carried out everything that was required by the Amendment. It stated that:—
    " When, in consequence of the assembling of a court of inquiry, an opinion adverse to the character of any officer or soldier was formed by the officer who determines the case so inquired into," then "such adverse opinion shall be communicated to the officer or soldier against whom it has been given."
    He thought, therefore, that the proposals of his right hon. and gallant Friend carried out everything that could be desired; and he did not think that it was necessary to go into a long wrangle about a matter which had been already carried out.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTwished to call attention to the manner in which this matter now stood. In the 69th clause there was nothing about Courts of Inquiry.
    COLONEL STANLEYremarked, that an Amendment was put in the clause relating to Courts of Inquiry.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURThad forgotten that; but he was sure that it was understood at the time they were discussing that Amendment that the regulations for Courts of Inquiry should not be put into the Bill, but should be left entirely outside the Bill. There was a general understanding with regard to that matter. There was a great objection to putting regulations with regard to Courts of Inquiry into the Bill; but it was agreed that the regulations should be communicated to the House in order that it might understand what was to be done with respect to these courts. That was the proper time, in his opinion,
    356
    for making any suggestion, or proposing any alteration, in these regulations; but he did not think that it was convenient at that time to introduce into the Bill an Amendment with respect to Courts of Inquiry. They had agreed hitherto that Courts of Inquiry should be regulated by the Queen's Regulations outside the Bill. The regulations it was proposed to issue had been submitted to the House by the Government, and it would be highly inconvenient that any Amendment in these regulations should be put in the Bill.
    SIR ROBERT PEELhad understood, from the Memorandum of the proposed regulations being headed "Army Discipline and Regulation Bill," that the regulations were to be inserted in the Bill.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTthought that it was not the intention to put these regulations into the Bill. These were the regulations which the Government wished the House to know that they intended to issue in the form of Queen's Regulations in accordance with their undertaking to make rules for Courts of Inquiry. The Government had merely let the House know what regulations they intended to make in accordance with the pledge which they gave in that Amendment to the clause, which stated that rules and regulations should be made for Courts of Inquiry. It was a mistake to suppose that the regulations were intended to be introduced into the Bill.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEthought that these regulations were incomplete so long as there was no provision for any officer or soldier whose conduct was under investigation having the same right of challenge as if he had been brought before a court martial: otherwise there would be an opportunity of placing upon Courts of Inquiry officers who would give such opinions as might lead to a miscarriage of justice. He might mention that at Naval Courts of Inquiry there was the same right of challenge as upon courts martial, and he could see no reason why the challenge should not be given in the case of Military Courts of Inquiry. As a case in point he might mention that of Colonel Carter, commanding the 62nd Regiment, who had a difference with his major, and a Court of Inquiry was directed by the authorities. The President of the Court of Inquiry was the

    357
    brother-in-law of Major Jerome; and if Colonel Carter had had a right of inquiry he would naturally have objected to a brother-in-law of one of the officers, whose conduct was under investigation, being President of the Court. As a natural consequence, that court came to a conclusion adverse to Colonel Carter. He should, therefore, propose, as an Amendment to the 69th clause, that:—
    " Any officer or soldier whose conduct is being inquired into should have the same right of challenge as upon a court martial."
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERwished to join in the appeal which had been made to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) to withdraw his Amendment. The proposed regulations provided that:—
    "A court of inquiry will give no opinion upon the conduct of any officer or soldier… Nevertheless, in the event of an officer or soldier being tried by a court martial in respect of any matter or thing which has been reported on by a court of inquiry, such officer or soldier shall be entitled to a copy of the proceedings of the court of inquiry."
    Moreover, that any adverse opinion that a Court of Inquiry might come to was to be communicated to the officer or soldier against whom it had been given. The result of the adoption of the right hon. Baronet's Amendment would be that he would put an end to the proposed regulations altogether. Everything that was required by his Amendment was really contained in the regulations, and he did not think that there was any reason for proposing the Amendment.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that it must be borne in mind that he had placed these regulations in the hands of hon. Members merely for their information, and for the purpose of showing what he intended to do. He was sorry that any misapprehension had arisen in consequence of the form in which he had put these regulations before the Committee. It was not intended to put them in the Bill; but they were simply a Memorandum of what it was intended to do. As regarded the various points which had been urged upon him, he would carefully consider them; but he would again tell the Committee that a Court of Inquiry was simply a body of persons to collect evidence for a commanding officer, and to assist him in ascertaining what the facts were upon which he should form his opinion. He thought that particular
    358
    care was required in these regulations to prevent a commanding officer, who had given an opinion on the case, sheltering himself behind a Court of Inquiry.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLwas unable to find a word about Courts of Inquiry in Clause 69. He understood that the Government were about to make rules for Courts of Inquiry; but why was nothing said in the Bill with regard to Courts of Inquiry? They were not told in the Bill what a Court of Inquiry was; and he thought that Courts of Inquiry should be either excluded from the Bill, or that proper explanations should be given of what Courts of Inquiry were. It was not right suddenly to insert in the Bill power to make rules for Courts of this character. Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would be good enough to state, as this was an important matter, whether this was the first or last mention, of Courts of Inquiry in the Bill?
    SIR JOHN HAYremarked, that in consequence of the Amendment which had been inserted in the 69th clause, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had placed upon the Table a Memorandum of the proposed regulations for Courts of Inquiry. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne), that there should be a right of challenge in cases of Courts of Inquiry, he did not think that there was any reason for giving such right of challenge. The Court of Inquiry was merely constituted to hold an inquiry into certain matters for the benefit of all concerned.
    THE CHAIRMANobserved, that the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim would be raised by a subsequent Amendment; and, therefore, it was not in Order to discuss the right of challenge upon that Amendment.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTthought there was a good deal of force in the observations of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), and that Courts of Inquiry should either be dealt with entirely by the Bill or wholly outside it. It was not known to him that any mention of Courts of Inquiry was made in the Bill, and why an Amendment was to be put in referring to Courts of Inquiry he

    359
    did not know. As the hon. Member had said, if a Court of Inquiry were allowed to be put in the Bill, a proper definition of it must be given. He should recommend the Government to strike out the mention of Courts of Inquiry upon Report, for he thought it ought never to have been put in at all. What the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agreed to was, that Courts of Inquiry—which were no courts at all should be treated as matters of administration, and should be deal with outside the Bill by the Queen's Regulations to prevent their abuse. It was contrary to the whole character of the Bill that Courts of Inquiry should be introduced into it. He would suggest that they should be exclusively treated as matter for regulation, and that no attempt should be made in the Bill to legislate for Courts of Inquiry. At a later stage of the Bill he trusted that his suggestion would be adopted, for they might waste weeks in discussion upon the subject of Courts of Inquiry upon the postponed clauses.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, that Courts of Inquiry were not sanctioned, either by the Mutiny Act or by the Articles of War. From the beginning to the end not a word was said about Courts of Inquiry. The first time that Courts of Inquiry were sanctioned was in the Queen's Regulations for 1868. Before that period, Courts of Inquiry existed only according to what was called the recognized custom of the Service; but no specific rule was laid down with regard to them.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEthought that that was the proper time to discuss the subject of Courts of Inquiry. As the authorities had power to dismiss officers by a Court of Inquiry, it was as necessary for the Committee to discuss what Courts of Inquiry were as it was for them to discuss the constitution of courts martial. In his opinion, the regulations proposed were very incomplete.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that it seemed to him to be perfectly clear that Courts of Inquiry were not now recognized by law. He thought that the Government should either adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, and strike out any reference to Courts of Inquiry from the Bill, or they should give some explanation of what Courts of Inquiry were.
    SIR ROBERT PEELwas prepared to accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt). In moving his Amendment, it was under the impression that it was intended by the Government to introduce these regulations into the Bill. It was in consequence only of seeing the Memorandum of the proposed regulations that he placed his Amendment upon the Paper. If the Government would give the Committee an assurance that Courts of Inquiry should be omitted from the Bill, and that in any regulations respecting them should be contained a provision such as he had submitted, he should be content. It should be recollected that great change had been made in that matter; because he would assert, without fear of contradiction, that it was upon the finding of a Court of Inquiry at the Cape that a court martial was ordered upon Captain Carey. He did hope that the Government would give an assurance, not that they would put it in the Bill, but that they would take care that where any officer or soldier was submitted to a Court of Inquiry the proceedings of that Court should be placed in his hands, so that he might know what was charged against him.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had introduced the subject of Courts of Inquiry by mentioning them in the Bill. Clauses 42 and 43 naturally suggested Courts of Inquiry. It was provided by Clause 42 that:—
    " If an officer thinks himself wronged by his commanding officer, and, on due application made to him, does not receive the redress to which he may consider himself entitled, he may complain to the Commander-in-chief, who shall cause his complaint to be inquired into, and, through a Secretary of State, make his report to Her Majesty, in order to receive the directions of Her Majesty thereon."
    Then, in Clause 43, the case of a soldier was dealt with, and the mode of complaint by a soldier was specified. The clause provided that:—
    " And every officer to whom a complaint is made, in pursuance of this section, shall cause such complaint to be inquired into, and shall, if on inquiry he is satisfied of the justice of the complaint so made, take such steps as may be necessary for giving full redress to the complainant in respect of the matter complained of."
    Therefore, if Courts of Inquiry were not

    361
    expressly ordered by the Act, they were strongly suggested by this clause, and were, in fact, rendered almost imperative. It was impossible to leave that entirely out of the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for Bath (Sir Arthur Hayter) said that, as no opinion on the conduct of an officer or soldier was given by a Court of Inquiry, it was no use to have a right to challenge. When that observation was made, he wished to point out that paragraph 30 of the regulations provided that a Court of Inquiry should make a Report upon what happened. There did not seem to him to be much, difference between the Court of Inquiry offering an opinion, or in making a Report. If they took the case of Captain Carey, of what consequence was it whether the Court had offered an opinion, or had made a full Report? The subject of Courts of Inquiry had been introduced by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, and it could not be said that it was of no consequence what opinion was given by a Court of Inquiry. It was just as important to exclude a brother-in-law of one of the parties being placed upon a Court of Inquiry as upon a court martial. It was very much the same thing as a court martial, only under another name. He could not see that there was any objection to allowing challenges against the officers composing a Court of Inquiry. When a challenge was made it was left to the majority of the Court, leaving out the person challenged, to determine whether he should continue to be a member of the Court. He did not think that such a right should be refused in the case of a Court of Inquiry. It might be very rarely exercised; but it ought to be allowed.
    MR. E. JENKINSthought that the Committee had been placed in considerable difficulty by the point alluded to by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt). Courts of Inquiry were not judicial courts, either in the Army or in the Navy, and had their origin entirely in the Prerogative of the Crown. The introduction into the Bill of Courts of Inquiry appeared to him to be an irregularity, for, by so doing, they were assuming to legislate for what was unquestionably a direct Prerogative of the Crown. No doubt, Courts of Inquiry had led to abuse, for they had been used as judicial courts,
    362
    and their opinions had been acted upon by the Commander-in-chief in advising Her Majesty, and officers had suffered grave injustice by reason of them. Although not judicial courts, many officers had been dismissed from the Army in consequence of representations made by them. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had pointed out the difficulties of the situation, and had endeavoured to reconcile them, and the question was whether they were reconcilable. He noticed in the regulations which had been presented to the House, and for which he felt himself bound to thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, that they did not go so far as was done in the case of the Navy. In the Navy, it was not competent for any officer who had sat upon a Court of Inquiry to sit also upon a court martial in the same matter, and he thought that that regulation might well be adopted in dealing with the Army.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that it had been done.
    MR. E. JENKINSsaid, that as the Courts of Inquiry were recognized in the Act, it seemed to him that it would be better to place these rules in the Schedule. He thought there was no option in the matter, and that it would be more satisfactory if that were done. He saw the difficulty that arose from the circumstances that had been referred to; but he could not help thinking that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman might introduce this Proviso into the Bill for the purpose of safeguarding these Courts of Inquiry. He knew how these Courts had been used in an irregular manner as the basis for the dismissal of officers from the Service without court martial; and there ought to be a Proviso that any officer who felt himself aggrieved by the result of a Court of Inquiry, before he should be dismissed from the Service, should have a right to have his case sent to a court martial. He did not mean that those exact words should be introduced; but the question was simply whether what he had suggested could be done by additional regulations, or whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would introduce a Proviso into the Bill to that effect.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, as this Amendment had been introduced into the Act, he thought the Committee should go a little further, and should also introduce

    363
    a Schedule containing the regulations and the rules which the Secretary of State for War desired to adopt. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had explained very fairly that the regulations issued that day were merely an example of what was in his mind, and it was only fair that he should have a little time to go over them; but, under all the circumstances, he did not think they would be doing their duty in allowing this clause to pass unless they, at the same time, inserted in the Schedules of the Act some provisions to govern the action of these Courts of Inquiry. These Courts were now, for the first time, to be legalized; and it would be unprecedented for them to lay down certain rules and regulations as regarded courts martial, and yet not follow the same precedent in regard to Courts of Inquiry. He would suggest that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) should withdraw his Amendment, and that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne) should refrain from moving his Amendment, and that the Secretary of State for War should undertake to annex a Schedule to the Bill which would contain the ideas which he thought desirable. It was manifest they ought not to give these powers without in some way limiting them, as, otherwise, they would have a Court sanctioned by the Act, and the Secretary of State for War left free to make any rules and regulations he chose, which was much more in accordance with, or, at any rate, not contrary to, the provisions of this Act. Otherwise, the Crown would have unlimited power with regard to these Courts. No doubt, the promises of the Secretary of State for War were very satisfactory with regard to the provisions he proposed to introduce; but they did not know what might happen hereafter, unless Parliament had some control over the matter.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTobserved, that the Committee were on very dangerous ground; he had paid great attention to the Bill, and if they were going into this matter of regulating Courts of Inquiry, the work would take them half as long again as it had already done to make a statutory Court of Inquiry with statutory regulations, and even that would not suffice. He deplored the alteration which had been unfortu-
    364
    nately made during his absence at dinner. If he had been there, he would have protested against it with all his might, for he knew what it would lead to. It seemed to him no part for the Committee to undertake to make regulations for the administration of Courts of Inquiry. He never understood the Secretary of State for War to give an engagement to put Courts of Inquiry into the Bill, and why this Amendment had been stuck: into this clause he really did not know. He thought the best course they could now take was to get nothing more—to wait for the Report, and then cut it out. If they did not, they would get into an inextricable mess. What they should do was to adhere to the original understanding that Courts of Inquiry were not to be recognized as statutory Courts; but that regulations were to be made governing them, and that those regulations should be published and laid before Parliament. He hoped, because they had made an error in sticking these Courts into the clause by an Amendment—the consequences of which were not considered at the time—that they would not get further into the mud by endeavouring to legislate for them, but would implore hon. Gentlemen who desired the progress of the Bill not to encourage Amendments in this way, with regard to Courts of Inquiry, and he would ask them to be satisfied with the regulations to be made by the Secretary of State for War. If those regulations were not all they desired, suggestions could easily be made to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman; and he, no doubt, would give full consideration to the suggestions of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) and that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne).
    SIR ROBERT PEELwas very willing to withdraw his Amendment. He had put it down because of what he saw on the Paper; but he was quite prepared to withdraw it, on the understanding that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would consider the Amendment which he had suggested.
    COLONEL STANLEYexplained, that he inserted this Amendment distinctly in deference to the opinions of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House that something more than the publication of all regulations was necessary, and that there should be some clause in the Bill

    365
    putting Courts on a more statutory footing than they had occupied heretofore. He doubted whether they were not making too much of them altogether; but if they were to recognize them to that extent, he thought there was a great deal to be said for the proposal to put them in the Bill. As far as he was concerned, it was the same thing to him whether they were statutory, or whether they were governed by regulations laid on the Table. If, however, it was thought there was any mistake about putting them into the Bill, when they came to the Report it would be very easy to strike out the Amendment. As far as he was concerned, he was not pledged one way or the other.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCKhoped that the Amendment just made would not be struck out of the Report, but that it would remain a portion of the Bill. On the other hand, if any changes were to be made hereafter, he hoped they would have the fullest opportunity of considering them.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEwished to know whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would accept his Amendment? He thought it was of vital importance that it should be accepted. He proposed to give any officer or soldier whose conduct was inquired into by a Court of Inquiry the same right of challenge as on a court martial. He might mention as an instance the case of Colonel Carter, who was brought before a Court of Inquiry, and the President was the brother-in-law of the person making the charge, and a personal enemy of Colonel Carter; while the two chief witnesses were two officers of his regiment whom he had had to report for intemperate habits, one of whom died afterwards from delirium tremens. Of course, such an inquiry must be a perfect mockery. There was no provision, either, as to whether or not the officers should be taken from the regiment; and they could well understand what a state things would get into, if no one but men of the same regiment could be obtained to sit on a Court of Inquiry. He would move to add at the end of the clause:—
    " Provided always, That any officer or soldier shall have the same right of challenge on a Court of Inquiry as on a court martial."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 38, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided always, That any officer or soldier shall hare the same right of challenge on a court of inquiry as on a court martial."—(Major O'Beirne.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKremarked, that, unfortunately, the Amendment was not on the Paper, and the observations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman had not reached him very distinctly. He understood his proposition was, that there should be a disqualification attached to persons who might serve on courts martial. [An hon. MEMBER: No, no! a right of challenge in courts martial.] Well, he would call the hon. and gallant Member's attention to the clause which gave Her Majesty power to make rules of procedure. It seemed to him nothing could be more proper or pertinent to the rule of procedure than to make such regulations as that to which he had alluded. It had always been the policy and practice in regard to courts martial that no one who had any interest whatever in the proceedings should sit upon them. It seemed to him that the spirit in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman moved his Amendment was perfectly correct, and quite according to precedent; and he had not the slightest doubt that any rules of procedure which were made would be in such a form as would entirely meet the objection he had raised.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEapologized for not having his Amendment on the Paper; but as these Rules regarding Courts of Inquiry were only put into the hands of hon. Members that morning, he could not, of course, formulate his Amendment earlier. The more he read these rules the more incomplete they appeared. For instance, he should like to make an Amendment that the charges to be inquired into should be placed in the hands of any officer at least a fortnight before the Court assembled. He understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that his Amendment would be one of the rules of the Court.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, when the whole subject was thrown open, no doubt, this would be considered among other things.
    MR. MONKunderstood the right hon. and learned Gentleman, on the whole, to

    367
    accept this proposal; but he thought it would be very much better, if that were the case, that the Amendment should be added to the Bill. As an officer had a right of challenge on a court martial, it was only reasonable that he should have the same on a Court of Inquiry.
    MAJOR NOLANhoped the Government would either put this into the Bill or agree to put it into the regulations they were about to issue. It was not sufficient to say that the Amendment should be considered. The instance given was a proof of the necessity for the rule, for if the brother-in-law of an accuser was presiding at a court martial the person accused should certainly have a right of challenge. That right was not absolute. It only allowed the accused to object to a particular man, and then the majority would decide whether he was to sit or not.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked in what shape these rules would come before them for approval, and whether he could propose Amendments in them, and when?
    COLONEL STANLEYreplied, that he could only answer the question inferentially. This power of laying rules before Parliament was taken in many Acts; and these rules would, of course, be open to challenge in the same way as any others. He had given an undertaking that these rules should be laid before Parliament, and, as a consequence, the Memorandum circulated that morning was issued; but the others were not yet finished, for he had not, in fact, had time to complete them, and until they were complete they would, of course, adhere to the existing mode of procedure. He had, however, sent them out in this form with the Votes. It was a mere Memorandum of what he hoped to do and what form he thought they should take. With regard to this point of challenge, he was afraid that would be doing what he was always afraid of—namely, making too much of these Courts of Inquiry. They were merely Courts to come to conclusions about facts'; and they ought not to have, and he did not want them to have, any control, directly or indirectly, over opinions. To give a right of challenge would be making them too much like courts martial; and, therefore, he could give no pledge that he could introduce them into the rules. At the same time,
    368
    he thought it perfectly right and fair that any officer mixed up with the question should not be one of those to decide what the facts were. Whether he would put that in the form of a rule he could not exactly say.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONconsidered this a most unsatisfactory state of things. A large number of Members were of opinion that Courts of Inquiry, as conducted for the last 25 years, ought no longer to exist, or, if left at all, that they ought to be put under proper regulations; but by the statement now made Parliament was to have no control over the regulations whatever. He certainly should support the Amendment that officers should be liable to challenge. If these Courts were to be recognized as Courts, as they were by this Amendment, this Memorandum was of no earthly value to them as Members of Parliament, for they could not alter it; if it was merely laid on the Table they would have no opportunities of altering it. In two points it was very objectionable. It did not provide that the officer or soldier should have a copy, or see the instructions under which the Court was held; and, therefore, he had no means of knowing what the investigation was about, or what steps he should take to meet the implied accusation against him; and, next, it was not provided that the officer or soldier concerned should know the result of the inquiry. That was one thing which officers felt most keenly—that they should be brought into a public Court, subjected to an investigation, and yet should not know the result, and that it should be locked in the cupboards of the officials and never be known. He wished to move Amendments to that clause; but by the course now proposed he would have no opportunity of doing so. He should, therefore, certainly support the Amendment.
    MR. BRISTOWEunderstood that these words were inserted in fulfilment of a pledge given on a previous occasion; but he by no means understood the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to promise anything more. These Courts were to be governed by rules and regulations made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and they were to be laid on the Table, and so be subject to Parliament. They would surely be making a great mistake by introducing into this clause anything in the nature of procedure;

    369
    and, therefore, he did hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not go to a Division, because the Amendment was clearly directed to a point of procedure, and nothing else.
    MAJOR NOLANwas surprised the hon. and learned Member did not see the extraordinary inconsequence of his remarks. They were told that they were to treat Courts of Inquiry exactly as courts martial had been treated, and that after they had carefully provided for the rules of courts martial; and, therefore, according to his own argument, they ought carefully to provide a right of challenge in Courts of Inquiry. Not only was this the proper place to move this, but it was the only place. His hon. and gallant Friend (Major O'Beirne) had very handsomely offered not to press his Amendment if what he desired was inserted in the regulations; and if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could not accept that, he certainly should advise his hon. Friend to go to a Division.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCKsaid, he desired to pass the Bill; but the point now raised was a very grave one indeed, going, not only to the principle of the question, but also to the very root of the Amendment which he himself proposed on Clause 43. He had heard with very great astonishment that the pledge given him several weeks ago that the principle of challenge as regarded Courts of Inquiry was not to be allowed. This was a principle which must be admitted; and, therefore, he hoped it would be inserted either in the Regulations or in the body of the Bill. It was a principle for which he always had contended, and certainly always would contend.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLobserved, that it would be extremely difficult to give a right of challenge when there might be nobody to challenge, for, if everybody exercised it, it would be impossible. It was also totally impossible that any rules could be introduced into this particular section; and he would, therefore, suggest that the section should be allowed to pass, and that hon. Members who wished to introduce rules should introduce them in the Schedule of the Bill.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEdid not intend to withdraw his Amendment, as the Judge Advocate General (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had himself admitted that what
    370
    he asked was only reasonable. As the Government would give no promise that this right would be included in the Rules, there was nothing for it but to take a Division.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONbegged to call attention to paragraph 6 of the proposed regulations, which was as follows:—
    " Whenever any inquiry affects the character of an officer or soldier, full opportunity must be afforded such officer or soldier of being present throughout the inquiry, and of making any statement he may wish to make, and of cross-examining any witness whose evidence, in his opinion, affects his character, and of producing any witnesses in defence of his character."
    It constantly happened that an officer was ordered to appear before a court martial, and these were the cases in which a right to challenge was contemplated. Surely, when a man was ordered to appear, that his conduct or character might be inquired into, it was most necessary that his case should come before officers who had no previous knowledge of the matter. The concession asked ought to be conceded, for if it were not, Courts of Inquiry would be ten times worse than they were before.
    MAJOR NOLANunderstood that this clause had been introduced in order to deal with complaints of officers and soldiers. [Colonel STANLEY: Not entirely.] At any rate, the Government had made this alteration in consequence of the discussions and complaints which Courts of Inquiry gave rise to. As to what the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had said, the right of challenge was not absolute, and only such challenges were allowed as the Courts considered fair.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERobserved, that the great defect of these rules was that there was no guarantee, in the event of a Court of Inquiry finding an adverse verdict to an officer, that, before his removal from the Army, he should have a court martial. Such an Amendment as that was very necessary, in order to prevent a person being practically removed from the Army, as the result of a Court of Inquiry; but nothing was said about his right to demand a court martial; in fact, there was nothing in the rules to prevent an officer being summarily removed. Courts of Inquiry should be something similar to a Grand Jury, for the purpose of informing a

    371
    commanding officer whether a primâ facie case had or had not been made out.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONregretted that he was not in the House at the proper time, or he would have moved the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANthought the point raised was not really a question of procedure; it was a question of the practical rights of an officer, and of his being prevented from being dismissed from Her Majesty's Service.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERunderstood the procedure was defective.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANreplied that he was quite in favour of what an hon. Member proposed, and he did not know whether the manner in which his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne) proposed to carry it out was the best. He could not see, either, what it had to do with this clause, which was merely a clause giving power to make rules of procedure. If this Amendment were to be made, it certainly should be made in a separate clause, declaring that no man, as the result of a Court of Inquiry, should be dismissed from the Service without having the right to demand a court martial. It was not for that House to pitchfork things which did not belong to a clause into it; and he, therefore, thought the Amendment out of place, though he did not all dispute the importance of the point raised.
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, they were now really discussing the clause proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock), on page 27, "Redress of wrongs." It would be more in Order if they waited till they got to that clause.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCKexplained, that he proposed to insert that between 10 and 11. He perfectly agreed that in these Rules regulating Courts of Inquiry there should be some recognition of the principle of the right of challenge; and also that Courts of Inquiry should never be used in substitution for courts martial, nor that the accused should be debarred from the right to a court martial for his own justification. He might point out that this did not in the least debar the Prerogative of the Crown, even after a court martial, to dismiss an accused person, if it should think fit,
    372
    without assigning any reason there for. By his proposal, he granted both the rights of the Crown and of the individual. The point for which he contended was that the principle of the right of challenge should be introduced into the body of these rules as well as into the body of the Bill. It was quite possible that the course suggested, of inserting it in the new clause, might be the best. He would leave it to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to decide that. He maintained that every officer should have the right of a court martial, for even that would not debar the right of the Crown subsequently to dismiss him if it chose.
    COLONEL STANLEYdid not think, in the discussion of the 1st of May, that he ever bound himself absolutely to carry out the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Sunderland. He explained his views at the time, and promised, as far as possible, to carry them out. With regard to this question of the right of challenge being inserted in these rules, his answer was that these rules and regulations would be laid on the Table of the House, and Parliament would then have an opportunity of making a Motion upon them, or of making any Amendments it chose. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock), of which he had spoken, that seemed to divide itself naturally into two parts. The first part was already practically included in the regulations, while the second part raised a question of vast importance. With regard to that, when they came to the clause, he would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to strike out the first part of it; and, with regard to the second, to put it before the Committee, and leave it to their judgment. The Committee had already agreed to a provision which gave the Secretary of State power to frame, from time to time, rules of procedure for Courts of Inquiry, and he had laid upon the Table a Memorandum showing what his views were upon the matter. He had, therefore, given the Committee all the information which he could with respect to it; and he could not help thinking that the progress of the Bill was being delayed by the discussion of the regulations at the present moment. Those regulations could not be introduced into the Bill;

    373
    but when it became law they would, be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and ample opportunity would thus be afforded for criticizing them. On the Report it would, of course, be open to any hon. Member to support the words of the clause as they stood, or to move that they be omitted.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCKcontended that there ought, in the interests of the Service, to be a statutory recognition of Courts of Inquiry.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, lie did not think the answer which had been given by the Secretary of State for War to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock) was at all satisfactory. It was all very well to say that it would be open to any hon. Member to criticize the rules when they were laid on the Table of the House; but a private Member would find it impossible to obtain a day for the discussion of any Amendment which he might move proposing their rejection. The present was, he contended, the proper occasion to discuss the rules. The Bill, as he had repeatedly said, contained some very severe provisions, and would take away from the soldier various little privileges which he had hitherto enjoyed. It would not be right, therefore, he thought, to deprive them of a protection which they now had under the Articles of War which dealt with Courts of Inquiry.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the Government ought to give the Committee some more distinct information than they had as yet done as to whether they meant to deal with Courts of Inquiry in the Bill or not. If they intended to do so, they ought to say so at once; if they did not, then they had allowed three hours to be wasted, simply because they had not thought proper to let the Committee know what was their policy in the matter. A fatal mistake had, in his opinion, been made by the Government in introducing into the clause the words "Courts of Inquiry." If those Courts were to be made the subject of legislation in the Bill, then it would be necessary to provide as complete a machinery for them as for courts martial. He, for one, must protest against the way in which the question was being dealt with by the Government; and he would point out to them that if now, at the eleventh hour, they were
    374
    determined to legislate for Courts of Inquiry, it would be impossible to go on with the Bill. He thought the Government had accepted the principle that those Courts should be dealt with by regulation; but now there was an Amendment, in which the words "Courts of Inquiry" appeared for the first time, and everybody was asking what they were; but to that question no answer had been given. It was to introduce absolute confusion into the Bill, he maintained, to make those Courts the subject of statutory enactment. He hoped, at all events, that in the interest of the progress of the Bill the Government would, without further delay, frankly tell the Committee what they really proposed to do in the matter.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, there could be no doubt that there was no intention on the part of those who framed the Bill to legislate by Statute for Courts of Inquiry. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir Henry Havelock), however, wanted to have the rules relating to them placed in the Schedule of the Bill; but that was a proposition which he did not think the Committee would act wisely in adopting, and his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War had never given it his sanction. When the rules were laid on the Table of the House there would be ample opportunity for discussing them, and making a Motion, if that should be deemed expedient, for their modification or rejection; but if they were embodied in the Bill, the result would be something like a deadlock, from time to time, in dealing with matters which ought to be the subject of a more elastic mode of treatment. He quite concurred with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) that it would be very undesirable to constitute Courts of Inquiry by the Bill.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCKsaid, that the observations of the right hon. Gentleman who just sat down, and of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford, had come somewhat too late, for, as a matter of fact, the Secretary of State for War had introduced into the Bill words which gave a statutory recognition to Courts of Inquiry; and he should like to ask the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, in the interests of the Army, on what principle it was that

    375
    he was so anxious that Courts of Inquiry should be ignored in the Bill?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Committee were now, he thought, in a position to decide the question whether Courts of Inquiry should be dealt with in the Bill or not. That question was raised by the Amendment which proposed that soldiers should have the same right of challenge in regard to those courts as was given them in the case of a court martial.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, there was no recognition either in the Mutiny Act or the Articles of War of Courts of Inquiry, except for the redress of wrongs. They were mentioned for the first time in the Queen's Regulations in 1868.
    MAJOR NOLANpointed out that it was provided by the Articles of War that if any non-commissioned officer or soldier felt that he had been wronged in any matter affecting his pay or clothing, he might ask to have the grievance of which he complained submitted to the consideration of a regimental Court of Inquiry.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the Articles of War had not the force of a Statute. They were something done by the Queen, as it were, outside the law. The real point was whether Courts of Inquiry had been recognized by the Mutiny Act, and his contention was that they had never yet been recognized by any Statute. He would advise the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War not to allow himself to be led into the supposition that he was under a pledge to anyone to introduce Courts of Inquiry into the Bill. Although the Committee could not alter what had been done already, they ought not, in his opinion, to go further in the same direction by adopting the Amendment now under discussion, containing, as it did, the words "Courts of Inquiry."
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 165: Majority 115.—(Div. List, No. 162.)
    MR. PARNELLsaid, some words ought, in his opinion, to be added at the end of the clause, similar to those which, as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department
    376
    was aware, were to be found in the Factory Act, providing that the rules which, under the operation of the clause, would have to be laid before Parliament, should be on the Table for 40 days, so that they might be subject to Parliamentary revision. There was, of course, no necessity for inserting those words on that occasion; but their insertion might be moved on the Report.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it was expected that the present Bill would come into operation in the very next week, and that it might be impossible to allow the rules framed in connection with it to lie on the Table for 40 days, inasmuch as Parliament might not sit for so long a period. The point to which the hon. Member had called the attention of the Committee was one which could be discussed on the Report.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he did not mean to contend that the rules should not come into operation until they had been on the Table of the House for 40 days. Those rules, as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department must be aware, would come into operation from the time they were made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. In the same way, the rules connected with the Factory Act and the Prisons Act came into operation as soon as they were issued. But what ho desired was that Parliament should have the right to annul the rules made by the Secretary of State for War under the present Bill if it should think fit to do so, and in the event of their being annulled by Parliament they should cease to be valid.
    COLONEL ARBUTHNOTsaid, that all the rules and regulations in connection with the Army were embodied in a Royal Warrant, and circulated throughout the Army. An answer which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had given to a Question which he (Colonel Arbuthnot) had put to him would, perhaps, be the most convincing proof which the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) could have that it was quite open to the House to bring about a change of the rules in question immediately after they appeared. The answer to which he alluded referred to a regulation, with regard to which he had thought it his duty to make a Motion in that House, on which occasion the Se-

    377
    cretary of State for War gave way; so that it was quite clear it was in the power of hon. Members to bring about an alteration in any rules which might be made.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked for an explanation of the words in the clause—"All rules made in pursuance of this section shall be judicially noticed." By the present Mutiny Act it was provided that the Rules and Regulations made by the Sovereign should be taken notice of judicially in all Courts whatever, and that copies of them, printed by the Queen's printer, should, as soon as might be, be sent by the Secretary of State to the Judges of Her Majesty's Superior Courts in London, Dublin, and Edinburgh. No provision was, however, made in the clause under discussion for sending the rules framed under it to the Judges; and he should like, therefore, to know how those learned persons were to have judicial cognizance of them, and with what object the words of the Mutiny Act were omitted from the clause?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, that all Courts of Justice were supposed cognizants of an Act of Parliament, and that rules framed under the operation of the Act would have the force of an Act of Parliament.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, that the Committee upstairs were of opinion that they ought not to have the same authority as an Act of Parliament.
    Clause, as amended, agreed, to.
    Clause 72 (Appointment and power of provost marshal) struck out.
    Clause 87 (Delivery of soldier on discharge with his wife or child at workhouse, or of dangerous lunatic at asylum).
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLmoved the omission, in page 47, line 36, of the words "or otherwise." The clause, he said, gave power to a Secretary of State to cause a soldier on his discharge, on account of lunacy, or otherwise, to be sent to the parish in which his attestation paper showed that he had been born, and the words "or otherwise" seemed to him to be so vague that it was not desirable they should be retained in the clause.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he wished, in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), to move an Amendment which stood on the Paper in his name. He himself had given Notice of an Amendment on the clause which stood lower down on the Paper, and which related to a different point. The Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo had for its object to provide that a lunatic soldier, when discharged from the Army, should be sent to a lunatic asylum, instead of being made a burden upon the rates. The Committee were, perhaps, aware a very considerable change had been proposed by the Select Committee which sat upstairs to consider the whole question of poor removal with respect to the Law of Settlement. He was informed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) that that Committee had, practically, agreed to a Report in which they recommended that the Law of Settlement should be abolished, and that any person who happened to become a pauper in any locality, no matter what length of time he might have resided there, should be entitled to relief in the Union of that locality. If their recommendation were not acted upon, so much the worse would it be, in his opinion. But the Government, under the present clause, took power to send a lunatic soldier on his discharge to the parish in which it was stated in his attestation paper that he had been born, and to send his wife or child with him. Now, a very great innovation was sought to be introduced by that provision, because, in accordance with it, a soldier would be sent, not to the place in which he might have acquired a settlement, or might have spent the greater part of his life, but to the place of his birth; and assuming that the attestation paper would correctly state what that place was, still the clause would enable the Government not to carry out the existing law with regard to paupers, but to do something entirely different. He would also observe that the Committee were in ignorance of what the law of he future might be with respect to the removal of paupers; and he thought that, totally irrespective of the general law on the subject, the Government ought to establish lunatic asylums where lunatic soldiers might be taken care of at the expense of the State.

    379
    Otherwise, a very heavy charge might be imposed on the local rates of a parish which had in no way been benefited by the soldier during the best years of his life. He begged to move, in page 47, line 37, after "discharge," to leave out to "discharged," inclusive, in page 48, line 7, and insert:—
    " To be sent to a military asylum provided for the reception of military lunatics, and the wife or child of any such soldier may be sent to the parish in the United Kingdom in which he appears from his attestation paper to have been attested, and such wife or child, if delivered after reasonable notice in England or Ireland at the workhouse in which persons settled in such parish are received, and in Scotland to the inspector of poor of such parish, shall be received by the master or other proper officer of such workhouse, or such inspector of poor, as the case may be."
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the Amendment, as moved by the hon. Member, was informal, as there was no such word as "discharged" which he proposed to omit in line 7.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that in that case he would at the proper time move the Amendment which stood on the Paper in his own name.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper which would, he thought, meet the case, for he had no wish to stereotype under the Bill anything which might be inconsistent with existing statutes on the subject of the settlement of paupers; and he, therefore, proposed that a Secretary of State might, if he thought proper, send a lunatic soldier to the parish or union to which he was removable. With that view he begged to move, in page 47, line 38, after "parish," to leave out to "and," in line 3, page 48, and insert:—
    " Or union to which under the statutes for the time being in force he appears, from the statements made in his attestation paper and other available information, to be removable."
    He wished to point out, in reference to the proposal which stood on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Mayo, that it was open to the objection that it would make a lunatic soldier, even though he happened to have been in the Service only for a single day, chargeable on the military for the whole of his life.
    MR. O'SULLIVANcontended that it was not fair to send a lunatic soldier to a workhouse, where he was sure to be badly treated. There were in workhouses no proper staff to take care of a person so
    380
    situated, and if he were allowed to mix among the ordinary paupers the probability was that his malady would grow worse. He would suggest, therefore, that a lunatic soldier should on his discharge be sent to the lunatic asylum of the county to which he belonged. His wife or child might be sent to the workhouse.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that as the law stood a pauper was liable to be removed to a certain parish or union; but that power was now proposed to be taken to remove a lunatic pauper directly to the asylum attached to the workhouse of that particular parish or union.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERregretted that, owing to some mistake, the Amendment which stood on the Paper in his name could not be put from the Chair; but if he rightly understood what had fallen from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, he was prepared to concede the principle for which he (Mr. O'Connor Power) was contending, which was that a lunatic soldier on his discharge from the Army should not be sent to a workhouse, either of the parish in which he was born or in which he had been attested, but that, as a married man, he should be regarded as the ward of the State. It had been suggested by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that it was, technically, scarcely open to a private Member to move an Amendment which would involve an increase of the Military Estimates; but that was a very good reason why the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should take the matter into his own hands. The proposal of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was certainly an improvement on the clause as it stood; but the point raised by his (Mr. O'Connor Power's) Amendment was whether it was not the proper course to pursue to send a lunatic soldier to a military asylum after he had become broken down in the service of his country, instead of sending him to the parish workhouse for relief, or to the local lunatic asylum connected with it.
    MR. SULLIVANshared with the hon. Member for Mayo the strongest objection to put upon soldiers of the Army the degradation of pauperism because they might be visited with lunacy. He should certainly impress upon the Committee that it was most

    381
    desirable that this additional stigma should not be placed on men serving in the ranks of the Army. He could see no reason why mental suffering in the Army should be treated in a degrading manner any more than other suffering on the part of soldiers. He hoped his hon. Friend would press his Amendment.
    MR. RAMSAYthought that the proposal of the hon. Member for Mayo was so reasonable as to deserve the attention of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, there was no degradation to a soldier in sending him to a workhouse, where everyone acquainted with these establishments would know he would be well taken care of. He did not think it would be merciful to send a lunatic soldier to an asylum, perhaps in the middle of England; it would be much better to send him to an asylum in the place lie came from, where he would be near his friends. Cateris parihus, he objected strongly to the creation of new institutions involving vast expense to the country, which would make its appearance in the Estimates. He should be sorry to see the Military Estimates charged with the maintenance of lunatic soldiers who had only served a short time; but in the case where they had served for a long time, and then lost their reason, he certainly thought that the Military Estimates should bear the expense?
    MR. BIGGARthought that the wife and child should be sent to the place where the wife would be chargeable, supposing she was a widow. If the wife was to be sent to the workhouse at all, the best plan would be to send her to the place where she was married, and where she would probably be amongst friends. If she was sent to the place where her husband was attested, she would probably close her days in the workhouse. He certainly thought that the place where the marriage took place should be chargeable.
    MR. P. MARTINsaid, under the provisions of the existing code even Poor Law authorities had no power to remove a native of Ireland, who might become insane in England, back to Ireland. The clause, without some alteration of the kind which was proposed by an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Meath, would give the Secretary of State a
    382
    power which at present he did not possess by Statute—namely, to send to Ireland a lunatic soldier whose attestation paper showed him to have been born in Ireland. He submitted that this would be unfair and unjust. If unfitted for service by mental affliction the Military Estimates ought to bear the cost. Reason and analogy were in favour of the adoption by the Committee of that principle. He suggested that the Proviso standing in the name of the hon. Member for Meath should be added to the Amendment of the Secretary of State for War, which, he thought, should then be accepted without further comment.
    MR. RYLANDSthought the words as they stood would cause injustice towards towns where there were depot centres. Without being able to suggest what would exactly meet his view of the matter, he thought it would be only reasonable that some means should be adopted to prevent injustice upon parishes.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the Amendment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman appeared to him to upset the whole of the existing law. If the proviso as to the cost being defrayed by the War Office were added, the soldier would not become a pauper, but would simply remain a lunatic in his regiment; and if even the law with regard to removability were altered, and it was declared that he should be entitled to relief, the soldier would not be a pauper.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, there were no powers now in existence for the removal of soldiers. The removal would be to the place to which by law for the time being the person might be removed. The attestation paper would give no power of removal.
    MR. HIBBERTthought the word "removable" objectionable, and moved that the word "chargeable" be substituted.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. HIBBERTpointed out that a soldier in Her Majesty's Service was not a pauper, and could not, therefore, become chargeable unless he was destitute. He moved the addition of the words "if he were destitute" at the end of the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    COLONEL STANLEYmoved, in page 47, line 40, after the word "parish," to insert the words "or union." Also, in page 48, line 5, after "parish," to insert "or union."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, there was considerable force in the remark of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy), that a lunatic soldier should betaken back to his native county, where his friends were, when he would probably be amongst friends; but there was no reason why the revenues of that county should be charged with the expense of his maintenance. It had, in the case of an officer, always been the rule of the Service that if he became insane some allowance should be made to him. Why, then, should not this rule apply in the case of a soldier who became insane in the Service, perhaps from the effect of climate? It would only be fair to take the cost of his maintenance off the rates; and, therefore, he begged to move that words be added at the end of the clause to the effect that the guardians of the poor of the union or parish upon which the cost of maintaining such lunatic, or his wife, or child, devolved should be entitled to receive from the War Office the cost so incurred from time to time for the support of such person or persons.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 48, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided always, That the guardians of the poor of the union or parish upon which the cost of maintaining such lunatic or his wife or child devolves, shall be entitled to receive from the War Office the cost so incurred from time to time for the support of such person or persons."—(Mr. Parnell)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was at first sight entitled to a good deal of consideration; but he was bound to point out that the circumstances of the case were hardly such as some hon. Members appeared to have in their minds. The Government would have no difficulty in agreeing that the Estimates should be charged with the cost of a man who had incurred illness, or suffered from the effects of
    384
    climate whilst in the service of the State; but he did not think it would be reasonable that this should be the case where insanity had developed itself in a man who had served but a short time in the ranks. With regard to the mass of these cases, however, a very considerable portion of the cost was already paid by Government under their arrangements in connection with local authorities. For these reasons, and inasmuch as the proposition required a good deal of consideration and working out, and would, moreover, create a large charge upon the Military Estimates, although, of course, the latter was not a chief point of objection, he did not feel able to assent to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member.
    MAJOR NOLANwished to amend the proposed Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) in a manner that he believed would meet the objection which had been raised by the Secretary of State for War to charging the Estimates with the cost of persons who became insane within the first three years of their service. He, therefore, moved to add to the proposed Amendment the words "provided that the soldier shall have been more than three years in the Service."
    MR. BRISTOWEcould not help thinking that the hon. Member for Meath should re-consider his Amendment, which proposed that the wife and children of a lunatic, however short might be the period of his service, should be chargeable on the State. He could understand that when an insane person had been not less than three years in the Service the State should be chargeable; but he could not see upon what principle the wife and children should be so charged.
    MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) ought, in his opinion, to be accepted.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENmaintained that soldiers who had broken down in the Service, and become lunatics, ought not to be spoken of in the sense of paupers, and thought that the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway had removed every objection to the proposal of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell). The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had objected to the latter Amendment—that we had only

    385
    three years' service; but how long did he suppose that the system of short service in the Army was likely to last? He (Sir Patrick O'Brien) believed that everyone connected with the Army had discovered that, from a military point of view, short service was a failure. They ought not at least to regard the soldier as a pauper, and if his lunacy were induced by service in hot climates, the House, he thought, should not place his cost upon the rates of a particular district, but upon the Consolidated Fund.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, the authorities had ample opportunities of examining a person before enlistment in order to ascertain the exact state of his health; and he understood that if there was any indication to the medical man who made the examination that the recruit was likely to become shortly insane he would not be accepted by the authorities. Now, if that were correct, he could not see upon what ground they were called upon to have a lunatic soldier chargeable upon the rates. No one could say in what way the insanity of an individual was produced; and, therefore, if it were equitable, as he felt it to be, that the State should maintain a soldier who became insane during his period of service it should be quite irrespective of the time during which he had served. If, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had stated, a portion of the cost of pauper lunatics was now borne by the State, it was an additional reason why the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath should be accepted, because it would not make the burden so heavy as was at first supposed. He could not, however, agree to that part of the Amendment relating to the wife and child of a lunatic soldier. It would be inequitable to charge their maintenance upon the State; and, therefore, he thought the words relating to them should be struck out if the Amendment were accepted.
    MR. PARNELLpointed out to the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay) that there was very much more reason why the wife and child should be supported at the expense of the State than there was for the soldier himself being so supported. The wife of a soldier who had been permitted to marry would be on the strength of the regiment. It was well known that soldiers were only permitted to marry
    386
    when on long service, or for some particular and special reason, and that the wives of such soldiers accompanying the regiment were on the strength of the regiment. Take the case of the wife of a soldier born in a different place from that in which her husband had a settlement; if the words of his Amendment relating to the wife and child were struck out it.would come to this—that where a soldier who became lunatic had married with the leave of the colonel, because the wife's services would be useful about the regiment, his wife and child would be sent back to the place where the soldier was chargeable, and become chargeable on the rates there although she had had nothing to do with the place. It was true that the cost would not add much to the rates; but he wondered that the Government did not agree to its being borne by the State.
    MR. CALLANhoped that the Amendment would be agreed to. It was intended to meet such a case as had occurred within his own knowledge, and in the borough which he represented. He referred to the ease of a man stationed in one of the towns of Lancashire, who became insane, and was sent in custody of three soldiers to Dundalk; he was left at the workhouse there without any order from the parochial authorities. He (Mr. Callan), happening to be at the workhouse on the day following the man's arrival, recommended that the War Office should be communicated with, and, after the lapse of months, information was received that the man was entitled to the sum of £ 5 as deferred pay. It was also found that the man, although the son of an Irish soldier, had been born in England, and had never been in Ireland. According to law, the people of Dundalk had no remedy, and the ratepayers had been obliged to support the man ever since he was sent there. He trusted that the proposal of the hon. Member for Meath, which would provide a remedy in such cases, would be agreed to by the Committee.
    Amendment proposed to proposed Amendment, by adding the words, "Provided that the soldier shall have been more than three years in the service."
    Amendment agreed to
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 64; Noes 193: Majority 129.—(Div. List, No. 163.)
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 128 (Provision in case of insane persons).
    COLONEL STANLEYmoved, in page 68, line 28, to leave out "insane," and insert:—
    "By reason of insanity unfit to to take his trial, the Court shall find specially that fact, and such person shall he kept in custody in the prescribed manner until the directions of Her Majesty thereon are known, or until any earlier time at which such person is fit to take his trial.
    "Where on the trial by court martial of a person charged with an offence it appears that such person committed the offence but that he was insane at the time of commission thereof."
    Amendment agreed to.
    COLONEL STANLEYmoved, in page 68,line 31, after "and," to insert the words "in either of the above cases."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. PARNELLmoved, in page 68, line 41, to leave out the word "may," and insert the word "shall."
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that when prisoners became insane in prison it was evident that their imprisonment had been too much for their minds. It was a horrible thing that a man, who was certified to be again of sound mind, should be sent back to prison to become again insane. A man's mind must be more or less permanently affected by the fact of his having been insane. He, therefore, moved to leave out in page 69, line 5, all the words after "imprisonment" to the end of the clause. He would like to know whether the provisions of this section would apply to convict establishments, or only to prisons? It was his impression that it referred only to prisons.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that he could not give an answer then, but would look into the matter.
    COLONEL STANLEYmoved, in page 69, line 7, to leave out all the words after the word "prison."
    Amendment agreed to.
    COLONEL STANLEYmoved, in page 40, to leave out the postponed Clause 72, in order to insert the following clause:—
    (Provost marshal.)
    "For the prompt repression of all irregularities and crimes which may he committed abroad, provost marshals, with assistants, may from time to time be appointed by the general order of the general officer commanding a body of forces.
    "A provost marshal or his assistants may at any time arrest and detain for trial persons subject to military law committing offences, and may also carry into execution any punishments to be inflicted in pursuance of a court martial, but shall not inflict any punishment of his or their own authority.
    "A provost marshal, attached to any forces on active service, or any of his assistants, may make a complaint to any officer in immediate command of any detachment or portion of such body of forces, against any person subject to military law who has committed any offence; and if in the opinion of such officer, it is not practicable, having due regard to the public service, that such offence should be tried by an ordinary court martial, it shall be lawful for him (although not authorised to convene a general court martial) to convene a field general court martial, and such court may try summarily the person so charged, and award punishment for his offence, and the sentence of the court shall be valid, and may be carried into effect if a sentence of capital punishment, when confirmed by the general or field officer commanding the force of which such detachment or portion forms part, and if not capital when confirmed by any general or field officer in such force."
    He wished to explain, with regard to this clause, that, attention having been called to the very large powers given to the provost marshal, the Government had considered the whole subject very carefully. They proposed, therefore, to substitute for the original Clause 72 the new clause, which he now moved. It would be observed that the clause gave full power, first of all, to a general commanding a body of forces to appoint provost marshals, and the provost marshals were then given power to arrest and detain persons subject to military law. The clause did not give the provost marshal power of his own discretion to exercise punishment; he was only made an executive officer acting under authority. With regard to the punishments provided by the Act, the provost marshal, while upon active service, had the power to appeal to a court to be called, summarily, and to that court was given the power to inflict the punishments which now could be inflicted by the sole power of the provost marshal. The remainder of the clause would ex-

    389
    plain itself, and lie hoped that the Committee would allow it to be passed in the form in which it now stood.
    SRI CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that in the absence of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) he would propose the Amendments which stood in his name. He, therefore, moved, in line 1 of the proposed new clause, to leave out "all irregularities," in order to insert "offences."
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that he had now to propose, in line 2, after the word "abroad," to insert "on active service."
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that this alteration went further than he thought was right. The provost marshal was, practically, a sort of police officer, whose duty it was to superintend the police of the camp. It would be very undesirable that the powers of the provost marshal should be limited to active service; although, as would be seen, it was only while on active service that they could bring persons before a summary court martial.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLremarked, that he was of the same opinion as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. Without the aid of the provost marshal, there would be no proper means of bringing a prisoner to justice.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEthought that, while not on active service, the military police would have been quite sufficient.
    Amendment negatived.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he did not intend to move the next Amendment which stood in the name of his hon. and learned Friend. He would, however, move the following Amendment, which was in line 7:—After the word "punishments," to insert "authorized by this Act." He did not know that the words were absolutely necessary; but he thought they made the matter somewhat clearer.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINthought that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War ought to tell the Committee why he would not agree to this Amendment.
    COLONEL STANLEYobserved, that punishment not authorized by the Act could not be inflicted.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the next Amendment he proposed to move was in line 7, to leave out "in pursuance," in order to insert "by sentence." It was not good English to say that a provost marshal was to carry into execution "any punishments to be inflicted in pursuance of a court martial."
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that the reason the words were used was to clear up any ambiguity which would arise from saying that punishments were to be inflicted by sentence of court martial. Those words would have left it doubtful as to the confirmation of the sentence; but no doubt remained by using the expression "in pursuance of."
    Amendment negatived.
    COLONEL ARBUTHNOTmoved, in line 8 of the proposed new clause, after the word "authority," to insert "on, any soldier." The object of this Amendment was to make not the soldiers, but the camp followers, subject to the jurisdiction of the provost marshal. He was quite sure that anyone who had served either in India, or in any campaign in which soldiers from India had been engaged, would bear him out in the statement that it would be absolutely impossible to try every camp follower by field general court martial who happened to commit any offence. He did not know how military operations could be conducted if this were to go on. He had no wish to press hardly upon camp followers; and he would be perfectly satisfied if an undertaking were given that some order should be introduced into the regulations by which two officers should be appointed to attend the provost marshal in camp at a certain hour, and share with him the responsibility of inflicting punishment upon the camp followers. If either a regimental court martial or a field general court martial had to be summoned to try camp followers, the whole time of officers would be occupied in trying persons who were not in the Army. He felt very strongly against permitting any abuse of power by a provost marshal; but he thought there could be no objection to the proposal he had made. By camp followers

    391
    he did not mean soldiers; but those who were employed as servants to the troops.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, that by the 167th clause of the Bill camp followers had been for the first time made subject to military law. What the hon. and gallant Member now proposed to do was not only to subject those persons to military law, but, at the same time, to allow the provost marshal and his assistants to inflict upon them any punishments they chose. If the hon. and gallant Member had thought there was any difficulty in trying such persons, he should have objected to their being made subject to military law.
    COLONEL MUREwished to point out that the Bill contained no definition of a camp follower. Many men who followed a camp could not be placed under the provisions of this Act.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that his hon. and gallant Friend seemed to think that there would be some difficulty in determining what camp followers were, and that persons might be placed under military law improperly. He hoped that that would not be so. He thought that they had already determined what civilians should be subject to military law. It was proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Arbuthnot) that soldiers should be tried in one way and civilians in another. He did not think that civilians ought to be left entirely at the mercy of the provost marshal.
    GENERAL SHUTEhoped that his hon. and gallant Friend would withdraw his Amendment. He recognized the difficulty which he proposed to meet, which was one that any officer who had served in India could well understand. But he did not think that it was advisable to put such large powers in the hands of the provost marshal.
    MAJOR NOLANdid not think that there would be any difficulty in carrying out the Amendment. He had seen some batteries where the camp followers were beaten by order of the commanding officer, and others where the commanding officer called together three officers to give an opinion on the subject. It would have a much better effect if these punishments were inflicted by order of three officers than if they were directed by one.
    COLONEL ARBUTHNOTwould not press his Amendment to a Division, if the opinion of the Committee was against
    392
    him. He was quite sure that there could be but one opinion outside the House amongst those who had served in India, that it would be impossible to summon a court martial to try every camp follower.
    COLONEL MUREsaid, that this clause gave a right to place persons following a camp under military law. It did not specify how near the camp persons must get to bring themselves under the Act, or if there was any radius within which they were liable. He might point out that, by the 11th section of the 167th clause, camp followers were defined to be persons who were allowed to be so. It might be provided that persons should be forbidden to come into the camp.
    Amendment negatived.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, that he should not move the Amendment of which he had given Notice—namely, to leave out "having due regard to the public service," if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would explain what the words meant.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that he was advised to leave the words in the clause, in order to make it clear what circumstances should justify an officer in considering that it was not practicable to summon an ordinary court martial. "Having due regard to the public service "meant that an officer was to consider whether the Public Service would suffer by delay caused by summoning an ordinary court martial. He was not to run the risk which would be caused by delay to the Public Service.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, that if these words were left in the clause there would be eight or ten times as many courts martial than if they were struck out. These summary courts martial would always be held whenever there was the least inconvenience in holding an ordinary court martial; the whole matter depended very much upon what a field general court martial was. He did not suppose that any officer there knew exactly what such a court martial was; that was not surprising, for they had not been in use for 50 years. A field general court martial was utterly opposed to any custom or to any rule which governed an ordinary court martial; it was totally irregular, and conducted in quite a different manner from an ordinary general court martial. It was for that reason that he did not wish the

    393
    Committee to sanction a field general court martial, if any other court martial could be held. A field general court martial possessed the power of capital punishment, as well as the power of flogging. In his opinion, its sentences ought never to be put in execution until approved of by the Commander-in-chief of the whole Army, because it was so totally irregular and informal. Formerly, a field general court martial was restricted to trying offences committed against the inhabitants of the country; it was held on the spot by any three officers, and was presided over by the officer who convened it. Such a court could be convened by any officer, if he could get the attendance of two other officers of any rank—perhaps subalterns—and it had power to sentence any man to death. The old rule was that no sentence should be carried into effect until the General commanding-in-chief had sanctioned it, so extra-judicial and summary was the court. He believed that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would propose two Amendments, which would considerably mitigate it. But the court was so irregular that it ought not to be held when it was possible to hold an ordinary general court martial. He was strongly of opinion that a field general court martial should only be held in very extraordinary cases. By leaving out the words "having due regard to the public service," they would prevent the court being used when it was possible to hold an ordinary general court martial.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked the Government to consider favourably the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan). In Clause 49, a field general court martial was empowered to try offences against the property and person of any inhabitant or resident in any country beyond the seas. An entirely new jurisdiction was now given to this court, and the court of the provost marshal was practically drawn upon the lines of a field general court martial defined in Clause 49. A field general court martial was to be held, under Clause 49, whenever, in the opinion of the officer commanding a detachment, it was not practicable that an offence should be tried by an ordinary general court martial. There were no words in that clause as to having due
    394
    regard to the public service. He thought that it should be expressly provided that a field general court martial was not to be resorted to, except it was not practicable to convene a general court martial. If these words, "having due regard to the public service," were not necessary in Clause 49, they were not necessary in that clause.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that they might have many cases of petty offences committed by camp followers which it was necessary to deal with summarily. They had taken away the power of the provost marshal to deal with these cases himself, and had substituted a field general court martial. It seemed to him that if these words were struck out it would be necessary, if not absolutely impracticable, to bring together a general court martial of seven officers, in order to try these petty offences. The acceptance of the Amendment would make it necessary that a regular court martial should be summoned whenever practicable, although at the greatest inconvenience to the Public Service.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)said, that the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway would bring this clause into harmony with Clause 49. As had been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), it would be extremely inconvenient to have the words" having due regard regard to the public service" in the one clause, and not in the other. For those reasons, he was disposed to agree with the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, that he had to move, in line 18 of the clause, to insert, after "confirmed by," "the general or field officer commanding the force, and if not capital, when confirmed by." His suggestion was that sentences should be confirmed by a general officer; but if a general officer were not near, then by a field officer, in all cases of punishments not capital—such as flogging. He preferred to put the responsibility upon the general officer when he was near, and upon the field officer when a general officer could not be reached. He did not object to a field officer having the power to confirm a sentence when a general was absent; but he thought

    395
    that when both were present then the general should have the responsibility.
    COLONEL STANLEYpointed out that there was a great difficulty in defining the exact circumstances under which this was to apply.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, he would not press his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, he had put down two separate Amendments to follow on here, but the first was no longer applicable; and as to the second, if he was informed that there was any means by which the records of courts martial should be kept, that would be sufficient. He did not think, however, it was provided in any other part of the Bill; and, therefore, he wished to move this Amendment. His great objection to the provost marshal was mainly based on the fact that no record was kept of his proceedings. Therefore, in order to see what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would say, he would move to add, at the end of the clause:—
    "And records of such field general courts martial shall be kept as provided in this Act for garrison courts martial."
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he would agree to the Amendment if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would leave out the word "garrison," and insert instead the word "district." There were now no garrison courts martial.
    MAJOR NOLANaccepted the Amendment, and moved to add the following words:—
    " And records of field general courts martial shall be kept for the said time provided in this Act for district courts martial."
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLthought the Amendment might be very inconvenient, as for mere petty offences they would be obliged to keep the same exact record of everything connected with the trial as though they were district courts martial.
    COLONEL STANLEYexplained, that it was only the records which would be kept.
    Amendment agreed to.
    On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill?"
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLheartily supported the new clause which had
    396
    been substituted for Clause 72, and which was entirely in accordance with his own views. He entirely approved of the substitution of very summary courts martial for the provost marshal; but he was a little apprehensive lest in taking away the powers of the courts martial they should never provide for the case of a summary detachment acting apart from the Regular Army. Offences against the inhabitants of the country were most likely to arise; in such cases where three officers would not be available for the court martial, or a field officer be ready to confirm it. It was with that view that he ventured to submit this addition to the clause:—
    " If three officers cannot be assembled for such trial the field court martial convened for a summary trial under this section may consist of two officers, or, if there be only one officer with a detachment of troops, that officer may alone exercise the powers of a field court martial as above. If there be no provost marshal with a detachment of troops on active service the officer in command may order any person to be tried in the same way as if complaint had been made by a provost marshal. If there be no field officer present with the detachment the officer in immediate command may confirm the sentence, subject to revision at any time by the general officer in command."
    The practical effect would be to give one or two officers in the field the powers summarily exercised by a police magistrate in regard to petty offences. He had expressly exempted the punishments of death and long terms of imprisonment, which were to be subject to the revision of the officer in command.
    MAJOR NOLANthought the Amendment scarcely applicable to the case of civilized warfare, for there they could not imagine a case where they would not be able to get one officer; while, in the case of need, the proper remedy would be to give Native officers the power to sit on a court martial. Besides, what was the use of the provision? It did not contain sentence of death, and in cases of sentence of imprisonment, what was the good if a man must remain a prisoner until his sentence was confirmed? If it had been a case of flogging he could have understood it.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTpointed out that another objection was that the proposal was inconsistent with Clause 49, which was intended to deal with the cases of offences against the persons of inhabitants of the country. This clause proposed to deal in a totally different

    397
    manner with an offence which was already dealt with under that clause.
    MR. ELLIOTobjected to the powers given in the last three lines by which the officer in immediate command of a detachment might confirm a sentence. Such a power as that seemed to him to be absurd.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the same objection had occurred to him; but, apart from that, he did not believe that they would be able to carry this clause practically into effect. He hoped the Committee would accept the clause as it stood.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLwould not press his Amendment if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could not accept it; but still it seemed to him impossible that this clause and Clause 49 could stand together. Clause 72 was a general clause applying to all offences; and, consequently, any offence being a military offence would be tried by court martial, confirmed by any field officer, and carried into immediate execution, whereas the special provisions made in Clause 49 gave a far less summary process.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SULLIVANwished cordially and most heartily to congratulate the Secretary of State for War, and the Committee, on the reformation accomplished by this clause. In the years to come the serious change of getting rid of the provost marshal would be one of the reasons which would justify the conduct of Members of that House who had made such efforts to amend the Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    COLONEL STANLEYmoved, in page 103, after Clause 177, to insert the following Clause:—
    Power of Her Majesty to make Articles of War.)
    "It shall be lawful for Her Majesty to make articles of war for the better government of officers and soldiers, and such articles shall be judicially taken notice of by all judges and in all courts whatsoever: Provided, That no person shall, by such articles of war, be subject to suffer any punishment extending to life or limb, or to be kept in penal servitude, except for crimes which are by this Act expressly made liable to such punishment as aforesaid, or be subject, with reference to any crimes made punishable by this Act, to be punished in any
    398
    manner which does not accord with the provisions of this Act."
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked whether it was necessary to insert this clause? It certainly was put in a very moderate form, and greatly modified as compared with the clause originally introduced; but, for his part, he could not see any necessity for it at all. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) said it was a great point gained, when the Articles of War were put into the Bill; and, therefore, he could not understand why those powers should be preserved.
    SIR. WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, one of the earliest points considered by the Committee, and one on which they certainly came very early to a conclusion, was, that this matter could not be corrected unless the Articles of War were consolidated with the Act. His Royal Highness the Commander-in-chief assented to that general proposition. He pointed out that there might be some difficulty in cases, if there were no power whatever of issuing an Article of War to meet some unforeseen case or sudden emergency. No harm could come of this proposal, because, if any Article of War were ever issued which did not meet the approval of Parliament, it could be dealt with every year when the Mutiny Act was under consideration. The old law gave the Crown unlimited powers to make Articles of War of any kind, dealing with any offence, and giving any punishments. Then that power was limited, so as not to be inconsistent with the Mutiny Bill, but it only applied throughout the British Islands; while, in this Bill, that rule was to apply everywhere. He could not conceive a greater concession than that. As the clause stood, they had dealt with almost every question which could be dealt with in an Article of War, and no Article could be issued inconsistent with this Bill, nor any Act nor Article of War be issued dealing with a matter with which the present Articles of War dealt, because they were incorporated with the Bill. Therefore, these could only be issued for some unforeseen contingency or some necessity in the Army which required immediate remedy. Even then, if Parliament did not approve of the

    399
    Article, there would be an opportunity, every year, of taking its opinion upon it.
    MR. E. JENKINSwas of opinion that the hon. and learned Gentleman had fallen into a slight error, for the clause did not say that no Article of War should be made which was inconsistent with the Act. It simply said that no punishment should be given in a manner which did not accord with the provisions of the Act, which was not, of course, quite so wide. Of course, the question simply was, in consideration of the fact that the Articles of War had not been altered for 50 years, that these Articles were now embodied, with many changes, in this Bill, and that they constituted a Military Code, whether the Crown should be left with any power in any way to change the general provisions of this Act? Although this clause had evidently been drawn with some care for the purpose of, as far as possible, avoiding interfering with that Parliamentary supervision which had been assumed during the course of the discussion on this Bill, it was a question whether it would not be better that alterations should be made in the latter part of the clause, so as really to confirm the action of the Crown under such administrative regulations as might be found necessary for the better discipline of the Army. If some such idea as that were worked into the clause he thought it would be desirable.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, if the Government were willing to carry out the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford, they might do it in a much simpler manner than that suggested, by adding, after the word "soldiers," "not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act." It would then still be within the power of Her Majesty to make such new clauses as might be found necessary, provided they did not conflict with the present Act. He thought that was a change of some considerable importance; because, without that limitation, it would be possible to entirely alter the constitution of courts martial, which had been settled, after considerable discussion, by that House.
    MAJOR NOLANobserved, that the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) made him think that some great concession was to be contained in the new
    400
    Act; whereas the old Act comprehended all this, with the only difference that it extended to Great Britain and Ireland only. Practically, however, they had exactly the same thing in Gibraltar and Malta. This was evidently the same as Clause 1 of the old Act, and was, indeed, word for word the same. He always understood the great advantage of this Bill was that there would be no Articles of War for the future, and that was always pointed to as a great concession; yet now they found that the Articles of War were to be enacted exactly as before, with the exception, which he did not consider of any practical value, that the Bill was to run everywhere, instead of being confined to Great Britain and Ireland.
    MR. PARNELLmoved, in line 2 of the new clause, after the word "soldiers," to insert the words "not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act." He hoped the Government would accede to the alteration.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)replied, that it would be impossible to make such a change consistently with the Act. He would, therefore, prefer to keep the clause in the same shape as that in which it had been read a second time.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINinquired why it would be impossible for the Crown to make Articles of War if some of the provisions were inserted in the Bill?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)said, that the Crown made Articles of War by the exercise of its Prerogative. The Prerogative could not be used if the subject-matter were dealt with by Statute.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINasked why the Government had then inserted the Proviso that no person should be subject to suffer any punishment under the Articles of War except for crimes made punishable by the Act?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that that arose from the form of the old Mutiny Act. A power unlimited, in the first instance, was given by the old Mutiny Bill; it was afterwards limited to the United Kingdom. The exercise of the power of the provost marshal depended upon that limitation. That clause would be illegal in England, because it created crimes and punishments not consistent with the Mutiny Bill. The Proviso with reference to the United

    401
    Kingdom had always been understood by lawyers as preventing the Crown from, making the Articles of War inconsistent with the Mutiny Bill so far as the United Kingdom was concerned. If they struck out the words "United Kingdom" it would prevent Articles of War inconsistent with the Mutiny Bill being framed for use outside the United Kingdom. All legal opinions had been founded upon the doctrine that if legislation were made clearly with reference to a certain matter, then a Proviso, by the fact of that legislation, was extinct. The Mutiny Bill only applied to England originally, and required special legislation to apply it to Ireland. So long as the Act did. not apply, the Prerogative of the Crown was unlimited; but where a Statute was passed it remained as limited by the Statute. Wherever a Statute applied to a subject-matter and limited the Prerogative, then the Prerogative was to that extent extinguished. What he had stated was, he believed, the true state of the law; and, therefore, if a Statute said that a court martial should consist of seven men it could not legally consist of any other number. He thought that they had better stick, so far as they could, to the language of the old Articles of War, and strike out the limitation of the United Kingdom.
    Amendment agreed to; Clause inserted accordingly.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINproposed, in line 5 of the proposed new clause, to leave out the words "extending to life or limb, or to be kept in penal servitude." He did not see any reason to limit the Proviso preventing persons from suffering punishment except for crimes expressly made liable by the Act to such punishments to those punishments only which extended to life, or limb, or penal servitude. He did not see why other punishments, such as imprisonment, should be permitted to be inflicted under the Articles of War for crimes which were not expressly made liable to such punishments by the Act.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 5 of the proposed new Clause, to leave out the words "extending to life or limb, or to be kept in penal servitude."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed new Clause."
    COLONEL STANLEYcould not consent to the omission of these words. The expression was placed in the original Bill from the old Act; but, of course, that was no particular argument one way or the other. But the words had been carefully considered, and those who had had large experience were in favour of their retention. Nothing should be done to make the Articles of War inconsistent with the Bill; but he did not think it would be wise to omit these words.
    MR. RYLANDShoped that the Government would re-consider their decision upon this point. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had fallen back upon the words being in the old Act; but he did think that at the time these words were used in the Mutiny Act there was an intention to reserve to the Crown a power of deciding upon the punishment of the crimes other than those affecting life or limb, or extending to penal servitude. It was the clear intention of the present Bill to do away with the power of the Crown to impose any punishment except according to the provisions of that Act. The statements of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, and of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, clearly proved that there was no intention under the Articles of War to impose any punishment not laid down in the Act. It would be most unfortunate that if, after they had gone through the Bill and formulated the whole Military Law, there should be a clause leaving the Crown the liberty of determining what punishments should be inflicted for crimes not specified in the Act, supposing they did not extend to life or limb. He thought that the Government should accept the Amendment.
    MR. SULLIVANremarked, that he was not a military man; but he knew sufficient to see how serious a thing it would be if the Crown were to be at liberty to create these new crimes and punishments. He trusted that the better judgment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, when he had had a few moments to reflect, would induce him to agree to the Amendment. Let them imagine how the clause would read:—
    " Provided, That no person shall, by such articles of war, be subject to suffer any punishment extending to life or limb, or to be kept in penal servitude; "
    but that as to all other punishments the Crown could decide. Either this clause

    403
    went too far, or it stopped short too soon. He would respectfully urge upon the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that this clause either went too far, or else it did not go far enough.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCKtrusted that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would agree to strike these words from the clause. By so doing they would bring the power to make Articles of War more entirely in accord with the Act than at present. It was obviously the intention of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself to do that.
    COLONEL MUREobserved, that if there was a meaning in English, the clause must signify that, except as to punishments extending to life or limb or penal servitude, the Articles of War had power to legislate. The Articles of War were to provide for certain cases not provided for in the Act; but, practically speaking, they had no power to inflict punishments except under the Act.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERdid not think it possible that any new crime could be created by the new Articles of War. It seemed to him that every offence that could possibly be committed by man, either on active service or at home, had been put in the Bill. He did not think that in any Articles of War that might be framed within the next 50 years it would be necessary to provide for any new offences.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked for what, then, were the Articles of War required? The hon. and learned Member for Oxford had told them that in 1813 the Duke of Wellington proposed that Articles of War should be issued for certain purposes. Many things had been provided for by those Articles which did not exist at the present time, and the present Bill had been made so complete that there was no reason to have any Articles of War.
    MR. E. JENKINSsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General had told them that it was necessary to have a power for the Crown to make new Articles of War creating new crimes which did not extend to life, or limb, or penal servitude. They therefore knew what the Government was endeavouring to do.
    MR. A. H. BROWNsaid, that the Amendment, to be consistent, should be to leave out all the words after "articles
    404
    of war" in line 4, to "or" in line 7. The clause would then run:—
    "Provided, That no person shall, by such articles of war, be subject with reference to any crimes made punishable by this Act to be punished in any manner which does not accord with the provisions of this Act."
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 95; Noes 52: Majority 43.—(Div. List, No. 164.)
    MR. E. JENKINSstated, that he did not intend to move the four clauses standing in his name, because, in the first place, a Committee had been appointed to examine into the condition and organization of the Army; and, secondly, because he did not think they could have such a discussion on it as would do justice to the subject at that moment.
    Clauses, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. PARNELLmoved, in page 11, after Clause 28, to insert the following clause:—
    (Rules of Evidence.)
    "The rules of evidence to be adopted in proceedings before courts martial shall be the same as those which are followed in civil courts; and no person shall be required to answer any question or to produce any document which he could not be required to answer or produce in similar proceedings before a civil court."
    Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    MR. E. JENKINSmoved to report Progress. The clauses which he wished to move would come on almost immediately; and the Committee, he thought, had already done sufficient work for the night.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERdid not imagine, on the other hand, that it was necessary to move these clauses exactly in their place in the Bill. It would be convenient for them to go on with the other Amendments, and to leave this to come later.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I beg to point out to the Committee that the practice of the Committee has always been to take the clauses as they stand on the Paper. The hon. Member just now stated that he had certain clauses which he wished to withdraw; and though they were not immediately in Order, with the consent of the Committee they were allowed to be withdrawn. Still, he will have no

    405
    right to insist on overriding those clauses which stand before him.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. PARNELLmoved, in page 16, after Clause 40, to insert the following clause:—
    (Trial for offence to take place within three months of commission.)
    "No person subject to military law shall be tried for an offence against the preceding clause after an interval of three months has elapsed from the commission of such, offence."
    COLONEL STANLEYhardly thought the clause would do as it stood. [Mr. PARNELL referred to Clause 40.] He (Colonel Stanley) was afraid the same objection would obtain there. It would be exceptional, of course; but it would not do to lay down a hard-and-fast line.
    COLONEL MUREthought it would be a premium for committing offences under Clause 40.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman could not have read that clause. That clause was to apply to the following offences:—
    "Guilty of any act, conduct, disorder, or neglect, to the prejudice of good order and military discipline, though not in the Act otherwise specified."
    It would puzzle any soldier to be guilty of an offence not otherwise specified in the Act.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, surely an offence not dealt with somewhere in that Act would not be likely to be found out. In the first place, the offence must be of so indefinite a character that the soldier would have great difficulty in knowing about it. If it was so extraordinary, it could not be so difficult to discover and punish any long time after it was discovered. He thought the Secretary of State for War might give way under the circumstances. It was really too late to argue the matter.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. PARNELLrose to move, after Clause 41, to insert the following clause:—Z
    (Trial for certain offences to be before civil court.)
    "Where practicable every person subject to military law who commits any of the offences mentioned in Schedule of this Bill shall be proceeded against before a civil court of competent jurisdiction, and, on conviction, shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the statute or statutes dealing with such offence."
    THE CHAIRMAN: This new clause, I think, cannot be introduced; for Clause 41 having been adopted as it stands, I think it is inadmissible to move this new clause, because it conflicts with Clause 41.
    MR. PARNELLasked a question of the Chairman, sitting with his hat on. ["Order, order!"]
    MR. PARNELL, rising: I was perfectly in Order. The Chairman was standing, and therefore I was quite in Order in addressing him from my seat with my hat on.
    COLONEL MURE: May I ask you, Sir, for your direction on that point?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is not in Order to address the Chair sitting, with his hat on, except during a Division, or when he speaks on a matter relating simply to the calling of a Division.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he would move the Amendment on the Report.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCKmoved, in page 18, after Clause 43, to insert the following clause:—
    (Redress of wrongs.)
    "Every officer who shall be accused of any military offence under this Act, and whose conduct in that respect shall have been investigated by a court of inquiry, shall be entitled, if he demands it, to receive a copy in writing of the opinion of such court of inquiry, or of the opinion formed by the officer who assembled that court, upon the evidence adduced before it.
    "And if the accused officer challenge such opinion he shall not be liable to be removed from his appointment, or to be placed upon half-pay, without being first afforded the opportunity of refuting the charges made against him, in open trial, before a general court martial: Provided always, That nothing hereinbefore contained shall affect the undoubted prerogative of Her Majesty to remove any officer from the Army, or to place him upon half-pay, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of State for War made upon his official responsibility."
    This clause was one of considerable importance; but he did not desire to delay the progress of the Bill, nor to debate the point at any length. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in the Paper issued that day, had in substance conceded the first part of his clause; and as to the second part, he should be glad to know whether the right hon. Gentleman could not accept it? It proposed to give an officer the right of appeal against the opinion of any court martial, and that was no greater concession than the concession already made by the right

    407
    hon. and gallant Gentleman. Indeed, the Secretary of State for the Home Department went so far as to say that no court martial should inquire into offences which could properly be tried by a court martial. His clause embodied that, and nothing more. If the Government would but admit that an accused person should have the right, if he challenged the accusation, of having his case dealt with by court martial, there was nothing more than that in his Amendment.
    COLONEL STANLEYwas sorry that he could not assent to the second part. The first was already disposed of by the regulations he had issued that day. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must recollect that in the previous debate he expressly guarded himself against going as far as this, although he agreed that a Court of Inquiry should not take upon itself the functions of a court martial. He did not at all admit the premiss from which the second part of the clause was deduced, that a court martial could in any way affect proceedings against an officer's character; it could only assist a commanding officer to come to a conclusion. He particularly did not want to constitute a Court of Inquiry, and the principle he wished to uphold was, when a commanding officer was the responsible person, he wanted to make the person who acted upon this report distinctly responsible, and that his rules went to that point. Practically, this inquiry would put the officer in the same position he would have occupied if he had been brought before his commanding officer. They knew that confidential reports always followed the inspection of a regiment, giving an account—a very fair account, he believed—of the conduct and character of the officers, for the guidance of their superiors. A very good rule had now been made that, whenever an officer had anything reported against him, he should be made acquainted with it at the time, so that he might have an opportunity to look to it, and see that he behaved better in future. The same thing had been provided with regard to a Court of Inquiry. If they reported facts which, in the opinion of the officer, did not justify a trial by court martial, but yet told against the officer, he was made acquainted with the report, which was to put him in as good a position as he
    408
    could desire. He could not quite understand how his hon. and gallant Friend was to reckon out the latter part of his Amendment. He gave an officer the statutory right to a court martial; but the officer might have committed no offence, and yet might have been employed in some office or work for which he was manifestly unfit. Surely they were not going to give this officer the right to remain in that office, subject only to dismissal by court martial. He really did not see how the two parts of the last part of the clause could work together, because, undoubtedly, the Prerogative of the Crown was still to be left. He hoped, therefore, the Amendment would not be pressed.
    SIR HENRY HAVELOCKreplied, that the Secretary of State for War had taken up a position which forced him to repeat over and over again arguments which he thought had long since been done with. The discrepancy pointed out, and which appeared, to exist, did not exist in fact; and he had provided for both points exactly as in the Amendment which he moved on the 1st of May. He did not desire in the slightest degree to restrict the Prerogative of the Crown; but, on the other hand, he wished that the officer should have the right which had been given to the private soldier to such an extent that he could not even be mulcted of a day's pay without a court martial, if he chose. What he desired to claim for the individual officer was that when it was alleged that he was guilty of any offence under this Act, he should be allowed the privilege that attached of right to every civilian—and which, he maintained, a man did not lose by joining the Army—of being tried openly by his peers. At present, an allegation might be made against an officer that he had been deficient in some respect, or had committed some military offence, and that was submitted to the investigation of a court martial. He thought they had already come to a conclusion that courts martial should never be substituted for Courts of Inquiry; that they should never be the final inquiry, and that an officer should not be liable to be dismissed, or placed on half-pay, without being able first to prove his innocence before a court martial. His clause really did not interfere with the Prerogative, for it still would be open

    409
    for Her Majesty, on the advice of Her responsible officers, if she thought fit, even where an officer had been tried and acquitted, to quietly say she dismissed him from the Service. The difference was that, in one case, a man was sent into civil life with a stigma on his name; while, in the other case, he could, at least, point to the decision of a court martial as a proof that, so far as that was concerned, he had been able to rebut the charge against him. The two divisions of this clause did not clash or conflict in the slightest degree. The charge made was that, while the Prerogative of the Crown still remained to dismiss an officer at any time without reason alleged, it did not extend to the dismissal of an officer after, and in consequence of, the decision of a court martial, until he had been first given the opportunity of rebutting the charge against him before a court martial.
    Amendment negatived.
    House resumed.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  ARTIZANS' DWELLINGS ACT (1868) EXTENSION (re-committed) BILL.
  (Mr. W. M. Torrens, Sir Thomas Chambers, Mr. Goldney.)
  ARTIZANS' DWELLINGS ACT (1868) EXTENSION (re-committed) BILL.

    [BILL 236.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. GRAYsaid, he had some doubt whether the Bill, in its present shape, would strengthen the hands of the sanitary authorities in Ireland. He was inclined rather to think that it would diminish the power of these authorities to deal with the evils of overcrowding and unhealthy dwellings for the poor. However, he confessed he had not given to the Bill sufficient consideration to induce him to seek to impede in any way its progress; and he had only to express a hope that the next stage would be fixed for a period sufficiently distant to afford time for communication on the subject with some of the sanitary authorities in Ireland.
    MR. MONKsaid, he should be glad to know what were the intentions of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Torrens) with regard to proceeding with the Bill that night, because he intended to oppose the 5th clause, which might give rise to some little discussion? That
    410
    clause would compel the local authorities to purchase tumble-down houses, or houses which were unfit for habitation, if the owners should require them to do so. He did not know whether that clause had attracted the notice of the Government; it was an important clause; and he wished to ask his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, whether he intended to move to report Progress after the House had gone into Committee, or to press the Bill through that stage?
    MR. W. M. TORRENSremarked, that it had been found, by practical experience, that without the compensation for which the Bill made provision it was wholly impossible to work the other powers given by law. He trusted that his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) would not persevere in his opposition to progress being made with the Bill, since it would be open to him on the Report to move either to amend or to expunge the clause to which he had referred. He hoped that, as the Government had had this matter under their consideration for weeks, and he might say, for months, and as there was no general opposition in the House itself to the measure, it might be allowed to pass through Committee that night.
    MR. ISAACreminded the hon. Member for Finsbury that he had not told the House whether he was willing to accede to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Tipperary County (Mr. Gray), and to fix a distant day, say 10 days hence, for the further consideration of the Bill. Unless the hon. Member was prepared to do that, he must oppose Mr. Speaker leaving the Chair.
    MR. W. M. TORRENSthought it must be quite evident that, at this period of the Session, to name 10 days hence for the further progress of the Bill was virtually to discharge the Order. He must remind the House that the measure had yet to go up to the House of Lords. It had been six months before the House of Commons, and as, therefore, ample time had been afforded to every hon. Member to make up his mind as to what course he ought to take in regard to it, he did trust that the House would not think it was an unreasonable request that they should now be allowed to proceed with it. As to the appeal of his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary County, he must say

    411
    that, at the suggestion of Her Majesty's Government, the Bill was now limited very much to the case of the Metropolis. Its promoters had intended that it should be a general Act; but, in many cases, they had found that the Government were not prepared to extend what was termed the building clauses to the whole of the United Kingdom; and sooner than allow the Metropolis to remain in its present terrible state of overcrowding, those in charge of the Bill had deemed it their duty to take what they could get. Therefore, as the Government intimated their willingness to allow the building clauses to be retained for the Metropolis, leaving the compensation clauses to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, the promoters thought it better to accept that compromise than to do nothing at all. To that arrangement he adhered, though he should be very glad, personally, to extend the whole of the provisions of the Bill to Dublin and other large towns in Ireland. SIB HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON hoped the House might allow the Bill to go into Committee. At the same time, he trusted that the hon. Member for Finsbury might also see the reasonableness of allowing at least a week to elapse before the Report was taken, in order that hon. Members might have an opportunity of considering the Amendments which they might wish to propose. He wished also to say, on the part of the Government, that there was one clause which, until his attention had been called to it that night, had escaped his notice—he referred to the terms on which it was proposed to borrow. He should himself like to consider that matter before it was finally ageed upon; and, therefore, he hoped his hon. Friend would consent, if the Bill were now allowed to pass through Committee, to the postponement of the consideration of the Report for at least a week.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Short title and construction of Act).
    MR. GRAYsaid, he had a formal Amendment to propose to this clause. The clause defined that the officer of health should be the Medical Officer of Health in England, appointed by the urban sanitary authority of the district
    412
    under the Public Health Act of 1875. In Ireland, it should be the corresponding officer under the Act of 1878. He, therefore, begged to move, in line 22, after "1875," to insert:—
    "And as respects any urban sanitary district in Ireland, shall be the Medical Officer of Health appointed by the urban sanitary authority of the district, under the Public Health Act of 1878."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 2, 3, and 4 agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Owner may require local authority to purchase premises).
    MR. MONKremarked, that the clause proposed to throw a very heavy burden on the ratepayers, by compelling the local authorities to purchase any houses which might be considered as unfit for habitation. If an individual purchased house property which was in a bad state of repair, he ought—and under the existing law he was obliged—to rebuild, or put it in a fit state for habitation. He saw no reason why the ratepayers should be called upon to purchase such property; and yet, if the owner of it pleased, he could, under this Bill, compel the local authorities to take it off his hands. He did not know what view the Government took of this clause. He certainly thought it deserved their very serious consideration, and he should himself say "No" to the question that the clause stand part of the Bill.
    MR. DILLWYNthought the Committee ought to have some explanation respecting this clause. He quite agreed with what his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) had stated. It seemed to him that if this clause were passed it would operate in the direction of preventing the local authorities from undertaking the smallest improvements, owing to the fear they would have that if they were to give notice of any buildings being in a dangerous state it would be necessary to purchase the whole of them.
    MR. MONKrepeated, that there could not be the slightest reason why an owner of a site should force the ratepayers to buy it; and, in order to raise that question, he moved to leave out all the words after "premises," to the end of the clause.
    Amendment .agreed to.
    On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"
    MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, that experience had shown that in the Metropolis it was impossible to effect any improvement in the over-crowded districts, unless the local authorities were enabled to compensate the owners of property. He had presented Petitions from various local bodies, all asking that this Bill should pass. The practical effect of taking away that power which the ratepayers themselves had asked for would be to destroy the whole chance of the Bill working. He left it to the Government to say whether it was worth while defending the clause.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONhoped that the Committee might not assent to the removal from the Bill of what, practically, was the soul and body of the measure. A former Bill of the hon. Member had proved a dead letter in consequence of its containing no such power as this clause proposed to give. The Government had been induced to give the measure their support, because it sought to deal with a class of buildings not dealt with in a more recent Act of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and supplied a link in a very useful class of legislation by removing a difficulty which had hitherto stood in the way of the local authorities in dealing with many of those terrible eyesores and nuisances which existed in the midst of their large towns, and especially of the Metropolis. Under these circumstances, he did hope that the Committee would not, at the eleventh hour, deprive the measure of the provision which alone would make it a useful one.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 6 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 20 (Power of local authority to make bye-laws for regulation of dwelling-houses).
    MR. SALTsaid, that on behalf of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, he had an Amendment to move at the end of this clause. The clause gave power to local authorities to make bye-laws; but it was not usual to give such power to the local authorities without some control or authority from the Central Department, and the words he had to propose
    414
    on behalf of his right hon. Friend at the end of the clause were these:—
    "A bye-law under this Act, and any alteration made therein, and any repeal of a bye-law, shall not be of any validity until it has been submitted and confirmed by one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, in the case of the Metropolis, or by the Local Government Board in the case of all other places."
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the Clause, to add the words "A bye-law under this Act, and any alteration made therein, and any repeal of a bye-law, shall not be of any validity until it has been submitted and confirmed by one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, in case of the Metropolis, or by the Local Government Board in the case of all other places."—(Mr. Salt.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. LEEMANcharacterized the Amendment as centralization to the utmost extent, and hoped the Committee might not agree to it.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 17; Majority 15.—(Div. List, No. 165.)
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 21 (Expenses of local authority).
    MR. PELLmoved, in page 7, line 37. to leave out the words "three pence," and to insert the words "a penny." He thought they had already had several warnings on the subject of expenses chargeable on the rates under Acts of this description, and that it would be wise to limit the amount of money to be expended.
    Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 37, to leave out the words "three pence," in order to insert the words "one penny."—[Mr. Pell,)—instead thereof.
    Question put, "That the words 'three pence' stand, part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 14; Noes 32; Majority, 18.—(Div. List, No. 166.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'one penny' be there inserted."
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he did not like to interfere, as the hon. Member in charge of the Bill had

    415
    made no appeal to the Committee; but he really would like to ask whether hon. Members were really in earnest—["Yes, certainly!"]—in wishing to put in this sum? The limitation to a penny, in London, at any rate, would render it impossible, practically, to carry out any work under this Bill. He would remind his hon. Friend he had quoted the expenditure of the hon. Member.
    MR. PELLwas referring to the Artizans' Dwellings Act. In that Act the amount was unlimited, while here they had a fixed sum. He hoped the Committee would give their decision against adopting 2d. instead of 1d. in order that they might improve away this measure, the further progress of which seemed to him undesirable.
    MR. DODDSreminded the Committee that the Act applied to the whole country; but if the hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill would confine its operation to the Metropolitan district, he would just as soon have 2d. inserted as 1d. In these times of intense depression he strongly objected to this increased taxation.
    MR. BARINGsupposed that the Committee had not voted without knowing what they were about. Festina lente was a motto which it would have been better if some hon. Gentlemen had remembered, and then they would have done more good, probably, in the end.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, the Artizans' Dwellings Act was by no means a failure everywhere; for, in his own borough, it it had been put into operation very successfully. His objection to the Bill was that it enabled owners to get rid of what was very likely worthless property to the Boards. That Proviso, he thought, would very likely impede the progress of the Act, because it would prevent authorities from giving notice, and so putting themselves into the power of the owners, and being forced to purchase properties, whether or no.
    MR. W. M. TORRENSreminded the Committee that under the 5th clause compulsory power was given. He thought it was rather hard to raise this objection again, after what had been conceded. This Bill, by doing a little work here and there would save a great amount of other work under the Artizans' Dwellings Act. This was an alternative plan; but if the Committee would not adopt it he could not help it.
    MR. PELLthought his Amendment was entirely consistent, for under the Bill money was only required for the purchase of tumble-down buildings, and surely a penny rate would be enough for that.
    MR. GRAYdoubted whether the Act would apply anywhere outside the Metropolis. At the same time, he did not see the good of passing it, and in the same breath rendering it inoperative. As the Committee had come to a conclusion not to allow 3d., he thought, at least, it might allow 2d.; otherwise, it would be far better not to load the Statute Book with inoperative Acts.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 31: Majority 16.—(Div. List, No. 167.)
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONmoved to insert "two-pence."
    MR. PELLasked whether they could not split the difference, and say 1½d. At first they were all in favour of 1d.; but the suggestions from the Front Bench had inclined some hon. Members to change their minds.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 22 (Loans from Public Works Loan Commissioners).
    MR. PELLmoved, in page 8, line 16, to leave out the words "and also all mortgages of the local rates." The sites should be sufficient security on which to raise the sum required for the construction of the new premises. It seemed to him very dangerous to pledge the rates for purposes of this sort.
    Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 16, to leave out the words "also by a mortgage of the local rate."—(Mr. Pell.)
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes 28; Noes 16: Majority 12.—(Div. List, No. 168.)
    MR. LEEMANmoved to report Progress. He appealed to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill not to press it further. It was then 3 o'clock in the morning. The opposition to it was evidently bonâ fide; and as there were only just the number of Members in the

    417
    House sufficient to transact Business, he hoped his Motion would be accepted.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Leeman.)
    MR. W. M. TORRENSreplied, that they were very nearly through, and they might as well go on.
    Motion negatived,.
    MR. GRAYthought the limitation of the period of repayment of loans of seven years was too small. That would involve a repayment yearly of 15 per cent. In order to raise the question, he moved to substitute the words "twenty-one."
    MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, this limitation was introduced by arrangements with the Government in order to prevent money being borrowed for an excessive term. He himself, personally, entirely concurred in wishing to extend the period.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. PELLdesired to point out that they were getting into some little confusion. The Amendment made in Clause 5 evidently showed that it was the opinion of the Committee that power should be given only to purchase structures; yet they were now proceeding to give power to mortgage the site which would not belong to the Board. He, therefore, thought they had better report Progress, in order that those in charge of the Bill might consider the matter.
    MR. ISAACpointed out that any alteration might be moved on Report.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 23 agreed to.
    Schedule A.
    MR. SALTmoved (for Sir JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG) to insert in the third column, line 17, the word "or."
    MR. W. M. TORRENSexplained that the effect of the clause was to give the Metropolitan Board of Works alternate jurisdiction, so that if the Vestries would not undertake the work they might. He entirely agreed with the Amendment.
    MR. DILLWYNasked if the clause gave additional power to the Board of
    418
    Works! ["Yes!"] Then, certainly, this clause should be thoroughly explained.
    MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, there was a belief in some districts that the Vestries would hang fire, and not put this Act into force. In that case, they proposed to give a discretionary power to the Board of Works to overrule them. It was not proposed that that work should be out of the general rate of the Metropolis, but that the Board of Works should come in and do the work, and charge it on the rates of the Vestry.
    COLONEL MAKINScould not see why, if the Vestrymen, who might be presumed to know all the requirements of their own district, did not choose to carry out the Act, that it was a proper thing for the Board of Works, composed of men from other parts of London, who did not know very much about the district in question, to come in to interfere.
    MR. PELLsaid, the effect of the clauses would be to put the Vestrymen between the upper millstone of the Local Government Board and the nether millstone of the Board of Works, with a medical officer of health turning the handle. Surely these gentlemen were entitled to form an opinion whether work was necessary to be done, and he did not see why they should give a new authority power to overrule them. The Board of Works, with designs for streets and quays, and great works generally, might be influenced by considerations which would not influence the Vestry. He trusted they would be allowed proper time to consider this Amendment.
    MR. SALTsaid, that he was not in charge of the Bill; but, referring back to Clause 12, the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) would find that the Amendment proposed not to create any new power of rating, but, on the contrary, to prevent the possibility of raising a certain rate; but he should prefer to leave his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) to deal with the matter on Report, and, therefore, he would withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

MOTION.

  EAST INDIAN RAILWAY (REDEMPTION OF ANNUITIES) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. EDWARD STANHOPE, Bill to enable the Secretary of State in Council of India to create and issue Capital Stock in the United Kingdom in exchange for so much of the Annuity created under "The East Indian Railway Company Purchase Act, 1879," and thereby made chargeable on the Revenues of India, as may be purchased by the Secretary of State under that Act, ordered to be brought in by Mr. EDWARD STANHOPE and Lord GEORGE HAMILTON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 244.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Land Titles and Transfer [No. 145].
PRIVATE BILL—Report—London Bridge now London Bridge Approaches *.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Customs Buildings* (146); Slave Trade (East African Courts) * (147),
Second Reading—Marriages Confirmation (Her Majesty's Ships) * (124).
Committee—Report—Sale of Food and Drugs Act (1875) Amendment* (127); Civil Procedure Acts Repeal * (132).
Report—University Education (Ireland) (134).
Third Reading—Wormwood Scrubs Regulation* (128), and. passed.

BRENTFORD AND ISLEWORTH TRAMWAYS BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."
  LORD TRUROmoved the rejection of the Bill on the ground that the population of the district was insufficient to support the line, and that there was no traffic of sufficient extent to make it remunerative. The line was only the middle part of a projected line, the two extremities of which had been rejected. It was, moreover, of such a length—one mile and a few chains—as to render it unavailable for any useful purpose, and the road on which it was to be constructed was only 24 feet in the broadest part, and 17 feet in the narrowest. Therefore, a tramway on such a road would be an obstruction and inconvenience.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)asked how it was that the parties who objected to the Bill had not appeared to oppose it before the Select Committee?
  LORD TRUROsaid, the parties who objected to its construction had no locus standi, and, therefore, had been unable to appear against it. He moved that the Bill be read a third time that day three months.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)thought that after

  273
  the statement of the noble Lord further consideration of the measure was desirable.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

SLAVE TEADE—SOUTH EAST COAST OF AFRICA.—OBSERVATIONS.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, there was a matter of great interest with regard to which the public would be glad to have some more information than they possessed at present. He referred to the Treaty with the Sultan of Zanzibar for the suppression of the Slave Trade in that part of the African coast over which his influence extended. It was known that though the Sultan had at first refused some pressure to induce him to agree to the Treaty, yet that since his agreement to the Treaty he had not only fulfilled its conditions to the letter, but he had gone beyond them. If the Government could give some decided information on the point, it would give satisfaction to the country.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There can be no doubt that the persuasion which has been brought to bear upon the Sultan of Zanzibar in this matter is one of the most successful operations on record. The Sultan's conversion to the noble Lord's views has been complete. The Sultan signed a Treaty, and since that he has given a most hearty and cordial co-operation in the suppression of the Slave Trade in those regions. We have acknowledged this conduct on the part of the Sultan on several occasions, and recently by presenting him with a considerable number of Enfield rifles—the substantial form in which we have recognized his thorough good faith. But I merely refer to this as showing that we are not insensible to the valuable assistance we have received from the Sultan, and let me add that if slavery is ever to be completely suppressed there, it will, no doubt, be owing mainly to his co-operation.

TREATY OF BERLIN—EVACUATION OF THE PROVINCES.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  LORD CAMPBELL, in rising to call attention to the Correspondence on the affairs of Turkey and the present position of matters with reference to the
  274
  Russian evacuation of the territory on this side of the Pruth, and to move an Address to Her Majesty on the subject, said: My Lords, I know how hard it is to draw attention to the subject of this Notice when the mind of Parliament is agitated by another set of circumstances. At present, except upon South Africa, the grief it has occasioned, the vicissitudes it offers, nearly everyone is doomed to find unwilling ears, or make unwelcome observations. I will, therefore, pass at once to a few details, which may be easily recalled, and which, at least, show that the topic now before us is appropriate and necessary to the moment. It is now the 14th of July. On the 3rd of August, the whole of the foreign territory occupied by Russian Armies ought to be evacuated. Nothing has been said of late as to their movements. The journals are nearly silent with regard to them. According to a paragraph which has reached me from Constantinople, so late as the 25th of June two regiments were still in East Roumelia. Whether the great body are there, or in Bulgaria, or concentrated between the Danube and the Pruth, if known at all, is only known to the Government. My Lords, we should remember, here, the evacuation had two stages, according to the 22nd Article in the Treaty of Berlin. The first stage was not completed at the period assigned for it. I cannot venture to repeat what has been said before in this House upon the subject, or go back to a controversy with which, perhaps, your Lordships are fatigued; but the more it is examined the clearer it becomes that, at the end of nine months, East Roumelia and Bulgaria ought both to have been quitted. Such, I am convinced, was the original impression of the Government, as it appeared to be the language of their Representatives and organs. A deficiency having occurred upon the first stage, not only suggests a deficiency upon the second, not only offers a temptation to it, not only raises a specious argument in favour of it—which it would be imprudent to exhibit—but really makes it harder to avoid it. If Russian troops had not remained beyond the legal time within the territory of the Sultan, the three months allotted as a margin would have more easily sufficed to march across Roumania, as the Treaty contemplated, or, if that method was preferred, to gain

  275
  Odessa from a port of embarkation. On the whole, then, there is little reason to anticipate the final exit on the 3rd of August, without new efforts to obtain it. The Address which I submit, although no censure is involved in it, would be an effort of this kind. It would unavoidably sustain the efforts which the Government are making, or hasten those they are preparing. Had something of the kind been done in the middle of April, we should probably have now been in a different situation. But it would then have had the aspect of gratuitous, and thus of hostile, admonition. It is now dictated by experience of something which has happened, and of something we regret. My Lords, although I have not spoken very long, the whole case is now, in some degree, before your Lordships. Everyone can see that the observance of the Treaty on the 3rd of August, after the damage it incurred on the 3rd of May, is, prima facie, improbable. But doubt may possibly arise as to the importance of delivering the territory, whether it is termed Roumania, or Moldavia and Wallachia, at the stipulated period. Men may ask whether it is worth while to be tenacious, however justly, on the point, after the great events and hazards they appear to have surmounted? The answer is—that the War of 1854 was brought about by nothing but the occupation of the Danubian Principalities. When that occupation ceased peace might have been negotiated, although a separate attempt, a new departure, was resolved on. The alliance of France, Sardinia, and Great Britain, the Expedition which left our shores, the resolution to embark on war after an interval of 40 years—these new and mighty elements of policy—had, as their immediate aim, to clear from Russian Armies the Danubian Principalities; although, according to the Czar, those Armies were not directed against the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, any more than the existing ones profess to be. Indeed, it is remarkable that on the day "when Russia passed into Moldavia in 1853, as Mr. Kinglake, the historian, has mentioned it, the four Powers, then acting together, sent out their protest to discountenance the movement. We have, therefore, their authority, with that of Lord Clarendon, Count Cavour, and Napoleon III.—who cannot be forgotten in this country—for main-
  276
  taining that the occupation of the Danubian Principalities—whatever object is assigned to it, whatever mask it may assume—is not a state of things which Europe can assent to. If it was dangerous in 1853, it is now far more so. At that time, the line of the Danube was protected by considerable Armies, with so great a Commander as Omar Pasha to direct them. Beyond, there was a quadrilateral of fortresses, of which Silistria made itself immortal. An Army of the present Czar, in the Danubian Principalities, has nothing to intercept a march upon Sophia, unless it is a new Bulgarian Militia, which his policy has organized. Diplomatists and strategists would equally admit that the occupation of the region can less than ever be regarded with indifference. Indeed, we should remember that if it lasts a day beyond the 3rd of August a European war is justified. What justifies a war is not certain to produce a war; but it involves a fatal bar to the tranquillity so requisite to every branch of industry and commerce at this moment. My Lords, it is now worth while to reflect upon the many interests, the many recollections, which tend to a delay of the withdrawal, unless your Lordships counteract them. One ground of the reluctance to be reckoned on is connected with the position of Austria in Herzegovina and Bosnia. I leave the House to reason on the subject. To pass on, influence at Bucharest has long been assiduously cultivated at St. Petersburg. To sway the counsels of Tirnova or Sophia is a newer and, perhaps, a keener aspiration. To govern indirectly at Constantinople was an aim of Russia long before, and cannot be renounced when she has nearly been established in that capital. These objects all suggest to her delay in the withdrawal. It is encouraged by the many triumphs over the rest of Europe her Government has recently obtained, whether in luring towards her Continental States which had formerly opposed her; or in suspending wholly the resistance of this country to her efforts; or in finding zealous partizans among the authors of the War in the Crimea; or in proving the futility of Treaties to restrain her from encroachment; or in gaining at Berlin, twice over, nearly all that she was seeking; or in reducing the balance of power to a collapse unparalleled in

  277
  history. Another strong consideration for the delay of the withdrawal arises from, what is going on in South Africa. We have there, apparently, a Force as large as went out in 1854, however different may be the objects in their magnitude. We have there the military leader whom the public is most inclined to depend on. We have there the passions and the energies which any other struggle would require; and there we seem to be exhausting all the spirit of the country. Last of all, delay of the withdrawal is encouraged by the inevitable lassitude the Eastern Question has occasioned in the Legislature, after attention has been so long, exclusively, and painfully devoted to it. If any other proof is wanted of the Russian disposition, the Treaty of San Stefano reveals it. The Treaty of San Stefano includes an occupation of a year beyond the length eventually conceded in the Treaty of Berlin. But the Correspondence of this Session—which the Notice has adverted to—is one continued illustration of the tendency to enlarge the Treaty of Berlin into the Treaty of San Stefano. If thus, my Lords, the risk we have to deal with is established, an Address of the kind which I submit must prove at once that a large class in the United Kingdom—and not an unenlightened one—regard the matter with solicitude. Indeed, the very language of the noble Earl the First Lord of the Treasury, when he came back from Berlin, would be sufficient to defend it. At that time, the noble Earl, according to the ordinary channels, stated as the great political conclusion to which he had been led by so remarkable a Congress was that the language of Great Britain ought to be more distinct as regards the line of action she desires to promote upon the Continent. No doubt, the lesson has had many illustrations. Had her language been more distinct in 1853, it is notorious that the costly struggle which ensued might have been easily avoided. Had her language been more distinct in 1873, the three Powers would have paused before advancing in their scheme against the independence of the Ottoman Empire. In 1877, the lesson was repeated. Had the language been more distinct some months ago, Russian troops might not have lingered after the 3rd of May in East Roumelia
  278
  and Bulgaria. Unless it is now distinct, you have not any reason to assume that an occupation will be terminated as you wish, when there are keen and nearly irresistible temptations to prolong it. But, still, it may be asked whether this House ought to declare itself? My Lords, during five years the Eastern Question has perpetually occupied it. Numerous debates have taken place, and they have been initiated in a great diversity of quarters. Some noble Lords have come forward as the special patrons of the races subject to the Porte, some as the converted and little-qualified adherents of St. Petersburg, some as the avowed supporters of what was done in 1856, so far as it was possible to guard it. But at no time in a drama so eventful has the House been permitted to exercise the influence over arrangements without which discussion seems to be a mere parade of knowledge and of argument. So far as my memory recalls it, in the whole transaction which has occupied us in so many of its phases, nothing has been brought about as yet, or been averted by your Lordships. Neither as regards the vassal Principalities, the Herzegovinian insurrection, the more momentous conflict which ensued, the settlement which followed it, has the voice of this House been fruitful or effective. At length, it may exert itself in such a way as to promote the deliverance of all the European Powers from a considerable peril. Had the Government succeeded in effecting the first departure at the proper time, there would be, of course, no ground of interference from your Lordships. As they did not succeed—however little we reproach them for it—such interference is legitimate. It is the conclusion of experience; it is the step of prudence; there is not any title to resent it. It would be a fitting close to the long, the agitating, but hitherto the unproductive toil your Lordships have devoted to the subject. It may be asked, perhaps, still more particularly in what manner the Address would tell on Russian counsels, should it be the pleasure of your Lordships to adopt it? Looking to what is known of the interior, and what our meditation would suggest to us, there are probably two parties at St. Petersburg—one desirous to close, the other to extend the occupation. One would dwell on the

  279
  recent discontent, not less alarming because deprived of any regular expression, the commotion which has taken place, and the transition which appears to be preparing, as a reason for bringing home the Forces of the Empire. The other may refer, with greater accuracy than I have done to-night, to all the grounds of distant policy which are calculated to prolong the tenure we object to. Except upon particular occasions, divided judgment seems to be the chronic state of Governments and Empires. The action of the House would clearly strengthen the Party who support the execution of the Treaty. It would throw weight into the scale, which at this moment may only want a little to establish the preponderance we aim at. By this view, also, an answer may be given to the only possible objection—namely, a reluctance to evince distrust in the governing authority of Russia. Reluctance to evince distrust when long experience creates it, is not the most intelligible part of statesmanship and wisdom. But let this be forgotten. Let it be granted that on special I grounds the governing authority of Russia is entitled to the deep consideration of the Legislature. But if the Sovereign of Russia is forced to oscillate between two sets of contradictory advisers, to uphold the more enlightened set is thoroughly in accord with the imagined obligation. It is a boon, because it tends to shorten painful indecision. It is a boon, because it tends to bring about the choice of safety and of honour. It is a favourite topic in some quarters that for many errors into which Russian policy is drawn the ruling power is not to be considered as accountable.- The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (the Marquess of Salisbury) not long ago explained that much of what we are accustomed to protest against arises in that country, because no Department is acquainted with the conduct of another. It has been often pointed out that military leaders distinctly arrogate a power independent of the Government they theoretically act under. Distrust of Russian policy is not, therefore, distrust of the legitimate authority, but of something undefined—of some thing dark, of something surreptitious, which that authority is not sufficient to contend
  280
  with and to master. But if, upon the other hand, men do hold the governing authority responsible for all that has been done from the Crimean War down to this moment, they certainly are not required to withhold any step which is calculated to enforce the Treaty of Berlin and to release the territory occupied, because it may not be acceptable at St. Petersburg. The noble Marquess may point out that movements have taken' place which insure the retreat by the 3rd of August, although they have been studiously concealed from us. He will not probably recur to the position that Treaties are mechanically sure to execute themselves; that their spontaneous force in the discharge of obligations may be thoroughly relied on; that they do not want the slightest vigilance to guard them. Prepared to listen to anything by which it may be shown that such a course is not essential to its object, I move the Address of which I have given Notice.

  Moved that an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to exercise her diplomatic influence in the manner best calculated to secure the complete evacuation by Russian troops of all territory on this side of the Pruth, whether belonging to the Sublime Porte or to Roumania, at the time stipulated in the Treaty of Berlin.—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I trust I shall be able to give a satisfactory answer to the noble Lord; but I am not quite certain of the subject, for I am not absolutely sure what the points of the noble Lord's observations were. He was exceedingly discursive, wandering over a wide extent of territory. The number of troops we have in South Africa, the operations of Omar Pasha in 1853, the Crimean campaign, the state of Russian politics, the division of parties in that country, and the proceedings which took place at Berlin—all successively had the honour of his attention. I am not quite certain whether I have accurately summarized the points which the noble Lord wished to bring before the House. But as I understand it, it was this—that the Russians had been guilty, as he expressed it, of inefficiency in the evacuation of the territories referred to, and that in consequence we could not trust them for the future; and

  281
  he fears that they will not fulfil the Article of the Treaty of Berlin which binds them to evacuate all the territory West of the Pruth by the 3rd of August. As I understand, the noble Lord's solicitude is engaged mainly upon the position of Roumania, and the probability that if Russian Forces continue to occupy that Province there will be danger that this country would be involved in war. I do not think there is much danger of any continuous occupation of Roumania; because, by the information I have received within the past two or three days from Mr. Comberbach, the acting Representative of Her Majesty in that Principality, I learn that there is no Russian soldier within the confines of Roumania at this moment. With regard to the fulfilment of that Article of the Treaty of Berlin which binds Russia to have none of her soldiers West of the Pruth by the 3rd of August, of course, I have not the gift of prophecy, but I can only say I have received the most positive and distinct assurances from the Russian Government, and when I saw Count Schouvaloff the other day he repeated these assurances in the most distinct manner. All the information I have received from Her Majesty's Representatives in these countries, though I am unable to say what is the exact number of Russian troops West of the Pruth, leads to the belief that they are comparatively few, and that they are rapidly moving to the ports from which they are to embark. I understand that Philippopolis was yesterday to have been entirely denuded of all the Russian troops there, and that they are moving upon Varna and Bourgas, where they are to embark. All the indications which have reached me lead me to believe that by the stipulated time the Russian troops will have left all the territory West of the Pruth, and I have received no indication pointing in an opposite direction. That is the only answer I can give. The noble Lord appears to attach more force to these Motions than they really possess. He is pursued by remorse because he did not, in April last, bring forward a Motion of this kind, in which case he thinks the period of the evacuation would have been materially altered. I think it my duty to convey some consolation to the discontented mind of the noble Lord.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid he had never made such a statement,
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If he had made the Motion, the noble Lord believes the course of things would have been materially altered. However, I can assure him that if he had made any number of Motions things would have been not in the least different, and I do not believe this Motion will have much effect in influencing the movement of the Russian troops or asserting the policy of the Government. I think any Motion indicating an unnecessary tremor upon the part of the House had better not be put from the Woolsack, and, for my part, if it is put I shall say "Not-content."
  LORD HOUGHTONsaid, he had heard with great satisfaction from those who could speak with authority that the hostile population of Roumania were settling down into a state of tranquillity, and consequent prosperity, to a degree almost beyond what could have been expected by the most sanguine among us.
  LORD CAMPBELL, in reply, said, that no importance ought to be attached to the contemptuous manner in which the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was equally disposed to treat his friends and his opponents. The noble Marquess had at first attributed to him (Lord Campbell) remorse; but, in point of fact, the self-reproach which the noble Marquess had incurred, for too easy acquiescence in the first departure from the 22nd Article could alone explain the uncalled-for acrimony he had introduced into the discussion. The confidence of the noble Marquess in the opinion that the Russian Army would pass over the Pruth by the 3rd of August did not seem to be greatly backed by the admission that it had not yet entered the territory of Roumania. But no one was so much interested in the final execution of the Article as the noble Marquess. While he declared himself convinced that the Address proposed would not conduce to that result, the House would naturally be unwilling to adopt it. If the retreat by the 3rd of August took place, the debate would have promoted it; if it did not, the responsibility of the Government would be much enhanced by the proceedings of that evening.
  Motion (by leave of the House) .with' drawn.

UNIVERSITY EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 134.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
UNIVERSITY EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 134.)

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Amendments, read.
  Moved, "That the said Report be now received."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD EMLY: My Lords, it is, I think, unfortunate that this Bill, in its various stages, has not been put down as the first Order of the Business of the Day, and that, consequently, very little time has been allowed to your Lordships to discuss the measure thoroughly. I am not so presumptuous as to imagine that any suggestions of mine could have any weight with Her Majesty's Government; but still, as a witness, I may, perhaps, claim some authority as to what the grievance is under which those who conscientiously reject to reside in Trinity College or the Queen's Colleges suffer, and as to how far this Bill, if passed into law, will remove that grievance. As I wish to detain your Lordships for as short a time as possible, I will confine my observations, as far as I can, to the statement made by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack on Tuesday last. The noble and learned Earl claimed, as a merit for the Bill, that it allowed no affiliation of Colleges; and, secondly, that University Education could not be placed under the same amount of strict control as Intermediate Education can; and that a Conscience Clause could not be applied to it. Consequently, in the opinion of the Government, the principle of the intermediate schools could not be applied to University Education. The first of these propositions shows that the noble and learned Earl fails to comprehend the grievance with which he proposes to deal. The second, that, in his judgment, the only possible means of redressing that great grievance cannot be applied to it. I think I correctly sum up the result of Tuesday's debate, when I say that noble Lords on both sides of the House who took part in it advocated the principle of educational equality in Ireland—in other words, that the same educational opportunities should be open to those who, by conscientious convictions, are prevented from availing themselves of
  284
  the existing Universities which are enjoyed by their fellow-countrymen. I am not going at any length into the controversy as to whether this Bill would, if it became law, confer any benefit on those for whose relief it purports to be intended. I agree with my noble and learned Friend near me (Lord O'Hagan) that this Bill confers no benefit at all. It is quite true that the fees for non-resident students in Trinity College are 16 guineas a-year; but all the prizes and honours of Trinity College are open to those students; whereas, under this Bill, not a single prize or reward, such as the students of the Queen's Colleges enjoy, is open to students who are to be admitted to the new University. I ask whether this is a step towards educational equality? We are to be united with the Queen's Colleges, and to be as Pariahs—to carry about with us the marks of our inferiority. I believe, further, that the degrees of the London University would be more valued than degrees conferred by this new University; and though the noble and learned Earl says degrees cannot be procured in Ireland, except by the students of Colleges, whereas a Roman Catholic living anywhere may get degrees under the new University, he shows that he has not made even the faintest approach to understand what we want. My Lords, what we ask for is educational equality, and not the mere empty title of a degree. This is open to us now; but that robust formation of character, those ennobling associations, the concentration of each Professor with his own subject, can only be had in a College—unless you give College life and College training you give us nothing. Cardinal Newman, an authority than which none, I am sure, in the opinion of your Lordships, can be higher, somewhere contrasts the so-called University Education, which dispenses with residence and tutorial superintendence, and gives its degrees to any person who passes an examination in a wide range of subjects, with a University which had no Professors or administrators at all, and expresses the opinion that the latter would be more successful than the former in moulding and enlarging the mind. I am sure your Lordships' experience renders any lengthened argument on the subject unnecessary. A friend of mine, a man of great ability, who, though young, has

  285
  attained one of the highest positions in the country, went up for examination in Trinity College. He had received all the training which could be given to him in the country, and still he got no prize. After this he came to reside in Dublin, and studied under the Professor of Trinity College; and he for three successive years got every honour that was open to him. Turn to the calendar of the London University, and your Lordships will find, out of 18, 15 in the Bachelor of Arts' examinations for mathematics, who got the first places for their respective years, had an education at Oxford and Cambridge. If we look around, the same phenomenon presents itself. I assert, therefore, without fear of contradiction, that unless you give those who are excluded by conscience from Trinity College and the Queen's Colleges the means of having a College of their own, with richly-endowed Professorships, with libraries and museums, you do not place them on a level with their fellow-countrymen who enjoy those advantages. Examinations for those who have not had the opportunity of Collegiate Education are excellent as a supplement to a University system. They are the only ways of providing for minorities. But to offer such a system to the majority of the Irish nation, particularly when the minority have the better way provided for them, seems to me little less than trifling with a great subject. I agree with what the noble Marquess opposite said as to bit-by-bit reform. When the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the other House, intimated this Bill, I exhorted my Friends to accept it, if it should be found to contain any real concessions. But although it is a good thing to make any step on the road we wish to travel, I object to be led into a bye-path which terminates in a bog, where I am to have my legs and arms powerless, while those with whom I have to contend have full play of their limbs. I come now to the second point in which I take exception to the noble and learned Earl's speech. I adhere to the mode of settling this question I proposed some 13 years ago in the House of Commons. I wish to see the Irish Act of 1793, enabling a new College to be erected in the University of Dublin, so amended as to allow a Catholic College to be establishedthere. I should like to see the students of this
  286
  College vie with one another for University honours, associating together as the men of Oriel and Christ Church used to associate when I was at Oxford. This scheme seemed once likely to succeed. It was looked on with favour by many of the most distinguished men of Trinity College; but they have yielded to the seductive voice of Mr. Fawcett, and the day for its adoption, I fear, has passed, and I, therefore, have given my entire adhesion to the proposal suggested by the Irish Government, and accepted by the Catholics so entirely, that with honour they could not recede from it. In one word, the plan was to apply the principle of the Intermediate Education Act to University Education. It was intended to give power to the Senate of the University to be created, to limit the number of Colleges to be affiliated, and to allow no result fees to be paid for any but the students of affiliated Colleges. Thus, the teaching power, of which we have not a superabundance in Ireland, would have been concentrated, not scattered. I ask the noble and learned Earl to explain why there should not have been a Conscience Clause imposed on those two, or three, or four Colleges, and why every provision and control in the Intermediate Education Act should not have been applied to this? Would this plan have endowed religious education? Why, the Bill contained a direct prohibition to pay one halfpenny for religious education. Was this prohibition nominal merely, or was it real? Look at the safeguards by which it was surrounded. The Senate was to be lay and mixed, composed both of Catholics and Protestants; the subjects were to be fixed by the Senate; Examiners were to be appointed by the Senate; not a shilling could be paid except on account of passing an examination on subjects fixed before Examiners so appointed. Secular education is the article wanted, and secular education alone would be the article paid for. Are you responsible, my Lords, for the character of the establishment where you buy your clothes? Do you refuse to take your sugar or your tea, because it is produced in a slave-holding country? If the State gets that which- it asks for, I submit that it has no responsibility as to the character, religious or otherwise, of the factory where it is prepared. The noble and learned Earl recited my right hon.

  287
  Friend's (Mr. Gladstone's). strong denunciation of concurrent endowment. We have also the advantage of having Mr. Gladstone's strongly-expressed opinion that the principle of the scheme I am discussing in no way involves concurrent endowment. Last year, in a discussion on the Intermediate Education Bill, Mr. Gladstone used the following language:—
  "I do not feel, therefore, so far as I am concerned, seeing that I have never given direct or indirect support to the endowment of a Roman Catholic University, that I am involved, by assenting to the principle of this Bill, in any inconvenient consequences in assenting to University education in Ireland; while, at the same time, I can conceive that a large part of the practical grievance which I believe to exist in Ireland on the subject of University education in Ireland as it did exist six or eight years ago, when we endeavoured to remove it, may be removed by acting upon the principle of this Bill. Well, then. Sir, the principle seems to be in conformity with that for which we have long contended—that no man, on account of his religious opinions or preferences is, as to education, to be placed in a position of disadvantage as regards secular knowledge, or any of the honours and rewards which may he assigned to a secular knowledge by the wisdom of Parliament."—[3 Hansard, ccxli. 1499–1500.]
  We have, therefore, Mr. Gladstone's distinct denial that the principle of this scheme involves the consequences the noble and learned Earl attributes to it. The noble Earl the Prime Minister has received a declaration in favour of this scheme signed by every Catholic of position, professional or otherwise, in Ireland. It has, in its main features, received the support of the Leader of the Opposition. Let me put this question to you, my Lords. If the Presbyterians of Scotland laboured under the crushing grievance of which we complain—if the organs of the Government in Scotland had proposed a scheme for remedying this grievance—if the Leaders of the Opposition had shown themselves favourably disposed to it—if every Presbyterian in Scotland, from the Duke of Argyll to the smallest medical practitioner in the Highlands, had accepted it, and if it had been defeated by the agitation of a knot of Irish Catholics, would Scotland be a country very easy to govern? How can you expect loyalty in Ireland, if you adopt a course towards her which, if adopted there, would extinguish loyalty in Scotland? I am afraid, my Lords, that the course pursued by the Govern-
  288
  ment of raising expectations on this subject, and then dashing them to the ground by this Bill, which is hardly worth the paper on which it is printed, can have but one result. It will kindle again the smouldering embers of Home Rule, and it will revive and excite agitation in a country which, above all things, requires peace.
  LORD WAVENEYrose, and had commenced to address the House, when—
  EARL GRANVILLEinterposing, said: There are a great many noble Lords sitting with me on these Benches who think such an important question as that raised by the noble Lord (Lord Emly) deserves an answer of some kind or other from Her Majesty's Government. The other day I addressed to the Government what appeared to me a not unreasonable question, and I got from them absolutely no answer. My noble Friend, who has every right to speak, especially on a subject of Irish interest, has made a most telling speech on this question, and I am surprised that Her Majesty's Government should think it respectful to your Lordships' House to drop the subject without offering any remarks upon it at all. The noble Lord has given a distinct challenge with regard to a plan formerly proposed by the Government, and since entirely abandoned by them. It tempts me almost to think that there are such persons as Conservative Circassians; but I do trust Her Majesty's Government will consent to give an answer to the statement of my noble Friend.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I must first point out to the noble Earl the grave irregularity of which he has been guilty. I must say that I have never witnessed a greater irregularity in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord (Lord Waveney) behind the noble Earl (Earl Granville) got up, and had commenced his speech, when the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition rose in his place, not upon a point of Order, but because he thought fit to regulate the course which the debate should take. All I will say is that it would have been, and it will be, my duty to make some observations on the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Emly) at the proper time; but the noble Lord (Lord Waveney) was in the act of putting a Question, when he was interrupted by the noble Earl.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I was not aware that the noble Lord behind me was going to speak on the general question. I thought he was about to move an Amendment.
  LORD WAVENEYwas understood to ask whether ladies would be admitted to degrees under the Bill.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: The noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition has, acting under a considerable misapprehension, been induced to take a course which I believe is not very usual in this or any other House of Parliament. The other night, when the noble Earl complains that no answer was given to his observations—referring, I believe, to me personally—he forgets that on that occasion his observations were personally addressed to my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack. Again, this evening, the noble Lord who introduced this subject (Lord Emly) particularly addressed his remarks to my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, and called upon him to explain a statement which he had made to the House before, and vindicate some assertions that he had made on the same occasion. It certainly appears strange that the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition should blame the manner and the mode in which we think it wisest to allow the debate of this measure to proceed. I shall leave my noble and learned Friend to answer the questions that have been particularly addressed to him. But I must advert to the extraordinary speech of the noble Lord who introduced the discussion to-night. I can only say that I listened to that speech with amazement. Nothing of the Romance in which the noble Lord appeared to be indulging is known to me. We know nothing of this negotiation—nothing of these schemes or plans proposed by us—no proposal was ever authorized by me, either directly or indirectly, on the subject; and I do not know upon what authority he makes the statement which he has made to-night. I must, on my own part, entirely repudiate it—and I feel sure that my Colleagues would equally repudiate any knowledge of it. I think it is only due to the House that the noble Lord should give his authority for making it. If he made it on the strength of confidential communications, he must use his discretion as to the
  290
  course he may adopt; but, so far as I am concerned, I entirely free him from any awkward feeling he may have on that head. The whole narrative of the noble Lord appears to me, as far as I am individually concerned—and I believe I may speak also with the same clearness and firmness for my Colleagues—one which relates to circumstances of which we are ignorant; and I can only say that, so far as we are concerned, there is not the slightest foundation for the extraordinary statement which, according to his noble Leader in this House, has been a most effective speech. Certainly his statement is one which would very much tend to rouse the passions of your Lordships, and to cause a view of this important and interesting question to be taken for which there is no foundation, and which, to my mind, may occasion much inconvenience in the future discussion of this subject.
  LORD EMLYwas understood to say that he had not spoken of Her Majesty's Government, but of the Irish Government, and that he had himself seen the proposition to which he had referred. He repeated his statement, that, in his opinion, it was supposed in Ireland that the Government had adopted a Bill founded on that proposition, and it would have been highly dishonourable on the part of the heads of the Roman Catholics in Ireland if they had opposed a measure which they had themselves accepted.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, before I answer the statements in the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Emly), I hope your Lordships will allow me to make an explanation of the statement which I made on a former evening, and which, in some quarters, appears to have been misunderstood—I mean in reference to the Dublin University. In speaking of the Dublin University, I stated it was local in its operation; but I was not speaking in disparagement of the University—I meant, as is the case with the Durham University, that it was local in the sense of being mainly resorted to by the inhabitants of the Northern parts of the country, and I did not intend any opinion unfavourable to the great work in which the Durham University is engaged. I desire also to answer a question put to me by a noble Lord who

  291
  spoke second this evening (Lord Waveney). I may say that the Bill which we have introduced contemplates, in the preparation of the Charter, words almost identical with the words which are found in the Supplemental Charter of the London University with, regard to conferring degrees upon women. We propose that the Senate of this new University shall hold examinations and grant certificates and degrees; and it will, of course, be the duty of the Senate to make rules and regulations for that purpose, which it would be out of place to do in this Bill. The noble Lord who commenced the discussion (Lord Emly) said that the want of those whose interests he represented was not the power of obtaining degrees—that they had already by means of the Universities of Dublin and London—therefore, the noble Lord says this Bill confers nothing. Now, with regard to Dublin University, I have always understood that the argument of those whom the noble Lord represented was, that it was a grievance to be complained of that they should be obliged to obtain a degree from Dublin University. A degree can, no doubt, be obtained without residence from the Dublin University; but in order to do so it is necessary to make an annual payment, which amounts to almost as much as the fees of a moderate College; and two examinations must be passed in the year, which were not general examinations to ascertain general proficiency in literature, but to ascertain proficiency in the particular and specific Books which were required in the curriculum of Trinity College, and not in the curriculum of studies of those whom the noble Lord represented. As to the London University, no doubt, it can hold examinations in Ireland; but, in the first place, it is a matter of expense; and, secondly, it is a matter of finding centres at which a sufficient number of students can be collected for examination. Having denied that the difficulty of obtaining degrees was their grievance, the noble Lord went on to say that what those whom he represented wanted was a system of Collegiate training where there might be residence, with the advantage of having Professors who were able to conduct the training of residential Colleges of that kind. Nothing can be clearer than what that meant. I am not passing any opinion whether that is
  292
  desirable or not—I quite agree with the view of the noble Lord that a College, where there are residence and training in Collegiate life, is as superior to a University which merely examines and confers degrees as one kind of education can be to another. I am for the Collegiate system which prevails at Oxford and Cambridge; and I look upon a University which merely confers degrees without residence and training as a very inferior institution. But what does the demand of the noble Lord really amount to? "When he said that they wanted a system of Collegiate training, with residence and a staff of Professors, he means, of course, that they want money in order to provide those things—I will not call it endowment, but they want money. I can only repeat what, as I understand it, is the clear principle upon which Parliament is prepared to proceed—that a system of endowment and denominational Colleges is one which they are not prepared to accept. The lines upon which Parliament has proceeded hitherto, and the one on which it is prepared to proceed for the future, if we may judge from recent debates, as well as from long standing practice, are that demands for aid in favour of separate institutions in the form of endowments for denominational Colleges cannot be acceded to. I will now proceed to consider the mode by which the noble Lord proposes to get rid of this difficulty. He says, why not do what you did last year? Why not proceed upon the lines of the Intermediate Education Act; and he cites Mr. Gladstone as an authority. But, in calling in Mr. Gladstone as an authority for his proposal, let me say the noble Lord should have read a little further in the same speech than the quotation upon which he relies. If he had read a little further, he would have seen where the difficulty lies; because it is very singular that, although Mr. Gladstone's statement is in favour of the Intermediate Education measure so far as it relates to prizes and payments made to the student, he takes the objection that it might be said—and, evidently, that it ought to be said—that where you make payments, not to the students, but to the institutions which educate, you are running counter to the principle of abstaining from the endowment of denominational institutions. He says:—

  293
  "It is worth the while of the Government to consider whether there is any value in the contention that the Bill, in providing for the payment of fees to the managers of schools, would not go far to be regarded as payment to particular institutions."
  Then, as to the Conscience Clause, Mr. Gladstone said:—
  " If you confine your exhibitions and prizes to the young men, asking no question at all except as to their competence, you get rid of the whole difficulty as to the Conscience Clause."
  That has no place in this Bill, except in reference to schools where there are managers' fees. I would not refer to this, if it had not been said that Mr. Gladstone was in favour of extending to University Education the whole principle of the Intermediate Education Bill. The distinction is taken by Mr. Gladstone between two kinds of payments—the payment which goes for prizes and exhibitions directly to the student, and the payment which does not go to the student, but to the institution where the student is educated. My first answer, therefore, is, that if the noble Lord asks for payments which are to be made in the shape of prizes and exhibitions to the students, all I have to say is, what I said on a former occasion, that I do not consider this denominational endowment. I consider it to be a payment fairly made for the open advancement of education, without reference to denomination; but if he goes further, and says that what he wants is a subvention to enable residential Colleges to be set up or supported, and to go towards the payment of Professors in such Colleges—then, I say, the matter assumes an entirely different shape, and trenches upon what I understand to be the firm and settled principle of Parliament with reference to concurrent endowment. The noble Lord tells me that I have failed to point out the distinction between the arrangements, especially as regards a Conscience Clause, of the system of Intermediate Education and the provisions of the present Bill. The other night the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition was good enough to refer to what he called my points of distinction between the University Education Bill and the Intermediate Education Act of last year; but in commenting on this the noble Lord omitted the gravest and most overwhelming distinction between
  294
  the two cases. I said the other night that the Act of last year was passed without the slightest reference to any particular school or schools in Ireland; that it was an Act intended to confer benefits on every school, north, south, east, and west, which might be able to send out students with a sufficient attainment in Intermediate Education. If any existing schools choose to use the provision of that measure they are entitled to do so; and if any new schools are set up they are privileged to do the same, their claims being the same—that they have pupils sufficiently trained. There is no intention, either avowed or intended, to confer the benefits provided by the Act of last year upon any particular schools, or upon the schools of any one denomination more than upon those of any other. But the case is altogether different with regard to the demands made on behalf of Colleges. There is no disguising the demand made by the noble Lord (Lord Emly) to-night, which is the demand always made—namely, "Here are two or three Colleges in Ireland which are denominational, and which are in want of funds for their support. We cannot ask you to make a grant of money to these Colleges; but we do ask you to make payments indirectly, which' to use the language of a noble Lord," will reach these institutions." Now, that is the first and overwhelming difference between the Act of last year and the Bill which the Government have now brought in. There was then not the slightest intention or desire to benefit any particular school. If they were to receive advantage it was to be openly on the same footing as others. But here you meet us with a demand which, if acceded to, would take the form of endowment; and it is asked for to benefit institutions which would be just as distinctly pointed at by the Bill were the demand complied with as if their names were set out one by one. I am asked what I consider the difference between a Conscience Clause applied to a College or University and a primary or intermediate school? There is all the difference in the world. If your University and Colleges were scattered all over the country and in every parish of every county, just as primary and intermediate schools are distributed, there would be a strong probability that they

  295
  would be resorted to by all persons of proper age in their immediate neighbourhood, and the protection of a Conscience Clause would be requisite—in order that no boy should be compelled in attending the school of his neighbourhood for the purpose of secular education should be compelled to take religious education along with which you must have a Conscience Clause. Then the Conscience Clause plays a perfectly intelligent and very useful part. It is useful and necessary, and has a most happy effect upon the diffusion of education through the length and breadth of the land. But what application could it have to a large College Bet up—say in Dublin—for the denominational education of the Roman Catholic youth of that city? It could have none at all. There is not the slightest chance—I would say it would be a moral impossibility to find anyone entering that College except members of the Roman Catholic faith. The institution would not be intended for anybody else, and it is admitted that there would not be the least probability or likelihood of anybody else entering its walls. Those who do not belong to the Roman Catholic faith prefer to go elsewhere. Therefore, to set up a protection of that kind—to set up a Conscience Clause—in an institution never visited by those whom you are to protect against its influence, is merely to proclaim a mockery. My Lords, I think it is, to say the least, throwing a little dust in our eyes to say that whatever proposal might be made with respect to a Conscience Clause in a residential and teaching University such as we are asked to provide would have any weight or application whatever. These are the answers I have to make to the noble Lord—and I am sorry if they are of a character less favourable to his views than he would have desired.
  LORD SELBORNE: Although my noble and learned Friend has told us what is the settled principle of Parliament, and although it may be true that Mr. Gladstone in the House of Commons expressed some doubt whether the Bill of last year did not contravene that supposed principle, yet I must remind your Lordships that the House of Commons and this House passed that Bill, and that Mr. Gladstone himself did not oppose it. Therefore, it is proved by that
  296
  instance, either that Parliament has not established any such principle, or that it is not infringed by payments according to results in aid of schools of denominational education. You say that payments by results, which go directly to the institution and not to the individual student, trench upon the settled principles of Parliament as to denominational endowment. But is not that what has actually been done by the Intermediate Education Act? I distinctly protest, in the name of England, against the proposition. In England it is the settled practice for the State to give aid, through result fees, to denominational schools, both Church and Dissenting and Roman Catholic schools, all over the country. And, therefore, I take the liberty of saying that in whatever sense the principle of the noble and learned Earl may be true—and in some sense it is true—it is not true that the practice of Parliament is consistent with the view, that the encouragement of secular teaching in denominational institutions by State payments according to results, is equivalent to the direct endowment of those denominational institutions. It is a new extension of the principle, and contrary to anything yet laid down as a rule to Government by Parliament, to say that payment by results, which go to the institution, and not to the pupils, is an endowment of denominational education. Now, as to the distinction pointed out by the noble and learned Earl between the operation of the Conscience Clause under the Act of last year, and its operation under a measure aiding these institutions, I do not think much can turn on it. In the first place, as everybody knows, those intermediate schools are, most of them, strictly denominational, and some of them, I am told, are conducted by the Jesuits' Society, and it is not less improbable that any Protestant boy would go to a school of that description, than that he would go to Colleges such as we are now asked to assist. I cannot think there is much in that argument against the O'Conor Don's Bill. With regard to the Conscience Clause, I always supposed it was always adopted in the schools in England which are aided by the State, Roman Catholic schools included, not because it was taken for granted that there would be many persons to avail them-

  297
  selves of it, but because the State made it a condition of State aid that if the parent of any child desired to use a school of a denomination different from his own he should be at liberty do so without submitting to the specific religious teaching usually given in that school. Now, it may even be possible now and then that, under particular circumstances, some Protestant parents might wish their children to enter Roman Catholic Colleges; but without supposing many of such oases, there are, at any rate, the Roman Catholic schools, aided in accordance with the Bill of last year, in which the Conscience Clause exists as a condition of State aid. The Conscience Clause in the Bill of last year would be neither more or less effective than a similar clause in a University Bill. This is a measure of importance to Ireland, and it is essential you should not press against Ireland principles on the subject of denominational education or conditions upon which State aid is to be granted really differing from those which you apply to England.
  Motion agreed to; Amendments reported accordingly; and Bill to be read 3* To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.