Sitting of 21 July 1879

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, Class III.—LAW AND JUSTICE, Votes 1 to 8.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution [July 18] reported—Army Discipline and Regulation (Commencement) [Expenses]*.
First Reading—Civil Procedure Acts Repeal* [253].
Second Reading—Army Discipline and Regulation (Commencement)* [248].
Second Rending—Committee—Report—Bankruptcy Law Amendment [114–254].
Committee—Report—East Indian Railway (Redemption of Annuities)* [244]; Petroleum Act (1871) Amendment* [214].
Third Reading—Railways and Telegraphs in India* [234], and passed.
Withdrawn—Indian Marine (re-comm.)* [211]; Coroners (re-comm.)* [243]; Charity (Expenses and Accounts) (No. 2)* [230].

NOTICES OF QUESTIONS.
  TREATY OF BERLIN—THE JEWS IN EASTERN ROUMELIA.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONgave Notice that on Tuesday he would ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any and what accounts of the outrages committed in Eastern Roumelia upon Jewish refugees returning to their homes at Carlovo; and, if so, what steps have been taken for their protection and for their security in the future?

  RUSSIA—TREATMENT OF POLITICAL OFFENDERS—ALLEGED RUSSIAN ATROCITIES.
  MR. J. COWENgave Notice that on this day week he would ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the Government have received any information as to the manner in which

  843
  Russian subjects, on mere suspicion of political offences, are being driven by thousands into slavery in Siberia; if they have been informed that 700 persons, mostly men and women of education, have been packed in the hold of a small ship bound for Saghalien, without light or sufficient food or air, that 250 of them died on board, and 150 were landed in a dying state; further, whether it is true that large bodies of Cossacks are being forcibly ejected from their houses and homes, and compelled to settle in Colonies from the mouth of the Usuri river to Vladevostock, for the purpose of establishing a chain of military posts against the Chinese; and, whether, since remonstrances were addressed by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of Naples against the treatment of Poerio and his colleagues in 1855, and to Russia against her treatment of the Poles after the insurrection of 1861, to Turkey in 1876 against the action of Chefket Pasha and others in Bulgaria, these cases do not furnish, precedents for remonstrating with Russia against such treatment of alleged political offenders?

QUESTIONS.

  ARMY—ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT—CLAIMS OF MR. PADWICK.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL BERESFORDasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any person other than Mr. W. P. Padwick has claimed to be the inventor of the system of fitting elongated projectiles with studs of soft metal; and, if so, if he would give the name of such claimant, or claimants if there be more than one?
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: Experiments were conducted in France, in 1850, with elongated projectiles with soft metal studs—four years before Mr. Padwick made his proposition. These experiments having proved successful, the Select Ordnance Committee, after trial, recommended their adoption into the British Service in the year 1863. Subsequently, they recommended that Mr. Pad wick should receive £100 for having drawn attention to the subject in 1854. The reason that this invention was not adopted sooner into the English Service, between 1854 and 1863, was
  844
  that Sir William Armstrong's breech-loading system with lead-coated projectiles had been adopted. There is no trace of any claim having been made previous to the one put forward by Mr. Pad wick.

  INDIA—FINANCE ACCOUNTS.

    QUESTION.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the authorities in India have yet supplied the figured Statements which will enable Members to compare the figures in the latest Finance Accounts with those figures in the Accounts of prior years; whether the Debt Statements have yet been obtained from India; and, when will the Second Part of the Finance Accounts be delivered, and the distribution Statement of the Capital spent in different parts of India on productive Public Works in the two last years be ready?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: The second part of the Finance Accounts will be delivered to Members in the course of a few days. The distributive Statement of Capital expended on Public Works has been received, and a copy shall be sent to the hon. and gallant Member. As regards all the other statements to which the hon. and gallant Member's Question refers, I am sorry to say that they have not yet been received from India. The recent changes in the forms of account have caused some delay; but I will do my best to obtain them quickly.

  CHARITY (EXPENSES AND ACCOUNTS) BILL.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. H. JAMESasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he can state what course the Government propose to take with respect to the Charity (Expenses and Accounts) (No. 2) Bill; and, whether, if he proposes to abandon the Bill, he will consent to refer the subject to which it relates to a Select Committee?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, the subject was complicated, and, therefore, they proposed to withdraw the Bill for the present Session, and introduce next Session another Bill, which, if necessary, would be referred to a Select Committee.

  TREATY OF BERLIN—THE RUSSIANS IN EASTERN ROUMELIA.

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. J. R. YORKEasked, Whether at the beginning of June, and since the transfer of the province to the Turkish Government, the Russian military authorities in Eastern Roumelia have condemned some Mussulmans, subjects of the Sultan, to transportation to Siberia; whether General Stolepine has levied a fine of 35,000 piastres on the district of Kazan (Kotel), in the neighbourhood of Slivno, for having applied for the appointment of a Mussulman Bailli; whether the Russian authorities have hitherto declined to hand over to the authorities of Eastern Roumelia the district of Ichtiman; and, whether any remonstrances have been addressed by Her Majesty'a Government to the Imperial Government of Russia in respect of such violations of the Treaty of Berlin?
    MR. BOURKE: In regard to the first Question of my hon. Friend, what we have learned on that subject is this—that the Governor General of Eastern Roumelia has requested General Stolepine to send certain persons who had been tried at Philippopolis for punishment to Siberia; but we have not yet heard whether that request has been complied with. As to the second Question of my hon. Friend, we have heard that a fine of 35,000 piastres was levied by the Governor General, and that the Russian Government had disapproved of the conduct of the Governor General, and ordered that no fines should be levied in future. As to the third Question, that really involves a boundary dispute, which is now under the consideration of Boundary Commissioners; and as to the last part of the Question, the House, I think, will see that at the present moment we do not understand that there is any cause for remonstrance, and, therefore, none has been made.
    MR. J. R. YORKE: The hon. Member has not stated whether the fine of 35,000 piastres has been restored?
    MR. BOURKE: No notification has been sent us on that point. Our Consul General, from whom we get the information, has not mentioned it.

  JUDICATURE ACT (IRELAND), 1877—RE-ORGANIZATION OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE.

    QUESTION.
    MR. MACARTNEYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Why no steps have as yet been taken to carry into effect the reorganisation of the offices of the High Court of Judicature in Ireland, contemplated by the Judicature Act, Ireland, which Act became law in August 1877, and came into operation on the 1st day of January 1878; and, who is responsible for the delay which has occurred?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I beg to state that it is a mistake to say that no steps have been taken to carry into effect the reorganization of the Offices. When we were about to initiate this important work, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland expressed an opinion that the charges should be carefully considered; and that work is now so far advanced that I hope it will be completed by the 1st of January, when the time limited by the Judicature Act (Ireland) will have expired.

  NAVY-H. M. GUNBOAT "TYRIAN."

    QUESTION.
    COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether Her Majesty's transport "Tyrian," about to proceed to the West Indies, is to take out a crew of sixty men for service in another vessel, she having only accommodation for thirty; and, whether the medical authorities have made any representations on the subject?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Her Majesty's gunboat Tyrian is about to proceed to Jamaica to be stationed there; the navigating party will be transferred to another vessel (Contest) on arrival. No report has been received from medical authorities as to the crowded condition of the crew; but the Commander-in-Chief represented that there was a difficulty in finding accommodation for the number under orders to embark. In consequence, he was instructed to withdraw 10 men, and he is perfectly satisfied that there is now no overcrowding. The numbers on board are seven officers and 45 men. The established comple-

    847
    ment of a gunboat like the Tyrian is 40 men; but it is usual to embark a few supernumeraries for the passage.

  NAVY—THE WHAMPOA DOCK COMPANY.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL ARBUTHNOTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Where the dock is situated for which a loan of £12,000 was made to the Whampoa Dock Company; what was the date of the above loan; when was the dock completed for which the loan was made; what are the dimensions of the dock; and, whether it has been used by any, and, if so, by how many vessels of war?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The dock is in Aberdeen Bay, Hong Kong. The first loan of £6,000 was made on the 11th of February, 1864, and the second loan of the same amount on the 29th of March, 1866. The loans were confirmed under the 15th Clause of the Colonial Docks (Loans) Act of 1865. The dock was completed early in 1867; the exact date is not known. The extreme length on blocks is 433 feet, the breadth at the entrance is 84 feet, the depth over the sill at ordinary spring tide is 24 feet. The exact number of vessels entering the dock cannot be given; but the dock has been extensively used, and the largest iron-clad—The Iron Duke—has been docked. The Kowloon Docks—the only other docks at Hong Kong—were not built until after the Aberdeen Docks, and even now can only take in vessels of small draught of water.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION—ESTABLISHMENT OF TRAINING SHIPS.

    QUESTION.
    CAPTAIN PIMasked the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, under the Industrial Schools Bill which passed through Committee on Monday last, it is competent for a School Board, or a combination of School Boards, to undertake the establishment of a training ship; and, if a School Board or combination of School Boards can do so, whether he will be good enough to mention the legal authority under which such School Board could take this step?
    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: Under Sections 5 and 12 of the Industrial Schools Act, 1866, 29 & 30 Vict.
    848
    c. 118, and Section 28 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, 33 & 34 Vict. c. 75, it is competent for a School Board to undertake the establishment of a training ship. Under the Industrial Schools Bill, which passed through Committee on Monday last, it will be competent for School Boards to combine for a like undertaking.

  CORONERS (IRELAND)—LEGISLATION.

    QUESTION.
    MR. ERRINGTONasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether any resolution was come to by the Select Committee on the Coroners Bill as to extending the operation of that measure to Ireland; and, if not, whether he intends to introduce a Bill for dealing with the question as regards Ireland?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): In answer to the hon. Member for Longford, I may say that the Select Committee to which he refers did not come to any resolution with regard to the Coroners Bill. The Grand Juries (Ireland) Bill dealt with a certain portion of the question; and as the Order for the Second Reading of that Bill has been discharged, I do not think it would be desirable now to introduce a fresh Bill dealing with the other parts of the subject.

  CRIMINAL LAW—SEARCHING PRISONERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether information has reached him that, at Derby, in consequence of the searching or mode of searching certain persons taken to the police station charged with furious driving, a conflict ensued which ended in loss of life; and, whether, under these circumstances, he will cause some inquiry to be made as to the necessity of stripping and searching persons, male and female, not charged with actual crime?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, some disturbance of the character indicated by the first part of the Question had taken place; but as the matter would become the subject of a trial for murder he would refrain from expressing any opinion upon it. He had instructed the Inspectors of Constabulary to inquire into and report upon the latter part of the Question.

  GREAT BRITAIN AND EGYPT.

    QUESTION.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE (for Sir JULIAN GOLDSMID)asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When lie will give the House the promised opportunity of discussing the recent interference of the Government in Egyptian affairs?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am afraid I cannot at present name a day, there is so much Business before us.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR—THE EXPENDITURE.—QUESTIONS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he can be so good as to explain whence the money came to supply the Military Chest from which the Zulu War is being carried on?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It may be convenient, as this Question is sometimes asked, that I should explain what the Treasury Chest and the Military Chest are. There is a certain fund, a banking account of the Treasury Chest, which is credited with £1,000,000. Out of that fund advances are made for carrying on the Army and Navy Services abroad. Of course, these advances have to be replaced out of the Votes taken for the Army and Navy. That fund is a fund which is primarily applicable to Services such as the war in South Africa. Well, then, the question is, how the money is there raised? It is partly raised by remittance of specie sent from this country to the Treasury Chest fund, and partly by bills drawn by the Treasury Chest officer of the Colony upon the Treasury in England at long dates. These, of course, are cashed in the Colony and remitted Home, and the money has to be replaced out of the Votes of Parliament. Of course, all the expenses of the war are expenses incurred under some head or another of the Army and Navy Votes, though the ordinary Army and Navy Estimates are not sufficient to meet them. It therefore becomes necessary, in course of time, to vote Supplemental Estimates for Army and Navy Services, to make good the advances which have been made in respect of them out of the Treasury Chest. I may just mention that since the beginning of the financial year
  850
  on the 1st of April £260,000 in specie has been consigned to South Africa, while £880,000 has been drawn on this country in bills. Most of these are at long dates, so that only £365,000 have been paid, and the rest are in course of payment.
  MR. RYLANDSasked, Whether it was the practice to leave any balance in the Treasury Chest on the 31st of March, and not to surrender it to the Exchequer, as in the case of other accounts?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Of course. The Treasury Chest consists of £1,000,000, which ought to be always in its possession. The accounts are carried on in the name of the Service for which the money has been advanced, and, of course, the repayments to the Chest can only be made when the proper accounts have been dealt with. There ought always to be a balance of £1,000,000 in the Treasury Chest.

  CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND)—CASE OF ANN BRADLEY.—QUESTION.
  MR. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he would state to the House why the release of Ann Bradley, convicted of an attempt to murder Miss Geoghagan, was not upon the terms of a ticket of leave; who is responsible for exempting her from the precautions or conditions of a ticket of leave; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House Copies of all Papers relating to the release of this convict?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: It is evident, I am afraid, that a miscarriage of justice has occurred in this case. It appears that the prisoner, who had, in 1875, been sentenced to 14 years' penal servitude, was released in 1876, in consequence of the report of the prison medical authority to the effect that she was suffering from consumption, and that her life would be endangered by further imprisonment. Unfortunately, it seems to have been a practice, under similar circumstances, to grant releases without a ticket-of-leave. This, however, has for some time ceased to be the case in Ireland, as strict directions have been given that a ticket-of-leave should be enforced in such instances, as well as in others. The general question, moreover, of the treatment of invalid prisoners has

  851
  been under the consideration of the Irish Government, and we are now constructing a prison sanitorium, to which invalids can be removed from ordinary gaols and convict establishments. It will, therefore, be no longer necessary, except in exceptional cases, to let criminals loose again upon society upon medical certificates, as has been done in the case of Ann Bradley and others, and which I confess has, in many instances, whether a ticket-of-leave has been granted or not, constituted a serious evil. As to Papers, though in this case I should have been very glad if I could have given them, I am sorry to find there are none which could be laid upon the Table without establishing an inconvenient precedent, as it has always been the rule to treat such documents as confidential.
  MR. SULLIVAN: The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten to answer the second portion of my Question. Who is responsible for exempting this woman from the precautions or conditions of a ticket-of-leave?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: The responsibility rests on the system which has been in force, and, as I have explained, that system has since been altered.
  MR. SULLIVAN: I beg to give Notice that I shall call attention to the subject on the Estimates.

  THE ORDNANCE SURVEY.

    QUESTION.
    MR. ROWLEY HILLasked the First Commissioner of Works, What progress is being made with the Ordnance Survey of England and Wales on the 25-inch scale; and, when the survey of the county of Worcester is likely to be commenced?
    MR. GERARD NOEL: Satisfactory progress is being made with the Ordnance Survey of England and Wales on the 25-inch scale. Eighteen counties have been surveyed, rapid progress is being made with 13 others, and six counties have been partially surveyed. With regard to the county of Worcester, I fear some little time must elapse before the survey of that county can be commenced.

  SCIENCE AND ART—THE INDIAN MUSEUM.—QUESTION.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he
  852
  would undertake that the contents of the Indian Museum should not be dispersed until the House had an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the Motion of the Member for the Elgin Burghs; and, whether he would consider the alternative of charging the Estimates with such a sum as may be found sufficient, upon consideration of the matter, to keep the collection intact?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I hope that the hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs (Mr. Grant Duff) will have an opportunity before the close of the Session of bringing on his Motion in reference to the Indian Museum. Before that time, no definite steps will have been taken for the removal of the collections. I am aware that my hon. Friend takes a special interest in the Art collection, and we should be very glad to have the advantage of hearing his opinions on the subject before the final decision is come to. Perhaps, therefore, he will be kind enough to communicate with me. The question of a contribution from Imperial funds towards the support of an Indian Museum has been more than once considered between the India Office and the Treasury, but without any result.

  RAILWAY RATES FOR AMERICAN PRODUCE.—QUESTION.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is aware that the Railway Companies of this Country have been in the habit of giving preferential rates in favour of American over home produce; that the charge of conveying American meat was 25 s. per ton, and that of English meat 50 s.; and, whether the Railway Companies have any legal right to encourage foreign imports by this preference and advantage, over home-grown meat and cereals?
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: The Board of Trade have no official knowledge or means of ascertaining what are the actual rates charged by Railway Companies for American produce, or, indeed, any other goods they may carry over their lines. With regard to the last part of the Question, the hon. Baronet will, I am sure, see that, important as it is, it is not a matter upon which we can give an authoritative opinion. The hon. Baronet is aware that there are statutory provisions on the

  853
  subject of undue preference and unequal treatment with regard to any description of traffic to be found in the Railways Clauses Act, 1845, 8 Vict. c. 20, the Railway and. Canal Traffic Act, 1854, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 31, and the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, 36 & 37 Vict. c. 48, and that parties aggrieved have their remedy before the Railway Commissioners, who were specially appointed to carry the two last-mentioned Acts into effect.

  CUSTOMS BILL OF ENTRY OFFICE.

    QUESTION.
    MR. RYLANDSasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he will state to the House the decision at which the Government have arrived with reference to the Customs Bill of Entry Office, the patent of which expires in the course of the present month?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: It has been decided to adopt the recommendation of the Committee on Official Statistics and not to renew the patent; but in order to allow time to make arrangements for the future, the present system will be allowed to continue until the end of this year.

  THE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY'S GARDENS, SOUTH KENSINGTON.

    QUESTION.
    MR. J. R. YORKEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Commissioners of 1851 have any plans for the utilization of the ground now occupied by the gardens of the Horticultural Society at South Kensington as soon as they obtain legal possession of it; and, if so, whether such plans will be in accordance with the original design of employing the' estate for the promotion of science and art; and, whether the said plans will be placed in the Library for the inspection of Members?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, that the Commissioners had had several plans under consideration, and these had been referred to and explained in their Reports which, had been presented to Parliament every year. The particular plan suggested was not agreed to by Her Majesty's Government; and the Commissioners, on application being made to them, were willing to come to some
    854
    arrangement, which would, of course, be in accordance with the original design of the Commissioners, for utilizing the ground in question for purposes of science and art.

  GERMANY—THE ISLANDS OF THE PACIFIC—QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House any documents the Government may have received from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin relative to the Treaties entered into by the German Government with Samoa and other islands of the Pacific?
  MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, documents on the subject would by-and-bye be laid upon the Table. At present, however, this could not be done, as negotiations were still pending.

  THE METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE—REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENTAL COMMISSION.—QUESTION.
  SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Commission appointed some time since to inquire into the organization and working of the Metropolitan Police Force, have made any Report; and, if so, whether he proposes in consequence to make any alteration in the existing regulations, with the view of improving the condition and efficiency of the force?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, the Commission alluded to was not a public, but a private Departmental Commission. It had made a Report, and some alterations had been made in consequence, while others were under consideration.

  RIVERS CONSERVANCY BILL—LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
  MR. E. W. HARCOURTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Rivers Conservancy Bill which has just been withdrawn has been altogether abandoned, or whether he can give any assurance that the Government, having regard to the agricultural interests involved, and to the great losses which have been inflicted by the repeated floods of the present season, will take an early opportunity of re-introducing

  855
  the measure with such amendment as the further examination of its provisions may have shown to be necessary?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, that it was with regret the Government found themselves unable to proceed with the Bill this Session. They had every intention of introducing a similar Bill next Session?

  POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.—QUESTION.
  MR. GRANTasked the Lord Advocate, If it is his intention, in the Poor Law Amendment Bill for Scotland, which he is about to introduce, to provide for extending to members of Friendly Societies in Scotland the same privilege in regard to benefit money due to paupers which has been secured to members of Friendly Societies in England by the Poor Law Act Amendment Act of the present Session?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON), in reply, said, that the clauses in the old Act dealing with the property of paupers had been withdrawn from the Bill, which now included only the clauses relative to medical relief and the superannuation of officers.

  ARMY—THE NEW RETIREMENT SCHEME.—QUESTION.
  MAJOR NOLANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, since it is the intention of the Government to antedate the commissions of officers junior to the Lieutenant Colonels commanding regiments of Cavalry and Infantry who, subject to retirement after five years' command, are, under certain circumstances, retained in command beyond that period, what steps the Government proposes to take to mitigate the severity which the new Retirement Scheme and the prolongation of the Lieutenant Colonels' commands inflict on junior officers in the case of regiments where the Lieutenant Colonel was appointed before the 13th of October 1871, and can consequently remain as long as they please or till removed by death or promotion to General Officer's rank, thus blocking promotion for years, and causing the compulsory retirement of officer after officer?
  COLONEL STANLEY, in reply, said, the hon. and gallant Member was under a misapprehension in assuming that he
  856
  had given any definite promise with regard to the subject referred to in the Question. It was rather a complicated one; and he could not say positively at that moment what steps the Government might take to remedy defects in the present retirement scheme; but they would not lose sight of the matter.

  ARMY—ARMY OFFICERS AS WAR CORRESPONDENTS.—QUESTIONS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether there is any prohibition against officers on full pay or on active service corresponding with newspapers; whether any such rule has been relaxed during recent campaigns, either in favour of officers generally or in favour of particular officers permitted or appointed by commanding officers to act as correspondents; whether officers so permitted or appointed are relieved from any military duties, and are permitted to receive pay as correspondents; and, whether officers so acting are free to say what they think fit on their own responsibility, or their communications are subject to the control and approval of the commanding officer?
  COLONEL STANLEY: With regard to the first point, I have to say that officers on full pay are prohibited from corresponding with the newspapers; but it appears, from the answer which has been given by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India (Mr. E. Stanhope), that the rule had been relaxed in certain instances. Of course, officers in India are not, so far as I am informed, directly under the control of the War Department. With regard to the third and fourth Questions, I could only answer them as a matter of opinion, and my opinion is probably not worth more than that of other persons.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Has the rule been relaxed with regard to officers serving in South Africa?
  COLONEL STANLEY: Certainly not, so far as I am aware.

  ARMY CLOTHING ESTABLISHMENT, PIMLICO.—QUESTION.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has received the Report of the Committee on the Army Clothing Establishment at

  857
  Pimlico; and, if so, whether he will communicate the same to this House?
  COLONEL STANLEY, in reply, said, that through the courtesy of the President of the Committee on the Army Clothing Establishment at Pimlico he had received the Report of the Committee. He had not, however, received the evidence, which was still in the printer's hands. The Report and the evidence would, as soon as possible, be laid on the Table of the House. He wished to take that opportunity of publicly tendering his thanks and those of the Government, and he might say of the public service, to his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) and his Colleagues, who had carried out the investigation with such care and ability.

  UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND.—QUESTION.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Government has definitely abandoned the proposal submitted last Session for the appointment of an Under Secretary of State for Scotland?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: No, Sir. We have not definitely abandoned that proposal; but there are difficulties in the way at the present moment which we have not overcome.

  POST OFFICE MAIL CONTRACTS—MAILS TO INDIA AND CHINA.

    QUESTION.
    MR. ISAACasked the Secretary to the Treasury, When the Contracts provisionally entered into for the conveyance of Mails to India and China will be submitted to the House for confirmation?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, in reply, said, he could not yet fix a time for bringing the subject of the Contracts referred to by the hon. Member under the consideration of the House; he would put it down for Tuesday week, in the hope of being able to bring it forward on that day.

  BANKRUPTCY LAW AMENDMENT BILL.—QUESTION.
  MR. RATHBONEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, if the Government carry a short amending Bill
  858
  on Bankruptcy this Session, they will engage to bring in a Consolidation Bill at the beginning of the next Session in the House of Commons, and refer it at once to a Select Committee, so as to give ample time for the due and careful consideration of this important question?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have been in communication with my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General on the subject, and he is of opinion that it will be possible to greatly reduce the length of the Bill by adopting the suggestion made the other day by the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson); and he is now occupied in considering what alteration should be made in it. My hon. and learned Friend will, therefore, propose to re-commit the Bill pro formâ, in order to make the necessary alterations; and I hope it will be possible to pass the Bill through the House during the present Session. If it should be necessary—as very probably it will be—to introduce a Consolidation Bill next Session, it will be very convenient to take the course recommended by my hon. Friend. I think it will be best to see the Bill in the form in which it will be presented; and I believe that, in all probability, the Government will introduce a Consolidation Bill.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—THE SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE POLICE STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATE.—QUESTION.
  In reply to Sir CHARLES FORSTER,
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had taken steps for the immediate filling up of the office of police stipendiary magistrate for South Staffordshire. The appointment had only been vacant a short time, and some delay had been caused by the requirement of an old Statute that the person appointed should be a Justice of the Peace for the county.

  ARMY—DEATH OF THE PRINCE IMPERIAL—COURT MARTIAL ON LIEUTENANT CAREY.—QUESTION.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is now in a position to answer the Question I put to him last week—namely, whether Colonel Harrison, Assistant Quarter Master General, who sat upon the court martial, the Papers of which are now in hand, is the same

  859
  Colonel Harrison who directly sanctioned and personally superintended the reconnoitring party placed under the command of the late Prince Imperial on the occasion the Prince lost his life, and for which Lieutenant Carey alone has been tried by court martial?
  COLONEL STANLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to give me Notice of his Question?
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: I asked the same Question last week.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.—QUESTIONS.
  In reply to Mr. HANKEY and Mr. FAWOETT,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the second reading of the Bankruptcy Law Amendment Bill would be proposed that night, and it was intended to at once go into Committee pro formâ, in order that the Bill might be re-printed with the alterations. The University Education (Ireland) Bill would be taken as the first Order on Thursday. The Public Works Loans Bill would be proceeded with as the first Order on Wednesday next. To-morrow, after the question of Privilege had been disposed of, a stage of the Army Discipline and Regulation (Commencement) Bill would be taken, and then they proposed to take the Banking and Joint Stock Companies Bill. The East Indian Loans Bill would be proceeded with on Friday.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
    (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £822,192, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Constabulary Force in Ireland."
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERwished to intimate, at this stage of the proceedings, that if the Vote, dealing with the salary of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, came on for con-
    860
    sideration this evening at a reasonable hour, he should take the opportunity of calling attention to the Office which the right hon. Gentleman held, and of suggesting some alteration. At the present moment, however, they were called upon to deal with a large Vote for the Constabulary of Ireland. Only quite recently they had had great cause for complaint as to the disposition of that force; and as the county which he had the honour to represent (Mayo) was a county which had been visited by a large extra police force, he was anxious to direct the attention of the Chief Secretary to the abuses which appeared to have taken place by the employment of the police—abuses which might be repeated. His hon. Friend the Member for the County of Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had had some painful experience in his own county of the unnecessary employment of a police force; and he (Mr. O'Connor Power) remembered that when the inhabitants of Clifton announced their intention of holding a public meeting, the Deputy Inspector of Constabulary drafted a large force into the district. The services of that force were not required, for everything in that part of Ireland was found to be most peaceable and tranquil, and the county was put to a great deal of unnecessary expense by the attempt, on the part of the Executive, to tyrannize the people, and to harass them in the right of public meetings. An extra police force had been drafted into Mayo, and some of the performances of the force, in reference to the land agitation in Ireland, had been of a most extraordinary character. He found, in a recent number of The Tuam Herald, an account of a midnight visit paid by the police to Holly mount, in the County of Mayo. The police produced a paper, which they pretended was a legal document, authorizing the man's arrest. It was discovered on the following day that this was not a legal document, but a mere pretence on the part of the police to drag the man away from his home and subject him to great annoyance. These things were constantly happening in connection with the employment of the police force in Ireland; and before the Committee assented to this Vote, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would give some satisfactory assurances that inquiries would be made into the disposition of the police

    861
    force in Ireland, and that steps would be taken to prevent a repetition of the abuses to which he had called attention.
    MR. J. LOWTHERunderstood that the hon. Gentleman called attention to the employment of extra police in the county he represented, and in that adjoining. The hon. Member spoke about certain cases of police abuse, and said that the services of the force were not required in what he termed that peaceable and tranquil part of the country. He must confess his inability to agree with the hon. Gentleman, to whose recollection he must also recall the decided opinion upon this subject, placed upon record by a high ecclesiastical functionary of the Roman Catholic Church, possessing considerable local knowledge, and whose views of the state of the district in question were in direct contradiction to those just enunciated by the hon. Member. He had received reports from the districts in question, and therein he found opinions expressed which were so directly opposed to those the hon. Member had given vent to, with regard to the peaceable and tranquil state of that part of Ireland, that he was inclined to assume that the hon. Gentleman was not serious when he questioned the propriety of the steps taken by the Government to preserve peace and order. He thought that the Government would have been held culpable if, under the circumstances, they had not taken such steps. The manner in which the police were employed had also been called into question, and the hon. Member had referred to an allegation that the police had been used for the purpose of causing annoyance to the inhabitants. That was not the case, for the police had been sent into the district with the special and only object of preserving peace.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYdirected the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that, in many parts of Ireland, the police stations were exceedingly few in number. Around the West Coast of Ireland the permanent stations of the police were sometimes 20, and 30, and 40 miles apart; and then when, as had recently happened, a disturbance occurred, it was extremely hard to send the police there, and specially charge the unfortunate inhabitants for the services of the force. He imagined that the proper rule was this—that the whole
    862
    of the country should have an adequate force of police stationed permanently in barracks for occasions when their services would be required for what he might call the normal protection of the peaceable inhabitants of the country. In the West of Ireland the people were so exceedingly quiet and orderly, as a general rule, that the authorities had taken advantage of the peaceable character of the inhabitants, and had deprived them of their real and fair share of the police force. Therefore, when a disturbance had taken place, owing to the distribution of inflammatory tracts by Protestant Societies—tracts written in a spirit opposed to the religious belief of the great mass of the people—the Government sent a body of police down there, and charged the inhabitants with the cost. Now, that was unjust and unfair, and it was high time a remedy should be provided. There was another point to which he wanted to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and also that of the Secretary to the Treasury—namely, the employment of the police to do Revenue duty. Of late years, the Revenue police had been discontinued, and their duties had been placed upon the ordinary Constabulary. The police were thus made searchers for illicit distillation, and compelled to do duties which were formerly performed by a separate body of men. The consequence was, that the duties were now inadequately performed; that there was great irritation caused; and that there was a great temptation, to which the police themselves ought not to be exposed. He had no hesitation in saying that there was a great deal of illicit distillation in the West of Ireland, and that might be checked, and ought to be checked, by the Government, if they were desirous of really preventing it. Further than that, the police did not perform another duty which ought to be put upon them, and which the late Chief Secretary for Ireland promised should be placed upon them—namely, the surveillance of the drinking booths at fairs and markets in Ireland. It was the habit of persons to go about with booths for the supply of whisky of so bad and valueless a nature that when the fair or market was closed they did not care to carry that away with them which they had not succeeded in selling. To the sale of this deleterious

    863
    compound, enjoying the name of whisky, was to be attributed half the rows and broken heads in Ireland. Surely this was a matter which the police ought to attend to; and the police ought to be set to work to discover where this horrible fluid was sold, with the view of prosecuting the people under the Public Health Act. These were little things; but if they were properly attended to the peace of the country would, in a great measure, be preserved, and the stigma removed which very unfairly rested upon the peaceable people of Ireland.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the hon. Gentleman had complained of the want of permanent police stations in the West of Ireland, which, if it really existed, was a very proper subject for inquiry wholly apart from any of the other questions to which the hon. Member had alluded, and from which it should be kept quite distinct. If the hon. Member would specify to him in what districts this want occurred, he should be glad to give the matter consideration. If the additional duties, such as the hon. Gentle-had referred to, constituted too great a strain on the force at the disposal of the authorities, that would be a very fair reason for increasing the force.
    COLONEL COLTHURSTremarked, that the other evening the Chief Secretary, in reply to a question concerning the manner in which the charge for the extra police was made upon the people, said that it was quite natural that exemptions should be made of the properties of certain people who were not supposed to be in any way concerned in the disturbances. The principle of exemption was a fair one as regarded agrarian outrages; for it would be manifestly unjust to impose the charge for the extra police upon a landlord or farmer who had been the victim, or sufferer from such an outrage. The disturbances, however, which had recently taken place near Clifton were not of an agrarian character, but had been provoked by the circulation of offensive tracts and pamphlets, at the instance of certain clergy and Church Bishops, who ought, in consequence, to be held responsible. It would certainly be most unfair if the property of these persons were exempt from taxation. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to assure the Committee that in their case the exemption would not be made.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, that when the Coercion Act was going through the House it was stated by the Government that the extra police would only be employed for the suppression of agrarian outrage. But the extra police had been employed in Connemara when the disturbances had no connection whatever with agrarianism. They were crimes which might happen in any district of England; but, in the event of their occurrence in England, he was not aware that any extra police were quartered upon the people. The disturbances in Clifton were not accompanied by any acts of physical violence, nor were they accompanied by any of these occurrences connected with the burning of Colonel Jackson's house in the North of England. He believed that in that case there was no tax for extra police; but in Connemara, where the disturbances were of a much milder character than those which happened in the North of England, a tax for extra police has been imposed upon the people. There had been in the West of Ireland an application of the police which was never intended by the Government when the Coercion Act was introduced four years ago. He objected to the inhabitants having to pay for the extra police; and wished to point out that no one pretended to say that the disturbances in Connemara were at all connected with agrarianism. If, however, the tax were to be imposed they ought to be levied fairly and reasonably. He expected some explanation from the Government about some of the circumstances connected with the tax. He was informed that there were two parishes in Connemara in which the tax had been levied. In Ballydoon, for instance, the tax amounted to 9½d. in the pound, a very considerable sum for poor tenants to pay, in addition to 9½d. in the pound on the Government valuation. In England 9½d. in the pound would be considered a very high Income Tax, especially if it were added to 9½d. in the pound on local taxation. It ought to be remembered, too, that the disturbances in the parish of Ballydoon were of the most trifling description, amounting only to the breaking of a few panes of glass. There was really no damage done except that which could very properly be paid for in the ordinary way. A tax of 9½d. in the pound, under these

    865
    circumstances, seemed to be a very heavy one. In addition to that, the tax was very unfairly distributed amongst individuals. The Chief Secretary acknowledged, the other night, that certain exemptions had been made at the instance of the local authorities. His (Major Nolan's) impression was, that at the time they were passing the Coercion Act it was understood that it was the Grand Juries who were able to make exemptions, and no one else. He should like to know from the Chief Secretary if the police authorities, or resident magistrates, had the power of exempting certain individuals from the tax? Further than that, the Chief Secretary stated, in answer to him (Major Nolan), that it was the policy of the Government to exempt those people upon whom the outrages had been committed. He had received a letter, which had every appearance of accuracy, and from which he learned that certain people had been exempted from the tax who were not subject to any attack whatsoever. It was clear, therefore, that they must have been exempted for some other reason. The Chief Secretary ought to state why these particular properties had been exempted from the tax. He (Major Nolan) also quarrelled with the principle of exemption altogether. Where taxes had been laid on property in a certain district, it was a very doubtful policy to make exemptions at all. The people who were exempted were apt to exult over those who were paying the tax, and to consider that they were scoring a victory. This occasioned a great deal of ill-feeling between the parties; whereas, if all the parties had to pay the tax, they would all get tired of paying it, and they would be more apt to prove themselves a happy family, and thus cause the imposition to be removed. It was, unquestionably, very injurious to the good-will of the locality if there were any exemptions. He protested against taxing people according to sympathies. He should like to know if all the people who had been exempted had been the subject of outrages; and he should also like to know if the Government had definitely made up their minds to apply the tax even in cases where the outrages had not been of an agrarian character?
    MR. GRAYsaid, the hon. Gentlemen who had spoken had referred to par-
    866
    ticular phases of this question; but he wished to direct attention to the general system of extra police, and to show that what had always been an abuse was growing worse year by year. There was what was supposed to be the normal number of the police, on which number the Estimates were based, on which the House voted their supply. But that normal number was not the real number, for the full number for a district was never on the rolls, while an extra number was always on the rolls; and whenever the Government supposed that a supplementary supply was required for any town or district, that town or district was charged as for an extra supply, when, as a matter of fact, the normal supply was not reached even with the extra force. The receipts under this head were no less than £25,000 for the present year. That was a tax which was levied in various proportions in various districts in Ireland really to supply the cost of a blunder made by the Government themselves some time ago, when they estimated the cost of the superannuation of the police at a very much lower sum than the cost really amounted to. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would explain to the House if he intended to perpetuate the system or not. The amount required and voted for the superannuation of the Constabulary amounted to a very much larger sum annually than the Irish authorities had anticipated, and it was growing year by year in a rather alarming fashion, so that the Treasury were putting pressure on the Constabulary authorities to keep down the Votes. One of the means adopted was the keeping down the normal number of men to be given to the various districts. He found that that system had been in favour for a considerable number of years, and that this year there were 123 men fewer estimated for altogether than last year. The result would be the Votes for extra police; for as the real number of the men was lessened, so in proportion, whenever an extra force was called for, more men would have to be paid for by the district, no matter whether the normal strength had been reached or not. Therefore, the £25,000 received for extra police this year might become £30,000 next year. This was really a serious question; and it was nothing less than trifling with

    867
    Parliament to estimate for one number of men and really keep a lesser number of men on the rolls. No doubt, it was a fact that the amount for the superannuation of the police was very large; but let this be faced in an open, manly way, and not by trying to avoid a financial difficulty by devices of this kind. Another device, to which, he would take the liberty of directing the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, was this. He put to the right hon. Gentleman, the other day, a Question with respect to the men called non-effectives being kept on the effective force of the Constabulary long after they had ceased to be able to do any work. There were 73 of these men in the force for three months past—men who were entitled to retire on their pensions. When he found men who had served for a long number of years—and many of them were in the hospital—he was justified in assuming that most of them would never again be effective; but by keeping them on the list the superannuation list, which had grown too large, was kept down by the amount of these pensions, while the effective force was nominally, not really, filled up, and an excuse offered for charging districts with an extra police force. This was not straightforward, and the right hon. Gentleman would not care to take the responsibility of it. He would say that he found it in force, and had continued it. He (Mr. Gray) did not bring a charge against the present Administration of having originated this system; but it was growing worse under their administration, and in proof of that statement he would again refer to the fact that they had estimated for 123 men less than last year. No doubt, there were names in abundance on the application list, for it was a great favour to get into the Constabulary force—picked men could be had in abundance; applications were continually coming in, for the salary was large, and the advantages of the position considerable. Therefore, it was of deliberate and set purpose that the force was kept down under its nominal strength, and it was kept down in order to keep down the Estimates, and to satisfy, in some way, the grumblings of the Treasury, because of the enormous and unexpected increase in the superannuation charges.
    MR. BRUENadded his testimony to the correctness of the statement. It
    868
    was perfectly true, and his attention had been often drawn to the fact, that the proper quota of police had never been reached until the county authorities found it necessary to send more men for the preservation of the peace, and, thereupon, the district was charged for the extra men. It was not a fair thing to make the extra charge before the full quota of the force allotted to the district had been reached. The reductions in the number of the police had often been effected by the withdrawal of the police from stations altogether against the representations of the inhabitants; but if economy was to be effected in that way, against the opinion of those who were charged with the preservation of the peace of a district, that economy should not be effected at the expense of the county which was now called upon to pay.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) had struck a real blot in the system. Nothing could be more unfair, more unjust, than the system of charging a locality for the expenses of a force when the force had not been maintained in the proportion assigned by Parliament. It was a monstrous system that gave a premium to the Executive in the shape of local charges, when there was a riotous or bad condition among the population. This state of things, which it ought to be the interest of the Government to avert, seemed to be no disadvantage to the Imperial Treasury, but came as a relief to it. This had been so strongly pointed out by the hon. Members for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) and County Carlow (Mr. Bruen), that he was not justified in occupying time with the subject, beyond saying that the attention of Irish Members had been called to the subject, which had in it sufficient to make it a burning question, if something were not done to deal with the evil very shortly. Upon the subject of the extra duties for the Constabulary, the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had recommended the employment of a separate force for Revenue purposes, but with that he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) could not agree; it would be a great mistake—a retrograde movement—to re-establish a Revenue police. There had been enough experience of those "potheen hunters," as the country people used to call them; and he thought

    869
    the duty was infinitely better discharged by the rural police. They knew the districts, and the habits and ways of the people, and they had largely promoted the discouragement of illicit distillation. His hon. Friend said there was a good deal of potheen distilling in the West of Ireland; but he could scarcely credit this—in fact, friends of his, who had a partiality for this kind of spirit, had told him it was cheaper to got a bottle of the best duty-paid whisky than to get the same quantity of potheen. But, personally, he had not been in the West of Ireland for years. On the subject of police, he advised the Government to take steps to keep the force up to its full strength, and make no special charge to a district, except the levy was applicable to the relief of the local taxation of the district from which the relief was drafted. Thus, if 20 men were required from Carlow to coerce Mayo, then let Carlow have the benefit of the charge for supplying the force, and not merely Mayo be subjected to a special tax.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRY, in reference to the illicit distillation, asked the attention of his hon. Friend to the last Report of the Inland Revenue Department, and he would find there were 700 prosecutions for that offence in Ireland last year. He did not speak without knowledge, when he said the amount of distillation carried on in some parts of Ireland was exceedingly detrimental to the people; and on this point he believed the police did not do their duty. Further, he did not believe the Sunday Closing Act was properly carried out, owing to the removal of the police because of the desire to lessen expenses, and relieve the difficulty the Treasury had got into from not framing the Estimates correctly.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, this was a question that must come before the House fully before long, for the force was in such a state as to resemble a standing Army more than a police force. But, owing to the hurried manner in which the Vote had been brought on, the subject could not now be fully discussed. However, he was not making any objection to proceed, or to discuss the organization of the force. The attempt to keep down the quota of the county beyond what the county was entitled to, and then to send fresh men into the county and charge them on the
    870
    rates, was simply a fraud on the ratepayers. The Constabulary was, in theory, maintained by the Imperial Parliament. The authority under the Act of Parliament which was to enforce the burden for the maintenance of these forces put down 300 men in a certain county, saying that that was the proper number to be allotted to that district. They would assume that the force kept up in the county was 250 men, and immediately a disturbance arose 50 men more were sent for, whom the ratepayers were obliged to pay, although the proper number of men to be maintained in that county was 300. That was what it came to; and he trusted that this state of things would not go without remedy in Parliament. But he thought the ratepayers who were called upon to make those payments would do well to resist them, and employ every legal means to sustain them in the adoption of that course. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) spoke of the number of non-effective men kept upon the lists of this force; but, for his own part, so long as the force continued what it was, he had no objection to see any amount of non-effective men kept upon it. It was a military force, it was armed and drilled like an Army, and it was imbued with the spirit of an Army, instead of that of a civil force. If these men were not drilled as they were, if they were not required to pass their noviciate in the Dublin barracks, they would be far more useful, better able to discharge the duties they had to perform, and far more popular. They were a well-conducted body of men; there were few complaints of violence or of spying usually made against a force; and they bore a good contrast to the Dublin Metropolitan Police, for their colours were not stained with civil blood: but it was a great pity a force like this, such good material, should be turned into a military force. This was not all. There had been during the last few years, amongst the officers, an amount of small and large scandals utterly disproportionate to the number of officers, and which, in a well-regulated force, would not have occurred. In one part of Ireland there was an instance of a county Inspector in receipt of Government money and putting it into his own pocket, and the amount of his defalcations the ratepayers were required to make good. There had

    871
    been painful scenes in the North, and scandals between one officer and another. He did not mean to say anything against the great body of the officers, and, perhaps, scandals was not quite the proper word to use; but according to the small number of officers in the force, as compared with the English Army, there was not that harmony and discipline maintained in the superior ranks of this Constabulary force that there was in the Army. The hon. Member for Galway and the hon. Member for Tipperary spoke a good deal about the employment of these men in particular districts for the purpose of preserving the peace, but where very often it had been disturbed by the responsible individuals of the localities. But what were they to say of the cases—and they were not few—where these men were taken away from their ordinary duties and brought down substantially to maintain the civil claims of the individual, and not to maintain the peace at all. Whether the money was to be paid for the hire-services out of the Imperial taxes or out of the ratepayers' pockets, he equally protested against it. He had that afternoon presented a Petition, signed by a large number of the inhabitants and electors of the county of Dublin, complaining that a large body of police were sent to support the claim of a landlord to the Skerries foreshore. This claim was resisted by persons along the foreshore, and became the subject of litigation, the claimant being unsuccessful in one Court and successful in another. Finally, the matter being still open, he proceeded before a magistrate to obtain redress for trespass upon what he conceived to be his property, and as many as 100 policemen were sent to preserve, sacred and inviolate, a wall with which the landlord had sought to make good his claim. The police marched off the men, who were about to exercise their right to pull down the wall, in handcuffs; and after the police had been kept there some time the decision of the Court in Dublin was against the landlord's claim. The police, therefore, had been employed to maintain claims not sustainable. He wanted to know who was to pay for these 100 policemen who were kept on the foreshore? Was it the Imperial taxes, or was it the poor tenants of the county Dublin? This was a very serious question. He thought neither party ought to pay, as these were ser-
    872
    vices which it was never intended should be rendered by the police. They ought to be confined simply to the maintenance of the peace when it was threatened by unruly mobs, and should not be employed to uphold the civil rights of individuals.
    MR. O'DONNELLremarked that, as at present constituted and used, the Constabulary force was simply a ready weapon and means for gratifying the local, personal, and sectarian spites of the governing class in many portions of Ireland. If for a long space of time an acrimonious religious controversy had been kept up by the paid agents of a so-called evangelizing society, and if at length that society succeeded in provoking disturbances, thereupon its efforts were forthwith encouraged and its venomous propaganda promoted by means of the Irish Constabulary. The property of promoters of disturbance was carefully exempted, and the cost of the extra police was thrown upon the ratepayers of the poor and harassed district which had been chosen for years past as the select centre of the operations of this society. But it was not only in regard to the operations of so-called missionary societies that the Constabulary were misused. Throughout the North of Ireland, again and again, it appeared that the Constabulary were called in in order to promote the objects of the party in ascendancy. Complaints had been addressed to the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the subject, which, if he were at all acquainted with the importance of the Department which he had been sent from England to administer, he would listen to with a great deal more care and attention. He was sure that it was his ignorance, and not his will, which was usually at fault in these matters. Complaints had been made to him with regard to interference with meetings of most legitimate character in the North of Ireland, promoted by Catholics. For instance, in the county of Tyrone a perfectly legitimate meeting was called in order to support the University Education Bill brought in by the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don). The local sectarianism and religious prejudice took alarm at such a demonstration of their undoubted civil rights on the part of the long-oppressed Catholics of the county Tyrone; and on the impudent pretext that this meeting

    873
    would afford an opportunity for an attack being made by Protestant rioters, the local authorities took the step of prohibiting the meeting being held. He was sorry to say their conduct was defended in that House by the Chief Secretary for Ireland as a magnificent specimen of what he was pleased to call impartiality. He would point out that in the recent celebrations of the July anniversaries, which were attended with every circumstance of offensive display, the Constabulary were not sent down by the authorities to interfere and prevent those demonstrations coming off. This was not merely a police force—it was a branch of the Army, maintained by the Government, without putting them into the military Votes, and one which gave the Government the opportunity of occasionally displaying their military authority, in its most offensive form, to the people of Ireland. It might be better, perhaps, to challenge their action in this matter on some of the Votes, such as those for musketry instruction, and the supply of ammunition. He did, however, wish to direct the attention of the Committee to the fact that they were BOW maintaining in Ireland a military force aggressive and provocative in its character, and one which was not at all of the character of a civil police; one which continually brought home the idea of irresponsible despotism to the Irish people. He would ask hon. Members how an English public meeting would like to find that amongst those present were armed minions of the Government who, leaning on their loaded rifles, employed themselves in taking notes of the speeches delivered? A right of that kind would be intolerable in England, and would raise a rebellion if it were ever attempted. Yet it was a right which must meet the eye of every traveller who took a real interest in the study of Irish life and Irish agitation. At the recent meeting of the agricultural labourers, at which every institution dear to the heart of the Conservative landlord was attacked in terms not likely to satisfy English landlords, the Government did not send down detectives to take down the words of Mr. George Mitchell or Mr. Joseph Arch; but, in Ireland, they could not even hold a tenant-right meeting without its approach being heralded by the arrival of long car-loads of armed spies, who occu-
    874
    pied their positions in prominent places, and in provocative attitudes, taking notes, in the hope that their superiors might be able to twist something out of the language used, to serve the purposes of a coercive prosecution. Such a thing in England would tend to trouble, and to the destruction of all Governments; and yet it was the course adopted at every Irish meeting, and it was the way in which the Irish people were recommended and encouraged to pursue the paths of peaceful demonstration.
    MR. CALLANwas sorry to spoil the graphic picture drawn by the hon. Member for Dungarvan, but the muskets of the Constabulary, he believed, were always unloaded. He bore testimony to the way in which the Constabulary discharged their duties, and regretted that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) had drawn an unfavourable comparison between them and the Dublin and the Metropolitan Police. Having known the force for 10 years, he believed it presented a most favourable contrast to the City Police in London. He was glad that in this matter they had come to the discussion of a real grievance. Formerly, that House used to fix the number of men for each county in Ireland; but, unfortunately, during a period of coldness on the part of Irish Members, power and authority was given to the Lord Lieutenant in Council to do so under certain provisions. Recently, in Louth, they found that the force was one-fifth less than they were charged for. The Grand Jury refused to pass the presentment—first, on the ground that they had not been stationed in the county; and, secondly, that the requirements of the Lord Lieutenant had not been complied with. One of the most prominent of the Castle Judges held that they could not go behind the Treasury Warrant, no matter what number of men had been in the county during the previous year. He complained that his county was often over-charged for men, and trusted the Government would give some explanation of the matter which he had just mentioned. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had stated that the police, as illicit-still hunters, were an inefficient force; but the fact that in the county of Galway there had been in one year 700 prosecutions for keeping illicit stills showed that the charge was not well-founded.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANdid not wish to join in a cry against the Irish Constabulary. He believed they were a very fine force, well worthy of the country. He could, however, bear full testimony to what had been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan). In the four counties with which he (Colonel King-Harman) was connected there were repeated complaints against the charge made for extra police when the numbers were not kept up to their normal strength.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEcomplained of the way in which fines were imposed. It was ridiculous that a soldier, if he were simply fined 1s. a-day, should have the power to go to a court martial; while a constable in the Constabulary might be punished most unjustly by an ill-tempered commander, or prejudiced county inspector, and yet have no power of making his voice heard. He pointed out, also, that there had been certain irregularities in connection with the inspectors, who had made a practice of borrowing money from their men. He should move the reduction of the Vote by the amount of these officials' salaries, and whether he persisted in that would depend on the answer the Chief Secretary gave.
    MR. O'DONNELLobserved, that the hon. Member (Mr. Callan) had rather misrepresented him. He did not raise any objection to the character of the Irish Constabulary, whom he knew to be a very fine and able force. He was only speaking of the use made of them by the Government.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, while he was disposed to agree, to a considerable extent, with what had been stated by the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray), these were not the days in which the Government would feel themselves justified in allowing the Irish Constabulary to fall below their proper strength. That was a subject now engaging the anxious attention of the Government, and he thought the result of that would be to remove many objections urged. As regarded non-effectives, he considered their numbers remarkably small—something like 60 in the whole force—and he did not think it would be desirable to dismiss men from the force for temporary indisposition. He would remind the Committee that this Vote had been under consideration for some hours, and he
    876
    hoped it would now be agreed to. He must observe that if every one of the 60 or 70 Votes was to be subjected to the same criticism, they would never get to the end of their work. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) had referred to the exemption from the charge imposed on a district for the maintenance of an extra police force. As he understood the law of the case, it was not individuals, but areas, that were exempted. When the inhabitants of any particular area appeared to be in no way connected with the facts leading to the despatch of the force, then that part of the population had a claim to be exempt from the charge; but that would not be the case if it could be shown any of them were instigators by the distribution of placards or bills. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) had referred to the force as a military one; and he (Mr. J. Lowther) would rejoice if they could turn the bayonet into the walking-stick, and he would be glad if they could see the Constabulary walking about with a cane, in the old-fashioned dress of guardians of the peace in the country years ago. But the hon. and learned Gentleman must recollect that the duty of the force often found them opposed to large gatherings of people, sometimes between two parties, and they must have the means of preserving themselves and the public order. He hoped the Committee might now be allowed to take the Vote.
    MR. BIGGARexpressed his satisfaction at that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in which he stated that the police force was to be kept up to its full strength. He referred to the case of Mr. Buckley, as one in which the charges levied on the population were such as they could not possibly pay. In that case, where the people were already unable to pay the rents levied, a higher rent was demanded, and then the Government made the people pay for the police to put down the disturbances which resulted. He thought a very unjust use was often made of the police; while the way in which certain persons were exempted from the tax was ridiculous and monstrous. He condemned the conduct of the Government in sending an extra police force to Connemara, and complained that the Attorney General for Ireland had not done his duty by

    877
    prosecuting the people who created disturbances in the district by circulating insulting tracts among the Catholic people.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. Biggar) had treated them to one of his usual dissertations on law, politics, and religion. In that House those hon. Members represented a minority—a decided minority. They were constantly crying out because they could not control the House, and yet they had the assurance to ask the House not to protect the minority in Ireland, who were merely acting in accordance with the dictates of their religion. The hon. Member (Mr. Biggar) had observed that his opinion of the law in regard to these matters was opposed to that of the Judges of Ireland. He had no doubt that was the case; but the hon. Member spoke strongly against the Government for having sent a strong force of Constabulary into Connemara. Well, his opinion was that no proof could be produced of any excess or outrage having been committed by any of the poor people of the district who had suffered so much from the disturbances referred to. These people had been attacked with stones; women and children were subjected to ill-treatment and insult. That the force sent to preserve order was not too strong was clearly shown from the manner in which they had been treated. They were attacked. Their arms were taken from them in some instances, and in one case serious injuries had been inflicted. Some of the hon. Members opposite had expressed an opinion that there were too many police in Ireland, but he could not follow their reasoning on that point. Some of them declared that there were not enough policemen, while others held that there were too many, the former arguing that the people paid for more police than were supplied to the respective districts. To show the inconsistency of these claims, it had been asserted by some that the Constabulary amounted to a military force. On one point he was assured, that the Constabulary could not perform their duties unless they were armed. A proposal had been made some time ago to establish a Volunteer Force in Ireland; but he asked whether, under the circumstances, a population such as had been guilty of the excesses to which he referred could be trusted with mili-
    878
    tary arms? Let them think for a moment of the serious consequences which might result from a conflict between a population armed with military weapons, and trained to the use of them, with the police. Such an event would require not only a military force, but would imply a large increase of the present Constabulary force in Ireland. The county to which he belonged had been spoken of as one of the most disorderly in Ireland. On the occasion of the last Orange anniversary a number of Orangemen had assembled in a town which had been referred to, but their meeting was of the most peaceful character. They were, however, followed to the suburbs by a crowd of the opposite party, who kept ostentatiously firing off guns during the day. Several shots were aimed at the Orangemen, and the result was that several of the party were wounded, more or less seriously. A small body of the Constabulary made an attempt to disperse the Roman Catholics, but they failed, and were obliged to call for reinforcements before they could succeed in protecting the Orangemen. In another place a large body of Orangemen were attacked while going peacefully to their homes. There, again, the police interfered to preserve order. The Orangemen, irritated by the treatment they had received, showed a desire to retaliate, but were fortunately prevented by the Constabulary, who arrived in strong force. He thought it right to mention these facts, as an illustration of how the Orangemen were sometimes excited and provoked to violent acts by the conduct of the opposite party.
    MR. CALLANsaid, the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney) was inaccurate in his statement relating to the disturbances which occurred in connection with the Orange celebrations at Omagh. The last riot happened at that town on Sunday the 13th of July, when the Orangemen of the surrounding district, who had on the previous day indulged in drunken orgies, came into the town under pretence of attending Divine Service, and then inarched out of church, firing guns and playing party tunes. Catholics were assaulted and injured; and he had received letters from some respectable inhabitants of the town of Omagh, constituents of the hon. Member for Tyrone, asking him to bring the

    879
    matter before the House of Commons. He regretted that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had so completely evaded the substantial grievance which had that evening been brought forward by the hon. Members for Tipperary (Mr. Gray), Carlow (Mr. Bruen), and Sligo (Colonel King-Harman), as well as by himself. He referred to the charge on the counties for the extra police force. It appeared by the Estimates that last year—1878–9—when the Constabulary were admittedly below the number allowed, the Treasury received upwards of £25,000 from these extra rates; but the counties from which the police were drafted were not credited with any amount. The right hon. Gentleman had not replied upon this point at all, and he (Mr. Callan) would call his attention to another fact. In the year 1873 a charge was imposed on the county of Louth for a number of extra men, and the Grand Jury threw out the presentment, on the ground that the county had not the number of police allowed by the Order in Council, and also on the ground that the requirements of the Act had not been complied with. At the Spring Assizes, ending the 27th of February, 1874, the Grand Jury again threw out the presentment, and the matter was then brought before Mr. Justice Lawson, who said that he could not go into the questions as to whether the police in the county were up to the proper number, or whether or not the requirements of the Act had been complied with. He simply said—"I order and direct that you pass this presentment," and the Grand Jury were obliged to do so. Since that time he believed no Grand Jury had appealed, for the reason that Mr. Justice Lawson had held the Treasury Warrant to be imperative, and that he could not go behind it. Under these circumstances, he asked the Attorney General for Ireland to say whether he was prepared to grant an inquiry into the facts, and whether Ireland was to be mulcted in this sum of £25,000?
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) had stated correctly that the disturbances at Omagh took place on the 13th of July, but the facts were different from those related by the hon. Member. On the occasion in question, four or five bands had attended a large meeting, and one
    880
    of these accompanied another on its return to the station, when they were attacked by a large body of men, and the Constabulary placed themselves between the two parties. He denied that party tunes were played. Protestant bands never played on Sunday, while Roman Catholic bands did so frequently.
    MR. GABBETTsaid, this was his first appearance in public during the five weeks he had had the honour of sitting in the House. He had listened to the brilliant flashes of oratory which had come from his hon. Friends around him, and he supposed that out of the abundance of the heart the mouth spoke. He would only say a few words with regard to the reference of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), who had spoken of the Royal Irish Constabulary walking about bristling with arms. He lived in a place called Cherconlish—not, perhaps, a very euphonious appellation, and one, perhaps, which was almost as bad as the name of Geoghegan, which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland fell foul of the other day. During the time he had lived there he had some opportunities of seeing the Constabulary, and he must say that they lived in all peace and quietness with the villagers, and consorted with them in the most friendly manner possible. He had been called in to see their skeleton battalion drilling, and had seen the country people looking on with interest, and in the most ordinary manner. The members of the Constabulary were sought after as acquaintances by the people, and as eligible bachelors by the marriageable of the district. He had met them frequently, and he must say that a more orderly, respectable, and sober body of men he never saw; and he had the greatest pleasure in thus bearing testimony to their personal character. He had never seen any of the Orange demonstrations referred to by the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney); no such things happened in his part of the country, where the Protestants lived with their Catholic neighbours upon the most affectionate terms. And lately, when he had stood for the county which he had the honour to represent, although he was a Protestant and was opposed by a Catholic, he had never been taunted with his religious tenets. With regard to those Orange demon-

    881
    strations, he thought the sooner those silly exhibitions in the North of Ireland came to an end the better; and that the time had come when the people of Ireland should join hands and, laying aside these ridiculous customs, should co-operate for the good of the country; in which case there would be no necessity for the Irish Constabulary to march and counter-march throughout the country in all the panoply of war.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, that the Constabulary force was not unpopular in Ireland, nor had any hon. Member from Ireland said anything which personally reflected upon it. Among the various suggestions made in the course of the discussion, it was asked that he should say something off-hand upon one or two points. The hon. and gallant Member for the county of Galway (Major Nolan) had requested him to indicate what were the functions of the Grand Jury and the Executive. The difference between these might, he thought, be precisely stated. The Grand Jury had power to award compensation for loss of life and property under certain conditions, while the Executive had the onerous duty to perform of apportioning the extra police tax. With regard to the question initiated by the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray), as to the difference between the nominal and real strength of the police, he believed the condition of affairs in that respect was not entirely satisfactory, and stood thus:—Each five years there was a revision of the quotas, the last of which, he believed, took place shortly before the present Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) left his Office in Ireland, about two years ago; and the result of that revision was to reduce the discrepancy between the real and nominal figures of the force. The hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) had presented this question in a very ingenious and novel way, in making this point—that whenever the Constabulary were withdrawn from the county of Louth, for instance, Louth should be credited with a proportion of the extra tax received from the district to which they were sent. There were, in his opinion, two sides to that question. For if Louth had to pay for something which it did
    882
    not get, he could not see that Louth ought to make any money out of the transaction. The other side of the question was a different matter entirely—whether the counties to which the police were sent ought to pay the extra expense so incurred? Upon that subject the question put to him was, whether or not the decision of the Judge at the Spring Assizes of 1874 was sound? It was not for him to disparage the Office which he held; but he did not think himself entitled to sit as a Court of Appeal on the decisions of any of the Judges in Ireland: nevertheless, he was disposed to think the decision in question was perfectly accurate. His right hon. Friend had stated that he recognized that this question, as to how the extra charge was to be borne, was a subject that demanded inquiry, and that he would look closely as to whether the Constabulary force was kept up to a proper and reasonable strength; whether there was sufficient barrack accommodation of a permanent character scattered over the country; and whether it would be reasonable to charge a county if it fell very far short, indeed, of its proper quota? The Secretary of State for the Colonies, when in Office in Ireland, had tried to meet the difficulty in this way:—It was found at that time that there was a very substantial number of men under the quota in several counties, and he, pending the revision which had since been made, struck an average for the whole of Ireland, and only debited those counties which had not their proper average.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he did not want the county of Louth to make money out of the drafting of the Constabulary. It had been ascertained, beyond all doubt, that the number of men allowed to the county—he believed it was 159—was less by 15 than the quota during the year; but the county had, nevertheless, been charged for some 11 or 12 men extra. Since, therefore, the force was so much under the number allowed by the Act, he was not aware that the county was liable to pay the amount which had been paid to the Treasury. The best way, he thought, to cause inquiry to be made would be to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £25,000, being the amount paid into the Treasury under the head of "Augmentation."
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, he had given Notice of a Motion to reduce this Vote by the sum of £500. He presumed, therefore, he should have precedence.
    MR. CALLANwas willing to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum named by him, after the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy).
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, the Attorney General for Ireland had said the matter should be taken into consideration. It was exactly five Sessions ago since he brought the same matter before the House. In 1874 he was requested by his constituents to do so, and he had done it. It was then taken into consideration, and had been kept there ever since, and there it would probably remain for the next five or six years. The Attorney General for Ireland had stated that the county should not be allowed to make money out of the drafting of the Constabulary, to which he (Mr. Sullivan) replied neither ought the State to make money by the transaction; and it was his contention that the State had done so. The matter stood thus:—A certain amount, not more than requisite, was voted for the Constabulary in Ireland; the force was distributed all over the country, according to the requirements of the counties; but if Louth required 500 men, and the State took away 400 for certain purposes in Belfast, what recompense was it proposed to make to the county for the loss of four-fifths of its Constabulary? If these men were not wanted in Louth they ought not to be there; and if the State had a right to charge them elsewhere, surely the county should be compensated. As the system now stood, suppose the county of Mayo to be in an extremely peaceable condition, while there was a disturbance in Gal way; the State would draft the Mayo police into Galway, and charge for them; if, then, a disturbance occurred in the next county, the Mayo police might be drafted into that county, and again charged for. He would put the matter to any English gentleman accustomed to commercial book-keeping in this way. You engage to deliver to a certain public institution in this Metropolis 1,000 sacks of flour in the year; you send them only 800, and charge for the 200 which you have not delivered. The State had acted in this
    884
    way precisely, by not giving the county of Louth its proper quota of police, and then charging as extra for the number of men sent to make up the quota. He wanted to know where was the defence or excuse for such a transaction on any commercially honest grounds whatever? He wanted to know whether it was commercial honesty at all? He disputed and denied the right to make this extra charge, unless the extra men were sent from England into Ireland. He regretted that the debate had wandered into a disputation upon the Orange celebrations. The police in the North of Ireland, he admitted, had a very difficult duty to perform during one week in the year, when good, honest men, who had been the kindliest neighbours for 51 weeks previously, were seized with a sort of madness, and went about maligning those who differed from them in religious opinions; and, on the whole, with some exceptions, he thought that they discharged their painful and difficult task with wonderful tact and forbearance. He recommended hon. Members from the North of Ireland to save the great expenditure in their districts for police, by disabusing the minds of their constituents of the idea that they stood in need of those parades with fifes and drums for any purposes of defence. If they came down to Limerick they would learn that while the Protestants there were only 5 per cent of the community, they were safe in the midst of 95 per cent of the rest of the community, which was Catholic. Let them contrast the duties of the police in Connemara with what they had to do in the county of Cork. The Protestants in Cork were as few as the Protestants, real or pretended, in Connemara; and neither in Limerick nor Kerry did they need any protection from the police, because they were non-aggressive, and because they did not insult and attack their Catholic neighbours. They knew what the secret was in Connemara; and when the Protestants in Connemara began to behave as did the Protestants in this county, they would no longer need the protection of the police. In place of the fife and the drum, let them try what efficacy there was in a little kindliness and in trusting one another. For his own part he would say, that if he were in his own native country—Ireland—and he saw that an outrage was attempted to be

    885
    committed upon the humblest Protestant meeting-house, he would defend that house with his own hand, and, if necessary, with his life. If their Protestant fellow-countrymen were only friendly with them in Ireland, they neither would have cause to say that they needed the protection of the police for their security.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYbegged to move to reduce that portion of the Vote under Sub-head A by the sum of £500 for the salary of the Inspector General. He believed that the Constabulary were charged with the duty of carrying out the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act in Ireland. The circumstances of the case to which he would briefly refer were these:—At the commencement of the year a certain number of cattle were ordered to be slaughtered on account of a certain disease in Limerick, but there was a suspicion that, instead of their all having been slaughtered, some of the cattle were exported to England. A number of members of the Board of Guardians saw two constables, whom they requested to inquire whether the cattle had been slaughtered or not. The constables undertook the duty, and recognised the necessity for carrying it out quietly. A few days afterwards, however, they came before the Board of Guardians and stated the entire case, declaring that they had no duty to perform in the matter. They not only declined to do their duty, but made public the steps which were being taken by the Board of Guardians to discover whether the circumstances had happened or not. That brought him to the conduct of the Inspector General, who, when applied to on the matter, said he could see no ground for instituting an inquiry into the conduct of the police, and that he had himself made a private inquiry into the circumstances. The end of it was that the matter came before the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who said that he saw little reason to interfere with the Inspector General of the force, and pointed to the very remarkable remedy which the local authorities would have by summoning the two constables and the Inspector before Petty Sessions. It had turned out that the police had duties with regard to the Act; that they had not performed them, and that the Inspector General had been guilty of strange and gross neglect in the discharge of his duty. He, therefore,
    886
    moved that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £500.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Item for the Salary of the Inspector General be reduced by £500."—(Mr. O'Shaughnessy.)
    MR. VERNERsaid, there was a good deal of point in what the hon. and learned Member for Louth had brought forward on the subject of the charges for extra police in the various counties. He (Mr. Verner) agreed in the complaint which had been clearly and forcibly made by the hon. and learned Member, and believed that charges for extra police were made against districts where the rightful numbers were never kept up, although they were regularly paid for. He regretted, however, that the hon. and learned Member had not confined his attention to that subject, but had made remarks, joined in by the hon. Member for Dunkalk, with reference to the Orangemen of the North of Ireland, which required that he should say a few words, not in defence of that body, to which he belonged, for it needed no defence, but in order to show the Committee that the state of things was not that given by hon. Members opposite, and that; while a large part of the country was not in that peaceful and happy state depicted by hon. Members, the North of Ireland was not so peculiarly turbulent and troublesome to the police as they wished it to be supposed. What were called by hon. Members Orange disturbances, arose from the intolerance and rowdy spirit of the opposite party, who attacked the Orangemen, even when not beating their drums or in processions. It was quite possible that if the Orangemen were left alone the processions might die out, as opposition had something to do with keeping these things alive. He lived in a county which was very largely Roman Catholic, and bands, dressed in the most absurd and grotesque uniforms, used to march up and down past his gate every Sunday, beating drums and playing disloyal tunes; but as he, and those of his way of thinking, took no notice, the nuisance would probably come to an end, if it had not already. The hon. and learned Member for Louth said that party displays only took place in the North, and, of all places in Ireland, quoted Cork City and County as models of quietness and order. But the Committee would remember

    887
    that Cork was the head-centre of Fenianism, and that proceedings were constantly taking place there of the most disloyal character. Further, it was well known that in the West of Ireland they were in the habit of giving cheers for the Zulus. Who ever heard of the Orangemen of the North of Ireland giving cheers for the Zulus?
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that while there had been a tendency through the discussion to depart from the Vote before the Committee, he had not considered it necessary to check that discussion so long as it had relation to the conduct of the Constabulary; but he thought it would be seen that the present discussion, dealing with meetings of one or other political party, was outside the question before the Committee.
    MR. VERNERhad understood the hon. Members to whom he had referred, in making their attacks upon a loyal body in the North of Ireland, to accuse that body of being the cause of an extra force of Constabulary being sent down, at a great expense, to that part of the country. He wished to say that the Orangemen of the North of Ireland were not the sole cause of the movement of the police, nor was the North of Ireland the sole part where extra Constabulary were sent; for it was well known that extra forces had to be sent down, but a short time ago, to the West of Ireland, in one case on account of what had taken place at a not-too-respectable meeting, and in the other owing to a persecution which had been set on foot for the purpose of hunting certain people, who happened to be Protestants, out of that part of the country. He hoped that when the hon. and learned Member for Louth next spoke upon the subject of the Constabulary, he would not be so kind as to lay all the sins of Ireland on the shoulders of his (Mr. Verner's) co-religionists in Ulster, who, in sending to the House Members not so full of a peculiar zeal, had, at all events, sent Members who were far less troublesome than those from the other parts of the Island.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, that the hon. Member who had just sat down must have confounded his observations with those of some other Member, for not one word had fallen from him of an offensive or hurtful kind with reference to the co-religionists of the hon. Gentleman in the North of Ireland.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he hoped that the discussion would now be allowed to close. The subject had been very properly brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy); but he did not suppose that although the Inspector General was expected to stamp out cattle disease, he could be expected to stamp out sectarian animosities. The point raised by the hon. and learned Member was a very fair one. The attention of the Government had been called to the matter in "another place," and the Government had given an assurance that the police would be called upon to perform certain duties which, in the opinion of the Government, the Act of Parliament imposed upon them.
    MR. A. MOOREsaid, that the Government who repealed the Act relating to processions in Ireland had thereby done a very cowardly thing, and acted in opposition to the opinion of the Roman Catholic Bishops, who had given it against the repeal of that Act. He was quite sure that it was the view of every sensible man—and especially of the Roman Catholic Clergy—that those processions which had been referred to, and which only served to continue angry feuds, should cease.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that he must call the attention of the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. A. Moore) to the fact that the question now before the Committee was the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, and that it would be much more in Order to discuss the Vote generally after that Motion had been disposed of.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYfeared that he must persevere with his Amendment, and divide the Committee, in order to record a protest against an authority, like the Inspector General of Constabulary, admitting that he was ignorant of the duties imposed upon the force by the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act.
    MR. BRUENhoped the hon. and learned Member for Limerick would not trouble the Committee by dividing, after the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEprotested against the system of drafting constables, and objected to giving any protection to missionaries in Ireland, with whose religious views he did not agree.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out to the hon. and gallant Member that the Motion before the Committee was that of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, relating to the Inspector General of Constabulary.
    MR. BIGGARwished to give shortly the experience of the Guardians of the Cavan Union, where the Act had been brought into operation. The Guardians of that Union appointed a veterinary surgeon, whose duty it was to investigate the complaints made by all parties with reference to the disease. The veterinary surgeon had to visit all places in which it was complained that cattle disease existed. His invariable experience was that there was hardly a case to which he was called where the cattle disease was found to exist, and thus to entitle the parties to compensation under the Act. He would like the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to take care that the local rates were not burdened with the expense of these police, who had nothing to do a great part of their time. The Poor Law Guardians had adopted all sanitary precautions, and looked after the disease; and it seemed to him that if this Act were good for nothing, it would be most desirable to repeal it. He was very much surprised to see the right hon. Gentleman agree in the policy of these Cattle Disease Acts, thus leaving the ratepayers to be burdened by greatly increased rates.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 16; Noes 74: Majority 56.—(Div. List, No. 186.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. CALLANbegged to move to reduce the Vote under sub-head D by the sum of £110, being the sum for medicines and compounding at the Royal Irish Constabulary depôt, Dublin. The medical allowance amounted to £1,829, and that included the amount by which he moved to reduce the Vote. His object in making the Motion was to draw attention to the manner in which the Royal Irish Constabulary were attended to when sick in Dublin. He had no complaint to make with regard to the way in which they were attended in the counties, for that was considered generally satisfactory by the men; but complaint was made with reference to the
    890
    way in which the men at the depôt in Dublin were attended to when ill. So defective was the system under which they were at present treated, that last year a Court of Inquiry was held into a case which occurred. When a policeman at the depôt in the Phœnix Park became ill, he was sent to St. Stephen's Hospital, and 10 s. 6d. per week was deducted from his pay to defray the cost of his treatment. The men complained very much of the character and condition of the persons with whom they were bound to associate with in the yard of that hospital. They were, probably, the worst characters in Dublin, the hospital being notoriously used for treating venereal cases. His attention had been drawn to this matter by the inquiry held last year on the body of a constable who had died while in the hospital. The inquiry lasted five days, and resulted virtually in a verdict of manslaughter against the hospital authorities. The delinquents, however, could not be brought to justice. It was proved that when men were first sent to this hospital they were placed upon a very low and insufficient diet. The officers having charge of the Constabulary wards had fixed a scale of payment for what they were pleased to term luxuries. Thus, a fresh 1d. roll was sold for 2d., and a fresh egg for 2d., while a glass of whisky was strictly prohibited, both by the Constabulary and hospital regulations. Men were thus kept upon a very lowering diet; and it was recognized, as a part of the instructions of the hospital, that anything extra they required should be sold to them at most, exorbitant rates. Some little time ago the hospital changed the nurses and officials. In consequence of that, the Lord Lieutenant directed an inquiry to be held by the central Medical Board in Dublin. A Court of Inquiry was held, and four or five days were spent in the consideration of the matter. But he believed the inquiry was a very imperfect one, as none of the witnesses who could really have given information were called before the Court. The inquiry was, moreover, held with closed doors, and under peculiar circumstances. There was no doubt that if any policeman had given evidence before the Court that he had bought extra food he would have been fined, and reduced to the ranks for breach of the regulations. The City of Dublin

    891
    Police were treated differently. When any of them were ill they were sent to certain hospitals, and 7s. per week was deducted from, their pay on account of their treatment. If Catholics expressed any wish on the subject, they could be sent to the hospital of Mater Misericordiœ, or to St. Vincent's Hospital; while the Protestants, if they pleased, could go to the Adelaide Hospital. That arrangement gave great satisfaction to the men; but the Royal Irish Constabulary were compelled to go to St. Stephen's Hospital, and were charged 10 s. 6d. per week for their treatment there. Moreover, St. Stephen's Hospital was regarded as a sectarian institution. Protestant policemen were allowed to attend the services of their own church attached to the hospital; but Catholic policemen were invariably refused permission to attend the religious ministrations of their own religion. Some years ago some Catholic policemen asked leave to attend the services of their own Church; but the surgeon told them that if they were well enough to attend mass they were well enough to leave the hospital altogether; and they were thus refused permission. Very naturally the policemen complained of that treatment. They said that it was very hard to charge them 10 s. 6d. per week for going to an hospital, in the yards of which they were obliged to associate with the worst characters—not with the absolutely criminal class, but with the low type known as corner boys. They asked—"Was it a fair thing that they should not have the same privileges as the Metropolitan Police, in being allowed to go to one or two selected hospitals—such as the St. Vincent's, or the Mater Misericordiœ in the case of Catholics, and the Adelaide Hospital in the case of Protestants?" He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would cause instructions to be issued, to the effect that the same facilities were to be given to the Royal Irish Constabulary as to the Dublin Metropolitan Police in these matters. If the right hon. Gentleman would give him that assurance, he would not enter into many painful matters connected with this subject, for he should be glad of an opportunity of avoiding doing so. He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by £110, under subhead D, for medicines and compounding.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item of £12,829, be reduced by the sum of £110."—(Mr. Callan.)
    MR. GRAYhoped that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to give the assurance asked for by the hon. Member for Dundalk. The inquiries that had been held disclosed circumstances in the management of the St. Stephen's Hospital of a most discreditable character. Without going into details, which would be of a very painful character, he might say that he could see no reason why the system which had been found to work satisfactorily for the Dublin police should not be adopted and made to work to the satisfaction of the members of the Constabulary. There was very fair ground for allowing the men to go to other hospitals besides the St. Stephen's. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary could do a great deal of good by using his influence in this matter.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he certainly would inquire into this case; and if the statements which had been made by the hon. Member for Dundalk proved to be founded on fact, he would take steps to remedy the grievance complained of.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that after the assurance given by the Chief Secretary, he did not wish to proceed with his Motion. He should think it his duty to place a Motion on the Paper asking for Returns of the depositions taken at the inquiry before the Coroner when the whole mismanagement with respect to the hospital was disclosed. He thought that, after the Chief Secretary had seen those documents, he would be able to act in the manner he had promised.
    MR. MELDONsaid, that there was an assurance that might be given to the Committee without the safeguards with which the Chief Secretary had surrounded the promise he had already given. Could he not assure them that the Royal Irish Constabulary should be treated equally well with the Metropolitan Police of Dublin? At present, there was a very serious difference in the treatment of the two corps when sick. He did not see why a Constabulary man should be called upon to pay 10 s. 6d. per week for his treatment in hospital, while a member of the Dublin Metropolitan Police was only charged 7s.

    893
    He thought that they ought to have an assurance that the Royal Irish Constabulary, living at the depôt, should be as well treated as the Metropolitan Police.
    MR. CALLANexpected the assurance to which the hon. Member alluded, simply because the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had stated that, if the facts bore out what had been stated, then the grievance would be remedied. He was very unwilling to bring before the House the painful evidence he possessed with reference to this hospital; his only object was to insure that the Royal Irish Constabulary were to be treated property. He could see no reason whatever why 10 s. 6d. per week should be charged to the men by the regulations of the Constabulary, and that they should be allowed no option but to go to St. Stephen's Hospital. They were, no doubt, charged 10 s. 6d., because the authorities of the St. Stephen's Hospital demanded that sum for their maintenance; but with the other hospitals there was competition, and the authorities were anxious to pay all attention to the force.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. SULLIVANwished to bring to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland a cause of serious complaint against certain police officers in Ireland, to which he would further call attention by putting a Question. He had given Notice of the Question that evening for Thursday next with reference to the subject, and he had occasion to question the Chief Secretary some time ago with regard to a very similar occurrence. The matter to which he now wished to refer occurred at a town in the county of Armagh. From more than one correspondent he had received most serious impeachments of the conduct of the police with reference to these lamentable transactions. He hoped that the Irish Chief Secretary would grant an inquiry into the conduct of the police authorities in this particular district, when he had heard the facts of the case. A young man, named Edward Carberry, was proceeding along a road not very far from the town with his brother, who was somewhat behind him.
    894
    It was dark, and suddenly the brother, walking behind, heard Edward Carberry call out that he had been stabbed. There was no affray, and there was no noise; but two or three men rushed away, and the brother found Edward Carberry weltering in his blood. The wounded man was taken home, and the police sergeant came to his bedside. That young man, mortally wounded, survived for 20 hours; but the police sergeant neglected to receive his dying deposition, although four or five magistrates were within two miles of the spot where the victim lay. Owing to that neglect of the police sergeant the young man died without having made any deposition, although it was said he was able to name the person by the stroke of whose dagger or knife he had been assassinated. The deposition of the unfortunate man was not taken, solely owing to the culpable neglect of the sergeant of police. He had brought the matter to the attention of the Irish Executive, and some arrests were made; but, owing to the neglect to take the dying deposition, there was not sufficient evidence against the criminals. He did not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland recollected the circumstance that, owing to the neglect to which he had called attention, the trial of the supposed murderer was abortive. No one could be brought to justice for the murder of this young man in cold blood, owing solely to the neglect of the police. The persons who had been acquitted he was bound to assume were innocent; but he mentioned, as a circumstance causing the gravest dissatisfaction in the neighbourhood, that when these men were returned for trial, a sort of triumphant procession received them on the way from the Court-house. But he was asked to bring a complaint before the Attorney General for Ireland of this fact, on the part of the Crown prosecutor, that these men were admitted to bail, the charge being then put, not as wilful murder, but as manslaughter. The reply he made was that he could not believe that these proceedings were taken unless under the authority of the Attorney General, and that his conviction was that that learned Gentleman would act in such a case bonâ fide, and with the highest sense of honour. He was not complaining; but he would only mention that there was

    895
    complaint made in the district that a man charged with murder was admitted to bail on grounds of party feeling. But although admitted to bail on the assumption that he was to be tried for manslaughter, yet he was actually arraigned for murder. It was an unfortunate coincidence that, in order to enable the accused to be admitted to bail, when before the legal tribunals, he was only charged with manslaughter, while he had been arrested for murder. He thought that there ought to be an inquiry into the whole circumstances of this case, particularly as it was proved at the trial that Sergeant Duart neglected to search for sufficient information to convict the accused. Sergeant Duart, instead of appearing as a witness for the Crown, appeared against it, and asserted certain circumstances which could be completely contradicted by witnesses who could be brought before a Court of Inquiry. It was stated by Sergeant Duart that young Carberry had told him that he did not know who stabbed him; but he (Mr. Sullivan) had letters which showed most distinctly that that young man knew who murdered him, and was ready to name him. It was a grievous thing that that young man of exemplary character going home should be encountered by some evilly-disposed persons and stabbed to death in the presence of his brother. In the same district, a little boy of 13 or 14 years of age met parties who called upon him to curse the Pope. He refused, and they drew a knife and stabbed him, leaving him weltering on the ground in blood. He was now, while he spoke, lingering between life and death in his father's home in Armagh, and no one had been brought to justice for the shocking occurrence any more than for the last. A large part of the district in which these occurrences took place was under the charge of the same police officer, and inquiry ought certainly to be made into the matter. He would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to promise him, on behalf of the Irish Executive, that there should be an inquiry into the conduct of the police in this district. He might mention that there had been one or two other instances of inefficiency of the police of the same district. He could only assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, that when application was made
    896
    to him (Mr. Sullivan) to complain of the conduct pursued in this case, he declined to do so, because he considered that action in the matter had been taken by the Attorney General. He trusted that the inquiry would be granted.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, that it was a little inconvenient that a case which had been tried before the Assizes should be brought to the attention of the House without Notice. It was impossible for an Attorney General to bear in mind the numbers of cases that were continually occurring. He could not recall the circumstances of this particular case; but, so far as he could understand the matter, his impression was that the unfortunate man who had been stabbed died a very short time afterwards. He must point out to the hon. and learned Member that the taking of a dying declaration was rather a question for a medical man than for a policeman. He knew no matter in which nicer distinctions had been taken than in the matter of dying declarations. A man died shortly after receiving a wound who did not think that he was going to die. It was absolutely necessary to the validity of the declaration that it should have been made by the wounded man, in the belief that he was going to die immediately afterwards. Unless that were the case, it would fail in cross-examination. It might be that the young man in question did not have it present to his mind that he was in any danger; or it might be that the magistrates did not know it; or it might be that the police-sergeant did not know that the man was going to die so soon. It appeared also, from the statement of the hon. and learned Member, that the brother of the young man was present all through, and watching well every circumstance of the transaction. If the brother had thought that the unfortunate man, Edward Carberry, would die, and that with him would die the evidence necessary to bring his murderers to justice, then he could have gone to one of the four or five magistrates in the neighbourhood. Why did not the brother go to them? He did not know how the facts were; but he could only say how the matter occurred to him from what he had heard. It was not at all such a simple matter as the hon. and learned

    897
    Member seemed to suppose. Then, with respect to what had been said about admitting the supposed murderer to bail, he supposed the case was before the magistrates, and they were responsible for what was done; or it was before the Court of Queen's Bench in Dublin, and probably the Crown was there represented. [Mr. SULLIVAN: By Mr. Monro.] He had no doubt that the case was clearly presented to the Bench, and that the Bench decided to admit the prisoner to bail. With regard to the indictment which the hon. and learned Member had framed against the police, he could hardly think that it raised a very serious question. The distinction between manslaughter and murder was often very fine. Under ordinary circumstances, there was a complete investigation, and the usual practice was to indict for murder, in order that the man might be tried for the full crime; but, at the same time, counts were inserted to provide that, if acquitted of murder, the prisoner might be tried for manslaughter. In the ordinary course, he received Returns of the Crown cases occurring in the County Armagh. He had not yet had the Returns relating to the prosecution in question; but when they came before him he would look into them carefully, in order to see how far the complaint made by the hon. and learned Member was justified.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. MELDONmoved to omit from the Vote the item of £5,215 in respect of the pensions of the Inspector General and Assistant Inspectors General. He was sorry that that was the only opportunity lie had had of raising the question, which he regarded as one of very great importance. So far as the pensions of the members of the Constabulary force since 1874 were concerned, there was no cause for complaint; but with regard to the pensions of those who retired previous to that year, the grievance under which they laboured was of a very serious character. He regretted there were so few Members present; because he was sure that he had only to lay one or two facts before the Committee to convince them that many of the superannuated members of the force
    898
    had serious cause of complaint. The Metropolitan Police and the Royal Irish Constabulary became entitled to pensions under precisely the same Act—namely, 10 & 11 Vict. c. 100—and shortly after it came into force the pay of both forces was increased. When the Metropolitan Police came to retire under the Act, their pensions were calculated upon the standard of the pay they were receiving at the time of their discharge; but the same principle was not applied when the men of the Constabulary came up to claim their pensions. Their pay was not fixed according to the rate of their pay at the time of their discharge, but at the rate of pay which existed in 1846, when the Act to which he had referred was passed. Both bodies of police were pensioned under the same Act, and under identical terms; yet this most extraordinary occurrence happened—namely, that the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary, who were pensioned under the same Act as the men, had their pensions calculated at the rate of pay in existence when their pensions were granted; whereas the men, though pensioned under precisely the same terms, were pensioned at the rate of pay received in 1846. That statement clearly showed that, for some reason or other, the men forming the force were dealt with in an entirely different manner from their own officers, and also from the members of the Metropolitan Police. He had often endeavoured to find out the reason for this peculiar distinction; and the only one he could conceive—and it was not a satisfactory one—was that two different lawyers were consulted in regard to the interpretation of the Act, one on behalf of the Metropolitan Police, who put the proper construction upon it, and another on the part of the Constabulary, who put another construction upon the Act. An explanation of that kind was given in 1875. He brought the question before the House by a Motion, and the answer he received on that and on previous occasions was that the Executive, when they awarded the pensions to the Constabulary, gave the full amount which the law entitled the men of the Constabulary to get. The conduct of the Constabulary was admitted to have been most excellent; and the Secretary of State for the Colonies stated that the Government gave the utmost penny that

    899
    the law permitted them to give; and that any discretion they possessed had been given in favour of the Constabulary. Now, he differed on a point of law from the Government at the time; and he proposed that a case should be taken for the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, and he stated that if they decided against him he would abandon the position he had taken up; but that if the decision was in his favour the pensions of the Constabulary men should be raised to the amount to which they were entitled. His view of the law was that the Government had the power to give the men of the Constabulary exactly the same pension which was given to the Metropolitan force—namely, a sum calculated upon the rate of pay at the time of their dismissal, and not upon the rate in existence in 1846. The case was put before the Law Officers of the Crown, and their opinion was in favour of his view; and it was then clearly stated that the Government had a discretion, and that they might have awarded the men pensions calculated upon the rate of pay they received at the time of their discharge. The Government, then, in the most extraordinary manner, changed their attitude in regard to the matter. They ceased to say that they had no discretion, and said instead—"You were right in saying we had a discretionary power to give you a larger sum; we had the discretionary power, but we exercised it in giving you a smaller sum." Now, that answer was quite irreconcilable with the first one which was advanced. The fact was, that the position he was advocating admitted of no answer. There was no justice in the position which the Government took up. It was, indeed, as great an act of injustice that could well be perpetrated. It was a case of might against right; and he challenged the Government to give any reasonable explanation why the men of the Constabulary had been robbed of their proper pension. There was another point of great importance to which he wished to draw the attention of the Committee. When the Act of 10 & 11 Vict. was passed, a certain sum was deducted from the pay of each of the Constabulary force, with the view of forming a pension fund. The sum so obtained accumulated until it amounted to between £50,000 and £60,000; but, instead of being applied to the purpose
    900
    for which it was instituted, it was employed by the Treasury for some other purpose. Now, the superannuated members of the force did not want anything to be given them from the public funds. They simply wanted their pensions to be increased out of monies which they had themselves paid into the fund during a long series of years. They simply asked to be dealt with fairly, and to be paid that of which they had been most unjustifiably deprived; and a stronger case than they had he did not think had ever been brought before the notice of the Committee.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Item of £5,215, for Pensions of the Inspector General and the Assistant Inspector General, to omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Meldon.)
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, the grievance had assumed such proportions that it would be creditable to the Government and to the Committee if it were speedily redressed. What had occurred? The first case made by the Government was that they had no discretion to grant additional pensions, and they expressed regret that they had not, remarking that if they had they would have met the demands which had been made. The Law Officers decided that the Government had the discretion. They then turned round, and said—"Notwithstanding all our magnanimous feelings towards the Constabulary, we decline to exercise it; the law enables us to pay the sum you demand, but we will exercise our discretion, notwithstanding all you have said." Now, was that a worthy attitude for the Government to take towards the poor men who had deserved so well of the Treasury? Why should those men be treated worse than the members of the Metropolitan force? Was it an encouragement for men to enter the force in the future? It was a pitiable grievance to be obliged to bring before the notice of the House from time to time; but it was so gross an act of injustice that there was no help for it but to continue to bring it forward till it was redressed, and the men received their just rights.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANwas of opinion that many of the men who were superannuated had a fair claim upon the Government for an increase of their pensions. It was true that a great

    901
    many men were put forward as entitled to extra pensions who had no such claim; and that a large number of men who were entitled to an increase had been merged in the crowd of claimants, and their claims had, accordingly, been ignored. But a great many men, who left the force about the time the new Act came into force, were, in common honesty and justice, entitled to have their claims considered. It did seem extremely hard that those men, who had spent the best years of their lives in the Service, should find themselves worse off than men who were discharged a few months after them; and his own opinion was that the Government had not treated them with that liberality which was due to men who had stood by the Government in times of difficulty with a fidelity and courage rarely equalled.
    MR. GRAYsaid, the real secret of the continued refusal of the Government to give full pensions to the men was not to be found in any explanation which had been given, but rather in the same cause that had induced the Government to keep the Constabulary force below their proper strength, and to retain on the roll men who were not effective—namely, because the cost of the superannuation of the force had been under-estimated, and that the authorities were endeavouring to keep the Vote down, in order to make up for the deficiency occasioned by the blunder in the beginning. He found that the Estimate for pensions had increased by £20,000; but he contended that it was far from right to meet that increase by depriving men of their just rights on retirement after long and honourable service. He thought the fairer and more straightforward way would be for the Government to estimate for a smaller number of men, and pay what was due to the superannuated men, who now so justly complained. The Government at one time said that if they had the power they would have placed the men of the Constabulary on an equality with their brethren of the Metropolitan force; and yet, now that they admitted they had the power, they declined to do for the men what was a simple act of justice, and what they had virtually promised to do if they had the power. He did not think that that was conduct worthy of the English Government. It was a most discreditable state of things,
    902
    and ought to receive at once the most serious attention of the Government, with a view to the injured men receiving redress without further undue delay.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas sorry he had not foreseen that that Vote would have come on that night, as he had no source of reference in regard to the point at issue beyond his memory. So far as he could trust his recollection, he could assure the hon. Member who had just sat down that it was not at all with the view of keeping the Constabulary or Pension Vote within a certain sum that the Government had declined to grant the extra pensions. On the contrary, they had been guided by what they considered to be the real merits of the case. Speaking generally, what he recollected was this—that a movement was made for raising the salaries of the Constabulary. There was also a movement for increasing the scale on which superannuation was to be awarded. The objects of both of those movements were carried out. But in the Preamble of one of the clauses of the Statute it was stated that it was not intended to give the Constabulary the double advantage. That was to say, they were to have the option of retiring either on the scale of the old rate of pay, under the new regulations for superannuation, or at the old rate of superannuation upon the higher scale of pay. That was his impression of the circumstances, as far as he could recollect them. There was no doubt at all, from the Preamble of the Act, as to what the intention of the Government was in agreeing to the alterations which were contemplated by that measure. He believed that after that Act was passed a certain number of men in the Constabulary were told by their superior officers, by mistake, as the Government believed, that they would be entitled to pensions calculated upon the higher scale, and that upon that statement a number of them retired. There was a doubt as to whether or not that was a legal construction of the Act. The matter was laid before the Law Officers of the Crown, and their opinion was that it was competent for the Government to grant what had been granted. He thought it could only be concluded, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government had a perfect right to raise the rate of superannuation if they chose to do so; because it was clearly under-

    903
    stood that soldiers were not to be entitled to take advantage of provisions contained in an Act of Parliament in two ways. As far as he was able to judge of what had been done, he was bound to say that, in his opinion, the views of the Legislature had been carried into effect.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 88: Majority 66.—(Div. List, No. 187.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he desired to object to the item in the Estimates which referred to musketry instruction, in order to raise the question of the military character of the Irish Constabulary. He knew he could only do so in an imperfect form, because it was only a very small portion of the military aspect of the force which was covered by the item to which he took exception; but the question was one of great importance, and therefore he now raised it. In the course of a good many of the speeches which had been already delivered that evening references had been made to some supposed utterances of his own against the Irish Constabulary force, and he would hardly express any sorrow for being misunderstood, seeing that the misconception had led to the very interesting and able remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy). While he quite agreed with those of his hon. Colleagues who had spoken of the admirable character of the Irish Constabulary in its character as a police force, it was quite otherwise when they came to look at it in its character as a disguised military force, which was being continually employed to coerce the country. In Ireland they had long since pierced through the disguise; but here in England the matter was very different.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out to the hon. Member that after the Division which had been taken it was not competent for him to enter upon a special discussion of the item relating to the arming and discipline of the Irish Constabulary.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that in that case he would move to reduce the whole Vote, which would give him a larger licence of objection. Instead of making a Motion with reference to £105 as to musketry, or another Motion with re-
    904
    ference to some hundreds of pounds for ammunition, he now moved to reduce the entire Vote by £50,000. That, he dared say, would cover the expenses of musketry instruction, the expenses of ammunition, and many other expenses of a similar nature. The Irish Constabulary force was excellent as a police force; but as a disguised military force it was an institution which would not be tolerated in England, and which would not be tolerated if it were known what it really meant in the latter country. They were all pleased to hear of the high character of the individual members of the Irish Constabulary, and to know that the encomia which had been passed on them was well deserved. Their feelings must be different when they looked from the other point of view which he had indicated. He might refer, for instance, to the amount of mischief which had been done by the disguised military character of the force in connection with some of the most important Irish problems. If it were reported in English newspapers that whenever an eviction had to be carried out under peculiarly heart-rending circumstances the military were called into requisition, homesteads were levelled, and. families were driven out actually in presence of British soldiers drawn up in line, the people would get something like a true idea of the war which was being waged against the homes and hearths of the population of Ireland. But because it was simply said, in regard to such cases in that country—"The sheriff was assisted by the police," it was imagined that what took place was some quite ordinary matter of legal execution, with no tragic details about it. He saw beside him the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), whose county had been specially agitated of late by the consideration of questions arising out of the inordinate use of landlord's so-called rights. He believed he was within the mark in saying that, in the course of a few months, some 800 evictions had been carried out in that county, and similar records could be produced from numerous other Irish counties. Under the Irish land system populations were driven out in such circumstances that the presence of companies of soldiers was required, in order to protect the officers of the law in the execution of their bar-

    905
    barous duty. People here had no idea of the extremities of the struggle which was proceeding in Ireland—a struggle, cruel even in ordinary times, but which the recurrence of every period of distress and the approach of every period of famine intensified in a deep degree. If Ireland was to be dragooned and coerced, let her, at least, be dragooned and coerced honestly, and then they could understand—and England and Europe would be able to understand—that there was a system of war being carried on on behalf of so-called landlord rights against the just rights of the Irish peasantry.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £772,192, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Constabulary Force in Ireland."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERobjected to the attempt which had been made to raise objection to the opposition to the proposal on the ground that the personal character of the Constabulary was impugned. No objection of the kind had been raised; and, as far as he knew, the only reason which had been stated as against the Vote was that the Constabulary were, to all intents and purposes, a military force, used on many occasions for the purpose of terrorizing over the Irish people. There was a vast distinction between the character of the individual policeman, who went simply to a given place in order to fulfil the orders which had been sent to him, and the character of the official by whom he was so sent. It frequently happened complaints were made in the House of outrages committed by the police in Ireland, and outrages had often been committed. Cases had occurred in which the police had used their rifles and their bayonets when public tranquillity would have been served by the exercise of a little self-restraint; but they were unable to lay their hands upon the real offenders, and this ought not to be the case. There had been throughout all these various proceedings too much encouragement given by the Executive in Ireland, and under every Chief Secretary whom he had known, to the movements of the police at times, and under circumstances, when it would have been far better for
    906
    the public peace if the Constabulary had remained at home. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had very properly drawn attention to the odious work which the police were called upon to discharge in connection with evictions. Of course, so long as the law of the land empowered landlords to drive the people from their homes by charging exorbitant rents, the officers of the law must, in some form or other, be called upon to do their work. But surely it was not necessary to go with loaded revolvers and drawn swords in order to evict some tenant farmer from his humble cottage home. The effect of all this was that the people were excited by an attempt at dictation and intimidation on the part of the police, and a more serious effect on the population—a hatred of the law and of everybody engaged in its administration. Patriotism, then, actually became a contest with the law of constituted authority. This point had been, over and over again, pooh-poohed by the Irish Executive; but it might be relied upon that until reforms were effected the effectiveness of the police and the security of the public at large were in peril.
    MR. SULLIVANheld that a vast expenditure of money was incurred in maintaining the Constabulary as a semi-military force—one which, with the addition of a few pieces of Artillery and Gatling guns, would be able to take its place in the field, alongside the Regular Army of the country. What the Irish Members wanted was that economy should be practised in Ireland; and that while an efficient police force should be maintained the country should not be called upon to maintain what was, practically, a branch of the Imperial Army.
    MR. GRAYsaid, he had no doubt whatever that the Irish Constabulary was a force which possessed far too much of an exclusively military character. Its chief officers were almost invariably selected from the Army, and its members were drilled in large numbers at the depot in the Phoenix Park. This caused a large and unnecessary expense to be kept up from year to year. The men were not only drilled in the Park, but they were trained to throw up entrenchments, and to go through other purely military work. Surely Ireland was now sufficiently peaceful to endeavour by degrees to make the force less military than at present.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that no one would rejoice more heartily than he should to place a walking-stick in the hands of each member of the Irish Constabulary, if that would suffice for the protection of life and property; and he hoped the Irish Members would co-operate with the Government in endeavouring to bring about such a happy condition of affairs. But they had not yet attained so desirable a state of things; and, in the meanwhile, they could not reduce the means which now existed for enabling the Constabulary to preserve order.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, they had heard several times in the course of the debate that the police must be armed, because there were mobs going about Ireland with firearms. Now, he was sure that in many parts of Ireland—and particularly in the West—there were hardly any arms at all; but if a policeman's promotion depended on the reports he made to the authorities, they would not want statements of the formidable weapons to be found everywhere in the country. The fact was, this was simply the effect of that centralized government which was being imposed on the people. It was known that there was no part of Europe where a man, woman, or child, could travel with greater safety than in Ireland. Nobody thought it necessary to go armed in Ireland. Yet it was a prominent fact—and one which struck foreigners particularly—that in such a country there was to be seen at every station two or three policemen armed with bayonets peering into the carriages, as though they were looking for some assassin or revolutionist who was about to raise the country around in insurrection or blow up the neighbourhood. This was a state of things which was absurd, and which could not exist if the Irish people had the management of their own affairs. At present, the police were trained to the use of firearms and bayonets. He spoke with the greatest confidence in the truth of what he said, when he affirmed that if the people who governed Ireland could only take the bold step of disarming their police, and put into their hands the baton used by the police of London, they would at once produce a material effect on the minds of the Irish people, and gradually get rid of the military force which they felt it necessary to pre-
    908
    serve in the country now. Then he believed the Irish police force was maintained in its present condition because it was thought that the Government could make a draft on them in time of war. It was really a military force kept up without the consent of Parliament, and it was well known that there was an intention to send out a contingent of them to the Crimea. The whole system was absurd on the face of it; and it would not be got rid of until the Irish Government really understood the Irish problem, which they would not do so long as they took their information from those who understood nothing of the people. The right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken was not easily alarmed; yet he would arrive at that conclusion, if he went to Dublin Castle and allowed himself to be influenced by the reports, beginning with the familiar "we have information," &c. When a Judge tried a case at the Assizes, he said—"I am sorry to say it is reported to me by the Constabulary that there is a great deal of undetected crime," and so on. He thought this was a legitimate opportunity of raising the question; and, unless they had some distinct assurance from the Government for the future, he hoped they would succeed in preventing the passing of the Estimates next year.
    MR. O'DONNELLwould certainly take a Division, though he regretted he was obliged to divide on the whole Vote, instead of on one item. He hoped they would not be charged with obstruction, for this was a definite objection against the unnecessarily martial character of the Irish police. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, feeling that he had no case, had dismissed the subject with a couple of jestive and sportive remarks, saying that there must be a police force. If it was necessary to coerce the people, let the Government call in their horse and foot Dragoons, in order that the real problem before the country might be thoroughly understood. But, as it was, the people of England did not know that, by means of the Constabulary, the English Government was continually dragooning Ireland.
    MR. BIGGARbelieved the right hon. Gentleman was thoroughly misinformed in talking about armed bands. There might be religious processions, and such a thing, perhaps, as a little stone-throw-

    909
    ing; but there was nothing else of the sort.
    MAJOR O'GORMANcordially agreed in the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry). It was perfectly true that the police in Ireland, were unnecessarily armed. The excuse for arming them was the stories continually told by the Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Protestant Archbishops, and others—especially the two last—to the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary for Ireland. These people were invariably Englishmen, who knew nothing whatever of the people of Ireland, and could not even pronounce the word "Geoghegan." The Irish officials were, in fact, led by the nose by these men who came to talk to them, simply because they had handles to their names. They had had, however, one Lord Lieutenant who was an Englishman; but he was an enlightened Englishman. He never got up till 4 or 5 o'clock in the day. One day the Archbishop of Dublin rushed into his room, exclaiming—" Oh, my Lord! my Lord! the country is up! The country is up!" "Well," said the Lord Lieutenant, "what time is it?" "Four o'clock, my Lord," said the Archbishop. "Well," said his Lordship, "it is time for everyone to be up now;" and he got up. He did not believe the Archbishop. He did not send down the coercive force which the Archbishop demanded. This reminded him of an occurrence in South Africa. He remembered, when he was there, that a clergyman belonging to the people sent out to convert the Natives—[An hon. MEMBER: A missionary.]—Yes, that was it—a missionary—sent out to convert the people, who had a very decent religion of their own, if they were allowed to keep it. These people came to South Africa for no other purpose, to his own certain knowledge, than that of plunder. One of them rode into the camp where he was, one day, and said to his colonel—"I want a commando." "What," said his colonel, "is a commando?" The missionary replied that it was a force of armed men. "For what purpose do you want it?" asked his colonel. "For the purpose of punishing a chief," he replied. "For what reason?" asked his colonel. "There is a flag of truce now flying." "Oh," said the missionary, "a chief has stolen my horse." "Indeed," re-
    910
    plied the colonel. "Well, I shall not give you a commando, but I shall make inquiries." He did make full inquiries, and he found that the missionary had stolen the chief's horse, and that the chief was only getting back what was his own. That was precisely the case in Ireland. These people from England were sent over entirely ignorant, utterly unacquainted with the circumstances of the country. They left a country which was guarded by, perhaps, one policeman in a whole town, and they arrived in a country which was more quiet than this, with less violence and much less crime. But the moment they arrived in Dublin they received information of all these things from these people whom he had described as Dukes, Marquesses, and Earls, who had been from all time the enemies of the people of Ireland.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 127: Majority 109.—(Div. List, No. 188.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. GRAY, in moving the reduction of the Vote by £500, said, earlier in the evening attention had been drawn to the Petition in which certain inhabitants of Dublin called attention to the employment of an extra number of police at the Skerries. There was a dispute between the lord of the manor and certain of the inhabitants with reference to the right to the fore-shore, and the inhabitants—acting within their rights—demolished a wall which the landlord had built. Then, instead of taking his legal remedy, a number of police were employed to guard the spot. Since then, it had been decided that the inhabitants were entitled to this property, and that the landlord had acted illegally; and he wished to know who was to pay for the employment of these police? He submitted that the public, in this case, should not be called upon to pay a heavy police tax, nor should the Imperial Exchequer be burdened. In another case, where the employés of a railway refused to work, a large force of the Constabulary were posted along the line to guard it, and to preserve the peace. But they also acted as signal men. In that case, where the need for the preservation of public peace was

    911
    much greater, the Railway Company were compelled to pay for the use of these forces. If that was the case, then he certainly thought that the landlord should pay for the police he used in this case. He had no desire to unnecessarily occupy the time of the Committee; hut, unless the Government would give some assurance that neither the public funds nor the locality would be taxed to pay the cost of these police, he should certainly take the opinion of the Committee upon the question.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £821,692, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Constabulary Force in Ireland."—(Mr. Gray.)
    MR. GRAYasked, if the Amendment he had proposed would interfere with a subsequent Vote; and whether, if a reduction by a larger sum were proposed, he would be prevented moving his Amendment?
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that in the event of the Amendments being proposed at the same time, it was the duty of the Chair to put first the Amendment which proposed the largest reduction, and subsequently, and in order, the other Amendments proposed, in the event of the first not being accepted by the Committee.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that, as far as he could recollect the case, it was this. A question of law was raised by certain persons, and when the decision was given they set themselves against it, and asserted their claim by force. But the hon. Member asked what right the Constabulary had to interfere? Well, if any persons were to pull the hon. Member's house down on the strength of some party laying claim to it, he thought the Constabulary would interfere. A sufficient force of police was sent, for it would have been of no use to send one or two men, and a resident magistrate went to see that the public peace was preserved. The people proceeded to pull down a wall, and so long as a Court of Law had pronounced a decision in support of the right to erect it, it was a breach of order to run off—
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, he wished to set the right hon. Gentleman right on some matters of fact. It was
    912
    not correct that there had been a decision according to law, giving the plaintiff in the case alluded to by the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) a right to the fore-shore. There had been a verdict, but it was set aside; and, so far as the ultimate decision of the superior Court went, he was informed, by a Petition presented that evening, that it was against the right of the plaintiff to the fore-shore claimed. Proceedings had taken place before the local magistrates; but they declined to entertain them, on the ground that they raised a substantial question of title with which they had no right to deal. The plaintiff completed the wall, and police were sent down to sustain it, while a resident magistrate was also sent to keep the people in order. The people asked leave to exercise their rights, without prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff, pending litigation, and some of them were taken, handcuffed, and marched off to prison. That was different from a man being protected in his right to build on a site to which his right was established. This was only an alleged right, which was not sustained in Courts of Law.
    MR. J. LOWTHER: If the parties accepted the decision of the superior Courts—
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, that was what they did do, and the decision of the resident magistrate was quashed.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought the authorities were justified in preventing the battle on the fore-shore being fought out by physical force. The legal tribunals of the country were open to everyone, and the proper course for any persons to adopt who wished to establish any private or public rights or claims of any kind was to apply to those tribunals and to abide by the result, not to go to the place under dispute and to assert their real or imaginary rights by violent and illegal measures endangering the public peace.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked, if the County of Dublin or the Imperial Revenue was to pay this charge?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: The Imperial Revenue.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, that the question before the Committee being as to whether a certain sum of money should be voted to maintain the Constabulary in Ireland, hon. Members

    913
    appeared to him to be playing with the House in discussing the building and knocking down of walls in Dublin, and in disputing whether they belonged to the county or the town. It was not very creditable to Irish Members to talk in this way, and something would have to be done to preserve Order in the House. Years ago, all the distinguished men in the City of Dublin asked the State to pay for the Dublin police, because they could not pay for them themselves.
    MR. CALLANrose to Order. The Vote referred to the Constabulary force for Ireland. The hon. Member was referring to the Metropolitan Police force.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk) appeared to be referring to a Vote other than that before the Committee, and which related to the Dublin Metropolitan Police.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKregretted that he had strayed a little from the point in his last remarks. It was very noticeable that Irish Members could go on speaking about everything but the Constabulary Vote before the Committee, while he was called to Order for inadvertently saying one word upon another Vote. He trusted hon. Members would allow the Committee to get on with Business, for the course then being followed was simply trifling with the House of Commons.
    MR. GRAYsaid, if the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury did not understand the question raised by hon. Members upon this Vote, he protested against his describing it as wasting the time of the House. The expression might not be Parliamentary, and he would therefore not apply it to the harangue of the hon. Baronet, who, if there had been any waste of time at all, was the real cause of it. The hon. Baronet had told the Committee, 20 times over, that the Vote was for Constabulary; and if he could not see that the question now raised by him (Mr. Gray) was properly raised on that Vote, all he could say was that he pitied the constituents which the hon. Baronet represented. The hon. Baronet charged him with playing with the House, when on this very question an influential and numerously signed Petition had been presented; and when he (Mr. Gray) was discussing it, in obedience to many letters which he
    914
    had received from Dublin, the hon. Baronet was certainly presuming on his representative character, and it would be better for him to confine himself to representing his constituency in Finsbury.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury had introduced a very delicate question into the discussion upon this Vote. The hon. Baronet was a valuable Member of the House, especially on questions of economy; but he could not help thinking that upon, this occasion his love of economy had rather outrun the equity of the case as between Great Britain and Ireland. He (Major Nolan) feared, from the answer given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that he had not well stated the case to which he had directed attention. In Connemara there was an extra tax levied in certain districts on account of disturbances, the existence of which was acknowledged to a certain extent, but which had been very much exaggerated. But these disturbances had no connection with agrarian disturbance; and he asked the Government to distinctly state that they levied heavy taxes on certain districts as a punishment for offences which were not agrarian. Did the law allow this, and were the Government willing to take the responsibility? His own opinion was that the ordinary forces ought to be sufficient to maintain order, when there was not any question of agrarian disturbance. He wanted to know why an extra rate of 9½d. in the pound had been imposed in the parish of Ballyhoon, when only a few windows were broken? His next question related to the exemption from this extra tax of certain persons by some authority other than that of the Grand Jury; and in this case he wanted to know whether these exemptions were legal? To these three questions he desired to receive from the Attorney General for Ireland specific answers.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman could not have been in the House when he gave his former answer. He had to say, in reply to the questions, that the imposing an extra tax on a district was a matter for the Executive. He was not aware of the special circumstances that had been mentioned; but no doubt the Chief Secretary would answer any question that

    915
    was put to him. He did not think that the power was confined in the Act to cases of agrarian disturbance. As to the case of Skerries, there was one decision which had been omitted, and that was a decision on more than one occasion by Mr. Sullivan, the Irish Master of the Rolls, that when there was a determination on the part of a number of people to assert a right without regard to the law, he thought it was the duty of the authorities to see that there was a sufficient body of police present to preserve the peace.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, the Attorney General for Ireland had told the Committee what was the law with regard to a proclaimed district; but the district in question was not a proclaimed district. It was the custom—but he doubted whether by law—that the Government could send police into a district, and then charge them upon the inhabitants. But was it possible that any Government could have the power of raising this tax upon a district, and of saying that particular individuals should be exempted? The Government had not only located a few policemen in a small district for a limited period, and charged 9½d. in the pound on the assessment of the inhabitants there, but had made communications to three or four Protestant gentlemen living in the neighbourhood to the effect that they were to be exempt from the tax. He believed these proceedings to be totally illegal; and he would appeal to the Committee not to pass the Vote until they had a distinct assurance from the Law Officers of the Crown and the Chief Secretary for Ireland that it was not illegal. He ventured to suggest that the Attorney General for Ireland, who was not quite sure on this point, should look into the Acts of Parliament, with the object of seeing whether the view taken by his right hon. Colleague was correct.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he was perfectly convinced that no change had been made at present which was not in absolute accordance with law. The Act of Parliament gave power to make exemptions.
    MR. SULLIVAN: Which Act?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: The Peace Preservation Act, and many other Acts.
    MR. SULLIVANdoubted whether the right hon. Gentleman could be serious in saying that this district was
    916
    under the Peace Preservation Act. He denounced, as un-Constitutional, the action of the Government in exempting certain dwellers in the district from the payment of the tax. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the Peace Preservation Act, but that did not apply to the case at all; and then he spoke of the law of the land, which was a very wide phrase. He challenged the statements of the right hon. Gentleman as to the authority for what had been done. The Under Secretary, or the servant of the Under Secretary, might exempt anyone he chose—a friend from whom he had some shooting, or a lady at whose house he visited. The English people might think it useful to lay on an Irish county or barony a punishment tax when it was disturbed with crime, and tell us it was nothing else than a fine old Anglo-Saxon law, which it was not, but one introduced by a Danish King long ago to punish the inhabitants of this country who killed his followers. English gentlemen would find, from the present debate, an illustration of the approved way in which Ireland was governed. The hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk) had complained of the time of the House being wasted; but it should be remembered that in voting this money they were dealing with the whole system of government in Ireland. The Irish people complained, through their Representatives, of this system, and said that the levying of this vengeance, or punishment, tax upon districts in Ireland was only intended to meet an exceptional state of things—that was to say, the result of outrage presumed to rest upon a system of agrarian conspiracy. But it was illegal to exempt favoured individuals or their tenants from the operation of the tax. He remembered that in 1875 the boundaries of a particular district were extended in the most capricious way, in order that political vengeance might be taken upon the family of George Henry Moore; and he challenged the right hon. Gentleman to name the particular Act of Parliament under which the proceedings complained of were authorized.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, a good deal of energy had been spent unnecessarily on the matter. Assuming that the contention of the hon. and learned Gentleman was correct, that the exemption

    917
    was contrary to law, it was scarcely necessary for him (Mr. Lowther) to give an assurance to the Committee that it would not be carried out, and that no course would be followed which was in any shape or form contrary to law. He, however, ventured to assert that it was strictly legal, and that those hon. Members who stated contrary opinions were labouring under a total misapprehension. The hon. and learned Gentleman had asked him for the Acts of Parliament which authorized what had been done. Their name was Legion. There were the Constabulary Acts, the Peace Preservation Acts, and also the general law of the land, under which the Irish Executive had to act; but to read every section of these Acts bearing on the case, although edifying to hon. Members, would, no doubt, be trifling with the time of the Committee.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had enumerated the Constabulary Acts and others. Why did he not include amongst them the Vaccination Act? The power of levying the police tax was, he thought, acquired under the Peace Preservation Act; but, then, the Attorney General for Ireland had admitted that a district must be proclaimed before it could be levied therein, and the county or district in question had not been proclaimed, because there had been no agrarian outrage there. He also challenged the right hon. Gentleman to show the authority which the Government had for levying this tax, and for exempting certain persons from its operation; and, unless he could do that, he thought the matter ought not to be considered at an end. It was not sufficient to say that nothing illegal should be done. He and his hon. Friends had shown that something illegal had been done. It was certainly illegal if these Acts had been done under the Peace Preservation Act, because the county had not been proclaimed. If the right hon. Gentleman would assure the Committee that the tax should not be levied until he had ascertained whether the facts were as he had stated, and that if the acts done or contemplated were not according to law he would make reparation, he thought the matter might be allowed, to drop.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)begged to inform the hon. and learned Member for
    918
    Louth (Mr. Sullivan) that the fact was, as he found on looking at the last Return presented to the House, that the County of Galway was proclaimed. [Mr. SULLIVAN asked the date of the Proclamation?] The date was the 25th of February, 1866. No doubt, the Proclamation might have been qualified since then. He was only dealing with the statement before him. The Notice was dated the 25th of February, 1879, and it was not probable that there was anything later. Assuming that the principal reason for this discussion arose on the question of exemptions, if he found that exemptions were not thoroughly in accordance with the Act of Parliament, he should be prepared to advise his right hon. Friend accordingly.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, it was very impolitic to apply these taxes otherwise than in cases of agrarian disturbances, and the case in question was clearly not of that character. The question of exemptions could not be too much dwelt upon. The district was one very difficult to get at; and, in consequence of that, it required great watching on the part of the Government. He believed it to be the district in which, of all others in Ireland, injustice might be done from any carelessness of supervision on the part of the authorities, and it was, therefore, most necessary that attention should be directed to it. He had given the names of four or five proprietors who had been exempted; and not only were proprietors, but their tenants, exempted from the tax by the influence with the Government which the proprietors laid claim to. The Government, he thought, should have been prepared to give the Committee full and specific details of everything done in the district, and ought to have been able to deal with this matter at once, after the Question put by him a few days ago, instead of displaying complete ignorance upon the subject, and relying upon others for information.
    MR. SULLIVANfelt confident that inquiry would be made as to the Peace Preservation Acts being applicable to the present case. But the point was the power, policy, or justice of the Government exempting individuals in a proclaimed district from the tax. Did Parliament ever believe, when it gave power to exempt certain districts, that such returns would be presented as

    919
    "District of Mrs. W—; District of Mr.—?" The idea was absurd. A remark in a letter which, he held in his hand illustrated the way in which the matter was worked by the Government officials, it ran thus—
    "I am just informed that the small patch of property purchased by Mr. Jones has been also left out."
    That showed the way the cat jumped.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY, after the explanation of the Government, recommended his hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERwished to say, before the Amendment was withdrawn, that a great many of the mistakes that had occurred in Irish legislation arose from the readiness of English gentlemen sent over to Ireland occasionally to take charge of that country to rely too much upon the information sent in to the authorities. They generally lifted up their hands with horror, and cried for police protection at the slightest rumour, and the police being sent out into a district generally produced discontent. It was now suggested that the Motion should be withdrawn, because of the explanation that had been given; but the House had so often listened to those statements from the Treasury Bench that he thought they might be excused if they showed any want of confidence in them. So far as he was concerned, he would endeavour, so far as the Forms of the House would permit him, on every Motion to impress upon the Chief Secretary, and everybody connected with Ireland, the necessity of watching these police forces very carefully, and of allowing no excuse whatever to be urged as a reason for allowing the perpetration of illegal acts.
    MR. GRAYsaid, as the Chief Secretary had promised that these costs should be charged on the Imperial Exchequer, and not on the district, he certainly should not divide. At the same time, another and a more important question had now been raised—that of raising special rates in a district, and of creating one little district in the centre which was to be exempted. He trusted the Irish County Members would bring this subject forward, and divide on it. They had now the fact brought up that the County of Galway had been proclaimed 14 years ago. Everybody had forgotten
    920
    about it; but it was allowed to lie in abeyance. It was not known even to the Attorney General for Ireland, or to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, until they went to a Return and discovered it. Such taxes as these would create a rebellion if they were attempted to be levied in England; and he hoped, therefore, that some explanation would be speedily given of this special exemption of certain persons from the operation of the taxes. If the electors would understand how these taxes were levied in Ireland, they would know how it was that the Irish people were discontented, while the English people were contented. He begged to withdraw his Amendment.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MAJOR NOLANdid not think they had had at all a satisfactory explanation from the Chief Secretary, and that, therefore, he was justified in moving a reduction of the whole Vote. He contended that where there were no cases of agrarianism the expense of extra police ought not to be borne by a particular district, and ought to be charged on the Imperial Exchequer. The Government ought to be content with punishing the people in the ordinary way, and ought not to put on these special taxes. This was a very poor district, and the taxes would be levied almost exclusively on the tenants, who were certainly not extremely well off. Not only was the tax objected to, but they had had no satisfactory answer from the Government, and he certainly thought he was justified in moving to reduce this Vote by £500. The first reason was, that he did not think that this Act was intended to apply to cases of this kind; and, secondly, because he thought it most unfair that one parish should be taxed higher than another, and that certain individuals should be exempted. If there were disturbances, he did not much object to sending police into the district; but he knew that in this particular district the Government encountered very trifling difficulties, and that, as a general rule, there was very little difficulty in maintaining law and order. Although it was a very rocky and indented coast, and there might be trouble with smugglers, there was no difficulty in the collection of the Reve-

    921
    nue, and the prevention of smuggling. If, therefore, occasionally—once in 10 or 15 years—they were put to a little extra trouble, therefore he thought they might charge the extra cost on the Imperial Exchequer, and not on two poor parishes. As a rule, they maintained very few police, as the first time they were called upon to go to some pains they had immediately charged the district. It seemed to him there was very great favouritism at work; and as this district, from the bad laws, was very poorly represented, and as, further, he had the honour of sitting for the county, he thought he must stand up for them, and press this to a Division. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £400.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £821,792, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Constabulary Force in Ireland."—(Major Nolan.)
    MR. SULLIVANhoped the Government would extend the satisfactory promise they had already given in regard to the Skerries case. If the Chief Secretary would look into this matter, and give it his personal and individual attention, and ascertain how it was that certain persons were thus unfairly exempted, he thought they need not divide.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he certainly would attend to the matter; and, of course, if he found that the complaints of the hon. and gallant Member were justified, he would attend to them.
    MR. BIGGARcomplained that the law was not carried out in the spirit as well as in the letter. It was exceedingly unfair that the Government should have power to make a district—not larger than that Table—and to exempt it from the operation of a general tax. He thought particular individuals had been very unfairly treated, and that substantial justice should be done.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 27; Noes 162: Majority 135.—(Div. List, No. 189.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. CALLANmoved to reduce the Vote by £25,350, complaining that the extra charge for the extra police force
    922
    was levied on the county cess; and as the county cess was levied exclusively on the occupiers and tenants in the county the expenditure fell on one class. He objected to this on principle, and, therefore, he moved to reduce the Vote.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £796,842, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Constabulary Force in Ireland."—(Mr. Callan.)
    MR. BIGGARsupported the Motion, and declared the principle on which the expenses were paid for extra police was ridiculous. He hoped, unless some promise was given that an attempt would be made to remedy the grievance, his hon. Friend would divide the Committee.
    MR. GRAYsaid, that what was complained of was that the nominal force was not kept up to the number for which taxes were levied. For instance, a county was assessed for 100 men, but only 80 were sent. On coming to examine the Estimates, it was found that there was a reduction of 230 men as compared with last year. The Attorney General for Ireland had explained to them that the quota for each district was fixed once in five years, and that it had been fixed two and a-half years ago; therefore, they found, although £25,000 were now levied on the districts in aid of the Imperial Exchequer, according to the present Estimates, the number of men had been reduced by 250. If that reduction were allowed for, there would be a reduction of £23,000, or more. They had been told that this system was indefensible, and that the Government would re-consider it, with a view to re-adjustment; but when they came to look into the Estimates they found, though the number of men was reduced, there was no reduction in the Vote—that, on the contrary, the Government asked for a larger sum. That was not a satisfactory state of things. It was acknowledged, at the end of four years, that the system was indefensible; and now they were asked to pass Estimates which would render the system worse than it was before. They reduced the number of men by 230, while the quota for each district

    923
    would remain unchanged. He thought they must divide against so extraordinary a state of things.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he had endeavoured, early in the evening, to reply to statements very much the same as those made by the hon. Member. He stated then that it was his opinion that the numbers ought to be made up. It must be borne in mind that the cost of the maintenance of the force fell upon Imperial sources of taxation, and not in any way upon local rates. The allocation of men to each county was a matter of administrative detail, and it was wholly immaterial to the ease. He really hoped hon. Gentlemen would not divide the Committee on the question at that hour. He would look into the matter.
    MR. GRAYsaid, it was a matter of very great importance, and he should like it put straight. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland said the quota was arranged once in every five years, and that it had been arranged two and a-half years ago; therefore, that it was not about to be changed at present. Now, however, he found the number of men reduced by 230; and he said they could not bring them up in the face of these Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman must know that it was not in his (Mr. Gray's) power to propose an increase in a Vote; but the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary could.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONthought the objection of the hon. Member was that each county should have its proper number of men, and that the county should not be subject to additional charge for the extra men brought into it. The Chief Secretary had admitted the force of the objection; and he was prepared to look into the question, and set it right. The question of the quota being arranged in five years had nothing to do with the point. The Chief Secretary might, if necessary, bring in a Supplementary Estimate; but it would not be proper that the right hon. Gentleman, at that moment, should enter into any undertaking. If he saw that it was right to increase the cost, he would, naturally, come to the House for a Supplementary Estimate for the additional pay of these additional constables.
    MR. GRAYhoped the hon. Member for Dundalk would not divide the Com-
    924
    mittee after the statement of the Chief Secretary, supplemented by the statement of the Financial Secretary, who had promised that, if necessary, a Supplementary Vote would be introduced.
    MR. CALLANsaid, in consequence of the statements which had been made, he should not proceed. He did not use the word in an offensive sense; but his impression was that this was a Treasury fraud on the ratepayers. He would withdraw his Amendment.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. O'DONNELLwished to draw the attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the strange manner in which the Constabulary proceeded to perform their duties in connection with displays and recent outrages in Derry. He asked a Question before in the House on the subject; and, through no fault of the right hon. Gentleman, he presumed, he received a most unsatisfactory answer. He would now ask the attention of the Committee for a few minutes while he referred to the facts. The facts were of a most unpleasant nature, and cast a most disagreeable light on the justice, and on the method of detecting crime, in Ireland under certain circumstances. He was afraid he could only bring the matter forward when the Constabulary Vote was under discussion. Here, in a few words, were the outlines of the case. When, on the 17th or 18th of March, 1878, a procession, almost exclusively composed of Catholics, was going round the walls of Derry, celebrating the national anniversary, some miscreants opposed to this procession had recourse to the diabolical device of placing an infernal machine close to the route of the procession—in the grave-yard by which the procession had to pass—and only for the fact that the infernal machine was discovered the most terrible consequences might have resulted. [The hon. Member then related the circumstances attending a similar outrage in 1879; but the details did not reach the Gallery.] He confessed, looking at the events of 1878 and 1879, he did not know the feelings with which Catholics looked forward in that part of Ireland to the 17th of March, 1880. For the discovery of the perpetrators of the horrible outrages in Derry, which might have scattered death broadcast, the paltry reward of £50 was offered. No

    925
    special plea would persuade the Committee that the offer of a reward of £50 was commensurate with the gravity of the offence. This infernal machine might, as he had said, have scattered death in its most horrible forms in the ranks of peaceable citizens. Just imagine an infernal machine thrown into a soirêe in an English town, and fancy this being done for two succeeding years! Would the English local authorities act in the same way as the authorities acted in the case of the Derry outrages? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) had already called attention to the case in County Armagh. The conviction was forced upon them that the police and the Government authorities did not show the same zeal in the prosecution of crime or in its detection when committed against Catholics that they showed when it was committed against Protestants. He did not join the vulgar cry against Orange celebrations. He believed that Orangemen had a perfect right to those celebrations. Indeed, there were many points in them which he considered most laudable. As far as they recalled the facts of the great Constitutional struggle of 1688 he was with them; and he should always be happy to join his Orange fellow-countrymen in celebrating the expulsion of James II., and the placing of William III. upon the Throne of these Islands. But, apart from this aspect of these celebrations, there was a murderous sectarian element which—he did not care whether it emanated from Catholic or Protestant—ought to be suppressed with the whole force of the law. The throwing of infernal machines into peaceable assemblies, among innocent women and children, was a proceeding which ought to be rigorously and strenuously followed up by the law, no matter whether Catholics or Protestants were the subjects of such an outrage. In Derry there was a feeling very nearly akin to terrorism. It was perfectly notorious that in Derry there were complaints, year after year, of murderous outrages, and that the people who were subjected to them, walked about the place undetected, and without any serious concern on the part of the authorities, while the miserable rewards of £50 which were offered did not show that the police authorities were at all alive to the enormity of such outrages.
    926
    He felt, even at that late hour, that he was justified in asking for some assurance from the Representatives of the Irish Government that some measures should be taken to find out who were the murderous assassins in Derry. He had received private letters, while others had been published in such papers as The Freeman's Journal, expressing the belief that if only the police authorities chose to exert themselves they could lay their hands on those from whom these murderous outrages had proceeded. But to inquire into these matters might, perhaps, involve more exposure than was agreeable. These were the considerations which bound the hands of a conscientious Executive. The Catholics of the North of Ireland would not—could not—be persuaded that the detective agencies of the law were being used with impartiality and fairness so long as outrages like those in Armagh, which resulted in the assassination of poor Carberry and the stabbing of the little boy who refused to curse the Pope, went unpunished. He was informed that the suspicions as to who were the authors of these outrages were very definite; but, of course, so long as there was no reward greater than the trifling sum of £50 offered, so long would the detection of these horrible criminals remain a dead letter. Not only the Catholics of Derry, but the Catholics all over Ireland, would feel that they were not fairly treated, so long as these criminals were allowed to walk about without anything like concern on the part of Her Majesty's Government.
    MR. GRAYsaid, this matter was one of very considerable importance; and he did not think, even at this advanced period of the Session, the Irish Members would have been doing their duty had they not called their attention to it. The real and serious portion of this question was, that the perpetrators of this terrible outrage would, undoubtedly, have been discovered, if only proper exertions had been made. The person who was suspected had been mentioned to him by name, and he had letters showing that he was well known in the locality where the offence was committed. Had such an outrage occurred in England, the Government would certainly not have been content with what had been done in this case. A similar outrage was perpetrated two or three years since, and it spoke

    927
    badly for the police that they had been unable to bring any person to justice. The real and grave portion of this matter was that the Government had not made sufficient exertion to discover the criminal. He thought that time had not been wasted in drawing attention to it.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that if he would only send to the proper quarter any information which would justify the authorities in taking steps for a prosecution, they would certainly do it. As regarded the general question of undetected crime, he would point out that this was unfortunately by no means uncommon in Ireland; and as to the amount of rewards, he was afraid there were many cases in which no reward which could be offered would result in the detection of the criminal. The hon. Gentleman could no doubt recall to mind a case in which a reward of £1,000 was offered, and in which there was yet no detection. He did not think that a mere increase in the reward would have the effect which the hon. Member had indicated of a certain discovery of the perpetrators of a crime.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he had not previously heard so much of the case as he had heard that evening; but it appeared that two important conclusions were to be drawn from the discussion. One was, that a very moderate reward had been offered by the Government; and the other that the police had made no arrests. That was the way in which the police performed their duty in regard to a number of men who were Roman Catholics. On the other hand, an outrage took place some time ago in the County Donegal, in which Lord Leitrim, two men, and a horse, were shot. What did the Government do on that occasion? They immediately took three men into custody, one of whom was, indeed, already in prison. Notwithstanding every inquiry which was made, no evidence whatever could be found against these men. Large rewards were offered, and every inducement held out to induce men to swear falsely; but, in spite of all, no evidence was forthcoming which could be brought before a Grand Jury. In this case, justice was not administered in an even-handed and impartial manner. He thought that was one reason why people were dissatisfied with matters as they stood. They thought that justice
    928
    was not fairly administered, and that even-handed fair play was not dealt out to all parties alike. He did not think that party processions ought to be done away with—they were one of the modes of the expression of public opinion; and, if peacefully conducted and originated, he quite agreed they were entitled to the protection of the Government. His contention was, that a procession, no matter what party it represented, should be allowed to proceed, so long as it did not interfere with any other party.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £111,661, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Expense of the Superintendence of Prisons, and of the Maintenance of Prisoners in Prisons in Ireland, and of the Registration of Habitual Criminals."
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, he wished to ask a question in regard to the prison of the borough of Galway. There were a great many public works which might be carried out in the neighbourhood of that town by convict labour. It would be most advisable to complete the harbour, and connect it with the main land; and he believed that that was a work to which convict labour was admirably adapted. A convict prison might very well be established in the borough, for there was now a very good prison which could easily be turned to account for the reception of convicts. He should be obliged to the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he could give him an assurance that, at no distant date, a convict establishment would be established there.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the question to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred had been, for some time past, under the consideration of the Government. A recommendation was made, some time ago, that the convict establishment at Spike Island should be abandoned in favour of Galway; and, in connection with that plan, some harbour works had been projected at Galway. The Admiralty had been requested to send down an officer to inspect and report upon the formation of a harbour. Other arrangements were also in progress; and he hoped, before long, the Government would be in a position to take definite action in the matter.
    MR. ERRINGTONmoved the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,200, the salary of the President of the Prison Commissioners, in order, he said, to call attention to some of the results which had followed the re-organization set on foot by the Prisons Act. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that one of the results of the Act passed two years ago was that the salaries, service, and duties of the various prison officials were entirely reorganized. The Act itself was received with the greatest satisfaction on the part of the officials; but he was sorry to say that the manner in which it had been carried out had caused the most extraordinary and widespread dissatisfaction. He had not the smallest personal knowledge of any member of the Prisons Board, or of its Chairman; but he was compelled to move the reduction of the Vote by the salary of the Chairman, in order to bring the matter under the attention of the Committee. Complaints had been made by various classes of prison officials; but the class whose case he wished specially to bring before the Committee was that of the prison surgeons. Theirs was a very hard case. It was one of great complication, and he could hardly weary the Committee with full details at that hour. He would, however, mention that their position was so far peculiar that in most, if not all, of the counties in Ireland there were infirmaries, and the medical officer of the infirmary was appointed to the gaol, and he was compelled to do the work of the gaol without any extra salary. He must, however, say that the prison work was very light, and not of an onerous kind. This duty of attending the prison, however, was always recognized to be a great hardship; and it was hoped that when the Prison Act was passed the medical officers would receive some recognition of their services. The Prison Act provided, among other things, that every official should retain the office he held in the prison at the time of the passing of the Act, and that he should retain it at such salary as he was receiving when the Act was passed. But what was the way in which the Prisons Board in Ireland set to work to bring the Act into operation? For a considerable number of months no step at all was taken in regard to these officers; but, after a certain amount of pressure,
    930
    the attention of the Board was called to the circumstance, and they issued a Circular, dated the 3rd of May last, in which, in the most summary manner, they dismissed from their posts every one of these officers. This high-handed proceeding was received with indignation and astonishment by a very deserving class of public officers; and, after a good deal had been said, the Board announced their intention to re-appoint all those gentlemen who had been thus summarily dismissed. But he thought, even if it was the intention to re-appoint them, this was not the way to have proceeded, even if such a course was legal. There were, however, grave doubts as to how far the Prisons Board had been fairly advised on this matter, and the attention of the Law Officers was drawn to it. He was bound to say that his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, with his usual courtesy and promptness, looked into this question, and the result was that the Circular was partly withdrawn, and these officers were recognized as prison officials. There was a certain difference in English and Irish gaols between the duties of these officers. In English gaols a great many of the officers were general practitioners, and were in the habit of compounding the medicines as well as prescribing. That was not the case in Ireland; and the medical men had always been a separate class of men from those who were the compounders in the various gaols. The Prisons Board thought that they could amalgamate those two offices. There was a provision in the Prison Act compelling the prison officers to do analogous work, and the Prisons Board had chosen to say that the prescribing and compounding of medicines was analogous work. In the end, however, that offensive and highhanded Circular had to be withdrawn. For it another was substituted, in which the surgeons were recognized as prison officials; and the Prisons Board announced that they were prepared to pay them a certain salary, if only they were willing to undertake these so-called analogous duties. He thought they had good ground of complaint as to being called upon to perform these analogous duties at all; but even supposing the Board had a right to call upon them to do it, the scale of pay was perfectly absurd. He had no desire to go into the full de-

    931
    tails of this question, which would involve a certain amount of calculation as to the connection between their infirmary and their prison duties; but he thought anyone who considered the question fairly would see that the proposal made was perfectly extraordinary. The salaries were fixed at an altogether different figure to what they were at before. The duties originally were of an exceedingly light and unimportant character. He was quite sure it was to the advantage of the Public Service, as well as to the gaols, that these should be performed in a more complete and efficient manner. The duty of the prison surgeon under the old system did not exceed a single visit a-day; but now his time was almost entirely occupied, and for this he was offered only from £60 to £80 a-year—even in first-class counties an offer had been made of not more than £60. Under these circumstances, he ventured to say that he could not help hoping that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to give the Committee some statement that the matter would be considered by the Government. It would be a most unfortunate thing if this new règime was to be inaugurated by an attempt to re-model the Public Service in a manner which could only produce discontent and dissatisfaction.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £110,461, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Expense of the Superintendence of Prisons, and of the Maintenance of Prisoners in Prisons in Ireland, and of the Registration of Habitual Criminals."—(Mr. Errington.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, he thought the statement of a few facts would enable the Committee to arrive at a conclusion on this matter. The Chairman of the Prisons Board had only fairly and reasonably administered an Act of Parliament. The position of the prison doctors before the Act was passed certainly could not be stated very clearly, neither could it be regarded as very satisfactory. They did not get one farthing for the work they did in the prisons. They were, in reality, the infirmary surgeons of the district, and, as such, they were compelled, without fee or reward, to do duty at the neighbour-
    932
    ing prison. When, however, the new Prison Act came into operation, what was said was—"We are going now to establish a new system, and we offer you the position of attending the prisons, and we leave you in possession of the salary which you had before as infirmary doctor." Thus they were left with the same salary as infirmary doctors; but they were relieved from the obligation of attending the prisons. So far, then, it might be said it might be said it was a decided gain to the doctors. There was a provision in the Act that the officers of the prisons were to continue to discharge their duties till the 1st of April, 1878; and after that date these doctors, who were also infirmary officers, were permitted to continue the duty in the gaols after the day fixed by the Act of Parliament. The first Circular which was issued, and which had been referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for Longford, dealt only with the legal aspect of these infirmary surgeons. Reference had been made to his view of the case; but his view was only one as to the construction of the law. He thought that as the infirmary doctors had been allowed to continue in office after the day fixed by the Act of Parliament it was reasonable to regard them, technically, as prison officers, and that they should not be subjected to the necessity of a fresh appointment, especially as they had continued to fulfil the duties without complaint. No complaint, that he could see, could be urged against the Prisons Board. The second Circular was then issued; and, so far as the position of these officers was concerned, they were, he ventured to think, even after the statement of his hon. Friend, without any substantial grievance, for they were by it considered to be prison officials, and so that they could not have been subjected to any fresh selection and the consequent risk of rejection. That, however, was a point which he believed had been conceded by the hon. Member for Longford. Then it was stated that the medical officers considered as a grievance the duty which had been put upon them of compounding the medicines. He did not think, however, that that part of the case had been fairly stated. The alternative was given them of doing the work themselves, and of making other arrangements in regard to it; and he could not see that that was not a perfectly rea-

    933
    sonable way of dealing with them. What, then, was the position of these gentlemen? To the position of infirmary surgeons they were now given the status of prison officials, with all the rights and privileges which he supposed they valued, of being surgeons to these gaols. In regard, however, to this duty of compounding medicines, the practice was somewhat different in Ireland to that in England and elsewhere, and that the rule had hitherto been that they did not compound their own medicines. He believed, however, that the vast majority of the prison doctors had now agreed to compound their medicines; but in the case of those who did not desire to do so the Commissioners were willing to make an arrangement on a different scale. As to the question of salary, they had been fixed at various sums, ranging from £40 to £150 a-year; and in considering this they must, of course, take the work done and the average of the prisoners in the different gaols. This was only 77 in all; and, of course, in many of them it was much less. Therefore, he thought it was quite reasonable that these should be fixed on a running scale, which could be adjusted according to circumstances. He hoped it would be seen that the Prisons Board had not dealt with this deserving class of public officials in at all a harsh or high-handed way, and that the Board had only dealt justly and fairly between them and the public. He hoped his hon. Friend would not consider it necessary to press his Motion to a Division.
    MR. MELDONwas of opinion that the Prisons Board had dealt with the medical officers in Ireland in an exceedingly high-handed manner. Taking the very first Circular issued by the Chairman of the Prisons Board, he thought that the animus with which the medical officers were treated was apparent. The Circular was dated the 23rd of April, 1878, and was addressed, not to the medical men, but to the Governors of the gaols, many of whom had risen from the position of warders, and none of whom were in a better social position than the medical men themselves. The Circular said—
    "Sir,—I have to request that you will call the special attention of the medical officers of your gaol to the 43rd clause of the Prisons Act, and direct their attention to its requirements."
    That was the Circular which ought to
    934
    have been addressed to the medical officers themselves, but which was addressed to the Governors of the gaols. The Circular then said—
    "You will also take care to report to this Board any omission on the part of the surgeons to carry out the provisions of the Statute referred to."
    From that the Committee could judge of the insulting way in which the surgeons of the gaols in Ireland had been treated. By the provisions of the Prisons Act of 1877, there were two classes of surgeons—namely, the surgeons of gaols and the surgeons of county infirmaries. But in case the gaols were within two miles of the county infirmaries, then the surgeons of the infirmaries were obliged to give their services to the gaols. If there were no infirmaries within two miles of the gaols, then he supposed that separate medical officers would be appointed to the gaols, and the duties which the surgeons of county infirmaries would have to discharge would be merely nominal. Formerly, the duties of the prison surgeons were exceedingly small; and he would call particular attention to the change that had been made in that respect. The medical officers, at the present time, were required to inspect every prisoner within 24 hours of his arrival at the gaol; they were also required to inspect every prisoner once a-week, and to examine into all sanitary details connected with the prison. Medical officers were further required to make a periodical inspection of the whole gaol, whether occupied or not; they had also to see whether any prisoner sentenced to punishment was fit to undergo it; and, in addition to these duties, they had recently had thrown upon them duties formerly carried out by the chaplains of the gaols. In point of fact, nearly constant attendance was required now from the surgeons of the gaols. If their duties were to be properly discharged, the medical men ought to do nothing else but attend to the work of the gaol. By a Circular of the 3rd of May, 1879, addressed to the surgeons of the county infirmaries, it was stated that the Lord Lieutenant had directed that all the surgeons should be superseded, and that their positions should become vacant. The Circular went on to say that the present occupants of the offices might submit applications for

    935
    continuing in their posts. In his opinion, that Circular was in defiance of law, and there was no right to interfere with a single medical officer in Ireland. With one exception, all these medical officers had been appointed by the Grand Juries in Ireland, and there was no right under the Act of 1877 to supersede them. What had been done? The first Circular, to which he had already referred, was addressed to the Governors of gaols, and in that Circular the Governors of gaols were directed to call the attention of the medical men to the provisions of the Act. He should contend, most strongly, that that Circular ought to have been addressed directly to the surgeons of the gaols, and should not have been addressed to the Governors. The Circular assumed that there was some intention on the part of the medical men not to discharge their duties properly. Both Circulars were very sweeping, and by the latter they were dismissed, and were only told that they were at liberty to answer the advertisement. The Act of Parliament of 1877 provided that the scale of remuneration should not be less than they had actually been receiving. But as the duties of the surgeons of the gaols had been largely increased, it was only right that some additional remuneration should be given to them. Instead of giving them additional remuneration, the additional duty was thrown upon them of compounding medicines. In one case with which he was acquainted, the medical officer was paid £60 a-year. That was, perhaps, fair payment for the work formerly done; but the work was not one-tenth then of what it now was. In that prison there were sometimes nearly 1,000 prisoners, and the work connected with them must necessarily be very heavy. In 1878, that gentleman was recommended for an increase of pay; but, owing to the state of the law, when his case was considered by the Grand Jury, a decision was come to with great reluctance that it was not in their power to increase his salary; but they hoped that by an amendment of the law he might get his salary increased. It was now proposed to throw upon that gentleman many additional duties, and amongst them that of compounding medicines, without giving him any further salary. To make this matter clear to the Committee, he must explain that
    936
    in Ireland members of the College of Surgeons and of the College of Physicians were not allowed to compound medicines. If, therefore, it was provided that these medical officers should compound medicines, a Fellow of either College would be excluded from taking office under Government. The Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons had passed a resolution against this rule. He would call particular attention to the rule of the Prisons Board, by which the surgeons were told that if they compounded medicines they would get more salary, and if they refused to do so they would get less. In a Circular addressed to the medical officers, they were informed by the Prisons Board that the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury had sanctioned a certain additional payment to them on condition that they compounded medicines for the use of the prisoners under their supervision. That Circular was also issued in direct defiance of an Act of Parliament. In his opinion, the Board had no power to abolish apothecaries, all of whom were appointed under an Act of Parliament. A more unfair Circular, and one more unjustifiable in point of law, and more unfair to a deserving class of men like the medical officers of gaols, than that to which he had drawn attention, could not have been issued. The Board had dealt unfairly with the medical officers with regard to two points. The duties were made extremely onerous, while the remuneration was utterly inadequate to what it ought to be. But more than that, there had been all through the matter a most decided inclination on the part of the Prisons Board to deal with the medical men in a high-handed manner. It was not right that the medical officers of gaols should be treated in that way. If it had been necessary to mention unpleasant facts to them, the least that could have been expected from a man in the receipt of a large public stipend, like the Chairman of the Prisons Board, was to have treated the medical men in a fair and proper manner. But the medical men felt that, on the contrary, from the very first they had been dealt with by that gentleman in a high-handed manner, and for these reasons he should support the reduction of the Vote.
    MR. BRUENsaid, that the action of the Prisons Board had created great alarm throughout the officers of all the

    937
    gaols in Ireland, and he must say that that alarm was well-founded. The medical officers of the prisons were a body of men of skilled ability, and well-fitted for their position. He did not suppose that even if the Government had dismissed them they would have been able to have replaced them properly. The animus and intention of the Prisons Board towards those gentlemen was evidenced by the manner in which they were summarily dismissed. They were invited, it was true, to seek for re-appointment at such a salary as the Prisons Board chose. The Circular, in which that insulting proposal was made to the medical officers, had, however, been withdrawn, and another was to be issued. He had sought to obtain from his right hon. Friend what the nature of that Circular would be. It had not yet been laid before hon. Members; and he thought that the Committee was in some difficulty in discussing the question without having it before them, and knowing exactly what treatment the prison surgeons had received. A copy of a Circular had been handed to him by a surgeon of one of the small gaols, and it was pointed out that by the Circular that gentleman was offered a salary of £40 a-year. He would like to ask the Committee whether, if they were establishing a new office and seeking for candidates, they thought that they would obtain a properly qualified and skilful man to perform the duties at £40 a-year? It should be remembered that those duties involved very great responsibility. It was said that the duties now cast upon the medical men were analogous to those which they performed before. He must offer his adhesion to the opinion on the other side, to the effect that the duties, although analogous, had been greatly increased. Formerly, one of the duties of the prison chaplains was to see to the diet of the prisoners; but that duty had now been transferred to the medical officers. They had to see that the diet was of proper quantity, and of proper quality. Another duty that had been cast upon them was that of inspecting the sanitary condition of the prisons, and looking to all the sanitary arrangements. Then came the question of compounding medicines, and that was an entirely new duty, as was admitted on all hands; and it was well worth the attention of the Committee to consider
    938
    whether or not that duty ought to be thrown upon the medical officers. A Memorial had been addressed to his Grace the Lord Lieutenant by the President and Fellows of the College of Physicians in Ireland. The Memorial stated that they were of opinion that it would lower the status of the medical officers if they were compelled to compound medicines, and they thought it would deter candidates of a high professional character from seeking the appointments. The Memorialists also thought that it was desirable that there should be in prisons certain officers, through whose hands all prescriptions should pass, in order that, in the event of accident, the public should be satisfied. He concurred that it was necessary, for the good management of prisons, that in cases of that kind there should be evidence forthcoming that all proper attention had been given to the compounding of medicines. The Memorial went on to say that there ought to be a properly-qualified prescriber in the prisons. He might inform the Committee that before the Prisons Act there were apothecaries attached to the prisons, and by the terms of the Act those officers still retained their functions, and were now in the enjoyment of their salaries. The Prisons Act said that the officers attached to prisons should hold office as if the Act had not passed. By the arrangements which were now made, they would have the prison apothecaries getting their salaries and having nothing to do. It might be a fair subject for consideration whether, on the lapse by death or otherwise of the present holders of those offices, they should be continued; but while the present holders were living he could not see why they should not perform their duties. He hoped that the Government would take this matter into their most earnest consideration. It would not be disputed that the majority of the medical officers in gaols in Ireland were gentlemen of high standing in their own respective districts; and it could not be said that £40 a-year was an adequate salary for duties that required daily attendance—£60, or even £80, would hardly be an adequate remuneration—but £40 a-year was ridiculously low. It ought not to be the object of the Government to drive men away from their positions who were so thoroughly qualified to fill them as the present medical offi-

    939
    cers in Ireland. It was said that if, in the Public Service, they could obtain doctors for low salaries, why should the public not be benefited by that reduction of expense? He did not think that that was a fair principle to go upon in the management of prisons; and he thought that the prisoners were entitled to have the medical attendance of well-qualified and skilful officers, and not of men of the lowest class in their Profession. If the Prisons Board wished to drive away the present holders of the office, and to throw the appointments open to all comers, then he did not think that they would get proper men at such salaries as they now offered. He trusted that the Government would take these circumstances into their consideration, and that it would issue directions to the Prisons Board to prevent the practices complained of.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYremarked, that the present medical officers of gaols in Ireland were not young men; and there could be no doubt that the fees which were paid to them by the Prisons Board were utterly inadequate. With regard to the question as to compelling the surgeons to compound medicines, he understood the case to be that the State must supply the prisons with medicines. It seemed to him that it would be easy to make a contract with an apothecary in the town who would supply the prisons at a much lower rate than was done under the present system. He thought that all the salaries paid in Irish gaols were inadequate. The governors received, most of them, from £100 to £150 a-year; but some were to rise to £300. Ho trusted that the whole question would be looked into by the Government, and that the salaries paid would be increased.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYwished to bear his testimony to the high character and efficiency of the medical officers of gaols in Ireland. Their duties had recently been much increased; but they were still paid by salaries which were insufficient, even under the former arrangements. He did hope that the Government would take the matter into consideration, and would fix the salaries of these gentlemen upon a basis more fair and just to such deserving members of the Public Service.
    MR. MACARTNEYalso trusted that the Government would do justice to the medical officers.
    MR. ERRINGTONsaid, that he would be willing to withdraw his Amendment, if an assurance were given by the Government. He thought that the assurance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would hardly satisfy the medical officers of the gaols.
    MR. GRAYmoved that Progress be reported. They had already been discussing the Estimates for eight hours and a-half, and he thought it was now time to adjourn. The Votes upon which they were engaged were of importance to the Irish people, and they ought not to be decided hastily.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Gray.)
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that as regarded the general question of the position of the surgeons of the gaols in Ireland, he might say that he was at that moment in communication with the Prisons Board on the subject. With regard to the proposal to report Progress, it was true that the Committee had been eight or nine hours in Supply; but he must remind hon. Members that they had only passed one single Vote. They were then at a period of the Session when it must be manifest to the Committee that the deliberations of the House would have to be protracted to a much longer period than usual if they made no greater progress than they had already done. He must, therefore, ask the assistance of the Committee in disposing of the work before them; for unless the work was done it would be utterly idle for the Government to attempt to carry on the affairs of the country.
    MR. SULLIVANthought that they had made considerable progress that night. They had already disposed of £1,000,000 on account of the Irish Constabulary. No one who know anything of Irish affairs could doubt that that Vote covered the whole government of Ireland. It might seem strange to English Gentlemen, unacquainted with the system in Ireland, that a Vote of that kind was so important a matter. But Irish Members had really been discussing practical topics connected with all kinds of subjects affecting the government of Ireland. The Committee had voted £1,000,000 that night, and he hoped

    941
    that the Government would see that it would be a reasonable thing now to report Progress. Hon. Members who had made no contributions to the debate, and had rendered no assistance to Public Business, except in the Smoke-Boom and Tea-Room, might not see the desirability of now reporting Progress. He cast no reproach upon such hon. Members; but he appealed to them to consider those who had been engaged in the work of the Committee.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, that the case of the prison surgeons was one in which he had taken considerable interest, and he quite agreed with all that had been said as to their position and character. He also agreed, to a great extent, with the claims put forward on their behalf. A great many of their grievances, however, were in a fair way of redress. Tomorrow, a deputation would wait upon the Chief Secretary, in order to discuss those grievances, and the Chief Secretary had told them that he was in communication with the Prisons Board on the subject. If the answer of the Chief Secretary to the complaints of the medical officers was unsatisfactory, then he should be inclined to support his hon. Friend in again urging the claims of this useful body of public servants; if the result was unsatisfactory, he would support not only his hon. Friend, but anyone else who might take up their case. He should not, however, advise his hon. Friend, and those who advocated the case of the prison surgeons, to allow their case to be mixed up with the Motion for reporting Progress that evening. Nothing could more damage the case of the prison surgeons than to allow it to be mixed up in that Motion. They had been eight hours and a-half—he must say, deliberately—wasting the public time. Nothing could be more unfortunate, in the interest of those for whom he was sure his hon. Friend intended to do his best, than in any way to mix up their case in attempt to delay the progress of Public Business. He had not been in the House all the evening, although he had been there a considerable time; but he had only heard the same arguments repeated over and over again, in a manner the only object of which could be to waste public time.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, that they had been reproached again that evening by
    942
    an Irish Member. He would not have paid much attention to English Members; but he must draw attention to the fact that the Government had put forward a University Member, who did not represent the views of Ireland. The Universities did not represent the life of Ireland, nor did they represent Irishmen, or Irish opinion. Yet the Government had put forward to reproach them a Gentleman like the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University.
    MR. GRAYsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University had reproached them with obstructing the Business of the House. He remembered that for a considerable period of the evening there was not a single Member sitting on the Benches where the hon. and learned Gentleman now sat. He had had no intention of pressing the Motion to report Progress, if the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not acceded to it; but after the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University he should persevere in the Motion. It now remained for the Members of Her Majesty's Government who had been present during the discussion either to adopt or repudiate the charge which had been made against Irish Members.
    MR. VERNERhad understood the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University to say that he deprecated the case of the doctors being mixed up with, and prejudiced by, any question of reporting Progress. He would join with his hon. and learned Friend in saying that it would be a very great mistake, and very damaging to the case brought before them, to allow it in any way to be mixed up in the proceedings for delaying the Business of the Committee. The hon. and learned Member had condemned the excessive amount of talk and waste of time throughout the Sitting, and it had been said that these remarks came from a Member who did not represent any section of the Irish people. It could not, however, be said that he (Mr. Verner) did not represent any section; and he begged, as an Irish Member representing an important constituency, to express his concurrence in the observations which had been made, for he had been present during nearly the whole evening, and at one part of it when the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) himself was not present.
    MR. SULLIVANunderstood the hon. Member for County Armagh, who had just sat down, to join in the accusation that had been made against them of wasting public time. He might point out to the hon. Member that he was the only Member of the Committee who had been called to Order that evening. Therefore, according to the ruling of the Chair, he was the only Member who had wasted public time. He granted that he had been rivalled by the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk); but they were the only two Members who had taken up public time by wandering from the subject before the Committee. During the evening the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University had not made a single useful contribution to the discussion. Perhaps that was because the constituency he represented took an infinitesimal interest in the subjects under debate. He would point out that hon. Members who had been all the night in the House had taken great interest in the various points raised by the Vote for the Constabulary.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out to the hon. and learned Member that he would not be in Order, upon a Motion to report Progress, in reverting to the discussion of the preceding Vote.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University had referred to the discussions which had taken place, and he could not see how he could be out of Order if the hon. and learned Member had not been out of Order.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he would point out the distinction between the two cases. If one hon. Member said that, in the course of Business, time had been wasted, that observation did not exceed the limits of discussion; but for another hon. Member to propose to resume the discussion that had been already disposed of by the Committee was out of Order.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, that he complained of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University charging them with delaying the conduct of Public Business, for what they had done had been under the deepest sense of duty to their constituents. In his opinion, every hon. Member from Ireland who had taken part in the discussion had some substantial case behind him in the mat-
    944
    ter which he had brought forward. It seemed to him that the discussion had been eminently practical, and perfectly germane to the Vote under discussion.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought that if they wished to be practical they had better come to some decision as to the course they should take. The time of the Committee had been occupied for a long time that evening, and they had only passed one Vote, while they had, to a considerable extent, discussed a second. If the second Vote required more discussion, he was sure the Committee would be willing to make exertions to continue it and pass it. The Government would not attempt to press for any more Votes if the one before the Committee were passed. He thought, considering the time of the Session, and considering the amount of Business before them, that they should at least pass the second Vote. It would be well not to waste further time in deciding upon what they should do.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that there had been one satisfactory result of the discussion they had had that evening. The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) had given Notice of a Motion upon the question of the appointment to the Office of Chief Secretary of raw and inexperienced politicians. He thought that that evening they had received every courtesy and every attention that could be paid them by the right hon. Gentleman who now held the Office of Chief Secretary. His conduct had been a marked contrast to the ex-placeman and eager partizan who formerly occupied the Office of Chief Secretary.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERthought that the Business of the Committee should not be measured by length, and that it was not a fair criterion of what they had done to say that they had only passed one Vote. The Vote they had passed had been of a considerable amount, and was of most vital interest to the people of Ireland. He did not think that a single moment of time had been wasted. If there was to be no further discussion, he trusted that the hon. Member for Tipperary would take a Division upon his Motion.
    MR. ERRINGTONwished to say that he did not see any reason why the question which he had raised should be mixed up with that of the adjournment

    945
    of the Committee. He only wished to obtain an assurance from the Chief Secretary that the claims of the medical officers of the prisons in Ireland should be attended to. A deputation would wait upon the Chief Secretary to-morrow; and he thought it would be in the interests of the medical men themselves that he should ask permission of the Committee to withdraw his Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member could not withdraw his Motion, until the Motion to report Progress had been disposed of.
    MR. GRAYsaid, he intended to take a Division upon his Motion, as a most unjustifiable charge had been made by an hon. and learned Member upon the Government side of the House, and the Government, by their silence, had endorsed it.
    MR. MELDON, having taken part in the proceedings of the Committee that evening, supposed that he was one of those charged with wasting time. He was not in the habit of wasting time, and he was deeply pained by hearing the observations made by his hon. and learned Friend. He could say that, during the whole of his Parliamentary experience, he had never heard a more interesting discussion than that which had taken place that evening. If he were allowed to refer to the proceedings of the Committee, he thought he could show that no time had been wasted.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that the Irish Members who had taken part in the discussion that evening represented the great majority of the people of Ireland. It was not the fault of the Irish Members that their small numbers were voted down; but he would point out that there was one infallible method of shortening the discussion. If the Government were to redress the grievances of the people of Ireland, as they might do, then they would at once be doing an act of justice and facilitating Public Business.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYthought that there had been no intention to protract the discussion that evening; and he did not think that it could be shown that more time had been spent in discussing the Votes than was absolutely necessary. The Vote which they were now discussing was a very important one, and he did not think that it would be possible to get through it that even-
    946
    ing. It would be of no use to take Division after Division upon the question of reporting Progress.
    MR. BIGGARremarked, that they had only discussed one grievance upon the Vote now under consideration. When the subject of the prison surgeons had been finished there were several others to be gone into, and he did not see any chance of bring the matter to an end that evening.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERthought that they had arrived at an hour at which it would be reasonable to report Progress. He, for one, would exert to the utmost all the privileges which he possessed for preventing the discussion of questions of immense importance to Ireland at an hour when they would practically have to be discussed in camera.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 99: Majority 79.—(Div. List, No. 190.)
    MR. ERRINGTONbegged to withdraw his Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MAJOR O'GORMANmoved that the Chairman do now leave the Chair.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Major O' Gorman.)
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsupported very cordially the Motion that the Chairman do now leave the Chair. The longer time the matter was protracted the stronger would be the opposition to it. It was felt by those who had really taken part in Public Business that it was now time when their proceedings should come to an end.
    MR. GRAYsaid, that a charge of a most offensive character had been made against some hon. Members. They now invited Her Majesty's Government to say whether they supported that charge.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, that his observations were made without the slightest reference to anyone else, and the opinion which he expressed was entirely his own.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University had certainly expressed his views

    947
    without reference to the Government; but he did not understand his hon. and learned Friend to make any personal charge, but only to express his opinion that their proceedings had been somewhat unduly protracted. He confessed that his own opinion was that if all the Votes were discussed at the same length as they had discussed the first one, it would be quite impossible to get through them all before the end of the Session. They had 60 Votes altogether to get through in the Civil Estimates, in addition to those remaining over from the Army and Navy. He wished, therefore, to put it to the Committee that they should allow the Prisons Vote to be passed, it having been already discussed for over two hours. Several important Irish Votes remained to be discussed, and the time at the disposal of the House might, at that period of the Session, be counted by minutes. The Government would not be justified in holding out to the Committee that they could provide time for the discussion of these Votes unless some progress was made. He trusted that the Committee would dispose of the Vote now under consideration.
    MR. MELDONsaid, that the Prisons Vote was really an important one. He would suggest that one or two Votes of minor importance should be taken, and that the discussion of the Prisons Vote should be postponed.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYagreed with the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Kildare. He was satisfied that there was no foundation for the charge made against Irish Members of wasting time.
    MR. CALLANdid not think it became the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University, who had not been in the House a great part of the evening, to lecture Irish Members who had been there and had raised discussions on important subjects.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTreally thought that enough had been said with regard to the observations of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin University. Whether those observations were judicious or not he was not prepared to say; but some hon. Members were naturally somewhat aggrieved by them. The object of all hon. Members ought to be to get through the Business upon which they were engaged.
    948
    He did not profess to understand the prisons of Ireland, although hon. Members below the Gangway might do so. There were a great many other important subjects to be discussed, and it would leave very little time at their disposal if they were, at that period of the Session, to cease work at half-past 2 in the morning. He, therefore, hoped that they would pass another Vote that evening.
    MR. SULLIVANasked, whether they could not go on with the other Orders of the Day, instead of continuing the discussion upon the Estimates? If there was any one part of their proceedings as to which the Government should insure the fullest and freest discussion, it was upon the Votes for public money. Some of the observations which had been made were the more to be regretted, as two right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench—the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Attorney General for Ireland—had met them in the best temper and spirit, and had been ready to listen attentively to all that had been advanced. During the Session they received from their constituents various communications, in which the necessity was shown for calling the attention of Parliament to various matters. In place of putting down those subjects as Motions, he had hitherto reserved those matters for discussion upon the Estimates. Thus, in discussing the Votes, they had felt that they had been discussing a dozen questions, which otherwise would have occupied a whole evening. He might say that, speaking from his own knowledge and for several of his hon. Friends, the time of Parliament had been greatly economized in that manner.
    MR. O'DONNELLthought that the charges which had been made against the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University were really somewhat unfair, for he had only given utterance to the prejudices of his Party, as was evident by the manner in which his sentiments were cheered by his Colleagues. He would not discriminate the hon. and learned Member from his Party, for not only in that House, but outside of it, a Cabinet Minister could not open his mouth without uttering something unfavourable with reference to the Irish Party. Except in that point of view, he did not see any reason for animadverting

    949
    upon what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that the Government felt that, having devoted the whole evening to the discussion of Irish Estimates, some substantial progress ought to be made. If hon. Members thought that any special Votes could not receive attention at that time, there was no desire to force them on. All that the Government desired was to make some substantial progress; and if it was understood that the Committee was to be allowed to make substantial progress, then he would not press for a decision upon the Vote under discussion.
    MR. A. MOOREsuggested that there were other Votes which had been omitted, and which could be taken.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the Motion that he should leave the Chair must be withdrawn before any other Motion could be put.
    MR. BIGGARdid not think that the proposition of the hon. Member would meet with the acceptance of the whole Irish Party. He would suggest that they should then report Progress, and should get through the Votes another time.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, he would ask the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford (Major O'Gorman) to withdraw his Motion. He cordially agreed with the suggestion that they should make progress with other Votes.
    MR. A. MOOREremarked, that the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) seemed to think that he wished some important Votes to be brought on. That was not so.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERthought that it would simplify matters if they understood exactly what was the proposal of the Chief Secretary.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsuggested that they should take the remaining Votes in Class 3.
    MR. CALLANobjected to Vote 36 being taken.
    MR. GRAYasked what Votes the Government suggested should be taken?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he proposed to take the remaining Votes in Class 3—namely, Votes 35, 36, 37, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31, 32, and 33.
    MR. BIGGARsupposed that these Votes were not very important; but, still, it was necessary for them to look
    950
    over them and see whether there was anything in them to which they ought to object.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that an important discussion would arise upon the Vote with respect to the Law Charges for Criminal Prosecutions.
    MAJOR NOLANhoped that the Government would be met in a reasonable spirit. He thought that they had made a reasonable compromise with hon. Gentlemen, who thought that the Vote under discussion required further consideration.
    MR. SULLIVANagreed that the Vote for the Law Charges for the Criminal Prosecution of Prisoners would require considerable discussion. He did not think that it should be taken then.
    MR. CALLANobjected to Vote 25 being taken, as he considered that it would raise a discussion.
    THE CHAIRMANasked if the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford proposed to withdraw his Motion?
    MAJOR O'GORMAN: No, Sir; I certainly do not. I consider it a perfect monstrosity that we should go on with the discussion at this time. We are accused of obstruction; but I heard no charge of obstruction made when the noble Marquess, the head of the Whig Party, got up and wasted, in the most abominable obstruction, a whole day long, finishing up by being defeated by a majority of 106—which he richly deserved. No one found fault with him; but numbers of Members find fault with us Irishmen. We are not obstructing—we are doing the Business of the country by arguing every question that comes before us; but when we are asked to enter into a question at 3 o'clock in the morning, I think it is perfectly monstrous.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that it had been the wish of the Government to go on with the Vote; but there seemed to be a feeling amongst some hon. Members that the Vote under discussion ought to be postponed, and another taken. Then, the Government had offered to defer going on with that Vote, and to take others. A long discussion had now been going on as to the course they should adopt; and he thought that they ought to arrive at some decision. The Government were ready to postpone the Prisons Vote, provided they were allowed to go on

    951
    with the Votes which had been already alluded to under the head of Class 3. If hon. Members continued the present discussion, they would get to 5 o'clock before doing anything. If the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford would consent to withdraw his Motion, or allow them to divide upon it, he hoped that some Votes might be passed. The Government had already done what it could to meet the wishes of hon. Members by agreeing to postpone the Queen's Colleges and Queen's University Votes, which were intended to be taken. He thought they should be met in the same spirit.
    MR. GRAYhoped that the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford would agree to the suggestion which had been made.
    MAJOR O'GORMANsaid, that as it was the unanimous desire of the Committee he begged to withdraw his Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    (2.) £41,906, to complete the sum for Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Ireland.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he might mention that his attention had been drawn to the case of the Milltown School, in Belfast. He had received a Report with reference to the conduct of an Inspector, and the matter was under the consideration of the Government.
    MR. CALLANhad understood that the Chief Secretary had no objection to postpone Vote 36. A very important question arose upon it as to the conduct of one of the Inspectors connected with those schools. It was his intention to bring before the notice of the House some very grave charges of partizanship on the part of that person. The Inspector in question was a Liberal, and the correspondence which had been furnished showed that he had refused, for four years, to grant a certificate to Milltown School at Belfast.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought the statement he had made would meet the views of the hon. Member. The hon. Member had called his attention to the case of this school in Belfast, and he had told him that he was not at the moment able to make a satisfactory inquiry. He
    952
    had since considered the matter, and received a Report with regard to the conduct of the school Inspector. If the hon. Member wished to call attention to the Inspector's conduct, he could bring the matter forward.
    MR. A. MOOREwould press upon his hon. Friend not to press his opposition, since Her Majesty's Government had taken up the matter.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that, in deference to the manner in which the Chief Secretary had met them in the course of that evening, he begged to withdraw his opposition. He might say that he did it solely and simply to mark his appreciation of the manner in which they had been met by the Chief Secretary.
    Vote agreed to.
    (3.) £4,824, to complete the sum for Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, agreed to.
    (4.) £8,441, to complete the sum for the Land Judge's Offices, Ireland, agreed to.
    (5.) £14,444, to complete the sum for the Registry of Deeds (Ireland).
    MR. MELDONwished to call attention to a question which arose in connection with this Vote. Owing to the action of the Treasury, the efficiency of this particular public Office in Ireland had been considerably diminished. In 1873 two vacancies occurred in the Registry of Deeds, and the Registrar did everything necessary to fill them up; but the Treasury refused to make the appointments, because they said that some Committee was sitting which might make some change in the arrangements. Those appointments remained unfilled, and the thing went on until there were no less than eight vacancies in the Office. Those positions had been temporarily filled by the Treasury by the appointment of writers, who were unable to do the work, or supply the place, of the trained clerks who had formerly occupied the positions. About the beginning of the year the Treasury filled up two or three appointments; but the persons appointed, after having been in possession of their offices for a little while, had had their appointments cancelled by an order of the Treasury. By those means the efficiency of the

    953
    Office had been much endangered; and he should like to know whether the Treasury intended to fill up the vacancies that now existed?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, that a Royal Commission was at present considering the whole question with reference to this Office, and he had no doubt whatever that the fact of the delay in filling up the appointments was due to the subject having been under consideration. He might say that the Report of that Royal Commission would be very soon presented, and that some satisfactory arrangement would be made.
    MR. MELDONsaid, that if it were the intention of the Treasury to postpone its decision until the Report of the Royal Commission was received, and then to fill up the appointments, he thought the arrangement would be perfectly satisfactory.
    Vote agreed to.
    (6.) £2,070, to complete the sum for the Registry of Judgments, Ireland, agreed to.
    (7.) £56,245, to complete the sum for County Court Officers, &c, Ireland, agreed to.
    (8.) £103,017, to complete the sum for the Dublin Metropolitan Police.
    MR. GRAYsaid, that he had received some 50 or 60 letters complaining of the way in which fines were inflicted if convictions were not secured. He wished also to draw attention to the manner in which the Metropolitan police were treated in the matter of pensions. Up to a very recent period, if a member of the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force found himself dying, either by injuries received in the discharge of his duty, or otherwise, he was given great facilities by the authorities to commute his pension into a lump sum. Under ordinary circumstances, he might either make a commutation or receive a lump sum in lieu of pension. Members of the Police Force thus dying had been permitted to commute their pensions from a feeling that an indirect provision was thus made for their wives and families. In every case that occurred in which men were unable to complete the necessary papers, but had verbally agreed to commute their pensions, it was held to be
    954
    sufficient, and the commutation was granted to their wives and families. But within the last few months technical objections had been raised to defects in the papers, and the commutation had been refused. Many men had thus died under the impression that they were securing for their wives and families some provision; and it was the feeling of the Chief Commissioner that those cases were worthy of consideration. He himself had seen men in articula mortis agree to commute their pensions for the benefit of their widows, and that commutation had been recognized by the authorities. He would ask the Chief Secretary if he would do something by which the injustice inflicted upon members of the force, by taking technical objections to the commutations made in articula mortis, should be remedied?
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that the hon. Member had complained of fines being inflicted upon the Police Force for not obtaining convictions. That was a form of payment by results which he was not prepared to endorse. With regard to the subject of the commutation of pensions, be could give no answer at that time, but would look into it.
    MR. MELDONsaid, that with regard to the infliction of fines, he could inform the right hon. Gentleman that there was great dissatisfaction among the police. The fines that were inflicted were enormous; and he did not think that the members of the force were to blame in the matter. It was only on occasions like the discussion of the Votes that the complaints of the members of the Police Force could be brought forward.
    MR. WHITWELLobserved, that the Chief Secretary had said he would consider this matter; but, doubtless, the Treasury would have something to say to it. Where a constable commuted his pension it ought to be done before he died.
    Vote agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock;
    Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

  BANKRUPTCY LAW AMENDMENT BILL [Lords]— [BILL 114.]
  (Mr. Attorney General.)
  BANKRUPTCY LAW AMENDMENT BILL [Lords]— [BILL 114.]

    SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [16th July], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER): I wish to make one or two observations with reference to this Bill, and I hope that the House will now allow it to be read a second time. I then propose to move that it be committed pro formâ. I think that course will meet with the approval of the House, and I may say that I make the proposal in consequence of the recommendation of the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson). I have only this further remark to make—that the Government will be quite willing, next Session, to introduce into the House a Bill for the consideration of the Law of Bankruptcy—that has been suggested, and the Government are quite willing to do so. I have to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
    MR. WHITWELLthought there could be no doubt that the only plan for remedying the present defects of the law was to adopt the course suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    MR. DILLWYNcomplained that a Bill of an important character like the present had been left to that period of the Session. He only hoped that Her Majesty's Government would not attempt to force the amended Bill through the House at that late period of the Session, for it seemed to him that it would be very likely to give rise to considerable discussion.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed; considered in Committee, and reported; to be printed, as amended [Bill 254]; re-committed for Monday next.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Four o'clock in the morning.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Customs Buildings (146).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Army Discipline and Regulation (156).
Committee—Report—Public Loans Remission* [144].
Third Reading—Tramways Orders Confirmation* (135); Highway Accounts (Returns)* (143), and passed.
Royal Assent—Dispensaries (Ireland) [42 & 43 Vict. c. 25]; Parliamentary Burghs (Scotland) [42 & 43 Vict. c. 47]: Salmon Fishery Law Amendment (No. 2) [42 & 43 Vict. c. 26]; Convention (Ireland) Act Repeal [42 & 43 Vict. c. 28]; Public Health Act (1875) Amendment (Interments) [42 & 43 Vict. c.

817
31]; Sale of Food and Drugs Act (1875) Amendment [42 & 43 Vict. c. 30]; Marriages Confirmation (Her Majesty's Ships) [42 & 43 Vict. c. 29]; Local Government Provisional Order (Artisans and Labourers Dwellings) [42 & 43 Vict. c. clviii]; Gas and Water Provisional Orders Confirmation [42 & 43 Vict. c. clix]; Wormwood Scrubs Regulation [42 & 43 Vict. c. clx]; Cork Borough Quarter Sessions [42 & 43 Vict. e. clxi]; Inclosure Provisional Order (Whittington Common) [42 & 43 Vict. c. clxii].

SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR—LATEST TELEGRAMS.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT CARDWELLasked if the Government had received any fresh intelligence from South Africa?
VISCOUNT BURY, in reply, said, the following telegrams from Major General Hon. H. Clifford to the Secretary of State for the Colonies were received yeterday from St. Vincent:—
"PIETERMARITZBURG, July 3.
"General left here July 1, 7 a.m., for Durnford viâ Durban, at which place Chelmsford's despatch in answer to Wolseley's orders reached him. General arrived Port Durnford, July 2, but not yet able to land, surf too high. Euphrates, with drafts, arrived Durban to-day; was to have disembarked everything at Port Durnford, but Commodore cannot anchor. No direct news from Chelmsford since 29th June; information given had been anticipated by officers who arrived from his camp and gave news. Newdigate advancing on Ulundi; force of 500 whites, with surplus waggons, in laager, left about 10 miles from Ulundi; expected to be at Ulundi 1st July. Crealock still at Napoleon Hill; ground in front difficult; no roads; transport required; have sent up four sections mule transport, 48 wagons; native carrier corps being formed for transport of Crealock's Division 2,000 strong at first, if found to answer will be increased to 5,000.
"JULY 4, 8 a.m.
"Have not heard that Wolseley has landed at Port Durnford. Chelmsford's message to Wolseley of June 30 says, 'Five miles from Entanguin, 10 from Umvolosi River; King's messengers have just left with message from me that I must advance to position left bank of river; I do so to-morrow, but will stop hostilities pending negotiations if demands communicated are complied with by July 3; these demands are, that Indunas come with cattle and guns. I have consented to receive 1,000 captured rifles instead of regiment laying down its arms. As my supply will only permit of my remaining here until July 10, it is desirable I should inform you of conditions of peace to be demanded. White man with King states he has 20,000 men; King anxious to fight; Princes not. Where is Crealock's column? If Wolseley lands before 12 this day, which is last moment for telegraphing you by Olympus, you will be informed. English horses have arrived safe at Cape. Wolseley not able land Port
818
Durnford; returns in Shah to Durban to-day; proceeds by land to 1st Division immediately.
"NOON.
"No further news from Chelmsford has reached me; Wolseley not yet arrived at Durban from Port Durnford.
"2.35 p.m.
"No further news has reached me from Chelmsford, or of Wolseley having landed at Durban."

SLAVERY IN CUBA.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  LORD SELBORNE, who had given Notice to call attention to the question of slavery in Cuba, and to move for—
  "Copies of all despatches and papers containing any communications on that subject which have passed between Her Majesty's Government or Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid and the Spanish Government, and which have not already been laid before Parliament;"
  said: It may be in the recollection of those of your Lordships who take an interest in the subject of Slavery, that, on the 21st of March last, my noble Friend (Earl Granville) asked the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government were taking any steps with a view to obtain the fulfilment of the assurances which had been given by the Government of Spain as to the total abolition of Slavery in the Spanish Possessions? My noble Friend put no undue pressure upon the Government: he would have been content if he had only learned that something was really being done. But the noble Marquess, after referring to the change which had then lately taken place in the Spanish Ministry, said that it must be remembered that the matter was one entirely of internal regulation, and that, but for the promise which the Spanish Government had volunteered, we should have no right to mention the subject. That answer occasioned both disappointment and surprise—disappointment, because it was very different in its tone from a letter received less than a year before from the Foreign Office by the Anti-Slavery Society, in reply to a Memorial which it had presented; surprise, because it was impossible to reconcile it either with the tenour of the language held by the Predecessors of the present Secretary of State, or with the real facts on which the right of this country to remonstrate with Spain rested. I can only suppose that the noble Marquess had been too

  819
  much, occupied with the affairs of Turkey and other countries, which are still the strongholds of Slavery on the shores of the Mediterranean, to be able to refresh his memory as to what had previously occurred on this subject. That answer makes it necessary for me to remind your Lordships, that the promises of Spain were not volunteered in such a sense as to make them the sole foundation of our right to remonstrate. We have two Treaties with Spain relating to this question, the one entered into in 1817 and the other in 1835. By the Treaty of 1817, in consideration of a sum of £400,000 then paid by this country, Spain entered into a positive and absolute engagement totally to abolish the Slave Trade throughout her Dominions from the end of the year 1820. By the Treaty of 1835, that engagement was solemnly renewed; the Slave Trade was declared, so far as Spain was concerned, to be wholly abolished and illegal; and each of the contracting States then bound itself to cooperate with the other to suppress it, and Spain entered into a very explicit and positive engagement with us to give absolute freedom to all those negroes who might be taken out of vessels which were found carrying on the trade; to insure to those negroes good treatment in every way; and, likewise, to communicate information to us on the subject. In what manner were those engagements fulfilled? They did not, it is true, bind Spain to abolish within her Dominions the institution of Slavery: but they bound her not to add, by any means resulting from the Slave Trade, to the number of the unhappy beings who were already subject to it. It appears from the Returns made from time to time by the British Consul General and Commissioners in Cuba, and laid before Parliament, that in the 20 years between 1822 and 1842, no fewer than 200,621 slaves were introduced into Cuba by ships sailing from, and returning to, Spanish ports. I have not been able to ascertain the exact numbers for the next 16 years; but, during that interval, instead of the trade diminishing, it largely increased, and in the five years from 1858 to 1862, no fewer than 100,560 were likewise imported into Cuba, against the stipulations of the Treaties. The total number imported during the 42 years from
  820
  1820 to 1863 could not have been under 500,000. On the 8th of June, 1860, Lord John Russell, speaking in the House of Commons, said—
  "I believe from 30,000 to 40,000 slaves are annually brought into that Island from Africa, and it is perfectly true that this trade is carried on in contempt and violation of Treaties between this country and Spain."—[3 Hansard, clix. 205.]
  In a despatch of September 30th, 1860, Consul General Crawford estimated that the total number of slaves in Cuba was then 400,000, the excess of deaths over births being 8 per cent per annum. Those figures substantially justify his conclusion, in a despatch of March 23rd, 1876, that every able-bodied African then in Cuba under 55 years of age must have been imported clandestinely, and was legally entitled to his freedom at once. Every, or almost every, able-bodied negro in Cuba under 55 years of age was, in 1876, a living monument of the breaches of Treaty committed by Spain, and we had a clear Treaty right to remonstrate against the retention in Slavery of nearly the whole slave population of Cuba at that time. With regard to the negroes who had been intercepted by the Spanish cruisers in slave-trading vessels, called, in the language of the country, Emancipados, and whom the Spanish Government was bound by the Treaty of 1835 to restore to perfect freedom, as well as to insure them the best possible treatment, Consul General Crawford, in his Report of August 28th, 1863, said—
  "The Emancipado is the most wretched of human beings, for he is neither more nor less than a Government slave; and he is condemned to drag out a life of hopeless misery, being constantly re-assigned from one master to another at the caprice of the authorities, and being subjected to all the hardest labour and discipline of the slave without any adequate remuneration, and without even the privilege which is accorded to the slave of purchasing his own freedom. The treatment which these poor creatures receive at the hands of their masters is, generally speaking, of the very worst kind. They are cheated out of their wages, and are subjected to every species of punishment. They are sold, or rather they are transferred from one master to another, for a consideration generally amounting to from 170 dollars to 204 dollars; and terrible abuses are committed with the friendless Emancipado, such as reporting him dead, whereas he has been substituted for a defunct slave."
  Thus, both with respect to the continuance of the Slave Trade, and to the treatment of those who were ostensibly rescued from slavery, the Spanish Go-

  821
  vernment, for a long course of years, systematically disregarded its direct Treaty engagements. A Convention for better securing the performance of the Treaties was proposed by this country in 1840, and another in 1850; but both were rejected by Spain. These things did not take place without continual remonstrances by the Predecessors in Office of the noble Marquess, who certainly did not take the view that the subject was one which, except by some voluntary concession of the Spanish Government, we were not entitled to mention to them. I will mention a few of the instances which are scattered over the Slave Trade Papers of many years. In 1841, Lord Palmerston urged, the Spanish Government
  "To take steps for restoring to freedom all those negroes who have been introduced into Cuba as slaves in violation of the laws of Spain, and who, therefore, not being the legal property of any man, are ipso facto free by the law of the country itself."
  In June, 1870, Lord Clarendon sent to Mr. Layard, for communication to the Spanish Government, a Memorial which he had received from the Anti-Slavery Society, with his answer, in which he stated that—
  "It was impossible not to acknowledge that the slaves introduced into Cuba, in violation both of the Spanish laws and of the international obligations of Spain towards this country, were properly entitled to their freedom."
  And Mr. Layard was then instructed to express a hope that the question would be dealt with in a "complete and satisfactory manner." It was in that year that those promises were made to this country by Spain, which the noble Marquess opposite in March last declared to have been volunteered. While those promises were still recent, the language of my noble Friend behind me, who asked the Question in March last, was very explicit as to the right of this country, founded upon Treaty engagements to be heard upon the subject. In 1871, Mr. Layard wrote that Senor Martos had admitted to him that
  "pledges had been given to Her Majesty's Government;" to which he had replied, that—
  "Her Majesty's Government, after the assurances given them, would have just grounds for remonstrance if something were not done to prove the intention of the Spanish Government to carry out those measures for the eventual
  822
  total abolition of Slavery, which they had publicly pledged themselves, not only to Spain, but to Europe and the United States, to adopt."
  On the 24th of November, 1871, my noble Friend wrote to Mr. Layard—
  "Her Majesty's Government do not feel justified in maintaining any longer the silence and reserve which they have hitherto observed upon a question in which they have a Treaty right to interfere;"
  referring, at that time, more especially to the case of the Emancipados. In December of the same year, he told the Spanish Ambassador that—
  "With us it was not a question of merely making a representation on a matter which we had at heart, but was one, also, of insisting on the execution of positive Treaty engagements."
  If the noble Marquess opposite had remembered the terms of those communications, when he answered the Question addressed to him on the 21st of March last, he would hardly have replied that it was a matter entirely of internal regulation, and that but for the promises volunteered we should have no right to mention the subject. I wish the House now to consider what has been done, to make reparation for the long-continued breach of Treaty engagements in this matter, and also what steps have been taken to fulfil those promises, which were really not volunteered, but resulted from a frank recognition by the Spanish Government of our right to be heard upon this subject. The facts are these. The Slave Trade went on constantly increasing till about 1862, but afterwards diminished; and within a few years of that time, before the commencement of the Cuban insurrection in 1869, it had come entirely to an end. That, no doubt, was a great gain; but those who had, down to that time, been illegally reduced into servitude, were still deprived of their freedom. During the insurrection, the insurgents proclaimed the total and immediate abolition of Slavery wherever their power extended, and the question became complicated with the difficulties arising out of that insurrection. In 1870 a declaration was made in the Cortes that the Spanish Government had at last determined to put an end to Slavery. General Prim requested the British Minister at Madrid to communicate that declaration to Her Majesty's Government, with an assurance of their sincere intention to carry it into effect. In the same summer a law was

  823
  proposed by Senor Moret, and passed the Cortes, upon the subject; but it was very far from carrying out the declaration; it only provided for the liberation of slave children born subsequent to the promulgation of the law after they should have undergone a period of forced service, absolutely undistinguishable from slavery, till they were 18 years of age, and very little better till they were 22; and for the emancipation of slaves above 60 years of age. It also declared that the Emancipados should be put into full possession of the rights of freemen; but it left the execution of that provision to local boards. Mr. Layard was, however, requested to communicate assurances that this measure would be followed by others providing for the complete abolition of Slavery. Six years afterwards, Mr. Consul Crawford said that the practical working of that Act would be
  "To maintain slavery, not for 22 years, as some persons suppose, but for an indefinite period. In fact," he continued, "it is the Emancipado system revived on a sweeping scale. The traffic in Emancipados still continues."
  Now, so far as Cuba is concerned, this is the last step that has been taken. Nothing has been done for Cuba in the nine years since the passing of that most imperfect law. A debate occurred upon the subject in the House of Commons in 1872, and an Address to the Crown was proposed; but as the answer given by the Government of that day justified the expectation that they would lose no favourable opportunity of moving in the matter, a Division was not then taken. Since that time, I am happy to say, one step has been taken by Spain in the right direction, though not in Cuba. The slaves in Porto Rico were emancipated in March, 1873. I mention this with great satisfaction, as it shows that there are statesmen in Spain who are perfectly sincere in their desire to fulfil the promises which have been made. I have every reason to believe that this great step has been successful, and is found to have inflicted no practical injury upon the Colony. The obstacles which existed in Cuba during the time of the insurrection have been removed long enough to entitle us to ask that no more time should be lost in the complete accomplishment, there also, of
  824
  this great object. It is now considerably more than a year since the insurrection has been suppressed, and nine years since the original assurances were given by General Prim and Senor Moret. I can assure your Lordships that it is from no want of friendly feeling towards Spain that I now bring this question forward; on the contrary, I am fully convinced that those who desire to persuade Her Majesty's Government to bestir themselves in this matter are among the best friends of Spain. There is not one of your Lordships, I am sure, who does not desire that we should be on the best terms with Spain, who has not felt sympathy with her in the manifold troubles and difficulties through which she has passed, who does not rejoice in the happier prospects which seem to be now before her, or who would not be inclined to condone the great forbearance which the British Government has manifested. I have a right to call it forbearance; remembering, as all your Lordships must remember, the very different course taken by this country with Brazil, a nation bound to us, on the subject of Slavery, by obligations not more stringent than those of Spain—remembering, also, what the result of the course so taken with Brazil has been. I cannot, however, and I do not, regret that our attitude towards Spain has been uniformly friendly, forbearing, and considerate. But for the sake of Spain herself, and for the credit of this country, there ought to be some limit to inactivity and silence. The influence of the British Government is very great; it cannot be used in a better cause. Cuba is now in a state of comparative tranquillity; but it is impossible to expect that the present state of things in that Island can long continue undisturbed, if the promises so solemnly given for the complete restoration of its coloured population to that freedom which is really their right should very much longer remain unfulfilled. The true interest of Spain, in Cuba itself, requires the fulfilment of those promises. And not her interest only, but her honour. It is surely for the honour of Spain not to be the last nation to fulfil the great work of emancipation. One by one other countries have put down, first the Slave Trade, and then Slavery—first England, then the United States, then Portugal. Spain is the only civilized nation now

  825
  left in Europe—for Turkey is essentially an Oriental Power—which has not wiped off from her escutcheon that foul stain. It is now for her, I trust at a time not far distant, to put the finishing stroke to this great work, and to crown, by the emancipation of the negro population in Cuba, this great series of the triumphs of liberty.
  Moved, That there be laid before the House—
  "Copies of all despatches and papers containing any communications on that subject which have passed between Her Majesty's Government or Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid and the Spanish Government, and which have not already been laid before Parliament."—(The Lord Selborne.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, with respect to the Question of my noble and learned Friend, I do not think there will be any difficulty in laying on the Table the despatches which have passed since the last Papers were presented; and when my noble and learned Friend sees them he will be able to form a more competent judgment than at present as to the position of Her Majesty's Government in regard to this subject. In the course of his speech my noble and learned Friend referred to the action taken by Her Majesty's Government in the case of Brazil. That reference appears to be singularly opportune; because it reminds your Lordships that in dealing with engagements, whatever their character, whatever binding force you may attribute to them, which concern the internal government of a country, it is always necessary to ask yourselves which of two lines of conduct you contemplate pursuing. It is, perhaps, an inconvenience, resulting from our national habit of discussing foreign affairs in the open forum of debate that in regard to questions which we ask ourselves we also inform foreign nations of the answers. But, nevertheless, we shall never come to a clear idea of our policy on such a question as this, unless we draw in our own minds the distinction between those matters which we can push to the ultima ratio, and those other questions where we should employ the moral influence of England, but not think of going beyond it. My noble and learned Friend will forgive me for saying that I do not think it is my business in this place to interpret
  826
  Treaties. Any interpretation which my noble and learned Friend may give from the Bench opposite he is at liberty to modify if he were to migrate to the Woolsack; but I can hardly repudiate the interpretation of a Treaty given by me in this place, and I might inadvertently make use of some inaccurate word or phrase, which did not express my real meaning, but which might be construed afterwards as binding Her Majesty's Government to a particular interpretation. Therefore, I shall avoid the snare which the noble and learned Lord seems to have laid for me, of speaking too confidently and distinctly of the precise character of the obligations which bind Spain to us in respect of this question of Slavery. Whatever their extent may be, it seems clear that it is by moral influence only that they can be enforced. I ask my noble and learned Friend to place himself in the position of a Spanish statesman before he determines the precise vigour and rapidity which the English Government should use in putting these obligations into action. There is no matter upon which all nations are so sensitive as any interference with their internal government; but if you may distinguish between nations, those which are ruled by popular Assemblies are infinitely more sensitive than those ruled by a despotic Power. There is no action of diplomacy that is so difficult as urging upon a nation governed by a popular Assembly, or in which a popular Assembly bears a large share of the government, any change in its internal laws. The slightest appearance of undue concession on the part of the Ministry of the country is at once seized upon by the Opposition as truckling to the foreigner. In Spain the Opposition has a characteristic which distinguishes it from Oppositions in other countries—they are singularly sensitive of the honour of their country. There is no charge likely to be more fatal to a Government—no charge against which it feels itself bound to provide with greater care—than that of submitting its internal legislation to the requirements, or even to the importunate advice, of any foreign critic or Ally. These considerations must be well borne in mind by anyone who forms an opinion on the action of the Spanish or of the British Government in pressing this matter upon them. I will venture to

  827
  read to your Lordships an extract from a speech of General Martinez Campos, about a month ago, in which he showed the precise attitude Spain is taking. He said—
  "The Government must see that the scales are equally weighted, must take into account the social problem, must declare at once that it never had the intention of immediately emancipating the slaves. The intention of the Government is to hasten the freedom of every slave; but it was never stated that immediate emancipation was to he declared, that all Cuban slaves were to be at once considered free from all control; for this is neither just nor feasible in the interest of the slaves themselves, for, in order to grant their liberty, some preparation, which does not exist, is necessary. Granting them their freedom is equal to casting them into the fields and into licentiousness. They are very numerous, and we would not go and lose the Island of Cuba by virtue of a decree."
  Take yourself back in history some 50 years, when Slavery was still in force by law in the English Colonies, and imagine that Trance had then shown some great interest in urging the emancipation of slaves upon the consideration of England—had pressed for the abolition of Slavery on all occasions, and had discussed the motives of England freely in debate—would it not have been the case that the Ministry of the day would have shown great doubt, difficulty, and hesitation in yielding to the demands of foreigners in that respect? And if the Ministry had shown any slackness, would not the Opposition have made it one of the capital charges against them that they had not been sufficiently careful of the national honour? Supposing, again, there was any institution of ours to which foreigners had a conscientious objection—capital punishment, for instance—and were to urge upon us the policy of remitting the penalty in each case—I do not place this quite on the same footing, because there is an absense of Treaty obligations—I am sure noble Lords opposite would be the first to denounce the dishonest and unpatriotic Ministry which modified its internal policy in compliance with the dictates of a foreign Government. I have made a statement with reference to the present intentions of the Spanish Government, and have pointed out that they maintain as strongly and distinctly as ever their intention ultimately to emancipate the slaves. I have shown that—according to their own statement at least—it is merely a question of time,
  828
  mode, conditions, and precautions; and I can only end by saying that Her Majesty's Government do not yield to my noble Friend in the least degree in their desire to get rid of Slavery. If we do not press the matter as rapidly and as vigorously as you desire, it is from the conscientious belief that we should retard, instead of accelerating, the object we have in view. If you once admit that an object of this kind is to be obtained by moral influence, you must, at the same time, admit that it can be obtained only by paying a careful and most respectful regard to the property, sentiments, and rational feelings of the persons whom you address on the subject. It is only by restraining our natural anxiety to get rid of one of the greatest evils that has ever cursed humanity, and our natural wish to add, if it might be in our time, one more achievement to the many which England has already won on this great field—it is only by restraining ourselves in this respect that we believe we shall bring the matter to a speedy issue, and enable the Spanish Ministry to persuade those whom they are obliged to convince to follow in what we sincerely believe to be their own high-minded and humane instincts upon this great question. I can assure my noble and learned Friend that the matter has engaged the careful attention of the Government; and that, so far as we are concerned, we shall lose no opportunity of exerting such influence as we possess towards attaining the object he has in view.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he entirely agreed with the noble Marquess that there were judicious and injudicious ways of pressing a subject of importance upon a foreign Government; but it was not right to say that because a country had representative institutions other countries were not to press for a fulfilment of Treaty engagements which that country had made. He repudiated such an idea altogether, so far as England was concerned. He was afraid that both in this country and in Spain the speech of the noble Marquess would not convey the impression of any great desire to abolish Slavery—he had, in fact, made a speech that sounded like a defence, not of our Treaty engagements, but of the Spanish Government. The noble Marquess asked what we should think if foreign Governments made representa-

  829
  tions to us with regard to capital punishment in this country? But the fallacy in that argument was that on the subject of capital punishment a foreign country would have no Treaty engagements with us. That appeared to him (Earl Granville) to make the whole difference in the matter. The noble Marquess deprecated remonstrances which might excite the feelings of the Spanish people; but the fact was that at this very moment there was a debate going on in the Spanish Chambers, in which the Opposition were pressing the Government to do exactly that which his noble and learned Friend beside him desired to see done. He accepted the assurances of the Foreign Secretary that Her Majesty's Government were in earnest in this matter; and he hoped that the Papers to be produced would show that the Members of the present Administration had done a little more than the speech of the noble Marquess indicated.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: My Lords, I feel convinced, from long experience now on this question of Slavery and on communications with foreign Powers, that it is not wise to rest too literally upon the terms of a Treaty; but rather that we must begin upon friendly and, comparatively speaking, private representations to foreign Courts. What my noble Friend has said is perfectly true—that there is in every State, and especially where there are free and representative institutions, a great deal of jealousy as to any interference with what are called "domestic institutions." The noble Earl who has just spoken has reminded your Lordships—and I believe there is not the slightest doubt as to the accuracy of his statement—that at this very time the Government of Spain are pressed by the Opposition in favour of the very view which both the Government of England and the noble and learned Lord are anxious to support; but would the Opposition in Spain have been pressing the Government of that country for a suppression of Slavery in Cuba if there had been that systematic pressure from a foreign Government on the Spanish Government? I venture to say that had we taken any extreme step upon the subject with the Government of Spain the Opposition at Madrid would not have advocated, as they do at present, the views which they now hold. I do not mean to say that they are advocating
  830
  them now with insincerity; but they must have felt that they were not appealing with success to their own Government if they were merely echoing and supporting the claims of any foreign Power on the same question. I feel that the course which the Government in this country have taken at all times—by the noble Lords now in Opposition, and by those sitting at present upon this Bench—has been almost identical on the particular matter before us. There has been, I think, perfect consistency in the conduct which this country has pursued for the suppression of Slavery. It has taken every opportunity of binding foreign Powers by Treaties; but it has never, in entering into those Treaties, contemplated that they were, as a matter of course, to be enforced in the particular manner to which the noble and learned Lord has referred if there were any apparent reluctance on the part of a foreign Power to fulfil its engagements. Her Majesty's Government have trusted as much as they can to moral influence, and they must continue to trust to moral influence in order to gain the desired end. At the same time they are always in favour, if an opportunity is given them, of binding by Treaties foreign Governments to the completion of an object which is not only dear to this country, but which, it must be satisfactory' to feel, is one that interests almost every civilized State.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL.—(No. 156.)
(The Viscount Cranbrook.)
ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL.—(No. 156.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that for a long time there had been a pretty general opinion that the old Mutiny Act, which was an accretion of various enactments since 1689, was a somewhat inefficient instrument for the government of the Army; and in recent years those who had charge of passing it through the other House of Parliament were well aware that many parts of it were difficult to defend, and ultimately it was agreed that the subject should be referred to a Committee, Our Army had

  831
  been governed by various Acts of Parliament, by Articles of War, by Royal Warrants, and by General Orders and Circulars issued from the Horse Guards. Under those various documents it was sometimes difficult to ascertain by what rule the Army should be governed, and more especially questions arose between the Articles of War and the Mutiny Act. A Commission in 1869 recommended that the Mutiny Act and the Articles of War should be carefully re-drawn; and when his noble Friend opposite (Viscount Cardwell) became Secretary of State—he believed as early as 1871 or 1872—he referred the question to the Judge Advocate General, Mr. Davison, a man very eminent in his Profession, highly qualified for the work, and whose untimely death was a great loss to the Public Service. Subsequently, the subject was carefully and repeatedly considered by the Parliamentary draftsmen and the authorities, including Mr. Ayrton, who, while Judge Advocate General, gave great attention to the subject with results which he was happy to have the occasion to acknowledge. When, therefore, he (Viscount Cranbrook) entered into Office he inherited a great amount of information which had been accumulated by his Predecessor. He was too much occupied during his first year or two of Office to pay much attention to the subject; but last year a Committee was appointed in the House of Commons, over which Sir William Harcourt presided. No one was better qualified than Sir William Harcourt to enter upon the question; and it was only right that he should, on the part of the Government, thank him for the pains he took in the Committee and for the support which he gave in the other House to the main portions of the Bill. He should come at once to the Bill, and in dealing with it he had to apologize for the shortness of the time their Lordships had for the consideration of it, and for the request which he had to make—a matter of still greater moment—that no Amendment should be made in the Bill—because, otherwise, the Bill could not be passed before the time at which it was necessary to obtain the Royal Assent. He felt sure that, however much their Lordships might wish to discuss the Bill, or to change some particular details in it, they would patriotically abstain on this occasion, in order that
  832
  the Army might be placed immediately under the government of an Act which was manifestly a great improvement on that law which had existed heretofore. The Bill was divided into five Parts. The first Part dealt with;
  "Discipline"—which included "Crimes and Punishment," "Arrest and Trial," and "Execution of Sentence." The Bill defined the persons who were subject to it—officers and soldiers, and—which was an important change, assimilating the operation of the law to the Indian Act—camp-followers and sutlers. In future, as in India, camp-followers and sutlers would be brought under military law. The next point was "Military Offences." Military offences were grouped in the order of their importance. There was a distinction made between offences committed on active service and offences committed in time of peace—because an offence which might be a simple one in time of peace might in time of war lead to the destruction of an Army or to the serious injury of a strategic movement. With regard to the punishments that might be inflicted under the Act, though there was a maximum punishment laid down for offences, it by no means followed as a necessary result that the maximum punishment would be inflicted. Power was now given to every kind of court martial to try every kind of offence, in order to prevent the system hitherto adopted in the Army of minimizing offences so that they might be tried by the lower courts martial. At the same time, care would be taken that none of the most serious offences should be tried by the lower courts martial. It was not necessary to take special notice of these punishments save one. He referred, of course, to corporal punishment, which had given rise to a good deal of discussion in the other House of Parliament. There had been an impression in the country—quite an erroneous one—that corporal punishment existed in the Army for all sorts of offences in time of peace. That was not the case. Corporal punishment existed in time of peace for offences on board ship—not on board Her Majesty's ships, because there soldiers came under naval discipline—and ceased to be under military discipline; for troops on board ships not belonging to Her Majesty there was a power given under the law, as it now existed, to inflict corporal punishment. By the present Bill

  833
  this power ceased to exist. Then, with respect to the amount of punishment to be inflicted in the Army, when the Bill, was first introduced it was limited to 50 lashes; but, by an Amendment which was made in the other House, 50 lashes was reduced to 25. For his own part, he did not think that the question of degree was the question of importance in this matter. The question of the necessity of punishment could be decided only by those who had the charge of exercising it; and until the country came to a more satisfactory state of things in the Army he believed, in the interest of the soldier himself, it was better that this sharp and decisive punishment should be inflicted at the moment and on the spot than that an attempt should be made to drag a number of prisoners, soldiers, or camp-followers in custody with the Army. The question was now brought to this point. The power to give corporal punishment was no longer vested in the provost marshal of his own will; but the provost marshal had power to take immediately into custody an offender and summon a regularly constituted court martial, composed of officers on the spot, who would order the infliction of the punishment which they might adjudge. That seemed to him a protection to the soldier and the camp-follower, and he hoped that it would not too much weaken the power of the provost marshal. The punishment of flogging was in future to be inflicted only for offences which rendered the man liable to sentence of death, and those offences were limited to the breach of the laws of the Army in the field on active service. Having begun with no corporal punishment in time of peace except on board ship, they had done away with it in that case, because on board ship they had the power of custody; but in the field in time of active service, the Bill still left the power in the hands of the courts martial that where the maximum punishment was death they would be able to inflict the lesser punishment of the lash. For his own part, he quite admitted that corporal punishment had an unpleasant and disagreeable sound when applied to adults; but when it came to a question of the bullet or the lash, how much better was it that, under strict regulation, and under the care which would now be exercised, the lash should be
  834
  used instead of putting a man to death for an offence which, perhaps, it was felt did not deserve that penalty? They had always a certain number of men of bad character in the Army, and the camp-followers were certainly not of the highest type, and it was essential that they should have the power of keeping such persons in order. In time of war, in the case of passing through a country where it was most necessary to respect the feelings of the population, the stealing of an egg from a hen's nest might be a most serious offence; and camp-followers or others who would take an egg would not stop there—they would more likely take anything they could lay their hands on if they had the opportunity. It was thus essential to the discipline of Armies that there should exist a power to inflict punishment upon offenders with the utmost promptitude. He had heard it suggested that persons offending should be handcuffed and taken on with the Army; but he would venture to suggest that no Army which carried with it an indefinite number of handcuffed soldiers and camp-followers could possibly perform those strategic movements which were from time to time necessary to success. Having looked carefully through the Bill, he was unable to admit that, as far as the punitive portions of it were concerned, there was much difference between it and the Mutiny Act, which it was intended to supersede; but such differences as there were between the two sets of provisions would not tend to the disadvantage of the soldier. Several of the provisions would be strongly in favour of the soldier—as, for instance, as regarded arrest, it was provided that the trial of a man must take place within eight days after his arrest, unless sufficient reasons were given for delaying it—the power of commanding officers to inflict imprisonment for absence without leave was extended to 21 days, but power of appeal was given to the soldier. Again, formerly, when a man was acquitted by court martial, the decision was not made known for some time; but, under this Bill, it was necessary at once to announce the acquittal and order the discharge from custody of a soldier who had been charged with offences against military law and declared not to have been guilty of the offences imputed to him. The only other remark which he

  835
  felt called upon to make, as far as this branch of the Bill was concerned, was that ample power of appeal was given, alike to officers and soldiers who thought they had been wrongfully accused of offence. The part of the Bill which related to "Enlistment" would make some slight alterations, principally in reference to the transference of men from the Army to the Reserve. The 3rd Part, which related to "Billeting and Impressment of Carriages," required no special notice. The 4th Part consisted of "General Provisions," in which he might refer to the clauses which related to Military Prisons. In dealing with military prisons, care would be taken that soldiers should not be associated with bad characters. That was really the whole Bill; and their Lordships would be surprised, as he had himself been, when he went through the Bill in connection with the old Mutiny Act, to find how slight were the changes effected, and yet, at the same time, upon how different and how firm a basis military discipline and military law generally were established. It would be a great advantage to have this measure, instead of being obliged to go every year through clause by clause of the Mutiny Act. Everything concerning the discipline of the Army was now brought into definite shape, and so clearly set forth, that every man must understand his duties and obligations. In passing this Bill hastily, which he asked their Lordships to do, he thought he might promise that their Lordships would find that, in making great haste, they had also made good speed.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, I may be permitted to say a few words in reference to this Bill, speaking entirely from a professional point of view, and without reference to any other observations which may be made from either side of the House. I wish to say, in the first place, that we—the military authorities—are in entire accordance with the views of Her Majesty's Government on the subject-matter of this Bill, and the mode in which it is dealt with. It is to be deplored that it should have been stated, as I have sometimes seen, that a difference of opinion exists between Her Majesty's Government and the military authorities with regard to certain points in this Bill. I can only say that I earnestly hope that the time
  836
  will never arrive at which the deliberately formed opinions of Her Majesty's Government on military questions, no matter to which Party in politics it may belong, will receive any other than full and due support from the military authorities in this country. There may be difference of opinion at first when important points are raised; but when they have been decided, the decisions are accepted by the military authorities with that loyalty and determination which they are bound to show, whatever Party may be in power. As regards the question of discipline, with which I am principally concerned, I agree with the noble Viscount who has moved the second reading that there is very little to be found in the present Bill different from the old Mutiny Act and the Articles of War, which the measure is intended to supersede. The principal difference is that the law is put down in such a shape that it will be much more simple and much more easily understood. All changes of this kind must take a little time to be appreciated by those who have to deal with them. This is a large and comprehensive measure; but I firmly believe that in the long run it will be a much more simple piece of legislation than the old Mutiny Act. As regards the maintenance of discipline, the Bill, I believe, contains provisions under which we shall be able to maintain discipline as thoroughly and as efficiently as it ought to be, and as it has been in the past. With regard to the question of corporal punishment, about which there has been so much discussion, I am fully persuaded that every officer in the Army would desire, if possible, to get rid of all severe and disgraceful punishments; but we are called upon to carry out the discipline of the Army, and the first consideration is, how is that discipline to be maintained? My conviction is—and I believe that it is the conviction of every officer in the Army—thatunless corporal punishment be retained in the Service it will be impossible to maintain discipline—unless the officers have power to deal with, cases as they arise, and unless an Army is kept in a state of discipline, it is a rabble and a mob—it is useless—it is worse than useless—it is dangerous. You must maintain discipline at all costs, and I do not believe that any outrage or injustice will arise under the provisions of this Act. It is said

  837
  that flogging is a disgraceful punishment. My Lords, all punishments are degrading—it is in the commission of the offence, and not in the nature of the punishment, that degradation consists. What you want to find in a punishment is that it should deter from crime. If the effect of this punishment is to deter men from committing crime, that is the best defence that can be offered for it. The alternative, as regards certain offences, lies between flogging and shooting, and surely flogging is much less severe than the punishment of death. Very serious offences may be committed while the Army is in the field. For instance, an outbreak of mutiny might occur in face of the enemy, or some serious crime of that sort might be committed which must be dealt with instantly and effectively. We are told that foreign Armies have a variety of other punishments. In some, it is said, men are tied up by their thumbs, while in others men are bound hand-and-foot to the wheel of a gun-carriage. I do not know whether such punishments are inflicted or not, but I have seen it stated that they are:—Would it be judicious or wise, however, for us to leave it to the discretion of an officer to resort to punishments of that kind? I am informed that these punishments are inflicted incidentally, as it were, by the officers in command of troops. In my opinion, it would not be at all justifiable for us to leave to an individual officer the responsibility of any punishment to which he might resort in difficult circumstances, because we have not the courage to put what we think right into law. It would be unjust to officers to place them in this false position, and Parliament would be acting with a great want of moral courage if it did not state that, in certain circumstances, corporal punishment may be inflicted. I sincerely hope the necessity for such punishment may never—or, certainly, very rarely—arise; but the effect of having the punishment on the Statute Book is the very thing which will deter men from committing crimes for which corporal punishment can be awarded. Although most anxious to have no punishments which are not justly meted out to men, I am prepared to say that, under existing circumstances, it is necessary and essential to maintain this punishment. With regard to the reduction in the number of lashes, it will, I believe,
  838
  be found that 25 lashes will produce as great a deterrent as 50; and, therefore, I think it is perfectly justifiable to accept this modification. My Lords, I consider that the condition of a soldier, under this new law, will be very much better than it was under the old. With regard to the subject of enlistment, the Bill makes an important change. Formerly, if a man took the shilling, he was from that moment considered to be a soldier, although he might have been in a state of drunkenness at the time; but under the proposed new law, the shilling test is done away with; if the man does not choose to appear before the magistrate, he may remain away; and he may, if he likes, claim his discharge within three months. This and other points in the Bill are of considerable importance. I am convinced that when the Army comes to understand this measure they will admit that they are in no respect in a worse condition, or under worse treatment, than they were under the old Mutiny Act and Articles of War, and that the officers will be able to maintain the discipline of the Army, which is, after all, the first object we have at heart, and the necessity for which I am bound to press moat earnestly on the attention of your Lordships.
  VISCOUNT CARD WELLsaid, he should give the Bill his most sincere and hearty support. His noble Friend the Secretary of State had introduced it in terms which left him nothing whatever to complain of, and the illustrious Duke had also made a most satisfactory statement. The provisions of the Bill would, he believed, effect a very great change for the better in the law relating to military service. Ten years ago a Royal Commission, over which his noble Friend opposite (Lord Winmarleigh) presided, made its Report to the Queen, and the first and chief of its recommendations was that the Mutiny Act and the Articles of War should be carefully re-drawn. In 1871, he (Viscount Cardwell) had the assistance of Mr. Davison, one of the most able men who ever filled the Office of Judge Advocate General. He had expectations that in a very short time—probably in 1872—Mr. Davison would nave been able to present to the House of Commons the result of his labours; but, unfortunately, that gentleman's career was cut short by an untimely death. Afterwards came the time when he had

  839
  the assistance of his right hon. Friend Mr. Ayrton—and he might here remark that he was glad to hear his noble Friend opposite speak in such well-merited terms of Mr. Ayrton's services. He might say that there was no Judge Advocate General of modern times who had earned to a greater extent the confidence and approval of the illustrious Duke, and of the military men by whom he was surrounded, than Mr. Ayrton did when he held that Office. At the beginning of 1874 he confidently expected to see Mr. Ayrton lay his Bill on the Table of the House of Commons; but their Lordships knew very well what happened in that year. It had, therefore, fallen to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the present Secretary of State for War to introduce this Bill, which had been sent up to their Lordships on the responsibility of the Crown with the concurrence of the other House of Parliament. With regard to the vexed question of corporal punishment, he might say that he was very much struck on referring to what passed in 1867, when an important step was taken in mitigation of that kind of punishment in the Army. No less sagacious a person than the late General Peel was recorded to have said that if they reduced corporal punishment in time of peace to the dimensions then spoken of, or something to that effect, they would never be able to recur to it in time of war. What he wished to found upon that remark was this—that they did not know what they would be able to do in the way of reducing that punishment if they proceeded tentatively, and so as always to have the results of experience to fall back upon. They might be able to do, in the course of years, things which they now hardly expected to be able to do at all. They had, during the 12 years which had elapsed since General Peel's prediction, gone on improving the condition of the soldier; and, according to the testimony of the Inspector General of Recruiting, the popularity of the Army was rapidly increasing, and there was a much greater disposition to enlist than formerly existed. If they went on perpetually improving the position of the Army in the manner done by the present Bill, and by other ways, they would still further encourage that disposition. He rejoiced that the first step had been taken in ful-
  840
  filling the recommendations of his noble Friend's Commission; and they might depend upon it that this measure was a very great step towards the simplification of the law and putting it in a form which would reach the comprehension of the soldier. If they went on for the next 12 years, or for a shorter time than that, in their course of continually ameliorating the condition of the soldier, he did not at all despair of their arriving at the point at which they might go even beyond the limit contemplated by this Bill in doing away with corporal punishment. They might have the opportunity, in the next few years, of considering whether any amendment in this measure would be necessary, and he was sure its practical working would be carefully examined by those who were responsible for the administration of the Army.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he had no intention of disturbing the harmony with which the Bill had been received by their Lordships. The former Mutiny Act provided sufficiently for the government of the Army, it protected the rights of officers and of soldiers, and of the public; however, if Parliament insisted upon a Bill more symmetrical in arrangement, and more precise in language, he should make no objection; but he rose to express his hope that the Bill, or some other measure which might hereafter be introduced, might have the effect of inducing a superior class of recruits to enlist. He was afraid that that point had not yet been reached. Although he was aware that no Amendments in the present measure could be carried, there were one or two points in it which it was especially desirable should be amended in a future year. The 72nd clause unduly limited the power of the provost marshal. Anyone who had seen the legion of devils who followed an Army would know that a more summary power of dealing with them was necessary than that provided in the Bill. He also thought that the Secretary of State would require greater powers than he now possessed for utilizing the services of the Reserve.
  LORD TRUROheld it to be a mistake to suppose that men of the respectability which was desired in the British Army were for one moment deterred from enlisting by the fear of being flogged.

  841
  That punishment was feared only by men of the most unfortunate habits and who were looked upon as belonging to the lowest class of our population. He had heard of the case of a soldier in a very distinguished regiment who had been five or six times flogged, and it made no impression whatever on the man, who was now a Scripture reader at Liverpool. Corporal punishment, under the safeguards interposed by this Bill ought, he thought, to be maintained.
  EARL GRANVILLEconcurred in regretting that circumstances made it impossible for their Lordships to discuss the details of this very important measure. He could not, however, say that he regretted that fact on his own account; because he remembered the rule once laid down by a noble Lord—that one should only speak in that House on subjects on which he not only knew something, but on which he was known to know something. He was afraid, therefore, that any remarks which he might have made on the details of the Bill, which had been handled professionally by the illustrious Duke on the Cross Benches, would have had no weight whatever. But, on the other hand, he protested against this measure being considered as necessarily perfect on some of the subjects which had been in controversy. The illustrious Duke had said the Bill contained everything which he thought essential for the discipline of the Army. But the Government had introduced the Bill, after a great deal of consideration, in a certain form with regard to flogging; and all knew that in "another place," under considerable pressure, they had made three distinct concessions in that matter. Either, therefore, they had not considered the subject in time, or the concessions they had now made were against their judgment. This being so, he begged, to say that, as far as he was concerned, he could not accept the present limitations as being necessarily perfect of their kind.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that the Government might quote from Horace—
  " Adsit
  Regula peccatis quœ pœnas inroget æquas
  Nee sentica dignum horribili sectere flagello."
  And the measure was one which could be altered next Session. He hoped that
  842
  it would pass without alteration immediately.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.