Sitting of 20 June 1879

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [June 19] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Resolution [June 19] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Consolidated Fund (No. 4)*.
Select Committee — Report — Tramways Orders Confirmation [No. 241].
Committee—Army Discipline and Regulation [88]—R.P.
Considered as amended—Sale of Food and Drugs Act (1875) Amendment* [139]; Common Law Procedure and Judicature Acts Amendment* [181], debate adjourned.
Third Reading—Marriages Confirmation (Her Majesty's Ships)* [149], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

QUESTIONS.
  ARMY—THE AUXILIARY FORCES—THE GLOUCESTERSHIRE MILITIA.

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. J. E. YORKEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether orders have been given for the removal of the Royal North Gloucester Regiment of Militia from Cirencester to Horfield; whether his attention has been called to the unsuitable character of Horfield as a place for the training and accommodation of troops, when compared with that of Cirencester, where they now enjoy exceptional advantages; and, whether he is willing to cause further inquiry to be made into the respective advantages of the two places as head quarters, and will direct that the issue of orders for the removal of the regiment should in the meantime be suspended?
    MR. H. SAMUELSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, considering that the clay field in which the Royal South Gloucester Militia were encamped in May last at Horfield is ill suited for the combined purposes of a camp and drill ground, it is intended to accommodate the regiment next training with quarters in the barracks or to provide it with a more healthy and suitable camping ground?
    COLONEL STANLEY, in reply, said, that new training-places for the

    307
    Gloucestershire Militia had been selected in pursuance of the localization scheme adopted some seven years ago, and it would not be easy to make a change without very considerable inquiry. The encamping ground at Horfield was not in a very good state; but it was intended to drain it and make it more healthy. He could not promise that this improvement should be carried out at once; but if his official duties would permit him to do so, he should shortly take the opportunity of going to see the ground for himself.
    MR. J. E. YORKEgave Notice that he should call attention to the subject on going into Committee of Supply.

    EGYPT—ABDICATION OF THE KHEDIVE.—QUESTIONS.
    MR. OTWAY: I have placed a Question upon the Paper in reference to Egypt to the following effect:—
    " To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Her Majesty's Government have received any information confirming the report that the French Consul General had waited on the Khedive to announce the intention of Franco to demand his abdication; and, whether such step, if taken, was taken with the concurrence of Her Majesty's Government; "
    and, with the permission of the House, I wish to make an extension of it. In the first place, I do not propose, as represented in the Question, to put it to the Foreign Secretary, but to his Representative in this House—my hon. Friend the Under Secretary, to whom I have given private Notice of my intention. In doing so, I shall endeavour to confine myself strictly to the Rules of the House, for the extension I wish to make expresses no opinion, contains no argument, and states only facts. Intelligence has recently been received in this country of a very startling character. This intelligence has been given both in the English and in the French papers, and it varies somewhat in the accounts which are given. But suffice it generally to say that a statement in the English papers has been made to this effect—that the French Consul General in Egypt has waited in uniform upon the semi - independent Sovereign of that country and demanded his deposition, or, as it is afterwards qualified by another account, has demanded his abdication in favour of his son, Prince Tewfik, promising him, at the same
    308
    time, a Civil List, should he accede to the French demand. Now, I should say that another telegram states that the Sultan of Turkey has expressed his approbation of this step, and his opinion that Prince Halim, now resident in Paris, should succeed in the room of the present Khedive. The Questions I desire to ask my hon. Friend in consequence of this intelligence are—Firstly, has this step been taken at all by the official Representative of France in Egypt; and, if so, has it been taken with the cognizance and concurrence of the Representative of England in that country? Has the approbation and concurrence of the Sultan been obtained towards this step; and, are the views of the other Powers of Europe, who are connected with us in the present engagements with regard to Egypt—are those Powers of Europe also cognizant, and do they concur with the step? Then, Sir, has any promise whatever been made that, in the event of the Khedive abdicating and Prince Tewfik succeeding, the Civil List in its present extent, or, if not, to what extent, would be accorded to the present Khedive; and has Her Majesty's Government given its assent generally to these proceedings, if I have correctly stated them, and, especially, to this promise of a Civil List to be accorded to the Khedive in case of his abdication in favour of Prince Tewfik?
    MR. BOURKE: I do not think any person can be surprised that my hon. Friend (Mr. Otway) is anxious to obtain official information of an authentic character with respect to the subjects he has just mentioned to the House, and which have been the subject of many statements in various newspapers within the last few days. But I have already informed the House that negotiations on all those very important subjects which he has mentioned are in progress between the Powers, and therefore it is impossible for me—or I would rather say that negotiations with respect to Egypt are in progress between the Powers—and therefore it is impossible for me, following the precedents of a similar character, and also acting in accordance with the public interests, to make any statement in regard to the inquiries which have been made.
    MR. CHILDERS: I hope I may be allowed to follow up the Question of my

    309
    hon. Friend by an appeal to the Government on the points which have been raised, and by asking a further Question. [Cries of " Move !"] I am always reluctant to take that step; but if it is necessary, I will do so. For the present, however, I will not take the course of moving the adjournment of the House, and will confine my remarks to the Question I intend to ask. The Question I wish to ask is this—Whether, under the circumstances of our not having had any Papers on the affairs of Egypt during the last six months, when a Question is asked, not as to negotiations, but as to public acts going on in a country our relations with which are of so important a character as our relations with Egypt, that when my hon. Friend asks a plain question of fact—namely, whether the Consul General of France has made certain official communications to the Khedive of Egypt, we are to be put off with the answer that negotiations are going on, and that until those negotiations are completed the Government cannot make any statement? That may be a perfectly good rule generally, as regards anything tending to affect those negotiations; but I humbly submit to the House that it is not an answer to a plain question of fact, and I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will not give a more full answer?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I regret very much that we do not feel ourselves at the present moment in a position to make a full and complete statement to the House in regard to what has passed in reference to this matter. I feel, and the Government feels, that an imperfect statement might be both embarrassing, and might cause serious complications; and, therefore, though I say so with great regret, I feel it necessary for me to adhere to what my hon. Friend has already stated by direction of the Secretary of State—namely, that it is not in our power at the present moment to make any statement with regard to what has passed. It will be observed that the reports which have reached this country have reference distinctly to the action of the Minister of another Power. The Questions which have been put, of course, have to a certain extent reference to the action, or consent, or approval of Her Majesty's Government with regard to what has
    310
    been done; but the main Question relates to the supposed action of a Minister of another Power; and I think that will at once commend itself to the House as a reason why we should be particularly careful as to making any statement specifically on the subject, without the consent of and clear understanding with the Power to which reference is made. I can only say upon this subject that active negotiations are going on, and that we are perfectly in accord with the French Government and the other Powers.
    MR. OTWAY: I wish to observe, that one of the telegrams states that an English Representative, Mr. Lascelles, accompanied the French Consul General, M. Tricou, on the occasion of his interview with the Khedive, and concurred in the demand which he made. I can quite understand the reasons which my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend, have put forward. Although I am much disappointed that he is not able to inform us as to the facts, I will not press my Question further to-day. I presume, however, that my hon. Friend will have no objection to place on the Table of the House—and it is most essential that we should see it soon—a copy of the Firman by which the Khedivial rank was conferred upon Ismail Pasha.
    MR. BOURKE: Certainly, there can be no objection.

  THE LATE PRINCE IMPERIAL.

    QUESTIONS.
    MAJOR DICKSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has received any official information from South Africa as to whether the remains of the late lamented Prince Imperial have been forwarded to this country; and, if not, whether it is his intention to telegraph instructions on the subject?
    COLONEL STANLEY: I have not myself received any such information; but, as I stated at an early hour this morning, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has, I believe, received a telegram. The telegram sent to me simply stated that an ambulance and escort were being sent out in search of the body. My right hon. Friend has, I believe heard by telegram from the Cape that the remains of the lamented Prince Imperial have been recovered,

    311
    and that steps have been taken to forward them to this country.
    SIR ROBERT PEEL: Sir, with reference to the reply of the right hon. Gentleman upon the untoward and unhappy misfortune which has befallen Prince Louis Napoleon, I wish to ask him if he can inform the House in what capacity the Prince Imperial served, and what position he held in the Army of South Africa; also if he was on the Staff of Lord Chelmsford; and if, therefore, it was by Lord Chelmsford's order, and with what view, such a small force as that with which the Prince went was sent into an enemy's country, whilst there was a Force of no less than 26,000 men massed on the frontier of Zululand?
    COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, I am not aware what position the lamented Prince occupied in connection with the Forces, and I am not aware of his having held any commission, nor am I aware of his having been attached to the Staff, although, like all the rest of the world, I was, of course, cognizant of the fact that he was with them. With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman has said about Lord Chelmsford, as to whether the Prince was sent out by his orders on the reconnoitring expedition, of that fact I am aware distinctly. Lord Chelmsford says in his despatch that he was ignorant of the fact that the Prince had been sent away with an excursion party.

  INDIA — BRITISH AND PORTUGUESE INDIA—CUSTOMS UNION.

    QUESTION.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, "Whether it is true, as stated in this morning's papers, that a Treaty creating a Customs Union between the Portuguese Colonies and British India has actually passed the Portuguese Cortes, though this House has had no information whatever on the subject; and, whether the matter will be submitted to the House, or to the Legislative Council in India?
    MR. BOURKE: Sir, I answered this Question the other day. If the hon. Gentleman wants any further information, and will put down a Notice upon the Paper, I shall be happy to give an answer.

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

  COMMITTEE. [PROGRESS 19th June.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

ARREST AND TRIAL.

  Arrest.
  Clause 45 (Custody of persons charged with offences).
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDON, in moving as an Amendment, in page 20, line 24, after "custody," to insert—
  " Provided, That in every case where in time of peace any officer remains in such military custody for a longer period than eight days without a court martial for his trial being ordered to assemble, a special report of the necessity for further delay shall he made by his commanding officer—if at Home to the Commander in Chief, if in India to the Commander in Chief in India; if in a Colony to the General Officer commanding in such Colony; and a similar report shall be forwarded every eight days until a court martial is assembled or the officer is released from custody. In the case of soldiers a similar report shall be forwarded every eight days to the General Officer commanding the Division or Colony within the limits of which the soldier shall be serving: Provided also, That no officer holding a commission from the Sovereign shall, on account of alleged misconduct, be liable to be suspended, or arrested, from the performance of the duty entrusted to him by virtue of such commission, in any other manner than that which is specified in this Act."
  said, he understood from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that he intended to accept the first portion of the Amendment, and, therefore, he (Sir Alexander Gordon) need only say a few words as to the matter in which they differed. The first portion of the Amendment sought to re-impose the condition that the officer should be brought to trial within eight days. Up till the year 1866 the Articles of War contained a provision that an officer could only be kept under arrest for eight days. In that year the clause was struck out, and the time for which he was to be kept under arrest was left indefinite. The privilege so given had since that time been greatly abused. Officers had been kept two, three, four,

  313
  and even six months, without being brought before a court martial, or allowed to know the offence for which they were under arrest. He proposed simply to re-enact the provisions respecting eight days, and to require, if an officer were not brought to trial within that time, that a certificate should be sent at the end of that time, and of every succeeding eight days, to explain the reason. But the part of his Amendment to which he specially wished to call attention was the last four lines, providing that no officer holding a commission from the Sovereign was, on account of alleged misconduct, to be liable to be suspended from the performance of any duties entrusted to him by virtue of such commission in any other manner than that specified in the Act. His object in this Proviso was to put a stop to a practice which had arisen since the present Commander-in-Chief took office, of suspending officers from their duty, instead of placing them under arrest. He knew it was maintained that the suspension of an officer was not recognized, and, that, therefore it need not be legislated for. It was precisely on that ground that he wished Parliament to legislate on the subject, and to express an opinion that this should not be done. He happened to have there an official Order for the suspension of an officer, and he would read it in order to show that this was a practical complaint, and that officers had been suspended from their duty when they really ought to have been put under arrest. The first Order ran as follows:—
  " Lieutenant So-and-so will proceed immediately to Blank, in order to take over command of the detachment from So-and-so, who will at once return to head-quarters."
  The second Order was—
  " Lieutenant So-and-so will immediately join head-quarters, his duties to he taken by Lieutenant So-and-so, pending a Court of Inquiry, which will assemble at 11 a.m. to-morrow."
  The third Order was—
  "A Court of Inquiry, over which Major So-and-so is presiding, will assemble at 12 o'clock this day."
  These were official Orders published to the garrison, and known to all the people of the town where the regiment was stationed. The officer concerned had his character taken away; he was removed from his command; he was brought before a Court of Inquiry;
  314
  and then, on investigation, it might be found that there was no ground whatever for preferring any charges against him. A month or six weeks after, he was allowed simply to rejoin his regiment and to resume his duty, and there was no reason given for the public censure he had received or why he was allowed to return to duty. During the remainder of his term of service, however, he was liable to have this brought up against him, and when his turn for employment or promotion came, it might be said to him, "You came before a Court of Inquiry on a certain date, how did you get out of it? " That was often the cause of misconduct and crime. An officer, fretting under an imputation of that kind, felt that an act of injustice had been done him, and he had no redress in place of being brought before a court martial, and receiving a public acquittal in a legal way, which had been the custom up to the last 25 years. He could see no case where an injury was so likely to be done to an officer than under this system. If a man were invalided, or declared sick, or unfit for duty, it was different. He hoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would yet be able to give way.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he was glad to accept the greater part of the Amendment. He had no doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Alexander Gordon) would give his consent to alter it in the manner he (Colonel Stanley) would suggest. It was to leave out the words " in time of peace," and to insert, after " any officer," &c, the words " or soldier, not on active service." He would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to allow the Question to be put in this form. Then, as regarded the last paragraph, he was sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be going further than he intended in inserting the words " no person should be liable to be suspended," &c. He took, of course, the obvious case which occurred of an officer who was physically incapacitated, although he might not acknowledge that himself. He might be anxious to go on with his duties, even though he was not fit to perform them. Obviously, in such a case, the authorities ought to be able to suspend an officer; but he was informed that there was considerable doubt whether the words pro-

  315
  posed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, if they were placed in an Act of Parliament, would not go further than he himself wished. Another case was where a paymaster, for instance, did not render his account to the Treasury; it would then, unquestionably, be the duty of the General Officer commanding to suspend him. He should be sorry, however, to refuse it; and if the right hon. Gentleman wished, he would accept the Amendment on the understanding that he reserved to himself the right to revise it before the Report.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he was glad that himself and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman were so much in accord upon the subject; and he just wished to say that, as to the first case suggested, he had himself said he did not propose to extend the clause to an officer who was physically unable from illness to perform his duties, or was incapacitated from performing them, but expressly restricted the provision to alleged misconduct. And then, as to the paymaster, if the paymaster failed to deliver his accounts, that, he imagined, was misconduct; but still, he would not go into the question of the Civil Departments, which were under the War Office, and not under the military authorities.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERwas very glad the Amendment had been accepted. Not only officers, but men, were very often kept too long under arrest; not from any intention to do injustice, but from mere procrastination. He was quite sure that the Amendment would answer the purpose required.
  MR. OTWAYasked, whether it would not be necessary to make a verbal alteration. The officer in command of the troops in India was the Commander-in-Chief, but Commander-in-Chief who was General Commander-in-Chief, which was by no means an unimportant difference.
  Amendment amended, and agreed to.
  MR. J. BROWNsaid, the object of the Amendment of which he had given Notice was merely to make more distinct and clear the nature of the powers given to an officer under the clause. These powers were nothing new, but they were something extraordinary, and, especially, the power given to a junior officer to put a senior officer under arrest.
  316
  He thought it was very important that they should clearly understand that an officer had that power, whether in uniform or in plain clothes; and, therefore, he begged to move the insertion, in page 20, line 28, after the words " an officer," of the words " whether in uniform or not."
  MAJOR NOLANwas not at all certain that the proposal would not complicate the question, instead of clearing it up. It was clearly laid down at present that an officer had just the same authority, whether in uniform or not; and if this matter were pressed too far, the question might arise as to whether an officer was in proper uniform. The effect of uniform merely was to be evidence that a man was an officer. If, however, these words were put in, a man might come out of a crowd and say he was an officer, and the man ordered into arrest would not be able to know whether the ease came under the Statute; and he did not think the insertion of the words would answer any purpose. The clause was very clear as it stood, and he did not think the addition was necessary.
  COLONEL STANLEYquite agreed with the view of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), and thought that they would be trying too much if they inserted these words. After all, the question really was, whether the man knew that the person interfering was an officer or not, and that must always be a matter of proof to be decided on the court martial. It would be perfectly absurd, because an officer was not regimentally dressed—they all knew how particular a distinction might be made—to say that he was not to interpose.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERalso quite agreed with the view taken. Suppose, after mess, the officers changed their uniform, and adjourned to a billiard-room, where a row ensued. They were not in uniform; but was that to deter the junior officer from being able to put his senior under arrest? That was a case which might very probably occur.
  GENERAL SHUTEremarked, that it was perfectly understood an officer was an officer even in his dressing-gown. In case of fire at night or such sudden emergency he might rush out of his barrack-room so attired, and it would be a very great mistake to add these words to the clause.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONhoped the Amendment would not be pressed; for it was most important that, in a fray, an officer should not be liable to be punished for disputing the order of a person in plain clothes, whom he knew nothing about. The question of officers in a mess-room, dressing-gown or not, was not a case to legislate for. He himself bad an Amendment lower down, that an officer should be in uniform before he exercised the powers there given. He did not like the idea of dressing-gowns at all.
  MR. J. BROWNalways understood that an officer had the power; but, with the permission of the Committee, be would withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. PARNELLwould not wish the Amendment to be withdrawn under the idea that it was particularly understood that a junior officer in plain clothes was entitled to order his senior into arrest.
  MR. BIGGARthought it would be preposterous that a General in plain clothes, whom nobody knew anything about, should be at liberty to arrest an officer. He thought some badge of authority was necessary.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDON, in moving as an Amendment, in page 20, line 31, after "an officer," to insert the words "if dressed in uniform," said, the rule requiring an officer to obey his junior in a fray was drafted years ago, when officers were always in uniform. So much was that the case, that in the Peninsular War there was not a point more insisted on by the Duke of Wellington than that officers were not only to be in uniform, but were always to wear their swords. He had stated publicly that he would take no part to protect any officer who got into trouble in plain clothes. He was not ashamed to act on these principles still, though he knew it was old-fashioned. It was now not thought fashionable for an officer to wear his uniform, and as they were legislating for the Army, he stipulated in this case that it should only have effect when the junior officer who gave an order to a senior was in uniform. Then the senior would know the responsibilities he incurred if he did not obey. When he joined the Army, officers wore their uniform at mess, and he did not understand the custom that now pre-
  318
  vailed of putting on shooting-jackets and dressing-gowns for dinner. He went down to visit a detachment once, and after the day's duties were over, the officer in command still wore his uniform. He thought that it was in compliment to himself, and he, therefore, told him not to keep it on, unless be wished. The officer thanked him, but replied that the fact was he had got no other coat there. That took place a long time ago, when officers were not ashamed to appear in uniform.
  COLONEL STANLEYwas afraid he must make the same objection to this Amendment that he made to the other. They were putting into a clause that which ought to be matter of evidence before the court martial. The point was not whether the officer was in uniform or not, but whether the other person knew that he was an officer. That was not a matter to be dealt with by a clause, but a question for proof before the court martial. Take the case, for instance, of an officer going to play cricket, and, therefore, of course, not in regimental dress, seeing two of his men fighting. If he interfered, the men might tell him that they knew such conduct was against discipline, but they should not leave off, because he was not in regimental dress. He thought this seemed to be more a point for a court martial than for a Bill.
  MR. BIGGARhoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Alexander Gordon) would press the Amendment to a division. He thought officers ought to be proud of their uniform, and he did not understand why they were always so anxious to get out of it as soon as possible.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTentirely agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Alexander Gordon). In his opinion, it would be very much better if officers did wear their uniforms, for the feeling against them arose apparently a good deal too much from what was called "shop," which was very inconsistent with the military spirit. He must point out, however, that the Amendment would really fail to accomplish the purpose in view. The hon. and gallant Gentleman wished to put pressure upon officers to wear their uniform, whereas the effect of his Amendment would be to prevent the very interference which they desired by men not in uni-

  319
  form. The real remedy for what his hon. and gallant Friend desired was that there should be some more stringent orders to officers to be more constantly in uniform. The Amendment would not do what was desired, and they really should exercise some pressure in order to require the uniform to be constantly worn.
  MAJOR NOLANpointed out that uniforms were expensive, and that it would be putting officers to a great deal of unnecessary inconvenience if they were always compelled to appear in them. Besides, no man liked to interfere; and, therefore, if only an officer who wore his uniform could interfere, officers would get into plain clothes to avoid the necessity. In his opinion, the present arrangement was by far the best, and he thought the best thing to do was to leave it as it stood.
  COLONEL COLTHUESTbegged his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Alexander Gordon) to withdraw the Amendment. Things had worked well in the past, and they all hoped they would also do so in the future.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEwas also of opinion that it would be no good, for the purposes at which they aimed, to pass this Amendment.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERadded, that uniforms were so much more expensive than plain clothes, that if an officer had to wear them all the year round, the expense would be three times as great as it was at present.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONreplied, that if officers objected to wearing their uniforms, the remedy was to make them cheap and comfortable. When he was in India, the uniform there was so comfortable that the officers wore it in preference to plain clothes. His object was to prevent the officer or soldier getting into trouble by disputing an order given by a man in plain clothes, and of whom he knew nothing. When he was formerly in command at the Curragh a quarrel occurred between two regiments. The Commander-in-Chief, who was on the ground in plain clothes, rode amongst them, and ordered them to stop; but, as he was in plain clothes, they did not know him, and it was very nearly being an unpleasant business. As, however, his right hon. and gallant Friend did not intend to accept this Amendment, be would not press it.
  MR. PARNELLthought there should be some distinction drawn between the powers of officers to order arrests when they were in uniform and when they were not. Suppose, for instance, two men were fighting. A plain clothes officer interfered, and one of the men struck him. By the Bill, that man would be liable to suffer death. [" No, no ! "] Well, Clause 8 said so. Of course, at the time he would be in the execution of his office. They constantly would have cases where the soldier did not know the officer who was interfering, where, in consequence, he would run great risk of being insulted, and where the soldier also would be subject to very severe penalties for misconduct. He had often himself known cases where officers had distinctly refused to interfere, lest they should subject the soldiers to severe penalties, owing to their not being able to judge quickly whether the person who interfered was an officer or not. Besides, the onus of proof in this case was thrown on the negative, which was not fair. A man was asked to prove that he did not know a man was an officer; or, in fact, they asked him to prove himself innocent of an offence of which he had not been shown to be guilty.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, the Amendment, if adopted, would lead to a good deal of difficulty. In the first place, as only an officer dressed in uniform was to put a man under arrest, they would have the question at once arise—What was uniform? At present, an officer could order a man into arrest, whether he was dressed in uniform or whether he was not. Of course, if an officer ordered a man into arrest, and the man did not know he was an officer, and the circumstances of the case were that it was not reasonable that he should know it, that would be taken into consideration in the decision. The whole question would be a question of proof, and all the circumstances, no doubt, would be taken into consideration by the court martial.
  MR. OTWAYobserved, that there was more in this matter than was supposed by the hon. and learned Attorney General. Had it not occurred to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that uniform was essentially a part of the Military Profession? They never heard of military acts being performed, except in uniform. Therefore, when they had

  321
  the very extreme case of a junior officer ordering his superior officer into arrest, they ought to have some guarantee to the officer that the man who was about to treat him in that way had a right to do so. What occurred abroad in this matter was a good example. Whenever a fray took place in France or Belgium, the commissary of police always repaired at once to the place where it was said the crime had been committed; but he always first made himself and his authority respected by putting himself into a sort of uniform. No doubt, it was of a very simple character; but his position was thereby recognized, and an act sanctioned which otherwise would not have been tolerated. What surprised him in this respect was that officers in England were so very different from every other Army in the world. If they went to Austria, Italy, or Germany—and he specially mentioned those three countries—they found the officers invariably in uniform, and they never went even to a place of amusement, or a theatre, or travelled on a railway without wearing it. The fact was, they were proud of their uniform, because it was of a handsome and becoming description. At one time when he was in the Army our uniform was most uncomfortable; for the shoulders were loaded with ridiculous gold scales, with straps to their trousers, and, altogether, the dress was most disagreeable and unpleasant. Now, however, it was a very pleasant dress to wear, and he could not understand why officers did not show themselves more frequently in it than they did. He was not perfectly certain that the recommendation was one which should be altogether disregarded.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Otway) must know perfectly well that the usual occupations in which foreign officers employed their time were totally different from those in which it was the habit of officers of the English Army to engage. Foreign officers did not shoot, they did not hunt, or play cricket, or occupy themselves with any amusements of that kind. He ventured to think, he might add, that if the hon. Gentleman—the hon. and gallant Gentleman, he might call him, for he had been in the Army—were still in the Service, he would be one of the very first men to lay his uniform aside when off
  322
  duty, and when he went outside the barrack-gates. He quite concurred in the opinion that when an officer was on duty he should be properly dressed in uniform, and should, upon all occasions, wear his uniform; but it was entirely opposed to the pursuits of English officers that they should wear uniform when out of barracks. And was it seriously contended, he would ask, that if an officer, on his return to barracks without his uniform, were to find a fray going on, he was not to interfere, although he might be well known to every one of those engaged in it, whom he might deem it to be his duty to put under arrest? In his (Sir Walter B. Barttelot's) opinion, the Committee, in the discussion of the Bill, were entering into too many technical details; and he should like to know from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon), whether he had ever seen an officer doing anything which could be regarded as a grievance of ordering a man to be placed under arrest while out of uniform? If it could be shown that the fact of an officer not wearing uniform was in any way prejudicial to the interests of the Army, then a case might be made out for the adoption of the Amendment; but he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) challenged the hon. and gallant Gentleman to point out any such grievance as would justify the Committee in accepting it. Failing to do that, it would be better, he thought, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should leave things as they were, and that officers should continue to be allowed to wear plain clothes when off duty.
  MR. RYLANDSwould not dispute with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) the point whether it was desirable that officers should wear uniform when off duty or not. It would, he dared say, be difficult to find many cases in which inconvenience had arisen from the operation of the Articles of War, which it was proposed by the present clauses to retain; and he quite admitted the force of the objection to modify those Articles by the proposed Amendment. It was not often, in all probability, that an officer desired to put his superior in rank under arrest. It was a very unlikely thing for him to do so without sufficient cause; but the Amendment of the hon.

  323
  and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) was simply intended to meet such cases if they did arise, and he thought it was only right that when an officer did exercise his authority to put a man who happened to be engaged " in a quarrel, fray, or disorder," under arrest, he should bear with him the signs of the rank which he held.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, he recollected having been present on a race-course close to Gibraltar when a fray had arisen in which the Governor of Gibraltar told the officers not to interfere. Now, under the provisions of the Bill, he would have no business to issue such an order; but if the Amendment were carried, the same thing might occur again, and an officer, because he happened not to be in uniform, would be deprived of all authority to put a stop to a disturbance. In the case which he had just mentioned, the Governor was not in uniform, nor were any of the other officers—for no English officer had a right to be in uniform there—but why, he would ask, should they on that account not be permitted to interfere to put a stop to the fray? The Amendment would seem to imply that when an officer was divested of his uniform he was divested of all authority; and he could not, therefore, support it, for if military control were once to be connected with the wearing of uniform the worst results might, in many instances, follow.
  COLONEL MUREsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon), who moved the Amendment, must be aware that it was only in very rare and extreme cases, where there was some gross misconduct calling for his interposition, that an inferior interfered with a superior officer for the purpose of ordering him to be put under arrest. There were few Members of that House who could point to the occurrence of cases of that kind. It was, however, absolutely necessary that when there happened to be a great riot, for instance, an officer should be able to act as a man, and not only as an officer, and that he should be permitted to exercise the power of placing under arrest. It was now the custom for officers, generally speaking, to wear plain clothes; and he would like to ask the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) what he would say, if in
  324
  some case of great violence, where possibly a great deal of injury might be done, an officer was not allowed to interfere, because he was not in uniform? Would it not be disgraceful that the violence should be suffered to go on because of any such regulation? Would such a state of things be conducive to the honour of the Army? He hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would consent to withdraw the Amendment, for he did not believe that he thought in his own heart it was one that would work.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONrose to Order, and asked the Chairman, whether it was competent for one hon. Member to say of another that he had moved an Amendment which he thought in his heart would not work?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the observation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Renfrewshire (Colonel Mure) appeared to him to be somewhat out of Order.
  COLONEL MUREsaid, he would gladly withdraw it. He had no intention of imputing anything like insincerity to his hon. and gallant Friend; but he believed his intellect was becoming clouded since he had a seat in the House of Commons. His mind was evidently warped by his sitting on those Benches below the Gangway; and if he were at that moment in command of a regiment, a brigade, or a division, and not a Member of the House, he would be the first to deprecate such a proposal as that which he made, and to say that it would tend to weaken the natural authority which officers ought to possess, and to bring disgrace on the British Army.
  COLONEL STANLEYappealed to the Committee to allow progress to be made with the discussion, so that the Amendment might be disposed of as soon as possible. It was, he believed, well understood that no practical difficulty had ever arisen under such provisions as those contained in the clause; and if hon. Members deemed it to be their duty to discuss all the small points in the Bill, and to put forward, on every occasion, their own special views, it would be impossible to pass the present or any other measure through the House within anything approaching a reasonable time. He did not, of course, object to discussion; but, at the same time, he hoped the Committee would not lose sight of the comparative

  325
  proportions of the Bill, and that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) wished to take a Division on his Amendment, they would allow it to be taken without further delay.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he had stated some time before that it was not his intention to press the Amendment to a Division. He should like to add, with reference to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrewshire (Colonel Mure), that, although he was aware that liberty of speech was sometimes carried to a great extent in that House, yet he scarcely remembered to have heard it carried so far as it had been by the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the present occasion.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKrose to a point of Order, to which it was not too late, he hoped, to call the attention of the Chairman. He had listened, he must confess, with great surprise to the remarks which had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrewshire (Colonel Mure). As he understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman, he had expressed himself as being perfectly certain that the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) knew, in his own heart, that the Amendment which he proposed would not work.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHwished to rise to Order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock) did not take exception to the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrewshire (Colonel Mure) when they were uttered, nor did he dispute the ruling of the Chair. He should like, therefore, to know whether it was competent to raise the question of Order now?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Baronet the Member for Hastings (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth) had quite correctly stated what was the practice of the House. Any hon. Member who desired to raise a point of Order was bound to do so at the moment when the alleged violation of Order occurred; but two speeches had since been delivered, and, therefore, the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland was not in Order in now raising the question. He had not, however, deemed it necessary to stop him from commenting on the observations of which he complained.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKsaid, he at once bowed to the decision of the Chairman. He was perfectly aware of the Rule of the House on the subject, and he rose at the moment to take exception to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrewshire (Colonel Mure). The attention of the Chairman was, however, diverted at the time, and it was, of course, impossible for him to see every hon. Member who rose in his place, and another hon. Member happened to be more fortunate in catching his eye. He did not, however, wish to prolong the discussion. He sympathized very much with his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) in his complaint of the manner in which his Amendment had been met. It was, of course, open to any hon. Member to question the usefulness of any Amendment which might be proposed; but it was scarcely competent to him to impugn the bona fides of the Member who moved it. If he had been in the place of his hon. and gallant Friend, he should, as he had done, have placed himself under the protection of the Chair.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, that no hon. Member had given more assistance to the Committee in the discussion of the clauses of the Bill than the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon), and that he, for one, very strongly objected to the remarks which had been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrewshire (Colonel Mure), and to which exception had been already taken. He did not care very much what might be the opinion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the intellect of those who sat below the Gangway; but he should like to know what law it was that governed the intellect of hon. Members according to the part of the House in which they happened to sit? Did their intellectual power range inversely with the distance, or the square of the distance, at which they sat from the front Opposition Bench. Judging from the tone of contempt which the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrewshire had used, it was evident that the nearer a man got to the front Opposition Bench the more power and authority he could assume.
  COLONEL MUREhoped the Committee would bear in mind that he had already

  327
  said, the moment his attention was called to the expression which was complained of, that he had no intention whatsoever of imputing anything like insincerity to the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) in proposing his Amendment. If he was not satisfied with that statement, he begged at once to offer him the most ample apology. Having done that, he hoped the Committee would now be allowed to proceed with the Business before it.
  MR. O'DONNELLrose to support the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon). It was, he thought, for many reasons, desirable that an officer should be in uniform, if he was to exercise the authority of putting a man under arrest. The hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for "West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) said it was the custom of officers, when off duty, to wear plain clothes, and proceeded to draw a comparison between the British officer and the officers of foreign Armies. Foreign officers, he pointed out, did not play cricket, did not shoot or hunt, or indulge in several other amusements with which it was the habit of British officers to occupy themselves. But the question was, whether, taking into account what expensive articles British officers and soldiers were, Parliament should not try to induce them to pay more attention to their military duties and less to their society avocations? A foreign officer appeared almost always in uniform, because he was an officer above all things, and he would venture to say that his military character would not be improved if he were to imitate more closely the example of the British officer. In a scientific Army like that of Germany, for instance, the officer lived for his Profession chiefly; and he would point out that to permit British officers to appear, as they did, without uniform, served to furnish another illustration of the broad distinction which was drawn between officers and soldiers in the British Army. A soldier was made to remind one constantly that he was a soldier; while an officer had every facility given him for appearing as a civilian for by far the greater portion of his time.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONmoved, as an Amendment, to leave out in page 21, line 12, the words "the proper military authority," and to insert the words " by his commanding officer," instead.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he hoped he had shown, by his acceptance of a previous Amendment, that he was as desirous as the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire that a man should not remain untried for any charge which might be brought against him for too long a period. But he would point out that if the words "to his commanding officer" were substituted for " the proper military authority " in the present instance, great inconvenience might be the result of the operation of the clause. A commanding officer might be engaged on a court martial or some other important duty, and a man might have to be kept in confinement until the commanding officer was at liberty to deal with his case. It was desirable, therefore, to save unnecessary delay, that he should be able to direct the officer who was second in command, for instance, to investigate the case.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, that being perfectly satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, he would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONmoved, as an Amendment, in page 21, to leave out lines 12, 13, and 14, and insert—
  " His commanding officer, who shall dismiss the charge, and release the prisoner from custody, if he in his discretion thinks the charge ought not to be proceeded with; hut where he thinks it ought to he proceeded with, he shall take steps for bringing the offender to a court martial, or, in the case of a soldier, he may deal with the case summarily: Provided, That whenever a court of inquiry is assembled to investigate any matter affecting the conduct or character of an officer or soldier, such officer or soldier shall be entitled to receive a copy of any opinion which may be delivered by such court; and, if the officer who convenes the court of inquiry shall prefer to instruct the court to receive evidence only and not to deliver an opinion, the officer or soldier whose conduct or character has been called in question shall be entitled to demand that the officer who convenes the court of inquiry shall himself deliver an opinion upon the matter which has been the subject of investigation, and a copy of such opinion shall be delivered in writing to the officer or soldier concerned,

  329
  "And further, any officer or soldier who, after such investigation, is not fully exonerated from blame or culpability by the opinion of a court of inquiry, or by the officer who convened the court, shall be entitled to demand that he shall be placed upon his trial before a court martial, in order that the matter which had been the subject of investigation by the court of inquiry may be inquired into by a court competent to receive evidence upon oath, and of which the members composing it are themselves bound by the sanctity of an oath."
  He looked upon the Amendment, he said, as being a very important one. The subject of Courts of Inquiry had already been very fully debated in the course of the discussions on the Bill; and it was, therefore, unnecessary to say very much more with respect to it. He must express a hope, however, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for "War would see the expediency of acceding to the substance of his Amendment, even if he found himself unable to agree to the exact words. It proposed a change which was very greatly demanded by officers, and he was very anxious that it should have been brought under the consideration of the Select Committee last year. The hon. and learned Chairman the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), however, pointed out that it was outside the Instructions of the Committee, and they did not, therefore, go into it. Several officers, however, had spoken to him on the subject, and he had asked them to give evidence before the Committee with regard to it; but they begged to be excused, saying that the proposition which he now embodied in his Amendment was not one to which the authorities either at the War Office or the Horse Guards were favourable. The Commander-in-Chief had given evidence that Courts of Inquiry were useful in cases where proof was difficult. But those cases, he contended, in which, in the investigation before a Court of Inquiry, proof was found to be difficult, were the very cases which ought to be submitted to a court martial.
  THE CHAIRMANwished to point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there was nothing in the clause before the Committee relating to Courts of Inquiry. It was a clause which had reference simply to the custody of persons subject to military law when charged with offences. Although, therefore, the hon. and gallant Member might be in Order in moving the first part of
  330
  his Amendment, if he thought proper, the second part ought to be moved as a separate clause.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, it would, perhaps, save the time of the Committee if he were to state that he intended, in a subsequent clause, to propose an Amendment which would show that there was no very serious difference of opinion between the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) and himself with respect to some of the points involved in his Amendment.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he was quite satisfied to wait until the Committee came to the clause to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred, and would not press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONmoved, as an Amendment, in page 21, at the end of Sub-section 4, to insert the following words:—
  "And a copy of such 'account in writing' shall, at the same time, be given to the officer, soldier, or other person, so placed in military custody, if he desire to have it."
  As matters now stood, a man might be kept in custody for weeks and months, and that was a grievance which ought, he thought, to be redressed. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would agree to the Amendment.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he was afraid the Committee would be going too far if they were to agree to the introduction of the proposed words into the Bill, because it was proposed to deal with those matters of regulation. He should like to know whether, in the case in which a number of prisoners were in custody for any offence, the hon. and gallant Member meant that the depositions were to be taken down in writing, and that each prisoner was to be furnished with a copy, if he wished to ask for it? He quite admitted that in a very serious case that might be a right thing to do; but an " account in writing " merely corresponded to what was known as " the charge-sheet" in the police force, and it might, in some instances, mislead. He saw what the hon. and gallant Gentleman had in view, and he would see whether he could not deal with the matter on the Report.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he was satisfied with the assurance of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and would not press his Amendment.
  MR. A. H. BROWNpointed out that under the operation of the clause, as it was drawn, an officer who might not himself be subject to military law, as provided by the 166th clause, would have the power of arresting a superior officer whom he found "engaged in a quarrel, fray, or disorder." Now, an officer should not, in his opinion, have that power, unless he himself was subject to military law.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he would consider the point.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.

  Power of Commanding Officer.
  Clause 46 (Power of commanding officer).
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONmoved, as an Amendment, in page 21, line 16, to leave out "the" and insert "a" before the words " commanding officer." He was of opinion that it was not desirable to restrict the power of dismissing a charge to the commanding officer of a regiment.
  COLONEL STANLEYexplained, that the word "the" was inserted in the clause in order not to give too wide a power of dismissing charges.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had rightly divined the intention of the draftsman of the Bill, which was clearly to restrict; whereas he (Sir Alexander Gordon) wished to extend the protection afforded by the Bill. Every officer who had another officer under him was a commanding officer.
  Amendment agreed to; word substituted accordingly.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONmoved, as an Amendment, to leave out in page 21, line 16, the word " may," and to insert " shall." His object was to make it compulsory on a commanding officer to dismiss a charge, if, upon investigation, he thought it was one which ought not to be proceeded with.
  SIR WILLIAM CUNINGHAMEpointed out that in all Acts of Parlia-
  332
  ment the words "may" and "shall" had nearly the same force.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, the word " may" in the clause applied to the word "dismiss," and that he proposed to substitute for it the word "shall," so that an officer might have no discretion but to dismiss a charge, if he was of opinion that it was one which ought not to be proceeded with.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to; word substituted accordingly.
  COLONEL STANLEYwished, with the permission of the Committee, to call the attention of the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Have-lock) to an Amendment which stood on the Paper in his name, and which had for its object to reduce the number of days' imprisonment which it would be in the power of commanding officers summarily to inflict under the operation of the clause, from 21 days to seven, for every class of offence, except absence without leave. He was prepared to accept the principle of that Amendment; and it had always been his intention to impose a limit in the matter of regulation, although he thought it desirable, in the first instance, to set forth the number of days which was not to be exceeded, as was done in the Bill. He had already stated to the Committee the reasons which had induced him to give the commanding officer what, he admitted, was the extensive power of sentencing a man to imprisonment for 21 days with or without hard labour; but he never meant that that power should be exercised in every instance. It should be borne in mind that a great number of the cases which would come under the operation of the clause were cases in which, so to speak, the facts proved themselves; and it would, he thought, be a very fair compromise, if the power of the commanding officer were left, as now, to inflict 21 days' imprisonment for the offence of absence without leave, the power in other cases being limited to the infliction of seven days' imprisonment. Absence without leave was an offence which proved itself, for if a man was not present when the roll was called, there could be no question about the fact of his absence. In those circumstances, it would, he

  333
  thought, be perfectly safe to leave the power of imprisonment for that offence for 21 days in the hands of the commanding officer; but he wished it to be distinctly understood that the question involved in the clause was one which it was fully intended should be dealt with by regulation.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKsaid, that if he was not mistaken as to the views of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, they coincided with his own in the matter, and that if the substance of the Amendment which he intended to propose was such as he had stated, he could not have the slightest objection to its being moved instead of that which stood on the Paper in his own (Sir Henry Havelock's) name.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the more convenient course would be that the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock) should move his Amendment. If he did not wish to press it, it might be withdrawn, and the Amendment which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War intended to substitute in lieu thereof could be inserted in the Bill later on.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOOKmoved, as an Amendment, the insertion in page 21, line 24, after the word "shall," of the following words:—
  " If he be not under the rank of field officer, or if under that rank, if he be in temporary command of a battery of artillery, a regiment of cavalry, or a battalion of infantry, for the offence of absence without leave."
  There was also, he said, another Amendment which stood on the Paper in his name, which it had been his intention to propose in line 27, and the object of which was to limit the power of the commanding officer to inflict summarily the punishment of imprisonment to imprisonment for a period not exceeding seven days for any other offence than absence without leave, in which case, he thought, the power should be extended to 21 days for the purpose of diminishing the number of courts martial. He might be permitted to refer to a Question which he had the honour of addressing to His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief when he was examined before the Committee up stairs.
  MR. PARNELLrose to Order. He wished to know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman was entitled to enter
  334
  into a discussion with regard to an Amendment which was not immediately before the Committee, and which stood some way down on the Paper?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he did not think the hon. and gallant Member was out of Order in supporting the Amendment which he had moved by reference to another which he had proposed to move in line 27.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKsaid, his object was to limit the power of the commanding officer, as he had pointed out, except in cases of absence without leave, which, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had very properly stated, proved themselves. In the answer which had been given by the Commander-in-Chief to the Question which he had put to him on the occasion to which he was referring, when he was interrupted by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), and which was whether, in the opinion of his Royal Highness, any practical inconvenience had been experienced up to the present time by the limitation of the power to the infliction of imprisonment for not more than seven days, His Royal Highness said that the number of courts martial was reduced thereby, and that that was an advantage. That being so, and there being no reason to think that any practical inconvenience resulted now from the limitation of the power, it struck him, ho must confess, as being somewhat of an anomaly, that provision should have been made in the Bill for increasing the power three-fold. On the understanding, however, that the Amendment which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Stanley) intended to propose would limit the power of summarily awarding the punishment of imprisonment to a period not exceeding seven days, except in the one particular class of cases which ho had mentioned, he should be happy to withdraw his Amendment.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he was anxious, if possible, to make the matter clear to the Committee. He did not wish to accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock) in the sense of putting in the Bill what was a matter of regulation. What he proposed to do was to leave out the word "twenty-one" in line 26, and

  335
  then, in line 35, to insert a separate paragraph, providing that in the case of absence without leave the commanding officer might award imprisonment with or without hard labour for any period not exceeding 21 days. If that were agreed to, the commanding officer would, in dealing summarily with other offences, be exactly in the same position as that in which he now stood.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOOKwas quite willing to accept the Amendment suggested by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, which, he believed, would fully carry out the object which he had in view. He thought, however, that the matter might be made still clearer if, in the proposed Amendment, the word "only" were inserted after the words " in the case of absence without leave."
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he would have no objection to make that alteration.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. J. HOLMSsaid, the discussion which had taken place had shown both the importance of the clause itself, and the necessity for its rectification. He understood the main object of the clause was to give to commanding officers greater powers than those which they at present possessed, in order to get rid of the great number of courts martial which it was found necessary to hold under the Act now in force. But it was, in his opinion, necessary to define a little further the powers to be given to commanding officers. For, with regard to the extension of power, although he considered it to be a move in the right direction, so far as commanding officers were concerned, he could not but think it wrong that these increased powers should be intrusted to subalterns. He therefore trusted the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for "War would take the matter into his serious consideration, and endeavour to schedule the special judicial powers which were to be given to particular officers with a view to their clearer definition. In the German Army, the amount of punishment which each particular officer could award under the special judicial powers given to them was clearly defined. For instance, the officer commanding a company, battery, or squadron had the power of dealing with non-commissioned officers and pri-
  336
  vates to the extent of awarding eight days' open arrest, five days' medium arrest, and three days' close arrest. Then, the officer commanding a battalion had extended powers, and could award 14 days' open arrest; 10 days' medium arrest, and seven days' close arrest; while the powers of the colonel of a regiment were still more extended. He ventured to suggest that we should have in our Army some scale of a similar character, clearly and precisely defining the special judicial powers to be exercised by officers of each particular rank. He therefore begged to move the Amendment standing in his name—namely, in page 21, line 24, to leave out from " summarily " to " An " in line 36, in order to insert—

  " (a) An officer commanding a company, a troop, or a battery, may exercise special judicial powers to the extent set forth in Schedule… . of this Bill;

  " (b) An officer commanding a battalion may exercise special judicial powers to the extent set forth in Schedule…. of this Bill;

  "(c) An officer commanding a regiment may exercise special judicial powers to the extent set forth in Schedule …. of this Bill;

  " (d) Officers of superior rank to the foregoing may exercise judicial powers to the extent set forth in Schedule …. of this Bill."

  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he was not in a position to advise the Committee to accept this Amendment, as it would have the effect of adding to the slight difficulties which already existed. It was well known that there were simply two existing powers—first, that exercised by the commanding officer; secondly, that delegated by him to be exercised by officers commanding companies. He could not see what advantage would be gained by scheduling the various powers in question; and as the whole system referred to by the hon. Member was, besides, foreign to the ways of the Service, he trusted that the Amendment would not be pressed.
  MR. PARNELLpointed out that there were very strong grounds for the inquiries of the Committee being extended in the direction suggested by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Holms). When the Committee appointed last year to consider the whole question of Army Discipline was sitting, none but the cut-and-dried evidence supplied by the War Office was laid before it; while the Members of the Committee had not sufficient time at their disposal to call independent wit-

  337
  nesses. He, himself, had moved that the deliberations of the Committee should be prolonged for that purpose; but, owing to the lateness of the year, the Motion—which was not, for that reason, very much to the taste of the Committee—was withdrawn. Had the hon. Member for Hackney been able to call witnesses, he would have fortified himself with arguments which he (Mr. Parnell) believed would have gone a very long way to induce the Committee to accept his Amendment. The Amendment was one which was, to a certain extent, demanded by the necessities of the Service, for the Queen's Regulations showed that something of the kind was needed. They were dealing with a very old Mutiny Act that had come down almost from time immemorial, many sections of which, and of the old Articles of War, had been almost word for word put down in the present Bill; therefore he thought that the customs handed down to us should not be too blindly followed by the Committee. It appeared to him that if the Queen's Regulations gave authority to commanding officers to delegate their powers to inferior officers, the Committee should clearly understand why it was not right that such powers should be delegated by Parliament. He did not, however, think the Committee would be able to investigate the point on that occasion. If, therefore, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would consider the matter before the Report, he would suggest that the hon. Member for Hackney might withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. RYLANDSconsidered there were strong arguments in favour of an Amendment of this character. As he understood the clause, the powers of a commanding officer might be exercised by a lieutenant in charge of a company. He held in his hand a Memorandum written by a colonel, holding at the present moment that rank in the Army, which said—
  " Considering that this power is to he exercised by any sub-lieutenant, it is a very dangerous power to give to any man of that rank;"
  And it went on to remark—
  " In view of the idiots sometimes to be found in the command of regiments, it is a very dangerous power."
  COLONEL STANLEYpointed out to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr.
  338
  Rylands) that he had already stated that the whole question was to be reviewed, and the clause in this respect modified.
  MR. J. HOLMSregretted very much the way in which the Secretary of State for War had replied upon the Amendment, and trusted that the Committee would consider the question a little further. He (Mr. J. Holms) had rejoiced to see the 21 days' imprisonment which stood in Sub-section (a), because he believed that it would get rid of the necessity for a great many courts martial; but the Amendment put down by the Secretary of State for War minimized that advantage by reducing the number of days' imprisonment in cases summarily dealt with to seven. He held that, undoubtedly, at the present moment, a more defined responsibility was required with relation to officers in the Army, and that the Committee should settle some means for ascertaining their powers, whether it be upon a foreign system or not. He could not see that the mode of dealing with this question as suggested by him was in the slightest degree objectionable. On the contrary, the fact of its having been drawn from that nation which understood military matters so well was a strong argument in its favour. Therefore, he again urged that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should schedule the powers to be given to each particular officer; and if he could not give an assurance that the matter should be considered, he should be obliged to take the sense of the Committee upon his Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERmoved, as an Amendment, in page 21, line 26, after the word " labour," to insert " in the case of the offence of absence without leave."
  COLONEL STANLEYpointed out that absence without leave was dealt with in a proposed Amendment to the clause standing in his name.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  COLONEL STANLEYmoved, as an Amendment, in page 21, line 26, to leave out "twenty-one," and insert " seven."
  Amendment agreed to; word substituted accordingly.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, that the 15 Amendments proposed to the clause, all of which treated of different subjects, had made it rather difficult for the Committee to understand its exact position. It appeared that the 21 days' imprisonment in Sub-section (a) had been struck out, and seven days inserted instead; that, of course, covered his first Amendment. But he had another Amendment, which came immediately after it—namely, to insert after " twenty-one days,"
  " For absence without leave, provided that a number of days greater than that for which the offender has been absent is not awarded and for all offences other than absence without leave may award seven days."
  And the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had another Amendment coming on which confined the 21 days' imprisonment to the offence of absence without leave, so that a commanding officer might award 21 days' imprisonment for an absence of one or two hours. That was a power which he did not think ought to be in the hands of commanding officers. It was believed by some that this power would save a great number of courts martial; but there were, in 1877, only 99 courts martial in which imprisonment was awarded for absence without leave. He would suggest to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to go a little further, and in some way limit this power of giving 21 days for this offence. Although he could not regard an absence of 48 hours as a very terrible offence, he admitted that an absence of three days became more serious, and thought that the Secretary of State for War should propose an Amendment leaving the power of awarding seven days for absence without leave to commanding officers.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTwished to bring under the consideration of the Committee the possibility of extending to absence without leave the fines now exacted in cases of drunkenness. Drunkenness was at present punished by a scale of fines varying from 2s. 6d. to 10 s. each, and the Queen's Regulations treated absence without leave and drunkenness in the same way; and, in nine cases out of ten, it was the cause of the latter offence. He thought that if this crime could be diminished, it
  340
  would be more satisfactory than extending the powers of commanding officers. At present, a man sentenced by the commanding officer to 14 days' imprisonment lost 7s. and his comrades had to do the duty for him; but by the Amendment which he desired to see adopted, the man would have to do his duty, and be fined 7s. as well. He trusted the Secretary of State for War would accept the proposal which stood in his name— namely, in page 21, line 28, after " drunkenness," insert " or absence without leave."
  COLONEL STANLEYadmitted that the Amendment was one likely to effect a very considerable improvement, and he was willing to accept the words, provided, of course, that the fine was left optional with the commanding officer. By the 134th clause, "absence without leave," ipso facto, carried with it for feiture of pay.
  MAJOR NOLANcontended that the system of fining soldiers was a dangerous one, and denied that having entered into a definite engagement with our soldiers it could be fairly and honestly broken. By the accumulation of fines, a large number of men were made desperate and anxious to be discharged with ignominy. If he wanted to know who were the men scheming to be discharged from the Army with ignominy, he should look to the accounts of the men who were fined for drunkenness, and had a number of fines accumulating against them. The number of men annually discharged with ignominy from the Army amounted to the serious total of 2,000. He doubted that we had the right to stop the pay of the men, and make them do their duty as well. Such an act would certainly not be looked upon as fair in private life, and would be likely, in his opinion, to lead to dangerous results in the Army. If he could have found a Teller, he would have divided against the Amendment.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERpointed out that when the system of fines was first instituted in the Army, the fine by a commanding officer for drunkenness involved an entry in the regimental defaulters' book, and subjected the offender to the loss of the good-conduct badge; but an important alteration took place about two years ago, and the fine did not now involve any such entry in the defaulters' book.
  COLONEL COLTHURST, in view of the disposition of the Committee, asked leave to withdraw his Amendment. He placed it at the disposal of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, so that if he thought it necessary he could bring it up on Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEsaid, that this system of treating absence without leave as due to drunkenness, had, to his knowledge, led to desertion. A man who felt this to be unjust naturally left the regiment for one where the practice did not exist. Originally, the fines exacted from the men were given back in the form of gratuities, when they left the regiment; but that had, under the short-service system, been done away with. The fines, therefore, came very heavily on the men, and he begged to move that the highest fine of 10s. be reduced to 7s.
  COLONEL STANLEYfailed to see the reason why a result of the short-service system should be held to be a ground for making a drunken man pay 3s. less by way of fine. He did not think the punishment excessive. He agreed that there should be more similarity in the punishment; but that was a matter which could not be gone into then.
  MR. BIGGARconsidered the fine of 10 s., which amounted, in the case of a soldier, to four week's income, was too heavy.
  MR. PARNELLthought the course followed by Courts of Summary Jurisdiction in cases of drunkenness might very well be followed. People fined by these Courts had an opportunity of earning money to pay the fines easily, so that the punishment hardly amounted to anything at all; but the case of a soldier was very different; he had no such opportunity of earning money, and it was, therefore, manifest that the scale in use by Courts of Summary Jurisdiction should not be exceeded. He thought that had the hon. and gallant Member for Letrim (Major O'Beirne) taken 5s. as his standard, it would have been sufficiently high. He hoped the Secretary of State for War would re-consider the point, and agree to reduce the amount to 7s.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEsaid, it ought to be taken into consideration that the men got no gratuities whatever after three
  342
  years' service, and the fines, consequently, fell upon them very heavily. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had not noticed this point, which was a very important one. The men on short service got back none of these amounts, which went into a fund, out of which soldiers on long service received allowances. He thought that the system should be altered, and that the short-service men were entitled to share in the fund, if they had behaved themselves well.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the question of the destination of the fund arising out of the fines had been recently under the consideration of the Under Secretary of State for War. The Committee were not then dealing with the destination of the fund, but with the fines upon drunkenness. This system, which had resulted from the recommendation of a powerful Committee, had, as far as he was aware, with one or two slight defects, been working, on the whole, very well.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, there were men in the Army who could not help getting drunk, and who, spending their whole time in prison, left their comrades to do their work. It was necessary, he thought, to consider the good soldier, as well as the bad soldier; and the system of fines had the effect of reducing the number of these drunken fellows, by taking away the money which they would otherwise spend in drink. There was nothing which a good soldier felt more than having to do duty for these drunken and useless men. It was to be borne in mind that the fines for drunkenness were upon a graduated scale. For the first two offences a man was admonished; for the next he was fined 2s. 6d.; for the fourth offence, 5s.; for the fifth, 7s. 6d.; and after that, 10s. He trusted his hon. and gallant Friend (Major O'Beirne) would withdraw his Amendment.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEsaid, as the Committee did not appear to wish to go to a Division, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  COLONEL ALEXANDER, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 21, line 35, after officer, to insert—
  " And to forfeit his pay for any day or days, not exceeding five, during which he shall have been absent without leave,"

  343
  said, that the 174th Article of War, which was not embodied in this Bill, provided that—
  " Any soldier shall be liable, at the discretion of the commanding officer, subject, however, to right of appeal, to forfeit his pay for any number of days not exceeding five, for which he shall be absent without leave."
  This was very important, because, as he had already pointed out, a soldier in that way sentenced by the commanding officer to stoppage of pay was subjected to a regimental entry. It was, therefore, necessary to know whether the commanding officer was to have both the power under the 174th Article of War, and that under the Sub-section (c) of the present clause?
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that the stoppage of pay was made ipso facto for the time the soldier was absent, under the 174th Article of War; but it was now to be awarded by the commanding officer. He did not know where the law was laid down; but it had been the custom from time immemorial that where a soldier was absent from 4 o'clock on one day until 3 o'clock next morning, two days' pay might be stopped, and it was thought better, on revising the Bill, to make it clear that the soldier should forfeit his pay for the time for which he was absent. But it was provided, in Clause 135, that the commanding officer might restore him any portion of the deduction which he might think fit.
  MR. PARNELLwished to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War with reference to Sub-section (b) of this clause, whether it re-enacted the substance of the 77th Article of War? The Article of War in question gave a power to levy fines which should not exceed 4s. a-day, whether imposed by a court martial or by a commanding officer. That provision did not appear in the present clause, which only enacted that the fine should not exceed 10 s.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. Gentleman was not in Order in referring to Sub-section (b), which had been already passed.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, that it was a very important matter to deprive a soldier of his good-conduct pay. It ought to be specified that absence without leave did not necessarily carry with it a regimental entry. If his right hon. and gallant Friend could give him an
  344
  assurance upon the point, he should be happy to withdraw his Amendment. A commanding officer did not necessarily sentence a man to lose his pay for absence without leave; perhaps, for three convictions for absence without leave, a commanding officer would stop a man's pay for two or three days; then an entry was made in the regimental defaulter book, and if a man were in receipt of good conduct pay he lost that. It appeared to him that an injustice would be inflicted, if a soldier should be made to forfeit his pay as a matter of course on conviction for absence without leave.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONdid not think that a soldier absolutely lost his pay under the circumstances mentioned. He did not understand that that was the effect of the Amendment.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that if a soldier was absent without leave he did not necessarily lose his pay, A commanding officer, if he chose, might sentence him to forfeit his pay—to order, in fact, that he should not be paid for the time he had been absent. If a man were absent from his regiment and neglected his duty, it was only fair that he should lose his pay for the time he was absent. Clause 135 gave power to a commanding officer to remit the whole or any portion of any deduction of pay in any case where it might seem to him to be just. He might say that he followed the point of the hon. and gallant Gentleman behind him (Colonel Alexander), although, as the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) said, it did not follow, as a matter of course, that the pay would be stopped, for a commanding officer could remit the deduction. He fully agreed that it was right that there should be some power to remit a deduction if a commanding officer did not think the case was one which made it necessary that the pay should be stopped. Although a soldier technically forfeited his pay, it was in the power of his commanding officer to remit the deduction. With respect to good conduct pay, that was a matter which depended upon the Royal Warrant, and that case did not arise under the Bill.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he would beg leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. J. BROWNwished to point out that the clause did not provide for the case of an officer being in charge of the wings, nor an officer in charge of head-quarters, nor did it seem to him that the case was met by the Amendment. An officer in charge of the wings probably would not be the commanding officer of the regiment, and while in charge of the wings he ought to have the power of exercising the punishment provided by the clause; also an officer left in charge of head-quarters, at any time, would be fit to exercise the powers given to him by this Amendment.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that he had already given a promise upon this point to the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander), and he would repeat that he would consider the point with reference to half-battalions. There was a great deal of difficulty in providing for all the cases; but he would endeavour to put the matter on a thoroughly satisfactory footing. He might say that he should not like to go beyond the rank of field officer in the extension of this power. If the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to remind him of the matter on another occasion, he would endeavour to meet the case.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEwas opposed altogether to the extension of the powers of commanding officers. The men were much more satisfied when they were punished by the sentence of a court martial than by an individual. Giving the power to a commanding officer was only to avoid the extra trouble of calling a court martial.
  On the Motion of Colonel STANLEY, the following Amendment was made:— In page 21, line 35, insert as a separate paragraph—
  "In the case of absence without leave, the commanding officer may, if he is not under the rank of field officer, or if under that rank is in temporary command of a battery of artillery, a regiment of cavalry, or a battalion of infantry, award imprisonment with or without hard labour for any period not exceeding twenty -one days."
  MR. A. H. BROWNwished to draw the attention of the Committee to the Amendment which he proposed to move. Under certain circumstances, this clause would apply to Volunteers who might be subject, for the time being, to mili-
  346
  tary law. It was, therefore, most necessary that the clause should be carefully scanned with regard to its bearing upon Volunteers. He was aware that they were then only dealing with the extended powers of a commanding officer in the case of absence without leave. The extension of the power of a commanding officer appeared to have been drawn from the recommendations of the Royal Commission upon courts martial. But the recommendations of the Royal Commission went further, for they proposed to extend the powers of a commanding officer in the case of all offences to a sentence of imprisonment for 21 days. To that recommendation he was entirely opposed. Camps of instruction were now formed, and Volunteers were subject to discipline. A Volunteer who went into those camps did so under the impression that he could rid himself of all his obligations to the Service after the expiration of 14 days, and this new law was to be put upon him, which would take away his right to resign at the end of that period, for a commanding officer had power given him to put him in prison for 21 days if absent without leave. Of course, he did not for one moment stand up in favour of any man who was absent without leave; but they must consider most carefully the effect that this provision would have upon Volunteers. They should not have such provisions as would make Volunteers afraid to go into camps of instruction. If the power was given to send Volunteers to prison for 21 days by the sentence of a single officer, he believed the effect would be that Volunteers would not be so ready to go into camps of instruction as they were at present. It was the object of all commanding officers to get Volunteers into camp, and he thought the provision would interfere with that which they wished to do. He did not think the same effect would be produced if power were given to the commanding officer to award imprisonment for 14 days only; for every Volunteer knew that he was subject to military law for the period of 14 days. This provision had been made, no doubt, with reference to the interests of the Army; and so far as the Army was concerned, he gathered from the opinions of the Committee that it was accepted; but as regarded Volunteers, he could not accept the clause, and felt bound to rise to protest against

  347
  it. He thought it would interfere most materially in the formation of these camps of instruction; and, however much they might wish for the discipline of the Volunteers to be increased, on the other hand, they must remember that they were not an entirely military Force, but were only a quasi-military Force. This power of imprisoning a man for 21 days, because he happened to be absent from the camp for three or four hours, would, he thought, be considered by many Volunteers to be a very heavy penalty. In active service it was, no doubt, well to have such a provision as this; but in time of peace he could not see that it was necessary in the case of Volunteers. He moved, in line 5 of the Amendment just made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, " to leave out " twenty-one " and insert " fourteen."
  COLONEL STANLEYhoped that the hon. Member would not press his Amendment. It was admitted on all hands that 21 days was not an excessive period. With regard to the fears of the hon. Gentleman as to the Volunteers, he (Colonel Stanley) thought that it was a very unlikely thing that any Volunteer would so commit himself as to require this punishment to be awarded to him. He must also take into consideration that a commanding officer, in dealing with such a matter, would probably not exercise the full powers given him, nor would take any steps which would raise doubt or difficulty. But he would base his objections to the Amendment of the hon. Member on a broader ground. He had every reason to believe that the Volunteers were anxious, when they took upon themselves these military duties, to accept them upon the same terms as the soldiers by whose side they served. He defended the opinion which he expressed earlier upon the Bill; for though the hon. Member, no doubt, spoke from good information, yet he might not be aware of the representations which had been addressed to the "War Office from many quarters. There was a general feeling that the Volunteers were anxious to accept the full liability and the full restrictions of soldiers when they went into camp with the Regular troops. He trusted the hon. Member would not insist upon his Amendment.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONdid not see his way to accept the clause which
  348
  they were now upon, for it seemed to him to be perfectly unworkable. It did not provide for many cases which were constantly occurring in different parts of the world. In India, and in the Colonies, where regiments were broken up the clause would be inapplicable. Some times companies were under the independent command of captains; and sometimes not more than two or three officers and the commanding officer, with one company, might be present with the Colours at head-quarters, while the bulk of the regiment might be hundreds of miles away. He was opposed to this extension of the power of imprisonment to 21 days; he had an Amendment to substitute 14 days, which he withdrew in favour of another for seven days. It seemed to him that 21 days' imprisonment was too much. Supposing there was a case of misunderstanding— a man might be at a distance from head-quarters and the means of communication might be uncertain, and he did think that this clause gave a commanding officer great extension of power, which was quite unworkable.
  MAJOR NOLANthought that this power of imprisonment ought to be limited in some way. There were several ways in which the clause might be amended, one of which was to give a power to award seven days' imprisonment for absence without leave of, say, for five days. The power ought to be limited by providing that the number of days' imprisonment should not exceed the time during which the soldier had been unwarrantably absent. If that were done, a man would know at once what punishment he might expect to receive. Graver cases of absence without leave could be dealt with as a matter of course by a court martial. He thought, however, that a punishment of 21 days being placed in the hands of one man, without restriction, was too great a power. It was said that a hard case made bad law; but a commanding officer might consider that a man required some punishment for other offences which he was supposed to have committed; and, therefore, if he were absent for only one day, he might sentence him to the full period of imprisonment for 21 days.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that the matter to which the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) had

  349
  referred could be met by regulation, if found to work harshly. It appeared to him, however, that there might be circumstances in which one day's absence might be punished too severely, and the case of absence for over seven days could be dealt with in another way. He was disposed to accept some limitation such as that proposed, and was willing either to put the words in then, or to consult with his advisers with regard to doing so.
  MR. HOPWOODwished to say a word or two in support of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wenlock (Mr. A. H. Brown). The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had expressed an opinion that the Volunteers were anxious for the enforcement of further discipline. He ventured to say that the representations which had been made to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman must have emanated entirely from the officers of Volunteers. He believed that the officers of Volunteers were very much in favour of obtaining military power, and of having some such means of punishing those under their command as were usual in the Army; they were anxious to extend the little power they had at present, and to make it very much more. He ventured to suggest that if that were done it would be a very dangerous course to pursue in relation to the Volunteer Force. The Volunteers were unduly praised by some people; while, on the other hand, other persons unduly depreciated them. He assumed that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman thought highly of the Force; but the way in which he was now going to treat it was by imposing upon it penalties which did not at present exist by law. He was not going into a legal argument upon the matter; but it was his conviction that further legislation on this point was of extremely doubtful utility. He thought that it was a matter of great doubt whether the Military Act ought to be applied at all to Volunteers, although brigaded with, and acting with, the Regular Forces. At the present time, there was great doubt upon the Acts relating to the matter, as to the extent to which Volunteers could be punished; and it was sought by the present Bill to settle and extend the powers to punish Volunteers under certain conditions of service, and to place them on
  350
  the same footing as the Regular soldiers. By the terms of his engagement, a Volunteer was entitled to rid himself of it by a fortnight's notice; but here they were proposing to inflict a punishment for various offences which would extend beyond that period. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman alleged that he had learned from the Volunteers that they were disposed to submit to all those matters. To that he (Mr. Hop-wood) answered that if the Bill were passed all the liabilities which a man would undertake on entering the Service ought to be drawn to his attention, and to be publicly exhibited at the places of drill of the various corps. Ho felt quite sure that if they were to tell the artizans of Lancashire, Cheshire, or Yorkshire, that whenever in pursuance of their desire to get more instruction in military matters, or with the object of obtaining a summer holiday, they chose to go into camp along with the Regular troops, they would then be liable to the extreme penalties of this measure, he thought they would at once refuse to go. He thought that the adoption of such provisions as these would defeat the intention and object of them, and that they would, in the result, do mischief rather than good. The Volunteer Force, by the very terms in which it was created, was not to be ruled in the precise manner in which soldiers were disciplined; and to try and apply the same rules to Volunteers was a contradiction in terms, and did away with the object and altered the character of the Force.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out to the Committee that it was not in Order then to discuss the questions relating to the Volunteer Force.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that the Bill referred as much to Volunteers as to other Forces of the Crown. Volunteers gave their services freely and voluntarily, and submitted themselves to the same discipline as the Regular Forces. He thought that they were entirely in Order in discussing whether any particular clause of the Bill was suitable or otherwise in its application to the Volunteers. He did not think that there was any reason for applying these stringent regulations to the Volunteers. He did not believe that they were in favour of the extension of the punishments to which they would be subjected.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the Chairman had just now ruled that it was not in Order then to discuss the question of the Volunteers.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that he had just pointed out to the Committee that that was not the proper time to raise any question with regard to Volunteers. Of course, there was no doubt that the Volunteers were dealt with by the Bill; and in the clauses relating to them any question with regard to the Force could be discussed. But, certainly, hon. Members were not in Order in speaking of the Volunteers upon an Amendment which proposed to substitute 14 for 21 days' imprisonment.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that if brigaded with Regular troops, the power which they were then discussing would be applicable to the Volunteers; it might be inflicted upon the Volunteers under the Bill by a commanding officer, who might be, and probably would be, an officer of a regiment of the Line. Any Volunteer might be sent to prison for three weeks by an officer of the Regular Forces, who knew nothing about him, and by whom his case could not well be considered. He did not wish to enter into the general question of the Volunteers; but, at the same time, he wished to point out that there was a tendency all through this Bill to increase punishments and render them more severe. In every line of the Bill they met more severe punishments and increased terms of imprisonment. It was said that the placing this increased power in the hands of commanding officers would have the effect of reducing the number of courts martial. It would, unquestionably, increase the severity of sentences by commanding officers; but whether it would reduce the number of prisoners sent before courts martial he doubted. He would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, whether he could not introduce some provision for decreasing the punishments which might be awarded for slight absences without leave? He believed, at the present time, a soldier, who was unlucky enough to have been absent a short time, was driven to desert! from fear of the consequences. He had known the case of a soldier who was brought before him for having deserted, to which act he was driven by having been absent one night without leave. If
  352
  soldiers knew that the punishment for temporary absence would not exceed seven days' imprisonment, they would return to their barracks and would not desert, and thus the services of the soldier would be gained, and the expense of punishing him would be saved. Many military men must be fully aware that in many cases a soldier was afraid to return from fear of the severe punishment which he would suffer for having been absent for a short time without leave.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that the advantage of giving an increased power to a commanding officer would be great. Fewer courts martial would be held, and a soldier would not be kept away from his duty for such a long period if dealt with summarily the next morning. There was a general opinion that much good would be done by giving a commanding officer increased powers of dealing with absences without leave. But in respect of other offences the Government did not wish to press for any increased powers to be placed in the hands of commanding officers.
  MR. RYLANDSthought there was some justification for the change proposed in giving commanding officers increased powers of dealing with cases of absence by soldiers without leave. He thought, however, that they ought to be careful not to give commanding officers authority to inflict heavy punishments in all cases, but that they should limit the amount of punishment which might be inflicted in particular cases. He wished to point out to the Committee that absence without leave was one of the most numerous classes of offences committed in the Army. During the last year there were no less than 3,347 cases occurring of absence without leave. Upwards of 3,000 of those cases were tried by court martial. Therefore, what the right and hon. and gallant Gentleman was pressing the Committee to do was to give commanding officers power to deal summarily with a large number of those cases. He did not complain of that; but when he considered that this power would be exercised in some cases by men of not altogether sound judgment, and that the more men that were sent to prison the more they injured the efficiency of the Force, he thought they should look with jealousy upon the power of a commanding officer to inflict such a punishment, He remembered,

  353
  very well, that in the proceedings of the Royal Commission which sat a number of years ago, evidence was given before them with reference to the number of summary punishments inflicted in different regiments, and it was shown that the number varied very much indeed. It was brought out as clearly as possible that, some commanding officers were a great deal more severe than others, and that while numerous punishments were inflicted in some regiments, in others the number of punishments inflicted was very small indeed. That was most important, as showing that in giving commanding officers these summary powers they ought to surround them with sufficient safeguards.
  COLONEL STANLEYwas sorry again to trouble the Committee with any observations upon this matter. He did not know whether the hon. Member for Burnley had really taken the trouble to listen to what had passed during the last hour or two; if he had, he would have known that the power given to commanding officers was by no means what he seemed to think. They desired to give this power to the commanding officers in the way suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan)—that was to say, that short absences without leave should be punished by imprisonment not exceeding seven days, and absences for periods beyond that, according to the length of time for which a soldier was absent, up to 21 days. Of course, in cases of absence without leave for extended periods, a court martial would be the proper tribunal. He did not think, therefore, that they were giving commanding officers any such extended powers as the hon. Gentleman seemed to think. On the contrary, he believed that the powers which they had given would be completely limited and restricted. Under these circumstances, he hoped that the Committee would agree to give commanding officers a power to award imprisonment for a period not not exceeding 21 days.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, that at present, if a man was more than five days absent, he must be tried by a court martial, and when so tried, a man really got more than 21 days' imprisonment. Under the new scale, which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War proposed to introduce, a
  354
  man would get the same number of days' imprisonment as he did at present when his absence was for a period less than five days.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONinquired whether the Secretary of State for War was aware whether the prisons would, in all cases, have sufficient accommodation to carry out sentences of imprisonment for 21 days? Many prisons had. very inferior cells, which were only suitable for confining men for a few days. If, therefore, the period of imprisonment was increased to 21 days, cells which would be suitable for a few days' imprisonment might be found totally unsuitable for a longer period.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that in cases of absence for over five days, it was now necessary that there should be a court martial; in such cases, a man was sure to get 21 days' imprisonment. In future, a man would get less than that amount of imprisonment.
  MR. A. H. BROWNbegged leave to withdraw his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKmoved, as an Amendment, in page 21, line 27, after "twenty-one days," to add—
  "Provided, that in every case where the power of summary award by a commanding officer exceeds a sentence of seven days' imprisonment, the accused person may demand that the evidence against him should be taken on oath, and the same oath as that required to be taken by witnesses before a court martial shall bo administered to each witness in such case."
  He thought that such a provision as that was necessary where they were extending the power of commanding officers in the matter of imprisonment. At present, cases of absence for over five days were tried by courts martial, and evidence was then, of course, taken on oath. In some of these cases it might happen that considerable doubt might arise as to the circumstances which constituted the offence; and it, therefore, seemed to him desirable that in the case provided for by the Amendment the evidence should be taken on oath.
  COLONEL STANLEYassented to the Amendment, on the understanding that if he should find there would be serious practical difficulty in carrying it out,

  355
  the Amendment should be struck out on the Report.
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
  MR. J. BROWNremarked, that so much had already been said on the subject of absence without leave that he did not propose to move the Amendment which stood in his name with regard to it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTERmoved, as an Amendment, in page 22, line 7, before the words " court martial," to insert the word "district." He said that his object was to provide that an appeal from a commanding officer's decision should not lay to the officers immediately serving under his command. By the present Articles of War, if a soldier was fined any sum exceeding 10s., he might appeal, if he pleased, from the decision. He had a right in that case to be tried by a district or garrison court martial. No doubt, there was a difficulty in bringing together officers to compose such a court, and for that reason the appeal had not been retained to a district court martial. He thought, however, that it was not right that an appeal from a commanding officer's decision should be only to those officers immediately under his command.
  COLONEL STANLEYhad no objection to the insertion of the word "district," although there were some practical difficulties in the way. It had been pointed out that in some cases they would have appeals set up as a matter of course; and it was then undesirable that a district court martial should in every case be bound to assemble. He had no objection, however, to making the appeal lay to a district court martial in any case which was sufficiently serious. But supposing the soldier was sentenced to one day's imprisonment, it was not right that he should have an appeal to such a court martial. To give a soldier a right of appeal to a district court martial in every case would lead to a considerable amount of trouble and expense. He thought that the difficulty would be met, however, by providing that where a soldier appealed from the decision of his commanding officer, and obtained a hearing by a district court martial, he should then be
  356
  liable to. suffer a greater punishment at the hands of the court martial than he had originally received from his commanding officer. By adopting that course, he thought appeals would not be made frivolously and. without undue ground. He should, therefore, agree to the Amendment giving an appeal to a district court martial; but, at the same time, he should insist that there should be no limitation on the soldier's receiving a greater punishment from the court martial than had been originally awarded by the commanding officer. He might say that he did not wish to punish unduly, but only to prevent the right of appeal being abused.
  MR. RYLANDSrose for the purpose of suggesting that it might be possible to restrict the power of appeal to cases in which the sentence of imprisonment exceeded seven days. They had a Proviso already for cases in which imprisonment amounted to seven days, for in that case evidence must be taken on oath. He should suggest the insertion of a Proviso for limiting an appeal to a district court martial to cases in which the sentence of imprisonment exceeded seven days.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that perhaps his hon. Friend was not aware that any soldier sentenced to deprivation of pay had a right to appeal to a court martial.
  MR. RYLANDSinquired whether that was a district court martial?
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that the clause, as it stood, would cover everything, and the soldier would have a right to be tried by a court martial.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, that it was only in cases of fines for drunkenness that a soldier could at present appeal to a district court martial. In all other cases his appeal lay only to a regimental court martial under the 50th Article of War.
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTERagreed with the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander), that the law was as he had stated, and he thought it was one of the present anomalies for which there was no reason. He considered it of great importance that a soldier should have a complete right to appeal to a competent court.
  COLONEL STANLEYdid not know whether it was worth while to leave it optional to make the appeal to a regimental or district court martial, He

  357
  would give his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Arthur Hayter) an undertaking that the words "have a right to be tried by a court martial " should be altered to "have a right to be tried by a district court martial."
  MR. PARNELLsaid, it would make considerable difference whether the appeal were to a regimental or a district court martial. A regimental court martial would only have power to inflict a short term of imprisonment, whereas a district court martial might give a longer term.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MAJOR NOLANstated that he would not move the Amendment which stood in his name—to provide that a court martial hearing an appeal from a commanding officer's decision should not be empowered to award a punishment greater than was originally awarded by a commanding officer.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Courts Martial.
  Clause 47 (Regimental courts martial).
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he had an Amendment to propose, but could not explain it in the short time which would elapse before the Sitting was suspended. He would therefore move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—[Sir Alexander Gordon),—put, and agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.
  It being now Seven of the clock, House suspended its Sitting.
  House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

ORDERS OF THE BAY.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

CYPRUS.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKErose to call attention to Sir Garnet Wolseley's recent Despatches with reference to the Government of Cyprus, and to move an Address for Copies of the Ordinance No. VIII. of 1879, giving power to the Government of Cyprus to exile persons without trial; of the Ordinance No. VI. of 1878, prohibiting the sale of land to any but British or Turkish subjects; and of the Ordinance No. XVI. of 1879, confiscating uncultivated lands. The hon. Baronet said, that a few nights ago, in " another place," the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (the Marquess of Salisbury), in answer to a Question put to him, stated that it was very desirable that the beginning of the rule of a new High Commissioner should be marked by a nearer assimilation to, and greater respect for, the habits of the population. That observation was no doubt made with regard to the particular case brought under the noble Marquess's notice; but the facts which he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had to bring before the House would no doubt induce hon. Members to believe that there was some reason for making the arrival of the new Commissioner a fresh starting point for improved relations with that country. The despatches to which he called attention referred to statements, many of them made by him in that House, with reference to the government of the Island after it had been taken possession of by the English authorities, and the tone in which Sir Garnet Wolseley had written was shown by his speaking of a " small and insignificant clique of foreigners in the town of Limasol, who were prepared to make monstrous charges." The charges which had come from Limasol, however, were chiefly received not from a clique, but from a club of considerable size, whose members included but two foreigners, one of whom had been in Her Majesty's service at Constantinople, while the other was a Greek gentleman. Many of the charges which the despatches were intended to rebut were really confirmed by them. The Bishop of Citium and others complained that they had been threatened, in consequence of the representations that they had made. The allusion seemed to be to the Ordinance

  359
  which gave power to the Government of Cyprus to exile anyone without a trial —a power against which the House should protest. Sir Garnet Wolseley, in the Correspondence respecting complaints made against his government, proceeded to consider the statement that petitions written in Greek had been refused, and it appeared from his despatch that such petitions, unless accompanied by a translation, had been refused in the local courts of Limasol and Paphos. It should be remembered that in the mountain districts of the Island there were no people who could speak Turkish. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) wished to know, whether it was not the fact that Turkish and English were the only official languages in Cyprus; and, whether it was not true that Greek, although the language of the vast majority of the people, was in no sense recognized in the Courts or Administration of Cyprus? Since our occupation of the Island there had been a disposition to administer the Sheri or sacred law, which was very offensive to the majority of the people, rather than the Nizam, which was a very modified form of Turkish law. Replying to Sir Garnet Wolseley on the subject of forced labour, the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said that an Ordinance might be promulgated instituting forced labour; but that in no case were individuals to be punished for non-compliance with the Ordinance, for if individuals were punished, the Government '' would be charged with setting up slavery." But the forced-labour Ordinance, as it now stood, violated that instruction of the noble Marquess; the punishment for its infringement not being a fine upon a whole village, but a punishment directed against the individual. Sir Garnet Wolseley said, in his Correspondence, that he named the occasions upon which forced labour had been used; but it had been used on other occasions than those mentioned in Sir Garnet Wolseley's Return. It had been used, without any payment at all, by Colonel Warren. The facts did not seem to support the statement of Sir Garnet Wolseley, that he paid the market price for his forced labour; and, indeed, it would not be necessary to have forced labour, if the market price of labour were paid. In Cyprus it was forced labour, of the Egyptian type, about which we had so often protested
  360
  elsewhere. It was said that the people rather liked it; but then M. de Lesseps had said that the people of Egypt liked it. On page 5 of the Forced-Labour Correspondence would be found a substituted clause, under which an individual could be fined for non-compliance with the Ordinance, the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs having first directed Sir Garnet Wolseley only to levy fines upon villages. He wanted to know whether that was not a mere juggle. They were told, over and over again, that people who could not pay their debts were sent in iron manacles to hard labour in prison. He should like to have some explanation of this. Those who did not pay their taxes were debtors to the State, and those who did not pay the fines imposed under the forced-labour Ordinance were liable to be sent to prison. For his part, he regarded the Ordinance as unwise in principle and injurious in practice. It was a fatal policy for this country to depart from the principles of freedom by which it had been uniformly guided, and to introduce into Cyprus a principle against which we had protested in the case of Egypt, and in the case of Turkey herself. Well, Sir Garnet Wolseley said that forced labour had not been imposed upon the people at half the usual rate of wages. That was so, no doubt, in parts of the Island'; but in other parts it as undoubtedly had. The rates of labour varied according to the price of food and the condition of the people. In some parts the usual rate was 1s. a-day; in other parts it went very nearly up to 2s. a-day. There had also been forced labour without any payment at all. On that subject the Commissioner of Limasol had done something to confuse Parliament. He spoke of forced labour and of free labour. What was free labour according to Colonel Warren? It was forced labour for which he did not pay. He would now consider the inclosures forwarded by Sir Garnet Wolseley. In one, Colonel Warren said—
  "The Bishop of Citium would he right had he stated that I declared the Ottoman Code and law to be still in force, and that I was bound to follow the ordinances of that law."
  But why should the Ottoman Code be allowed to remain in force when ten to one of the population were Greek-speaking people? The Commissioners in Cyprus and the Assistant Com-

  361
  missioners had all had letters and speeches sent to them, with a view that they should prepare replies to the charges preferred; but it would be seen that while each Assistant Commissioner contradicted a number of the statements made, they had all made admissions which, if they were all put together, made out the entire of the 22 charges brought forward. Colonel Warren admitted that a double tax was imposed; but he said that it was levied by the Turks, and that the over levy was now being repaid. Then, he denied that any priest had been manacled or condemned to hard labour. That assertion was utterly untrue, for they had the names of many who were manacled and who were made to labour in public. Colonel Warren, no doubt, made the statement believing it to be true; but the danger was that each Commissioner contradicted in sweeping terms things as having occurred in his district which really occurred elsewhere. With respect to manacling, they had the distinct admission made by Mr. Cobham, one of the Commissioners, in an excellent and admirable speech delivered after the shaving of the two priests, in which he stated that greater care must be observed in future, and in terms admitted the accuracy of the charge of manacling. Colonel Warren admitted that one priest had been compelled to work at hard labour; but he denied the statement that threats as to an exercise of the exile Ordinance had been used. What, however, was that Ordinance enacted for, if it were not intended to be given effect to? Colonel Warren asserted that the forced labour resorted to under the new Ordinance gave '' universal satisfaction." All he could say was that the masses of letters he received from Cyprus spoke of a very different state of things. The witnesses he had cited in support of his statements on a previous occasion were disparaged by Sir Garnet Wolseley; but he could bring a host of others to give evidence to the same effect. As a matter of fact, however, he disputed everything said about the character of these witnesses by Sir Garnet Wolseley, who, apparently, had not acquainted himself with the facts of the case. When Sir Garnet Wolseley spoke of a charitable and educational institution so universally known as the Cypriote Fraternity of Egypt as a small Greek society, which had for its object the
  362
  spread of disaffection in Cyprus, it was evident that he had not tried to put himself in sympathy with the mass of the population he had had to govern. His (Sir Charles W. Dilke's) statement was denied that corporal punishment had been resorted to by the Government of Cyprus; but what he had alleged was that it was practised by the cruel Turkish Zaptiehs who were under our authority. He had heard of a great number of cases of flogging, and also that people were tortured by marching them 30 or 40 miles wearing heavy Turkish manacles. The Zaptiehs employed were Mahommedans in nine cases out of ten; they were persons who did not know the wishes of the population, and it would have been far better for the Government to have employed Sikhs on this duty rather than Zaptiehs. Colonel Warren said that the Zaptiehs, as a body, were much improved; but then it appeared that one-half of them had been imprisoned. It appeared to him, as he had said, that throughout Sir Garnet Wolseley's despatches he had shown that he had not put himself in sympathy with the people of the Island, and, that being so, good government had not been secured. Information had been suppressed—the Greek newspapers had been kept back because it was thought that their circulation would be injurious to our interest; but still information upon the point had not been given, and the denial given by Sir Garnet Wolseley to his (Sir Charles W. Dilke's) statements appeared in most cases to be made on insufficient or inaccurate information. It was not true that "no priest had been manacled for debt under our rule"; and as for the statement that M. " Theocharis Mitzi " had never been rejected for a public office on the ground that he was a Greek, ho held a letter in his hand from M. Mitzi's brother, affirming the statement, and mentioning the place where the event had occurred. The statement also that he had received from a late German Consular agent, to the effect that a capitalist at Larnaca was imprisoned and fined £25 for saying—"We believed the state of things would become better (under the British), and it has become worse," he insisted was worthy of inquiry. Then, as to the Courts, it was an admitted fact that English barristers could not plead in Cyprus; and if it was not true that all petitions addressed

  363
  to the tribunals had to be in Turkish, the inhabitants in certain districts were undoubtedly under the impression that such a condition had to be complied with. Sir Garnet Wolseley stated that no taxes had been increased and no new ones had been imposed, and that all duties upon exports had been removed; but it was certain that a forest tax had been raised, or there had been a revival of an old Turkish tax which had not been enforced, and new duties had been levied at the landing stages, and on olives and wine, from which a considerable revenue was derived. M. Pitzis, of Larnaca, however, wrote that many taxes had been raised; that every commodity had been raised in price in consequence; and that people were not allowed to sell the stones from off their fields without paying £20 a-year and 5 per cent on the value of the stones sold. It was admitted by Colonel Warren that taxes had been paid twice over, because they had been returned. One Commissioner, Mr. Inglis, said the rule to prevent English barristers pleading had been applied in only one case. That meant that only one application had been made, because the refusal had deterred others from applying. Another Commissioner, Mr. Wauchope, denied that any labour had been forced; but it was admitted to have been forced outside his district. He said no one had been flogged "by order of the Government," and no one ever asserted that there had been any flogging by such "order." His extraordinary defence for compelling the majority of the population to petition in Turkish, which they did not understand, was that he compelled the English to do the same, thus compelling them also to have Turkish secretaries; while it was admitted that even the Cypriote Mahomedans spoke nothing but Greek, and that it was not easy to find "experts at writing strange languages," the "strange language" in this case being Greek. Could anything be more absurd? Since those statements were made, Sir Garnet "Wolseley had changed the law and ordered Courts to receive petitions. As a matter of fact, however, the inhabitants had been put to great expense and labour by being obliged to go long distances in order to get petitions translated. He showed that the conduct of the Zaptiehs was good by stating that it had been necessary to im-
  364
  prison some of them. He said they were "not angels," and nobody supposed they were. He had unearthed one case of beating by a Zaptieh, for non-payment of taxes; but a good many more such cases had been "unearthed." Colonel Warren denied that a slaughter-house had been built by forced labour; but the statement was that it had been partially built by it. As to the water-works at Limasol, he admitted that he claimed the "four days' free labour allowed by law," and said " this free labour was in addition to paid labour." What was this but forced labour, for which he did not pay? It was admitted that prisoners were taken along the streets in manacles; and though this was said to be done to the worst characters only, such as robbers, murderers, and refractory criminals, it was really done to persons whose sole offence was debt for not having paid their taxes. Mr. Inglis out-Heroded Herod, and, in order to satisfy Sir Garnet Wolseley, went too far in his contradictions. He said—
  "I dismiss his (Sir Charles W. Dilke's) charge of the unsatisfactory condition of Famagosta. Suffice it to say, opthalmia is almost unknown; and, in cases of blindness, it is not a fair criterion to take the beggars from the country as an example of unhealthiness of towns."
  But Mr. Inglis did not notice the turned commas, and did not know he was contradicting a statement quoted from an official Report to the Admiralty, which actually stated that the whole population was afflicted with fever last year, half with opthalmia, and that one-sixth were smitten with permanent blindness. Mr. Inglis quoted a case of forced labour, which Sir Garnet Wolseley had not mentioned in his list; for, speaking of the repair of a bridge, he said—
  "I consulted the Mayor, a Greek, and we agreed the people must finish the labour. I paid the masons; and the people of Varosia, who preferred paying to working, paid the Turks of Famagosta for the labour."
  It was clear that in this case some of the people paid in forced labour or its! equivalent. The old Turkish practice of billeting the Zaptieh on the population, and supplying him with food and lodgings free, which not only was a i severe tax on the people, but which frequently led to acts of violence, was one also which ought to be got rid of; and which, though it might have been done

  365
  away with throughout a large portion of the Island, prevailed, if he was correctly informed, in Mr. Holbech's district only three months ago. As to the question of slavery, he could not see any allusion to it in the despatches from first to last, although that it was ' permitted to exist was one of the first charges which were brought against the Administration of Cyprus, and although he had, in the speech which he made on {a former occasion, insisted strongly on the necessity of preventing slavery in Cyprus under the British flag. From the Report on the subject, he saw that the proposal for free labour—that was, for unpaid forced labour—was negatived by the vote of Colonel Biddulph. He wished to notice that particularly, because Colonel Biddulph was the new High Commissioner, and the vote which he gave on that occasion against forced unpaid labour showed that he was disposed to administer the Government in a liberal sense; and he could not but hope that in taking up the charge of the government of the Island he would continue to act on such principles. He had, he might add, recently received a letter from an English gentleman in Cyprus, in which he stated that slavery still existed. Its existence, he added, would, of course, be denied; but the Turks had negro servants, who could not get wages and who could not leave their masters. The jurisdiction question could never be forgotten. There was Correspondence between the Government and foreign Governments on that question, and especially there was a remonstrance by Italy. He hoped hon. Members would press for Papers on the subject. If the Correspondence between the Government and foreign Governments was concluded, and those Governments had accepted the existing state of affairs, then the time had come when Cyprus ought to be taken from the Foreign Office and handed over to the Colonial Office; because the Foreign Office had no experience on such questions as the Administration of Cyprus; whereas the Colonial Office had been long accustomed to deal with such questions in all parts of the world. As to the health question, he hoped the Government would make some statement. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for "War stated in August last, in reply to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) and on the
  366
  authority of Sir Garnet Wolseley, that only about six persons were in hospital in consequence of Cyprus fever; but he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) made it out that the number was then 906, and he awaited with interest the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's explanation on this point. He would also like to have an explanation with regard to complaints that had been made by foreign newspapers as to the Administration of Cyprus, and to the case of the two Greek priests, who, for trifling offences, had been deprived of their beards and sentenced to imprisonment. Respecting the latter, he would say no more than to hope that for the future, in punishing persons charged with offences against the law, care would be taken not to offend against the religious prejudices of the people. An article in The Neologos made precisely the same complaint as he did, of oppression of the Greek population, not emanating from the Commissioners, but from the interpreters. It complained that the English and Turkish languages were made the official languages of the Island, although the great majority of the inhabitants were Greeks; while the Greek holy days, which were most religiously observed by them, were set aside, and the Greek assessors compelled to attend to the performance of their official duties on those days. It stated, further, that in all questions between the Natives the local Courts were allowed jurisdiction; but in those in which the British Government was interested, those Courts were overridden by a sort of drumhead court martial. He had obtained from Cyprus copies of the Ordinances which he asked should be laid on the Table. The House would never recognize their character from mere acquaintance with their names. One of them actually confiscated any land left uncultivated for a year, and yet it was merely called an "Ordinance to Promote the Cultivation of Land." Such an Ordinance was altogether opposed to English habits and legislation. Another of these measures was called an "Ordinance Regarding the Sale of Land to Subjects of Foreign Countries; " but it absolutely prohibited the sale of land in Cyprus to anybody but the subjects of England and Turkey. Some time ago we entirely changed our own law on this subject, and he did not see why a retrograde step should be allowed in Cyprus. There was also an "Ordinance for Securing

  367
  Peace and Good Order in the Island of Cyprus." It gave absolute power to the Government to banish from the Island, without trial or reason given, any person of whom they might disapprove. What were the circumstances which came to the knowledge of the Government, and induced them to enforce an Ordinance of that kind? There was a wish now to keep things quiet about Cyprus. He had asked for these Ordinances to be produced; but they were not forthcoming. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State, in answer to a Question he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had put to him on the subject, had refused to lay them on the Table, saying that he would put them in the Library. Some of them came out six months since, but they were not in the Library yet. He maintained, however, that they ought to be laid on the Table; for if they were placed in the Library they would never get into the newspapers. They ought to be issued and circulated, as they would then be discussed in the country, and the subject would be opened to the light of day; but that would never result from merely placing copies of those Papers in the Library. He had some time ago asked the Under Secretary of State a Question with regard to the expulsion of persons from the Island; and he replied that if a person were found to be objectionable as a resident he ought to be expelled. That was a curious admission, and when the hon. Gentleman complained of the terms in which he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had referred to the matter, he could not help thinking of a passage in The Bourgeois Gentilhomme, in which M. Jourdain says that it is monstrous to call a certain individual marchand; the fact being that all he did was to buy things from persons whom he knew, and exchange them for money with certain other persons whom he had the privilege of knowing. There appeared to be a great wish to keep back information relating to Cyprus, the reason being, he believed, that there was now more doubt as to the wisdom of occupying the Island than there was at the time when the occupation took place. He would again ask, why was the Island kept under the Foreign Office? The Colonial Office managed Malta and Gibraltar, and surely it was equal to Cyprus. In conclusion, the hon. Baronet moved an Address for
  368
  the Papers of which he had given Notice.
  Mr. MONK, who had placed on the Paper a Motion—
  "To call attention to the inaccuracy of certain Reports made by Sir Garnet Wolseley to Her Majesty's Government with regard to Cyprus, and contained in the Returns presented to this House on the 7th day of April and the 2nd day of May 1879,"
  seconded the Motion. He thought it an unconstitutional exercise of power that the Government should have power to exile persons from Cyprus without trial. They ought to know the grounds on which the sale of land was prohibited to any but British or Turkish subjects, and why uncultivated grounds were to be confiscated. He had also to complain that correct information had not been sent home last August by Sir Garnet Wolseley with regard to the health of the troops. There had been a strange discrepancy between the official Reports as to the amount of sickness at Cyprus. It would be in the recollection of the House that, in August last, report after report appeared in the daily Press, stating that the health of our troops in Cyprus was deplorable. On several occasions the Secretary of State for War denied the truth of those reports, on the faith of despatches and telegrams from Sir Garnet Wolseley himself. On the 14th of August he (Mr. Monk) inquired what truth there was in the alarming report that had appeared in The Daily News as to the enormous increase of fever among the troops, as well as among the sailors and marines. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman replied that he had received the following telegram, on the 12th, from Sir Garnet Wolseley: —
  "There is no serious illness among the troops. Some six cases are in hospital from the mild fever of the country."
  Nothing could be more satisfactory or re-assuring than the reply of the Secretary of State. What, then, must have been the astonishment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman when he received the official Report of Surgeon General Sir Anthony Home, which stated that 25 per cent of the whole of the troops in Cyprus were either in hospital, or stricken down with fever or dysentery. Now, if the latter Report was correct, and there was no doubt it was, it was difficult to understand how Sir Garnet Wolseley could have made the statement ho did. He could hardly have been so

  369
  entirely misinformed as he appeared to be, and if he was not, what were they to think of the Governor who, at a time when the country was anxious as to the health of the troops, kept back those facts from the Department at Home? Sir Anthony Home said—
  "The prevalence of fever augmented daily until in the week ending August 16th,' the attacks were 372 in a strength of 2,366 men."
  It was not to be wondered at that the Secretary of State for War, who had been, from the first, most anxious to give all the information in his power to the House, and whose candour was above all praise, should have said that it was as much a puzzle to him as it was to some hon. Gentlemen, the discrepancy between the official accounts which he received and the accounts which appeared in the Press. He (Mr. Monk) awaited, with some curiosity, the explanation which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman might deem it his duty to give. He had much pleasure in seconding the Motion which had been moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke).
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out the word " That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words '' an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies of the Ordinance No. VIII. of 1879, giving power to the Government of Cyprus to exile persons without trial:
  " Of the Ordinance No. VI. of 1878, prohibiting the sale of land to any but British or Turkish subjects:
  " And, of the Ordinance No. XVI. of 1879, confiscating uncultivated lands,"—(Sir Charles W. Dilke,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he did not propose to address himself to the general question which had been raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke); but he wished to make a few remarks with reference to the observations which had been addressed to the House by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk). There was an undoubted discrepancy in the statements which had been made as to the health of the troops in Cyprus, which it was desirable to clear out of the way; but he had not been able to
  370
  make himself fully acquainted with the facts of the case at present. At the same i time, he wished to say that he was anxious to lay before the House and the country, at the earliest possible moment, all the information in the possession of the Government as to the health of the troops in Cyprus, and the hon. Gentle- man had done him no more than justice I in referring to his willingness to do so. In) fact, many people blamed him last autumn for sending to the Press reports which were not favourable to the state of the health of the troops at Cyprus, but which, notwithstanding, he thought it his duty to lay before the public. In answering the Question of the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd), he admitted he could not deny that there was some discrepancy between the earlier telegrams and the Returns which were subsequently laid before the House; but from his knowledge of the character and antecedents of his gallant friend, Sir Garnet Wolseley, he could not for a single moment doubt that the telegrams forwarded were believed to represent the actual state of the facts as they existed. He had had no opportunity of asking his gallant friend what was the cause of those discrepancies; but he would, if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monk) wished, confer with Sir Anthony Home, who was now in this country, and who, it was possible, had with him the original notes from which the telegrams were framed. The earlier telegrams and letters were clearly sent home based upon the best information that could then be procured; but whatever he could further learn on the subject he would willingly communicate to the House. In the meantime he would refer those who required information in respect to the sanitary condition of the Island to Sir Anthony Home's Report, which showed him a man of science.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERthanked the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for the candid statement he had made, and was of opinion that the House might implicitly rely upon his assurance that searching inquiries should be made with regard to the discrepancies. On the general question, he thought the despatches which had been produced proved that the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was right in bringing this question under the consideration of the House;

  371
  and that he (Mr. Forster) was justified in giving to the Government the information he had received from gentlemen connected with Cyprus. That information was to the effect—Firstly, that our rule was conducted in a high-handed manner; secondly, that slavery still existed in Cyprus; and, thirdly, that we had introduced forced labour into that Island. In regard to the first point, he thought no one could read the defences made by the different Commissioners without seeing that there had been to some extent high-handed action; and, admitting that our officials had a very difficult duty to perform, he thought there was a great advantage in having the public opinion of this country brought to bear on the subject. If such things could happen, even with officials who wished to do right, it only showed how necessary it was to bring the question before the House. The treatment of the two priests was enough to show that great care was required in the administration of the law. As to slavery in Cyprus, it was remarkable that no attempt had been made to show that slavery did not exist. But the hon. Member for Chelsea's statement, which was from a credible source, showed that there was slavery in Cyprus, as there was in every country under the rule of the Turk. It was a matter which the Government ought certainly to look to. Had the Government published an Ordinance abolishing slavery, and if not, why not? If they had not done so, they ought not to lose a post in letting it he known that slavery was no longer legal in Cyprus. Again, why had the Government allowed the authorities in Cyprus to act in opposition to the Ordinance with respect to forced labour, which stated that there should be no punishment of the individual, while a fine had been imposed on individuals? The Government of Cyprus had also disregarded the instructions of Her Majesty's Government in other matters, and especially with regard to punishments; and he thought some explanation should be given as to why such things had been permitted. The fine imposed for the purpose of enforcing labour on the roads in Cyprus was clearly in opposition to the orders sent out by the Government; and he would likewise ask the Government why it had allowed its orders to be violated, and, more than that, whereas the old Turkish
  372
  law required four days' labour on the roads, 30 days' labour was now exacted? There was no need of forced labour, and he trusted that the example set to the Turks and Egyptians in the English Government of Cyprus—and which was the only motive for its acquisition— would not be that of employing forced labour at less than the market price. He was glad to think that the Government had sent out as Commissioner to Cyprus a humane and efficient gentleman (Colonel Biddulph), and that they might take courage from what had occurred in India, and instruct the new Commissioner to abolish forced labour altogether.
  MR. GOLDNEYthought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) could not have read the Ordinance referring to enforced labour; for anyone who did read it would see that the forced labour was practically an optional matter. If a man did not wish to serve, he was entitled to exemption on payment of 2s. a-day for a substitute, which meant practically the payment of half that sum, as the Government allowed 1s. for the labour performed. The labour that was enforced was for the construction of the necessary public works required for the protection of the Island, and the removal of causes of unhealthiness. If they did not enforce that labour, they would have to exact money in the shape of taxes for these works. The substitution, therefore, of labour for taxes was a benefit to the population. The town of Nicosia, where, a short time since, the drains were in a shocking state, had been made habitable by the labour of the people, whom the High Commissioner had caused to save themselves. He had himself been in Cyprus, attended by an interpreter, and had there learnt that, so far was it from being true that the people felt the present arrangement burdensome, in certain cases three and four times as many people applied for work at 1s. a-day as were required. He! had an opportunity of visiting four of the six departments into which Cyprus had been divided; he attended the Courts; and in no country had he seen the administration of justice presided over by more excellent men than the Commissioners. He was astonished that they were able to combine so well the strength of military discipline with the qualities required in the administration

  373
  of justice. The people seemed so contented that he was curious to ascertain how complaints could have arisen. An intelligent Greek told him that under their past government it had been the practice of the rich to oppress the poor, | and of the poor to cheat the rich; that the taxes were assessed by oppressive Pashas, but payment was evaded by bribing the Pashas or their officials, and now the English made a direct and equal charge, the payment of which could I not be evaded by bribery. Many said they were worse off, as regarded the amount paid, than they were under the oppressive Pashas. As to forced labour, he could not learn that there was any complaint of unfairness on the part of the Commissioners. The administration of the Post Office appeared to be efficient. At all four places he visited, he saw at the Courts petitions in Greek, as well as in Turkish and English. He was told that no petition was refused because it was in Greek, and that all Petitions, in whatever language they were presented, were translated and considered, and he could hear of no complaint on that subject. On the whole, the Zaptiehs were regarded as an excellent body of men; and it had transpired that one to whom he gave 1s. on leaving the prison at Nicosia, he believing that he ought not to have received it, had taken it to his commanding officer. There was no prison at Famagosta, and, therefore, use was made of a mosque, in which he found two prisoners who were not manacled. At Nicosia the prison was a large, well-built khan, but still not of sufficient space to confine all prisoners separately; and, therefore, in some of the cells or divisions two prisoners were chained together, but without any pretence of torture, and simply with a light chain, which was removed at night. When Sir Garnet Wolseley took charge of the Island, a number of Turkish prisoners were removed, and they were chained together as they walked down to the place of embarkation. He had a conversation with an intelligent Greek who had come over from Athens for the purpose of settling in Cyprus, and the Greek told him that the accounts which reached Athens of the condition of the Island under British administration were such that a great many Greeks were about to go over. One of the objects which Sir Garnet Wolseley aimed at
  374
  was to place the clergy on the same footing with regard to the laws as other people. With regard to foreigners not being allowed to purchase land, the law in Cyprus was the same as it had been in England. ["No!"] No alien, until the Act passed a few years since, could hold land in England, and now only by complying with the provisions of that Act. He believed that the Cypriotes were not dissatisfied with our administration of the Island; and he was satisfied that under our administration the country would flourish, and the acquisition of it would be, not only a great credit to this country, but of the greatest benefit to the welfare and prosperity of the people.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. Goldney) has drawn for us a charming picture of Cyprus. According to his account, there are no grounds of complaint. Every body is equal before the law. The Commissioners are unrivalled, and the people contented. That is a very interesting statement. It would have been more interesting still, considering the conditions which attend such an inquiry, if the hon. Gentleman had told us within what time it was that he was enabled to commence this inquiry, to conduct it, and to bring it to a close. That is a fact of very great interest to us, and I hope that, without breaking the Rules of the House, he will put us in some way in possession of that very important fact. The question whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Island for six months, or three months, or thirty days,or three days, has a very considerable bearing on the value of his information.There is another point on which I should like information. Who were the persons from whom he obtained his information? We have heard of an Athenian merchant who was on his way to Cyprus,and who expected—
  MR. GOLDNEYbegged pardon. He met him in Cyprus, and travelled with him from Nicosia to Cyrane.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am obliged to the hon. Member for his information. The hon. Member has told us, then, of one Athenian who had arrived in the Island, and of a great number of other Athenians who intended to go to Cyprus. What would be the opinion of these Athenians, when, upon arriving in Cyprus, they found that after the perfect system of law and administration which

  375
  had been established there, they would not be able to hold a single inch of land in the Island. That is the state of things the hon. Gentleman admires. He may say that these Athenians ought not to come over to Cyprus without having ascertained the state of the law in the Island with regard to the land. Still we ought to have a little feeling for them. They would be aware that certain laws had prevailed under the Turkish Government; they would be aware that under that Government there was nothing to prevent them from holding land in Cyprus; they would be aware that England had gone to Cyprus, trumpeting forth her intentions to set an example of progress, advancement, and enlightenment, and I know not what else besides. We were to abolish all the abuses of the Turkish Government, to establish an enlightened rule, and to convert Cyprus, as far as possible, into an earthly paradise. How justly, then, would this Athenian, who was under the special patronage of the hon. Member opposite, be astounded to find not only that we had not converted Cyprus into this abode of felicity, although the Island had enormous natural advantages and resources, but that we had actually gone back upon the legislation of Turkey, and had taken away even what was good in her legislation. The very barbarism of Turkey led, in some instances, to the people having a good government. The Turks did not interfere to create a bad government when they found a good system— as with regard to the holding of land; but that good system we had abolished before we had been 12 months in the Island; yet the hon. Gentleman comes back here to assure us that everything is perfect. I should like, further, to inquire of the hon. Member in what language he conversed with the people of Cyprus?
  MR. GOLDNEY: I said that I had an interpreter; but this Athenian spoke English as well as I did.
  MR. GLADSTONE: If the hon. Gentleman spoke through an interpreter, it is still more important that we should know also how long was the time he employed in making these inquiries?
  MR. GOLDNEY: I am quite willing to say. I was there four days, with every facility for travelling about.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Gentleman is most ingenuous, and I will not venture to say a single word further.
  376
  He has spoken most frankly and fully. I am perfectly satisfied with the reply, and I will not say another word upon the subject which which does not bear on the nature of the inquiry, or on the conclusion to which he has come. The hon. Gentleman apologizes for a Government which confiscates uncultivated lands, giving as a reason that there is a great deal of land uncultivated. That is what I continually hear about the Highlands of Scotland. Districts there are continually pointed out which were inhabited by a considerable number of men and were cultivated until the last few years, but are now remaining entirely uncultivated, given up in some cases to sheep, in some cases to grouse— in more cases, still, to deer. Does the hon. Gentleman propose to introduce an Ordinance into this House for the confiscation of those lands? What sort of equality is that? He says all men are to be equal before the law. But what sort of equality does he mean? Does he still think this confiscation of land—["No, no! "]—it is a confiscation; I am correct in saying that according to the words of the Ordinance—that this confiscation of land is really a liberal or an English method of legislation. Some distinction is to be drawn between Executive and Legislative proceedings. I am sure it is painful to think that with regard to the Executive proceedings there should have been such reason to complain in the case of the two Greek priests and the great Christian holidays of Christmas Day and Good Friday. I think my hon. Friend mentioned twice that a very solemn day with them is Good Friday. It is the old story. The English authorities go into a country possessed with the idea that there is no land in the world like England, and that the people of all other countries ought to conform to English customs, and that if they do not conform, so much the worse for them. This hunger for conforming the world, and the manner in which it is brought about, is, to me, a very serious matter. I will not dwell in detail upon the treatment of the Greek priests, because the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Bourke) has been so good as to intimate to me that the Correspondence will be produced. It will be much better to wait until I see precisely what has taken place before making this a matter for comment. I also thank him

  377
  for informing me, what has been publicly stated, that a reprimand has been administered to the person who was guilty of what was called in " another place" by the very mild name of a "miscarriage," but what I should call an outrage. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goldney) says this is really the old story of the claim of the Greek clergy to be tried by a tribunal of their own. Well, Sir, the hon. Gentleman, in those four days which he employed so well, had time to learn, if he was not aware of it before, that this exemption of the clergy is essentially a part of the Turkish Constitution under which these people have lived during all the long centuries that they have boon a subject race. It is not the assertion of a claim against the law; it is the law, as made by the Turks. This is to save themselves from the trouble of civil government, for which they felt themselves to be not the most qualified race in the world. If you abolish that; if you bring the priests under equal laws—and I quite agree that this is a object to contemplate-—you should take care what kind of laws they are under which you bring them, and you should be quite sure that you do not begin to act in total ignorance of the feelings and the customs of the country, and the condition and views of the priests; and, secondly, that you do not inflict upon them a wound in their tenderest feelings, their sense of honour and of shame, under cover of this general doctrine of equality. In your zeal for improvement, you are going to establish perfect equality before the law. But what is the system established in Cyprus? I am not going to pronounce a censure upon anybody in particular, for I do not know enough of these proceedings, or who is responsible for them, to be at all able to pronounce upon the degree of merit or of blame that may be due to any of the different persons who have been engaged in the government of the Island. So far as Sir Garnet Wolseley is concerned, I think in sending him him there, so far as I may judge from my intercourse with him six or seven years ago, that Her Majesty's Government made a choice as fair and judicious as could have been desired. Nevertheless, we must look at these things as they are in themselves. I entirely disclaim entering into the question of the merits of individuals; but I must point
  378
  out to the Government that the state of things there is one which cannot be endured in silence, either by the people of this country, or by a large portion of the Members of this House; and unless a very different system is pursued from that which is represented to us to-night, or unless it can be shown that that representation has been a very mistaken representation, the subject of Cyprus will simply be another subject thrown into the cauldron of our political troubles, like many others recently forced upon our notice. It will make further and urgent demands upon the time of the House, and will be a matter of anxious and complicated contention until a great change is established. What appear to be the main facts of the case as far as they are at present before us? In the first place, it does not appear that slavery can be asserted to have been abolished in the Island, and that is the contention of my hon. Friend. I do not understand that that contention has as yet been distinctly and intelligibly denied. Recollect, the whole justification of your taking Cyprus, in the eyes of the world, if you have a justification for it, rests upon your own determination and your power to make it an example of good and rational government. Let us test your proceedings by that rule. You have not, so far as we are aware, abolished slavery. I come, then, to the point of forced labour. How does that stand? The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goldney) says that he found in Cyprus that there was no forced labour. But what is the use of debating about terms? Why, if there is none, are you obliged to resort to positive enactments of law to get labour at all? If you build Houses of Parliament in this country, you do not resort to law to get the labour; while you tell me that you can get nobody to work in Cyprus, without a law to make him do it. Why, then, do you do it? Why do you come down upon the individual and fine him in order to make him apply for the work? There is no doubt about it. I will appeal to the candour of the Under Secretary of State, and he will correct me if I am wrong; for I do not want to exaggerate in the least, and the matter, as I understand it, is a little complicated. You make a list of the able-bodied men in the Island, and to them you say by law—" Either you

  379
  must present yourselves at a certain time to give your labour upon public works, and be paid for it at 1s. a-day" —[Mr. GOLDNEY: Not less than 1s.a-day.]—The law is satisfied with 1s.a-day, and, therefore, I put it so. " You must either appear and work and receive "—I will put it in that way—" 1s.a-day, or send a substitute, or pay a fine of 2s. for not coming. If you do not come after being duly summoned, you must pay 5s.; or if you come and go a/way, you must pay 25s."It is a little complicated, but the essential point of it is that there is now plenty of labour in Cyprus, but its value is more than 1s. a-day. [Mr. GOLDNEY: No!] The resources of information of the hon. Gentleman have reached such a point that it is not for me to suppose that any information coming from my correspondents, although they have lived very long indeed in the Island, and know all the circumstances, can compete with his marvellous four days' sojourn. I am told that 1s. a-day does not come up to the value of wages—
  MR. GOLDNEY: I do not think the hon Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) quoted from more than one district; I quoted from four, and saw people who were anxious to get work at the price.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir Garnet Wolseley's own statement is that the average is 1s. 3d.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The average stated by Sir Garnet Wolseley is 1s. 3d. If that is so, what is the wisdom, the policy, the necessity of interfering with the free sale by each man of the only commodity many of them have to dispose of—their labour—in order to gain to the extent of 3d.? Is that the example of the enlightened legislation which is to make Cyprus the envy and pattern of the East; and to add to the glories of England in that quarter of the world? So much, then, for forced labour. I will not dwell upon that any more. Evidently, it is a penal interference, to a certain extent; to the extent of a fine and to the difference between the shilling which a man can claim and the average rate paid. That constitutes a very severe law, which, in this country, would not be a law to be dreamt of, certainly not to be endured for a single moment. Then, as to a very important point—the holding of land. We have actually gone
  380
  back upon the Turkish system. Before we came to the discussion of this matter, it was always supposed that, however objectionable the acquisition might be, yet, that it would be attended with one advantage — namely, that the people could not possibly get anything but benefit from the change; that nothing could possibly be worse than the system of the Turks. But we have discovered a method which is a great deal worse, and we have introduced a restriction which appears to me quite outrageous. You have here an Island which is in habited by a population of whom, I believe, nearly four-fifths are Greeks, and to this people you say—"No Greek, none of your blood, none of your race, shall hold land in this Island, unless he be a subject of Turkey." That is a restriction Turkey herself never imposed. It is impossible that these things can stand. They must be the subject of perpetual discussion, and I hope that the warning will be taken in time, and that they will be amended. But I am sorry to say we have not yet mentioned the worst of all—in my opinion, by far the worst. It is that astounding Ordinance which is called an "Ordinance for Promoting Peace and Order in the Island of Cyprus." I really want to know whether I stand in an Assembly of Englishman. [A laugh.] The hon. Member laughs. He has no reason to laugh. It is no subject for laughter. Let him reserve his laugh till he has heard what I am going to say. I want to know whether I stand in an Assembly of Englishmen—within the four walls of the British House of Commons, the highest and the noblest of all temples of liberty, when I am called upon to examine this Ordinance. This is no new subject. This is the old shame, scandal, and disgrace of the English Protectorate in the Ionian Islands again revived. Every man in the Island of Cyprus is to hold his liberty and his property at the absolute mercy and discretion of what is called the Governor in Council. Is it possible to conceive a more complete destruction of personal liberty? I was a great deal more than four days in the Ionian Islands, and I know what the result of this system was there. One would suppose, when we hear of a law of this kind, enabling the Governor, by a secret proceeding, and not only by a secret proceeding, but, if my hon.

  381
  Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke) is right, by an Ordinance which was, itself, kept secret—I hope that that, at least, will be denied and refuted—to remove from the Island for any time he pleases, for any cause he pleases, under any circumstances he pleases, without warning of any kind, any inhabitant of the Island. We know the history of this in the Ionian Islands. The system there went under the name of "the Power of High Police," and it is precisely this power which is now revived. It is true that there was this to be said of Sir Thomas Maitland, the first Commissioner of the Ionian Islands, that he never passed an Ordinance upon the subject. He had such a sense of liberty that he would not embody in the terms of a law provisions so adverse, so contradictory, and so destructive of the first element of British liberty, or of liberty anywhere in the world. Go to Russia, of all places, with your Ordinance. Ask Cetewayo to approve it, for it is worthy of him. Is it possible that any hon. Gentleman, though sitting upon that front Bench, can think it a matter to be treated with ridicule that an Executive officer in the Island as the Representative of a foreign Power, on his appointment to that Island, is to be entitled to banish whom he pleases, to remove a man from his property, and his occupation, and to send him where he chooses. Is this to be treated with laughter and derision? It may be so. But these are matters which will have to be considered by the people of this country, for whom the question will be, whether the principles of liberty are not violated by such proceedings as these. One would suppose that we were dealing with a population of a most formidable description; that they are people given to plotting; that the whole history of their subjection to Turkey has been marked by a series of bloody revolts; and that nothing but the exercise of a despotic and violent tyranny can possibly preserve the peace of the Island. Is that the case? On the contrary, these people are among the most peaceable and easily-governed people upon the earth. I say, in some sense to their credit, in some sense to their shame, that they never have had enough of the spirit of manhood to rise even against the grossest oppression. But this is again the old game of the Ionian Islands played over again. There
  382
  we had to govern a sot of the most pacific and peaceable human beings. [" No, no! "] The hon. and gallant Admiral does not know those persons as I have done. I have been responsible for the management of their affairs; I have had an opportunity of examining them minutely; I have reported upon them fully to a British Government, which was also a Conservative Government; and the views I reported to the Government were adopted, both by my excellent Friend Lord Lisgar, who preceded me, and my distinguished and gallant Friend Sir Henry Storks, who followed me in that government. The people of this Island, I repeat, are the most pacific, the most contented, the most easily-governed people in the world. There is no county in England more easy to govern, so far as the government is concerned. I do not mean to say that they are a people advanced in all respects. In some respects, undoubtedly, they are wanting; but they are a most peaceable people. What happens? When we go into a country, the very worst of the Natives make it their business to form a ring round us to flatter us, to give us pretended information, and to malign their country for their own convenience and advantage. They take advantage of the little aptitude possessed by Englishmen for considering the feelings of foreign nations, and of travellers who go among them for three or four days, and they fill their minds with ideas most honestly sought, no doubt, and most honestly received, but ideas coloured according to the prejudices of those informants. They take advantage, also, of our ignorance of the language, and of the very great difficulty in holding full communication with the people, even when more than four days are given to the work. And in that way we have had in the Ionian Islands extreme severity, I will even say cruel and shameful severity, marking the proceedings of the British in the exercise of their Administration. For God's sake, do not let us have that experience over again! Why do we begin our government here by destroying the safeguards of liberty? [" Oh, oh! "] You cannot surely deny that you do destroy the safeguards of liberty when you enable the head of the Executive, on his own responsibility, to destroy a man's occupation and to banish him from his country. You may tell

  383
  me that power will be mildly exercised. That is what the Emperor of Russia and every man in Russia tell us of their system—that it is mildly exercised. At any rate, in Russia I know this—that the power is exercised by a Native Governor, endeared, in some sense, to the people; at any rate, habituated to the ways of the people by the association of many centuries. But we went to Cyprus by force. No man belonging to Cyprus was consulted on the question whether we should come there or not. The bulk of the inhabitants belonged to a race proud of its traditions, though it has not the same manhood to enforce their ideas that we have. Therefore, we should treat them tenderly, delicately, and with consideration. Do not destroy the safeguards of their liberty. I can only say that I wait, with the greatest interest, to know whether the Under Secretary of State will defend this Ordinance or not. It appears to me that there are no words to be employed which are too strong for its condemnation. It is by judicial trial in Cyprus, as in England, that private liberty ought to be sustained. You are not in a state of war, or in danger of war. You can-say you are in danger there. There is nobody to molest you. You are omnipotent, so far as brute force is concerned. You have not a tittle, or a rag, or a shred of title to resort to measures of that class, which may, perhaps, be justified under extreme circumstances and in extreme contingencies. I do entreat the Government not to allow this state of things to be established. Unfortunately, we have known in our Ionian experience what the consequence was, when a spirited foreign policy induced some Foreign Minister of England to reproach Austria with her proceedings in Italy. Austria had a ready and stereotyped reply. It was, "Look at the Ionian Islands!" and it was very difficult for the Foreign Minister of that day to make a severe rejoinder to that reply. "We have atoned for our miscarriages and our misdeeds in that country by giving to the people, in the fullest and freest manner, what they think to be the full and adequate blessing of liberty. Do not let us raise anew, in this country, which, although it be small, and although it be feeble—aye, absolutely powerless—is yet a country, our assumption of a Sovereignty over it which
  384
  has attracted the notice of the world— a treatment which will have much to do with the future name and fame of England in the East.
  MR. BOURKEthought that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) had been somewhat hard upon the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney), who had made to the House a statement based upon his short experience in Cyprus. It was true that the experience of the hon. Gentleman was short; but it was not fair to suggest, in terms of passionate invective, that the statement of the hon. Member was one which had been carefully fabricated, in order that it might be imposed upon the House. The hon. Gentleman had made his speech in good faith, and the statements he had put forth wore just as reliable as those contained in the Blue Books, inasmuch as they were the statements of a Gentleman who had carefully guarded himself against making any statement which could not be supported by evidence based upon facts within his own knowledge. He (Mr. Bourke) did not think that his hon. Friend had said one single word which anyone, having had an experience of four days, was not entitled to say, and he was as entitled to give his opinion on matters which had come to his own knowledge as anyone having an experience of four years. With regard to the general question before the House, he was extremely anxious not to say one word which, if reported in Cyprus as coming from a Representative of the Foreign Office in that House, could have the effect of embittering the feelings which already existed between the Governors and the governed in that country. He believed that a great deal of mischief had already been done by statements which had received an exaggerated colour in this country, and which had, to a certain extent, disturbed the relations existing between the persons in the Island of Cyprus, relations which, on all grounds, it was desirable to leave upon as friendly a footing as possible. He did not, for one moment, complain of the various charges and statements which had been from time to time brought forward in that House. The hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had, as they all knew, paid great attention to

  385
  this subject, and he had brought forward his case from time to time with very great skill, and he (Mr. Bourke) might say, with the skill of a practised advocate. No doubt, he had made the very best of his case. To put the whole case in a few words, as it had been presented to the House from time to time by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea, he thought it was simply this— that he had taken isolated facts from time to time, and had put these isolated facts before this House and the country, as representing the general state of things in the Island of Cyprus. Isolated facts formed the whole justification for the hon. Baronet's speech, for he said that all his statements were borne out, if they would only take one case and another; because, by taking a few cases, there was hardly a statement that had been made in that House that had not been completely admitted either by the Deputy Commissioners or by the Commissioner. Therefore, the hon. Baronet justified the whole of the charges made against the Administration of the Island, simply because, in various cases, some very small and isolated matter had taken place. With regard to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich upon the Ordinances, the most convenient course would be for him (Mr. Bourke) to take the cases he had put. He had to complain against the right hon. Gentleman, for he had not quoted the Ordinances to which he had referred correctly, nor had he given the House to understand accurately what he described. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would admit that he said that it was in the power of the High Commissioner, after consultation with the Executive Council in the Island, to exile any man without trial. To that, he (Mr. Bourke) would reply that it was not so. The Ordinances to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded, as having been in force in the Ionian Islands, was very different. The Ordinance in Cyprus gave the power in question to the Legislative Council of Cyprus. That was, the Legislature had power to exile any man; but nothing of that kind could take place unless the Council passed a resolution to that effect, and that resolution must be sent to the Secretary of State. That was a very different description of the Ordinance from that given by
  386
  the right hon. Gentleman. That Ordinance was passed by Sir Garnet Wolseley, because he had been given to understand that, in all probability, there would be a rush of all sorts of bad characters from every part of the Levant the moment it was known that Cyprus was about to be occupied by the English. Sir Garnet Wolseley considered that the Legislature ought to be given that power, for the purpose of securing peace and good order in the country. The right hon. Gentleman had also said that the Government had made the mistake of trying to govern Cyprus in accordance with British ideas. That was exactly the reverse of what the Government had done. The Government had given a Legislative Council to Cyprus. Although they had not agreed upon every particular connected with the occupation of Cyprus, they had thought it better, considering the novelty that must attach to all that was done in the Island, to allow laws to be passed; although, at first sight, they might appear to be different to such as would have been initiated in this country. But, having given legislative power to the Council in Cyprus, the Government thought it desirable not to interfere, at any rate, for the present, with the laws that might be passed, although the laws would not have been initiated by Her Majesty's Government in this country. That was the real reason, if he might say so, for these Ordinances. The laws with respect to waste lands had been passed under exactly similar circumstances. When Sir Garnet Wolseley had his attention turned to the waste lands of the Island, he perceived that, owing to the lazy way in which the inhabitants were allowed to live, and the lazy way in which they cultivated their land, a vast quantity of land in the Island was left in a totally uncultivated condition. He endeavoured to discourage that plan, and passed an Ordinance with the object of encouraging the cultivation of waste lands. As respected the law relating to the non-purchase of land, it was due to a belief by Sir Garnet Wolseley that a vast number of land speculators would, unless prevented, rush upon the Island and purchase property. There were many reasons why it was thought desirable that the land should not fall into the hands of land speculators, particularly

  387
  as Sir Garnet Wolseley considered it very desirable that public works should be carried on on such land, which might fall into the hands of speculators, and which would have been impossible had the speculators to whom he had alluded not been checked. It would be a mockery for the House and for the Government to give a Legislative Council to Cyprus, and then step in and take the power of legislation out of the hands of the Council. He thought, however, that it was right and proper, and very likely it would be quite necessary, for the Secretary of State, when a more extended experience had been gained, to repeal many of the Ordinances relating to Cyprus. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen cheered ironically, as if he had ever said the contrary. He had always given the House to understand that that was his opinion, and that opinion he had always entertained. It was impossible, in governing in Cyprus, to introduce laws at once which would be suitable for all circumstances of the population. They had given to the Legislative Council a power of initiating legislation, and it was quite possible that the Secretary of State might think it advisable to repeal some of these Ordinances; but, if so, there would be no difficulty in doing it. The attention of the Secretary of State would, no doubt, be called to those Ordinances, particularly by the debate that had taken place that night. The attention of the new Commissioner would also be called to the question raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea, and the Government at Home would, in a great measure, be guided in their action by his Reports. Sir Garnet "Wolseley held such strong opinions upon the Ordinances that the Government did not think it desirable at once to do away with them. The hon. Baronet had drawn attention to certain statements, which he quoted at very great length. He would not detain the House by going over the ground traversed by the hon. Baronet, when he complained of Sir Garnet Wolseley's despatch; but he ought to have remembered the circumstances under which that despatch was written. Nothing could be more offensive to Sir Garnet "Wolseley, or more hurtful to his feelings as an honourable man, and nothing could be more injurious to his reputation as a great administrator, than the allegations that
  388
  had been brought forward in that House by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea. But he (Mr. Bourke) knew the hon. Baronet too well to think that he would have made one single statement upon that occasion without being impressed himself with the belief that it was true. He was sure that the hon. Baronet was convinced that everything he stated was justifiable; but he would ask any calm mind to read those despatches which had come home in answer to the speech of the hon. Baronet, and he did not think it could be doubted that the substance of those charges which had been brought against Sir Garnet Wolseley's administration had been altogether rebutted. Then, again, the hon. Baronet had alleged that all his statements were justified, because of the action of the Deputy Commissioners. In particular, he had singled out Colonel Warren for his attacks. Well, considering the arduous duties that that gallant officer had been called upon to perform, and the manner in which he had discharged them, he (Mr. Bourke) was not surprised that Colonel Warren had warmly resented what had been publicly stated of him. He thought he should be justified in taking that opportunity of stating what Sir Garnet Wolseley said about Colonel Warren. He said—
  "Before quitting this part of the correspondence, I wish to put on record my high appreciation of the manner in which Colonel Warren has carried on the difficult duties of his office— duties rendered all the more difficult through the conduct of the Bishop, who, instead of setting the people an example of obedience to the law, as their spiritual head, seems to have taken pleasure in breaking it, and in endeavouring to place itself above its power. I know that Colonel Warren's exertions to improve the sanitary conditions of Limasol, to supply its inhabitants with good water, to protect the poor from the exactions of the rich, to administer the law impartially to all classes irrespective of race, religion, or position, to make all respect it, by showing that the rich Bishop as well as the poor workman must obey it, and that the rich Bishop should pay his taxes as well as the humble shopkeeper—I know well that all this which Colonel Warren has done is highly appreciated by the great bulk of the people of his district."
  Now, was that true, or was it false? If it were false, it was as black a falsehood as was ever penned by any man; but, if true, it substantially refuted the imputations that had been made, and made not in a fair or candid way, against Colonel Warren. The explanations that

  389
  had been brought forward, to his (Mr. Bourke's) mind, amply proved that this was the case, and he thought that those explanations had been admitted by the hon. Baronet. There were several other charges made, which were mot exactly in the same way. It was said that the taxes had been paid twice over. This was put forward as being quite the usual thing in Cyprus. The hon. Baronet alleged that taxes were usually paid twice over; and he justified his assertion, because in one case double taxes were demanded—and in respect of that case the tax collector had been punished. That was an example of the whole way in which this case against the administration of Cyprus had been got up. Then, with regard to barristers not being allowed to practice in Cyprus. The hon. Baronet had stated that no English barrister was allowed to practice in Cyprus. That was not exactly the case.
  SIR CHARLES W.DILKEremarked, that be said they were not allowed to practice before the district Court.
  MR. BOURKEsaid, that made all the difference in the world, because there were two reasons why Sir Garnet Wolseley did not think it desirable to allow English barristers to practice. It was only in the district or local Court, to which the prohibition extended; they wore Courts found in the Island, and the only difference made in them was to appoint an English assessor. The administration of the law in those local Courts was continued together with the law which was formerly administered, one of which laws was that a barrister was not to be allowed to practice without the leave of the superior authority. English barristers had not obtained the leave of the superior authority, and, therefore, they could not practice. These were not Turkish Courts now; but they wore local Courts continued under British administration. Besides which, as the Judges could not understand English, and the English advocates did not understand Turkish or Greek, it did not appear to Sir Garnet Wolseley that the interference of English advocates would contribute much to the due administration of justice. With regard to the petitions, the hon. Baronet had made a great deal that night, as he had done on previous occasions, of the question of petitions. The allegation of the hon.
  390
  Baronet was that petitions were refused if they were not in the Turkish tongue; and he had mentioned one or two cases in which Greek petitions had not been received, and the Judges had been reprimanded for refusing them. On the other hand, it had been shown that Sir Garnet Wolseley had received thousands of Greek petitions. He had nothing to complain of with regard to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). He entirely agreed with him in thinking that he was fully justified in bringing the questions he had under the notice of the Government. The Government were very glad to have those questions brought to their notice; but discretion ought to be exercised in making charges in that House against officers performing difficult duties in Cyprus. It should be remembered that those gentlemen had not the power of answering these charges; and they all knew that in that country the population had a talent for intrigue, which it was extremely injudicious to foster. Nothing would tend more to disturb the relations between the races of the people and the persons who governed in Cyprus, than to foster their intrigues in that House. It could do the population of Cyprus no good, and would do a great deal of harm. Something had been said that night with regard to slavery. There was no need for him to stand up in that House and say that the Government would not countenance slavery in any shape or form. The right hon. Gentleman had done them the justice to say that they had done a great deal in different parts of the world in the suppression of slavery; and, therefore, there could be no doubt of the feeling of the Government generally on this subject. With regard to slavery in Cyprus, there could be no doubt that slavery existed still in the Turkish Dominions, and Cyprus, until the other day, was a Turkish possession, and there could be no doubt that slavery existed there. There was, also, no doubt—and he was quite ready to answer the question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich on that point—that no Ordinance had been passed to abolish slavery. But there had been no single attempt, directly or indirectly, to give legal effect to the status of slavery in the Island. He knew of no law with regard to it;

  391
  and he should be surprised to hear of any court, local or otherwise, in which an English assessor was sitting, which had permitted the process of the court to be used to give effect to slavery in any shape or form. If that were the case, nothing was to be said against Sir Garnet Wolseley. The Government had not been asked by the Legislative Council to pass any law with regard to slavery. If they had been asked to pass one for the repression of slavery, no doubt, they would give a hearty assent to it. But, like all other laws, the Government would like it to be initiated there. At present, no grievance had been shown to have arisen from slavery; but it was for that House to consider whether any grievance had been shown. He did not think that a single syllable had been said to show that any law of this kind was necessary. One or two remarks had been made by the hon. Baronet with regard to the Council. There were questions between foreign Governments which made it desirable that Cyprus should, for the present, remain under the Foreign Office; but he did not know that at the present moment the Colonial Office was not as well able to manage it as the Foreign Office. But that was a matter of very small moment. With regard to Good Friday, there had been but one Good Friday since we took possession of the Island, and he hoped that before the next had arrived the cause of complaint would be removed. He quite agreed that what occurred was a scandal, and nothing could be more impolitic than giving rise to it. It was a great pity that the scandal had arisen. With regard to the two priests, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich had truly stated that he (Mr. Bourke) had informed him that the officer had been reprimanded for not taking care that the priests were not shaved. He might mention how the thing happened, not by way of palliation, but as some excuse. It happened in this way. One priest was sentenced to seven days' imprisonment, and the other to imprisonment for a month. He did not think that the justice of the sentence was in question, but the prison regulation permitting shaving. A rule had been laid down by Sir Garnet Wolseley, with regard to prison regulations, that no priest should be shaved who was not imprisoned for a period of more
  392
  than three months. That was very creditable to the Government of Cyprus, for it showed plainly that they had some regard for the feelings of the priests. The regulation, however, was one which, of course, was subject to consideration. There was only one more remark that he would wish to make. The hon. Baronet seemed to have implied that there were some doubts in the minds of Her Majesty's Government as to the wisdom of retaining Cyprus. Well, all he should say upon that subject was that he had not heard of those doubts, and he had seen no signs of them. He thought that Her Majesty's Government were quite as determined as ever they were to do all they could to improve the condition of, and give good government to, Cyprus, and to maintain it in the position in which it was at present. He had the same sympathy as some other hon. Members for the Hellenic race; but he did not think that having such sympathy was any reason whatever why Her Majesty's Government should throw over Cyprus. He was glad to inform the House that Her Majesty's Government had not the slightest intention to allow Hellenic intrigue to take root in Cyprus. They thought it was desirable for the good government of the Island that no such intrigues took place, and the Government would do its best to prevent them occurring. Having said this much, he hoped that the House would excuse him from entering further into the speech at that hour of the night; but he could assure the hon. Baronet, in conclusion, that if he had, from time to time, any complaint to make with regard to the government of Cyprus, either in general terms or in detail, the Foreign Office would be happy to receive any information which he could give. With regard to the Motion of the hon. Baronet, Her Majesty's Government did not make a practice of laying Ordinances before the House. They thought it would be better for the management of the Island that the Papers should not be laid before the House; but if the hon. Baronet was anxious to obtain them, the Government had no objection that the Ordinances referred to should be printed and put in the Library. At present, the Government had not arrived at any conclusive opinion as to the justice of those Ordinances. He would remind the House

  393
  that those Ordinances had been passed by the Legislative Council; and what was passed by it was law, until it was rejected by Her Majesty's Government. All Ordinances passed were law in Cyprus, and it was impossible to do away with those Ordinances until experience had proved that they were inexpedient. At the same time, he had no objection to those Ordinances being made into a Parliamentary Paper.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that it was a long time since any English Government had used such language as the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had used that night on the subject of slavery; and the people of England would be astonished at such language being used on behalf of the Government with regard to slavery. The hon. Gentleman had said that he thought it possible that slavery existed in Cyprus, and that he had no doubt it did. He (Sir "William Harcourt) should have thought that such a statement would have been followed by an assurance that Her Majesty's Government had taken the earliest step possible to do away with it. Not at all. The hon. Gentleman went on to say—" There is not much harm in it; it has not come to my knowledge that a case has come before the Courts." Was that the sort of thing that they had been used to hear in this country for the last 50 years on the subject of slavery? All the hon. Gentleman said was that the Legislative Council had not proposed to abolish it. The English Government was waiting for the Legislative Council of Cyprus to deal with such a matter as that. All the hon. Gentleman said was that the Government could not take the initiative, and would not send instructions to the Council of Cyprus to abolish slavery. The Government would not interfere with the initiative of the Legislative Council of Cyprus, but would wait until it thought proper to abolish slavery! It seemed to him (Sir William Harcourt) that that was a most extraordinary statement for the Government to make. First, it was said in that House that slavery existed in Cyprus, and then the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs followed it up by saying that the Government waited for the initiative of the Legislative Council to abolish it. Why did the Government not put the matter in hand
  394
  at once, and abolish slavery, if such a tiling as slavery existed? He said it was very probable that slavery did exist; but he did not think the Government should interfere to abolish it until the Legislative Council took some view in the matter. He (Sir William Harcourt) would venture to say that the English nation would be extremely surprised to find that such language as that was held by the English Government. For the first time for the last 50 years had such language as that been used. There were various observations with regard to Cyprus as to which the Under Secretary of State had given no reply. Upon the question of forced labour he had not said a single word. What did the right hon. Member for Bradford point out upon that subject? He pointed out that the Secretary of State had permitted the Governor of Cyprus to put penal liabilities upon the inhabitants in respect of forced labour. Although such a question as that demanded an answer, no reply to it had been given by the hon. Gentleman. As to the question of forbidding people who were not born Natives of Cyprus to hold land, perhaps the Government relied for its legal defence upon the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney). That hon. Gentleman was four days in Cyprus, and having spent four days in Cyprus, and having studied law, he made this monstrous assertion—that in that country foreigners could not hold land. Perhaps the hon. Member did not know that an Act of Parliament was passed some years ago permitting foreigners to hold land in England on the same terms, and in the same manner, as English subjects could do. Well, the hon. Member got up and defended this Ordinance in Cyprus, on the ground that the same law prevailed in England. That was all the explanation that had been offered upon this subject. With regard to the Ordinance to which his right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) had referred, as to exiling persons, what explanation had been given? It had been said that there was a perfect safeguard, because the Commissioner only had power to do it with the assent of the Legislative Council. What was the Legislative Council? They might just as well defend an act of Charles the First, because that King did it with the advice of the Star Cham-

  395
  ber. The Legislative Council was nothing more nor less than a Court of Star Chamber. There was no Representative Council, and it had no judicial character. It was not necessary that the Ordinance should have the slightest sanction; so long as the Council nominated by the Governor chose to agree with him these Ordinances might be passed. The explanation offered by the Under Secretary of State upon this subject had not removed one single objection to the Ordinances. The action of the Legislative Council was nothing more than that of a Star Chamber, proceeding conjointly with the High Commissioner; and he agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) that it was necessary to have debates upon that subject, in order to compel the Government to take proper views upon this question. The Government had had these Ordinances before them for many months. The question of slavery, and the question of forced labour, and the character of the Ordinances with regard to exile at the instance of the High Commissioner and the Legislative Council, had all been before them. But justice was not to be obtained in these matters from the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and was only to be obtained by debates in that House. It was plain that, so long as Ordinances of this kind were made, the only thing that could be done was to have discussions of that kind, as that was the only way they could force Her Majesty's Government to give some consideration to these matters. It was clear that not one single word of these Ordinances which had been passed could be possibly retained. The policy of the Under Secretary of State would not hold water, when he stated that if there were bad laws in Cyprus it was not the fault of the Government, but they would be dealt with when occasion arose. He admitted that good laws must be more or less a question of time. But the worst laws were not those which it was necessary to abolish in Cyprus, but those which had been made for it. The complaint was that the Government were instituting laws which were worse than those which they abolished. That was the charge which was brought against these Ordinances and against the Government. These Ordinances, which his
  396
  hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea wished to have laid upon the Table, existed by the authority of Her Majesty's Government. No doubt, no Ordinance had been made upon the subject of slavery; but that was a question which could not be allowed to rest for one single day. He could not admit that the law which existed was right, and that it was possible to temporize with the matter. It was a shame and a scandal to the English Government that, as soon as their occupation of Cyprus took place, they did not put an end to slavery. Everyone remembered the manner in which Lord Palmerston made an impression upon other Governments in respect of slavery. What could England say in the face of another Government, after what had been stated by the Under Secretary of State, that they did not care much about this subject of slavery, and that the initiative of the abolition of slavery in the Island had been left to the Legislative Council? Then, with respect to the land laws, the Under Secretary of State stated that foreigners had been prohibited from holding land in Cyprus owing to the fear of land speculators. They had excluded foreigners from the Island; but he would venture to say that no laud speculator would venture there. After the wretched experiments they had made in Cyprus, there would be very few land speculators venture there. It was plain that they would not go there, and the only residents that were remaining in Cyprus were the soldiers and officers and persons employed. The very last place that persons wishing to speculate in land would go to was Cyprus. He did not think that the defence which had been raised by the Under Secretary of State on that point was worth anything. With respect to the uncultivated land, the hon. Gentleman did not say much more than he had upon the question of forced labour. There were particular charges which had been brought against the Government; and as the Under Secretary of State had not answered them, he must be taken to have admitted them. In the same way, as Her Majesty's Government had not repealed these Ordinances, they must be considered to have approved of them. He hoped that they might gather this much consolation—that, at all events, his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea

  397
  might have the satisfaction of feeling that the result that he had brought about had been to put an end to the mystery which had been maintained about these Ordinances to which he had objected.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had never heard a more extraordinary misrepresentation of a speech in that House than that which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) had made of the speech of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Under ordinary circumstances, it would be worth while to pass by such statements with comparative indifference, because the House knew what such charges were worth. But, in the present case, it was important to notice what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, because it was calculated to produce a false and mischievous impression in this country, if it went forth, upon the authority of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the effect of the observations of the Under Secretary of State on the part of the Government was that the Government tolerated slavery. He thought such a statement would be calculated to produce a very false and mischievous impression. There was no justification for the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman in anything. What his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State had said was what the Government had done upon this question. What his hon. Friend had stated was this—that if slavery had hitherto existed in Cyprus, no effect would now be given in the Courts of Justice to anything in the nature of a claim for the exercise of the right of a master over a slave. Did that show that the Government was indifferent to the existence of slavery? If slavery was not to be enforced, the power of a master over a slave came to an end. Whether it was necessary to pass any special Ordinance upon the subject was a question of a different character. He believed that it might very probably be thought right to pass such an Ordinance, as his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State had already said. If that course was considered desirable, he had no doubt that it would be adopted; but as the matter at present stood,. if no legal authority was given to enforce the rights of a master over his slave, slavery, for all practical purposes, came to an end
  398
  in Cyprus. That was very different from the statement which had been made, that the Government was indifferent to the existence of slavery. They wished to say, with regard to these matters, that the main considerations which hon. Gentlemen entirely left out of sight, in speaking of Cyprus, were these. The Government had come within a very short period—less than a year— into the administration of a country in which there were difficulties of every sort, and maladministration of every kind, to be dealt with and corrected. In order to bring the country into a proper condition it was absolutely necessary to exercise discretion, and to proceed with consideration. Many remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) were made without taking these facts into consideration. The Government, above all things, considered that they ought to proceed carefully and tenderly in this matter. The Government, taking into account the difficulties of the situation, felt that it would not do instantly to disallow Ordinances with which they might not entirely agree. In all these matters consideration ought to be had for the men who had been working in the greatest difficulty, and who had introduced, he believed, more improvements in the government of the Island within the space of the last 10 or 11 months than had ever been applied to any other country in a similar space of time. But the Government was censured, not only for what it had done, but for what it had not done. It had been said that some of the Ordinances which had been introduced were very objectionable. But it should be remembered that in introducing a new system in circumstances of difficulty, it might be—as in this case it was— necessary to have recourse, for a time, to exceptional measures. With respect to the power of foreigners to acquire land, and matters of that sort, they were of a temporary character only. And he believed that they were calculated to prevent mischief being done, and were justified in that view. He thought that the spirit in which the Government had proceeded, and in what it would continue to proceed, was one which in its results could not fail to be beneficial and satisfactory.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLexpressed his surprise that the right hon. Gentle-

  399
  man the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not used more decided language with regard to slavery. With regard to that part of the subject, there was no place for discretion, no time for consideration. He understood his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Bourke) to state that the Government would consider whether it was necessary to pass an Ordinance to abolish slavery; but that, in the meantime, the Courts would not recognize its existence. Why should not the Government instantly pass a law in Cyprus, as they had passed in India 40 years ago? He could not understand the hesitation of the Government in giving the House an assurance that this should be done. The result of the debate seemed to him to be, in effect, that they had to give up a military government of this Island to a military man, and to allow him to enforce his own ideas. That might be very right in Africa; but in a place like Cyprus he thought it was a mistake; but as the Government consented to give Papers on the matter, it was unnecessary to continue the debate longer. On the question of slavery, however, he did not think that the British Government had any discretion, or should take any time for consideration, but should give an assurance that no laws should be passed by which slavery should be totally done away with in Cyprus.
  MR. GILESsaid, that, after the disfavour with which the occupation of Cyprus was received by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), it was not a little amusing now to witness the hon. Baronet's great anxiety for the welfare and good government of the Cypriotes. If one-half of the charges that he brought against the Government could be proved, it showed that the English were guilty of the greatest cruelty and tyranny; but that did not accord with the written testimony of Sir Garnet Wolseley; and he (Mr. Giles) would rather believe a high-minded gentleman like Sir Garnet Wolseley, than he would a zaptieh or a Greek priest. He had been a good deal abroad, and he had not failed to observe, in his converse with foreigners, that if there was one thing that struck an Englishman more than anything else, it was the feeling of respect that foreigners generally had for the just and
  400
  honourable dealings of the English. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich had been very hard upon the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney), because he gave the House his experience of Cyprus, after having been there only four days. The right hon. Gentleman did not believe the testimony of an eye-witness; but he was ready to believe any charges in letters made by unknown correspondents; and as the conflict of testimony was so great, he (Mr. Giles) would suggest that the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea should himself go to Cyprus; and if four days were not long enough to enable him to get all the necessary information, let him remain there four weeks, and then come back and report to the House the results of his experience that day three months.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put.
  Resolved, That an humble Address he presented to her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies of the Ordinance No. VIII. of 1879, giving power to the Government of Cyprus to exile persons without trial:
  Of the Ordinance No. VI. of 1878, prohibiting the sale of land to any but British or Turkish subjects:
  And, of the Ordinance No. XVI. of 1879, confiscating uncultivated lands.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Resolution [June 19] reported, and agreed to: —Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. RAIKES, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBRETSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Public Health Act (1875) Amendment (Interments)* (123).
Committee—Local Government Provisional Orders (Axminster Union, &c.)* (94); Local Government Provisional Orders (Abergavenny Union, &c.)* (103).
Report—Prosecution of Offences* (121).
Third Reading—Racecourses (Metropolis)* (45); Omnibus Regulation* (117); Convention (Ireland) Act Repeal* (77); Hares (Ireland)* (89); Local Government (Highways) Provisional Orders (Buckingham, &c.)* (95); Local Government Provisional Orders (Aysgarth Union, &c.)* (104), and passed.

ARMY ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE—THE MEMBERS.
VISCOUNT BURYsaid, it might be convenient to their Lordships that he should announce the names of the Members of the Committee on Army Organization. They were—General Lord Airey, General Lord Napier of Magdala, General Sir J. Lintorn A. Simmons, Lieutenant General the Earl of Longford, Lieutenant General Sir Patrick

291
M'Dougall, Lieutenant General Armstrong, Lieutenant General Sir Henry Norman, Major General Sir Archibald Alison, Colonel Saunders, R.A., Colonel Hutton, and Colonel Bigge. The Secretary was Colonel Clive.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—HOUR OF MEETING FOR PUBLIC BUSINESS.

  RESOLUTION.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN, in rising to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the Sittings of Public Business should commence at 4 P.M. instead of 5 P.M."
  said, that the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Midleton), in moving a similar Resolution last Session—the debate on which was still fresh in their Lordships' memory—had explained the subject in detail, and it would not be necessary for him (the Earl of Dunraven), therefore, to speak at any length upon it now. The noble Viscount commenced by saying that the Sittings of this House divided themselves into three heads; an arrangement which, though it sounded somewhat peculiar, was so convenient that he would follow the same plan. The Sittings of their Lordships' House naturally fell into three classes. It not unfrequently happened that the House, having little Business before it, passed through that little quickly, and rose about half-past 5 or 6 o'clock. He saw nothing to be ashamed of in that respect. Provided the House got through its work well, there could be no reason why it should not get through it quickly. It would greatly conduce to the convenience of the House, on those occasions, if the House met at 4 o'clock and rose at half-past 4 or at 5, rather than meet at 5 and rise at half-past 5 or 6 o'clock. The former hour would be more suitable to Members serving on Select Committees, because those Committees adjourned at 4 o'clock, and noble Lords could hardly be expected to wait about for an hour on the chance that some interesting discussion might arise in the House. It would be more convenient, also, to the House in general, and would induce a larger attendance of Peers. It was not always possible to tell, by looking at the Notice Paper, whether anything of interest would come before the House, because discussions of considerable importance sometimes arose
  292
  spontaneously, on the moment, and without any public Notice; and he felt sure many noble Lords would come down on the chance of any important debate arising, provided they felt that by doing so they would not, if disappointed, lose the entire afternoon. By meeting at 4 o'clock, there would be plenty of time, during the summer season, for their Lordships to ride or take exercise of any kind, to take advantage of trains leaving town at a convenient hour, or to go to outdoor places of amusement, when nothing of interest took place in the House; and in winter or spring, which was the same thing, only worse, they could console themselves, for lack of work, by the society of their friends at the most sociable hour of the day—5 o'clock. The present system was a direct premium on absenteeism. If it had been deemed advisable to weed out of the House all those Peers who were not resolutely determined to devote themselves to political life, no better plan could have been devised than to fix the hour of meeting for Business as it was at present fixed. Then there were the intermediate days on which unpremeditated debates arose which lasted till dinner-time, or discussions arising on important matters after due Notice, which never lasted beyond the same mystic hour. In fact, " the tocsin of the soul, the dinner-bell," tolled the knell of all debates in that House unless an important Division was expected, or some matter of vital interest to the Empire was under discussion. The extra hour before dinner-time which would be gained would be of the greatest use in these cases. It would allow of a reasonable amount of discussion on important topics, and the House would be able to pay more deliberate attention to the details of Bills in Committee. An hour did not represent a great lapse of time, but, practically speaking, it doubled the time at the disposal of the House. It would be a great advantage to all Members, and more especially to those who had the misfortune to have committed the " atrocious crime of being young men." He did not mean specially young in years, but young in the House. Many of them had to get all their experience in the House. They were in the lamentable position of being recruits delegated to the Reserves not only after short and inadequate service, but without any active service whatever. On occasions

  293
  of great debates there was no difficulty in keeping a House to a late hour. But these occasions were rare; like angels' visits, they were " few and far between." The House sat till a late hour perhaps three or four times in a Session. On those occasions, no doubt, the more inexperienced Members were better employed in admiring the eloquence and listening to the opinions of certain noble Lords than in endeavouring to give utterance to their own thoughts; but it would be well if they could have some chance of joining in those debates, and an extra hour before dinner, by giving more time for the first two or three great speeches, might afford some opportunity for a little desultory firing during the dinner-time before the principal forces were again got into position after that hour. He was sorry to mention the dinner-hour so often, because it sounded as if their Lordships were especially fond of that entertainment. That idea was, of course, absurd. Their Lordships were always ready to subordinate their comfort to the public welfare on great occasions. But it was perfectly natural that the dinner-hour should form a legitimate boundary to the ordinary labours of the day. It would be easier to obtain the attendance of members of any assembly between the hours of 4 and 7.30 than between the hours of 5 and 8.30. The circumstances of the two Houses of Parliament were so different, it was useless to compare them. Besides, noble Lords were, no doubt, unselfishly anxious to avoid the social sin of being late for dinner. He believed the change would be to the convenience of society and of the House as a whole, with the possible exception of the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor). If it were a mere matter of personal convenience, he had no doubt that the noble and learned Lord would rise in his place and clamour to sacrifice himself to the general good; but, possibly, he thought of Lord Chancellors in the abstract, and of the legal business. The House might sit for appeals at 10 o'clock in the morning—and in doing so it would meet at the hour which all the Courts in the country met at. But if grave legal difficulties existed, he maintained that afforded no argument against the contemplated change—that was no reason why the House should lose an atom of its usefulness or sacrifice its convenience;
  294
  but it did show cause why some change should be made as to the Speakership of the House. The House was its own Speaker—an anomalous state of things which had advantages, but which might lead to strange results. It was obvious that any Party in a majority might prevent the minority from ever speaking at all. That was not likely ever to be more than a theoretical possibility; but there were other objections. He would not mention them, as that was not actually the point in question. All he wished to say was that it would be better to alter the system than continue it to the detriment of the House. He did not believe it would be necessary to alter the system, because if the House sat for legal business at 10 o'clock, the Lord Chancellor could take his seat at half-past 4, or a quarter of an hour after the regular Business would commence. Surely the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees might occupy the Woolsack for those 15 minutes? And in cases where a Committee of the Whole House was the First Order of the Day there might be a Deputy Speaker or Chairman chosen. Those occasions occurred about 10 times in a Session. It would be necessary to have a Deputy Chairman for two hours and a-half each Session. He asked if such a small matter should weigh against the convenience of the whole House? He believed the alteration in the hour of assembling would increase the usefulness and add to the dignity of the proceedings of their Lordships' House.
  Moved to resolve, That, in the opinion of this House, the Sittings for Public Business should commence at 4 P.M. instead of 5 P.M.—(The Earl of Dunraven.)
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON, in supporting the Motion of the noble Earl, said, the experience of their Lordships was in he favour of the proposed change. When brought a similar Motion forward last Session, his noble Friend at the head of the Government met it by statistics. Now, he found that in 1877 the House met 93 times and adjourned on 49 occasions before 6 o'clock. Last Session, it met 103 times and rose before 6 o'clock on only 47 occasions. Noble Lords left the building when the Select Committees adjourned and did not come back. On one occasion he met a noble Lord going home, and, on his asking him whether he intended to return, he said he had been serving on a Committee and was

  295
  too exhausted to do so. It was obvious that if the House had been sitting he would have gone into it. The present arrangement for meeting had the effect of shutting out any discussion on the part of independent Peers, and confining the debates exclusively to Ministers and ex-Ministers. In the present Session, when the Afghan debate was about to be adjourned, his noble Friend at the head of the Government moved that the House should meet at 4 P.M. on the following day. The result was that the debate was resumed at that hour, and kept up until half-past 3 on the morning following. Acting on that precedent, he (Viscount Midleton) moved that the Zulu debate be resumed at 4 in the afternoon; but the Lord Chancellor said that an important appeal case would be interfered with by that arrangement, and the Prime Minister suggested that such a Motion ought not to be made without Notice. He did not press his Motion. Consequently, the debate was resumed at a quarter-past 5 and brought to a close at 12. Only 11 noble Lords took part in the debate, of whom seven were, or had been, Cabinet Ministers, two had been, or were, Under Secretaries of State, and one had been a permanent Under Secretary of State. On the occasion of the discussion of the Bill for Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister the debate ended by a quarter to 8, only three-quarters of an hour having been devoted to it after the noble Lord who had charge of the measure moved the second reading. When the Duke of Argyll brought forward the foreign policy of the Government, the dinner-hour approached before the noble Earl at the head of the Government could address their Lordships, and even his ability and eloquence could not keep a good attendance. The system of pairing was not in vogue in their Lordships' House, as it was in the House of Commons, and, therefore, noble Lords could not leave the House for a short time without running the risk of finding the Division taken before their return. The practical difficulties which it had been suggested were in the way of an earlier meeting could easily be surmounted. When noble Lords holding Office, or those who had done so, wished to address the House, no private Member with any decency could take part in the debate. There were three classes to
  296
  be considered in this change. First, the officials, who would be placed in no worse position by such a change as that proposed than their colleagues in the House of Commons. With regard to the Lord Chancellor, who was the hardest-worked man in the House, he could be relieved by one or more Deputy Speakers, and he believed that any loss of dignity which might arise from such a course would be more than balanced by its convenience; and then, thirdly, with regard to the independent Members on both sides of the House and the leading Members of the Opposition, such a change as that proposed would be in their favour. Moreover, by the proposed change, younger Members of their Lordships' House would be listened to without impatience.
  LORD ZOUCHEsupported the Motion. In these days, when every institution must expect to be freely criticized, their Lordships' House should endeavour to do more legislative Business. Under the present system, the opportunities given to independent Members to express their opinions were almost nil; and, if by meeting earlier their Lordships were enabled to give more time to practical Business, the legislation of the House must be improved. Why, he asked, was it that all the work was thrown on the shoulders of one House and none on the other, but simply because there was no time given in their Lordships' House for transacting it before the dinner-hour? It was becoming more and more necessary that there should be an independent Chamber to check the Business that was not properly considered in the House of Commons. What was the use of that House, if they had no work to do? No less an authority than Mr. Gladstone had stated a few nights since, on the occasion of the debate on Indian finance, that the reason why a measure of such vast importance had not received its proper consideration was that the pressure of Business in the House of Commons was so great that there was not time enough for deliberate debate, even on questions of so grave a character. Of course, he (Lord Zouche) did not mean that the House of Lords would be competent to legislate on money Bills; but there was a large amount of intermediate Business which, if the House met an hour earlier, the less known

  297
  Members of the House might usefully deal with.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNexpressed a hope that the Motion would be adopted. Those of their Lordships who attended the House regularly knew that on many occasions their Lordships had not adequate time to consider the intermediate class of Business that came before them. About a quarter to 7 o'clock the House became uneasy, and at 7 o'clock noble Lords who rose to address it alluded to the lateness of the hour and apologized for intruding. There was, in consequence, a general feeling that if a noble Lord wished to make a speech, he ought to be as quick as possible about it. It was said that noble Lords must get their dinners; but, then, when they had got their dinners, they did not return. The consequence was, that matters under discussion were left to the Lord Chancellor, a Minister or two, and such few Peers who might remain in the House. The debate last night did not commence until 7 o'clock. The consequence was, that one of the most important questions that could be brought before it—the great subject of Indian Finance—was debated in a thin House. At the magic hour of 7 the House consisted of about 12 Peers, and, at one time, if their Lordships had come to a Division, he was afraid it would have been found that their number had dwindled down to nine; and, at its conclusion, the audience consisted of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon), the noble Lord at the Table (the Earl of Redesdale), and himself—
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDrose to Order. The question was the meeting of the House at 4 o'clock, and not last night's debate.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he was strictly in Order, inasmuch as the circumstance which he had stated showed that if the House had met at 4 instead of 5 o'clock, his noble Friend (the Earl of Northbroook) would have delivered his speech to a full instead of an empty House. He would ask their Lordships to imagine what would be the feelings of " the intelligent foreigner " who, after watching the lengthened proceedings of the House of Commons, should compare its diligence with the time devoted by their Lordships to such important questions as that to which he had referred?
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: My noble Friend who has addressed us with so much ability asks us what would be the feelings of a stranger if he had entered the House for the first time last night, when we were deliberating on Indian Finance. I can only say, that if a stranger had been here for the first time to-night, he would naturally have supposed that there was a plethora of business, that we were labouring under arrears, and that the most extreme measures must be taken at once in order that we should have time and opportunity to contend with the mass of affairs with which we are, unfortunately, so incommoded. My noble Friend (Lord Zouche), in the ingenious remarks addressed to us, was not very happy in his illustration. He said that it was one of the grievances of this House, which might ultimately be productive of injurious consequences, that we could not have debates on such subjects as Indian Finance. Now, the fact is that last night we had a debate on Indian Finance, and I am quite sure, if my noble Friend had addressed us on that subject with as much ability as he has done to-night, he would have received the utmost attention. But where was he? My noble Friend (Viscount Midleton) made reference to the Zulu debate. Now, it so happens that when Notice was given of bringing forward that subject, I, remembering the complaints that had been made of opportunities not being afforded to our younger Members for discussion, though I did not think those complaints well founded, took some pains to secure that there should be an adequate debate. I communicated with several Members of the House on both sides, in order to ascertain whether they desired to take part in the debate, expressing a hope that they would do so. Well, some of them did announce to me that they would participate in the discussion, and I looked forward with great confidence to the debate being sustained in a manner which would have done honour to the House. But I regret to say that when the opportunity came, and when I looked round, on the one side, for those who were to attack the policy of the Government, and, on the other, for those who were to buckle on their armour in its defence, no champions appeared. With regard to one of

  299
  those noble Friends—who is capable of addressing us with power, and of whom I have had experience in the other House of Parliament—upon him I particularly counted. I had received what I regarded, of course, under a misapprehension, as a positive assurance that I might depend upon his taking part in the debate. Many were the messages sent, and many were the means taken to find out where my noble Friend was, but he could not be found. But, when I was on my legs, winding up the debate, what was my astonishment when I turned round and saw my noble Friend returning to the House in that peculiar costume which denotes the festive hour. A noble Earl seemed to think that the present hour of meeting is particularly inconvenient as regards those noble Lords who are serving on Select Committees. The Members of Committees labour during the morning in a manner the industry and efficiency of which are universally admitted; and it is refreshing to call to mind that the House of Lords has some virtues, when so many of its own Members are attacking its proceedings. The noble Earl complained that it was a great inconvenience that a Member serving on a Committee should not be able to proceed at 4 o'clock to his place in the House. My noble Friend who seconded the Motion (Viscount Midleton) completed the picture. He gave an instance — and as Sterne observes there is nothing like an individual instance, and that a solitary captive gave him the true idea of slavery, so my noble Friend met a Friend who had just left a Committee, and remonstrated with him for going away and not attending the debate. But the Friend said—"I cannot agree with your proposition that we should attend the House at 4 o'clock, because I am entirely exhausted." So the great grievance, therefore, is that we are not forcing exhausted Members to take part in our debates. I know very well that it is considered a great advantage by many noble Lords, that between the conclusion of the Committees and the commencement of the debate there should be an opportunity for Members to have some air and exercise, and then they return with renovated energies to the performance of their duties. During this debate we have had a great many remarks on the necessity of dining. One would really
  300
  suppose that it was peculiar to the House of Lords that they could not go on without their dinners, and that Members of the other House of Parliament sacrified their meals without compunction. I know that what takes place in the House of Commons—what is brought forward as a model for us to imitate—is not very different from what takes place here. It is just as difficult to keep a House there during the dinner-hour as it is here. The Members of the House of Commons, inferior beings as they are, do dine, and they do so with the mortifying results which have been described with so much vigour as if they were peculiar characteristics of the Senate of England. Unfortunately, last evening, the House was not so full as might have been desired, and some of my Colleagues, who possess much experience and eloquence, had not an audience numerically worthy of the occasion; but I understand, from the usual sources of intelligence, that on a late occasion, when the same question —the Finances of India—was under consideration in "another place," and when the House was addressed by a Member of great Indian experience, and who is an effective speaker, and afterwards by the great master of eloquence in this age, the attendance did not exceed four Members. Therefore, your Lordships' House gains by the comparison, because, on the showing of the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) we had at all periods of the previous evening a much larger attendance than that. He admits that there were nine Peers who sacrificed their dinners, and sat throughout the debate. Before your Lordships come to the conclusion which the noble Earl the Mover of the Resolution recommends, your Lordships have to consider something more than the convenience of my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack. Your Lordships must remember, a few years ago, when there was a prospect of your being deprived of your judicial powers, you very properly resented that attempt, and. you vindicated and preserved your privileges as the great Court of the Kingdom. A Bill was introduced which secured those privileges, and constructed on a larger scale the machinery by which those great duties should be fulfilled. That included a number of Peers of eminence, who formed a body for judicial func-

  301
  tions. It is well to consider whether it is desirable that this considerable number of Members should be called upon to commence their Parliamentary duties without the slightest interval for refreshment or repose. Again, I venture to make another remark on behalf of those whose case has never been stated to the House. I mean the Ministers of the Crown. The Business of the country is increasing every day, and it is extremely difficult for those who till the great Offices of State to keep pace with the demand on their time and attention. But it may be said that the Ministers who are Members of the House of Commons have to attend there at an earlier hour. The pressure of Public Business in the House of Commons is so extreme that it must be met in the manner most conducive to its discharge; but all who have been Ministers know that the hour from 4 to 5 is most precious for the performance of Business, and it is highly desirable that the time which the Members of the Administration possess should be curtailed as little as possible. Some of the great Departments of the State are filled by persons who are Members of your Lordships' House. Of late years this has been the case to a greater extent than before. I myself fill an Office of constant care and labour. The Secretaries of State for more than one Public Department have seats in this House, and men who have experience of those Offices will tell your Lordships that it is a great boon to a Minister—like the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, for instance—to have the hour from 4 to 5 at his disposal. Even a Minister who rises early can scarcely expect to get well to his work before 11 o'clock, considering the immense mass of correspondence with which he has first to deal. There are then five or six hours, some portion of which must be given to refreshment and exercise, and it is, therefore, an object of importance to a man thus situated that he should have that hour of leisure which hitherto the House of Lords has so conveniently afforded him. These are considerations which, in my opinion, ought to have some degree of weight with your Lordships in coming to a decision on the question before you. The issue, I may add, has been entirely changed during the progress of the discussion; and the fact that the House met
  302
  at 4, instead of 5 o'clock, would not at all remove the evils on which one or two of the noble Lords who spoke in the debate dilated. The House is asked to make this considerable change, not because it has work which it cannot get through—not because there is a large amount of arrears of Business—but because, inreality, we have not as much work as we can do, and on frequent occasions we have had to adjourn for lack of work. In these circumstances it is, that it is proposed that the whole judicial body of the House shall be disturbed—that the time of leisure most valuable to Ministers shall be curtailed — that Deputy Speakers shall be appointed—and that machinery of a colossal kind shall be set up. One would naturally suppose that the House of Lords were overwhelmed, and in despair with the Business crowding their Table, and that you were inventing this comprehensive and colossal machinery for the purpose of encountering the difficulty. Under all the circumstances of the case, I hope your Lordships will not assent to the Motion.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that as he had spoken on this question when it was last brought before the House, he should not trespass on their Lordships' time at any length upon the present occasion. He agreed with the noble Earl who had just sat down, that the House was not overwhelmed with a plethora of Business—he scarcely remembered a Session in which it had so little to occupy its time as the present. As to the young Peers, he thought it was most desirable they should be afforded the opportunity of speaking; but he could not help adding that he thought they might create more frequent opportunities of doing so for themselves. Many of the young Members of the House might find the occasion for addressing their Lordships if they would only take the initiative, and he hoped they would do so more frequently in the future. He had no doubt, however, that it operated as a great discouragement to them to have to speak when the House was looking forward to breaking up. Whether they were likely to be much encouraged by the charming raillery of the Prime Minister, and whether they would not probably deem it better to postpone their speeches until he had spoken, he would not say. But be that as it might, he, for one, should

  303
  be glad to see them afford the House more frequent opportunities for admiring the ability which they undoubtedly possessed. As far as he could make out, the young Peers were in favour of the proposed change, and it was one, therefore, which was likely to be again brought under their Lordships' notice. He was glad that on the present occasion the proposal had enabled the noble Earl opposite to correct some exaggerated notions which seemed to have gone forth to the public as to their Lordships' anxiety about the dinner-hour. It was not a peculiarity of the Members of the House of Lords to desire to dine. That was a most laudable desire, which was fully shared in " another place." What happened, generally speaking, was that while there was no Assembly more willing to assist at an important debate, yet when a prolonged conversation occurred in which the great majority did not intend to speak, and there was no question of a Division, many of their Lordships, having previously made their arrangements, naturally did not care to postpone them. He was, therefore, disposed to think that the change which was suggested might be found of use in giving time for the transaction of what might be called "intermediate Business," and he certainly had heard no argument from the Prime Minister to show it would not be an advantage to the House in its political character to have the additional hour before dinner for the purpose. As to the judicial argument, he would observe that he had always thought it hard that the Lord Chancellor, who had Judicial as well as Ministerial duties to perform, should be obliged to remain in the House throughout the evening in a way in which no other Peer was required to do; and he would remind the noble Earl (the Earl of Dunraven), that the suggestion of appointing a Deputy Speaker was not a new one, as he seemed to suppose; nor could he, for one, see any objection to returning to the practice of appointing such an officer, so that the Lord Chancellor might be relieved, not only between the hours of 4 and 5, but more frequently, from duties which must be very irksome to a man who was so hard worked. As to the members of the Judicial Body generally, he did not think they shared in the wish to have the additional hour at their disposal. His noble
  304
  and learned Friend Lord Selborne, for instance, stated last year that he thought the proposed change would be exceedingly desirable. As regarded the Ministers, he agreed with the noble Earl that they were, for the most part, overworked—especially in the House of Commons, where they had more to go through than almost any human being could endure. The same remark, however, did not apply with equal force to those Ministers who had seats in their Lordships' House, who had no such extravagant demands made upon their time, and whom there would be nothing to prevent from returning to their Offices on many evenings if the House were to meet at 4. He did not think, therefore, the Ministerial objections ought to be allowed to stand in the way of the change, and he should be happy to support the Motion of his noble Friend.
  On Question? Their Lordships' divided:—Contents 64; Not-Contents 101: Majority 37.

  CONTENTS.

  Westminster, D.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Lansdowne, M.

  Brodrick. L. (V. Midleton.)

  Ripon, M.

  Carlingford, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Camperdown, E.[Teller.]

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Carnarvon, E.

  Cowper, E.

  Clermont, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Conyers, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Granville, E.

  Crewe, L.

  Grey, E.

  Crofton, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Kimberley, E.

  Lovelace, E.

  Emly, L.

  Morley, E.

  Foley, L.

  Morton, E.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Northbrook, E.

  Onslow, E.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Powis, E.

  Romney, E.

  Houghton, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Keane, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunravenand Mount-Earl.) [Teller.]

  Sydney, E.

  Canterbury, V.

  Leconfield, L.

  Cardwell, V.

  Monson, L.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Mostyn, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Portman, V.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Aberdare, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L.(E. Galloway.)

  Blachford, L.

  305

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Sudeley, L.

  Waveney, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Canterbury, L. Archp.

  Aveland, L.

  Cairns, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Bagot, L.

  Balfour of Burley, L.

  Blantyre, L.

  Bedford, D.

  Bolton, L.

  Northumberland, D.

  Braybrooke, L.

  Richmond, D.

  Castlemaine, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Clinton, L.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Abergavenny, M.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Bristol, M.

  De Mauley, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  de Ros, L.

  De Sanmarez, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.

  Annesley, E.

  Bathurst, E.

  Forbes, L.

  Beaconsfield, E.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Gerard, L.

  Belmore, E.

  Gordon of Drumearn, L.

  Bradford, E.

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

  Cadogan, E.

  Clonmell, E.

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

  Coventry, E.

  Dartrey, E.

  Hammond, L.

  Devon, E.

  Hampton, L.

  Ducie, E.

  Harlech, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Ellesmere, E.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

  Lanesborough, E.

  Lucan, E.

  Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)

  Manvers, E.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Norton, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

  Ravensworth, E.

  Redesdale, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Raglan, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Rivers, L.

  Somers, E.

  Robartes, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Romilly, L.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Strange, E. (D. Athol.)

  Tankerville, E.

  Saltoun, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Waldegrave, E.

  Wilton, E.

  Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Cranbrook, V.

  Templemore, L.

  Hardinge, V.

  Tollemache, L.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Tredegar, L.

  Hood, V.

  Truro, L.

  Melville, V.

  Walsingham, L.

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Airey, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Ashford, L. (V.Bury.)

  Resolved in the Negative.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.