Sitting of 27 June 1879

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee —NAVY ESTIMATES, Votes 1, 2, 3.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Ordered —First Reading—Partnership * [225].
Ordered—First Reading—Cork Borough Quarter Sessions * [226]; Highways Accounts (Returns) * [227].
First Reading—Supply of Drink on Credit* [224].
Committee—Army Discipline and Regulation [88]—R.P.
Committee — Report — Tramways Orders Confirmation (re-comm.) [215].
Withdrawn—Charity Expenses and Accounts* [221].
The House met at Two of the clock.

QUESTIONS.

  PRISONS (IRELAND) LIMERICK COUNTY PRISON.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When the Return, ordered by the House on the 28th of April, in reference to the County Limerick Prison, will be laid upon the Table?
  MR. J. LOWTHER, in reply, said, that the Return which the hon. Gentleman moved for in April was a Return of the number of prisoners who committed suicide in the County Limerick Prison since the appointment of the present Governor, and also of those removed to the lunatic asylum during the same time. He had no objection to that Return at the time, only he had pointed out that it would have been much better that a date should be fixed, instead of indicating the period in the particular manner set out in the Return. The hon. Member, however, at the time, was unable to furnish the precise date of the appointment of the Governor; and, accordingly, in order to avoid delay he (Mr. Lowther) agreed to the Return in the form proposed; but as he considered it was unjust towards a public functionary, he had given Notice to move a supplementary Return, showing the number of prisoners who were considered by the medical officer insane on their committal, as well as a further Return in reference to the prison, and both would be laid on the Table of the House. He found, on inquiry, that the public functionary referred to bore so high a character that there was no danger of any false impression arising in connection with the matter.
  MR. O'SULLIVANhoped he was in Order in asking the Speaker, Whether it was in the power of any Member of the House to refuse to comply with the Orders of the House?
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he had not at all refused to comply with the Orders of the House; he had merely sought for a supplementary Return himself.—
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, that if the Return he had moved for were laid on

  837
  the Table of the House he had no objection to the supplemental Return being also granted.

  LOWER THAMES VALLEY MAIN SEWERAGE SCHEME—THE SEWAGE FARM NEAR MOLESEY.—QUESTION.
  MR. GILESasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been drawn to a Resolution of the Lower Thames Valley Main Sewerage Board (carried by the casting vote of the Chairman at a meeting held on the 18th instant), to apply for a Provisional Order to enable them to dispose of the sewage of the united district upon land near Molesey, in defiance of the vote of this House rejecting that scheme on the 7th of March last; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action thereon?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: Sir, I have seen a statement to the effect referred to in the newspapers, and I have no doubt it is the fact. But I am not aware that the action taken has been in defiance of the vote of the House rejecting that scheme. One of the main arguments which caused the House to reject the scheme was that it would have been within the power of the Sewerage Board to apply for a Provisional Order to carry out their wishes. If such a course be persevered in, the Local Government Board will cause full investigation into the facts to be made before granting the Provisional Order. Should they decide to grant that Order, it will, of course, come before the House, and a full opportunity will be given for its discussion.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE CAPE MOUNTED YEOMANRY.—QUESTION.
  MR. WHITWELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, as the Cape Mounted Yeomanry are not in any way under the Secretary of State for War, they are under the Commander-in- Chief, or under what military commander they are acting; and, whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies exercises control over the Mounted Yeomanry, and if he has inquired whether the statement has any foundation that Colonel Brabant, with a detachment of these men, threw explosive dynamite and fired cannon into a cave occupied by Basutos and their women and children?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, the Cape Mounted Yeomanry are under the command of the Commander-in-Chief of the Colonial Forces of the Cape. That officer is, of course, controlled by the responsible Ministers of the Colony. The operations in Basutoland have been undertaken solely by the Cape Government, and the pay of the Force does not in any way come out of the fund voted by this House. I should expect to receive—indeed, I have received—some despatches from Sir Bartle Frere, the Governor of Cape Colony, detailing some of the occurrences of this war; but nothing relating to the employment of dynamite under the circumstances mentioned. If I thought for a moment there was any necessity to do so, I should forward a remonstrance to the Cape Government; and if there was any case calling for inquiry, I should direct such inquiry to be made. But I have neither the right nor the wish to interfere with individual officers in the service of the Cape Government.

  IRELAND—RELIGIOUS DISTURBANCES IN THE WEST OF IRELAND.

    QUESTION.
    MR. HOLTbegged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland a Question, of which he had given him private Notice. He wished to know, Whether the reports contained in the " Times " of this morning respecting the renewal of outrages in the West of Ireland are substantially correct; and, whether he will take immediate steps to check these outrages, and to procure for the Protestants of Ireland liberty equal to that enjoyed by the Roman Catholics of Ireland?
    MR. CALLANhoped that the right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, would distinguish between what information was obtained from newspapers and what from official sources.
    MR. J. LOWTHER: I have not as yet seen the particular newspaper report referred to by my hon. Friend, though I am sorry to say that I have, from official sources, received information to the effect that disturbances are unhappily occurring in that part of Ireland—disturbances originating in some religious feud in no way connected with the other disturbances which have been

    839
    referred to as having taken place in other parts of the same county. My hon. Friend asks me whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to afford to the members of one religion the same protection as in other portions of the Kingdom is given to the members of another religion? In reply, I have to say that the steps which have been taken are wholly irrespective of any religious belief, or of the part of the country to which they belong; and it is our firm intention to preserve order without regard to religious belief, and without any consideration with regard to the position of persons who may be connected with these disturbances. We have sent a very considerable police force into the district, and an intimation was given to the inhabitants some time ago that, in the event of any further disturbance, a tax will be levied on the district where the disturbance occurred to recoup the outlay of the Government in the maintenance of the additional police force sent there.
    MR. CALLAN: Sir, in reference to the answer of the Chief Secretary, might I ask the Government to take into consideration the propriety—and, I may add, the advisability—of extending the scope of the mission of Colonel Bruce to the West of Ireland, and give him instructions so as to enable him to inquire into the causes of the religious disturbances, as contra-distinguished from those arising from other reasons, especially the question of land.
    MR. J. LOWTHERwas understood to say he would consider this point.

    LICENSING ACTS—EXEMPTION ICENCES—SOUTHAMPTON BOROUGH MAGISTRATES.—QUESTION.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it has been brought to his knowledge that two of the Southampton Borough Justices—not acting at the time in Petty Sessions, and without the knowledge of the other members embers of the Bench—granted thirty-two exemption licences, enabling thirty-two Southampton publicans to prolong the time during which they might sell drink on the Saturday preceding, and the Monday following Whitsunday; and, whether he proposes to take any action in cones-
    840
    quence of the proceedings of these two magistrates?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, he had received a letter from the town clerk of Southampton on the subject, and the facts were better in one respect and worse in another than was indicated in the Question. As far as ho could make out, the magistrates, with the Mayor in the chair, met on the Monday before the transaction took place, and came to an unanimous resolution that, on the days in question, exemption licences should be granted to all applicants against whom no complaint had been made. The result of the resolution was that in the course of the week no less than 70 persons applied for and obtained exemption licences. On the next Saturday morning 32 persons who had not applied in time came to the Bench. There were two magistrates then present who did not approve the general resolution of the previous Monday, and they left the court without granting the applications. He was told that, in consequence of this, the Mayor and a magistrate who had acted with him, in signing the licences granted on a former occasion, thought that those 32 persons were not being fairly dealt with, and granted them exemption licences in the belief that they were carrying out the unanimous decision which the Bench had previously arrived at. That exempted them from the charge of dealing with the matter behind the backs of the other magistrates; but he felt bound to say he thought that the principle on which those particular magistrates had acted was at variance with the spirit of the Statute. There were plenty of opportunities of indulging in intoxicating drinks at a holiday season without extending the hours of opening. The discretion intrusted to magistrates by Parliament, in the Statute, was not intended to enable them in a wholesale way to extend those hours beyond those recognized at present.

    ORDER—MOTION, "THAT THIS HOUSE DO NOW ADJOURN"—WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION.—QUESTION.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he desired to put a Question to Mr. Speaker, as the chief authority in the House, on a matter of Order, with reference to what

    841
    occurred yesterday when the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), who had moved the adjournment of the House, proposed to withdraw that Motion. He had suffered, in common with other Members, from the confusion which at that time prevailed in the House. And, feeling that an important question of Order was involved in the subject, which he had submitted in a letter to the Speaker, he would, with the permission of the House, read the letter which he had ventured to address to that authority. [" Order! "]
    MR. SPEAKER, here interposing, pointed out to the hon. Member that a reference to the proceedings which occurred in the House yesterday was not, strictly speaking, in Order. But if the hon. Member desired to put any Question to him on a point of Order, without any such special reference, he would have no objection to answer it.
    MR. NEWDEGATEthereupon said he would simply ask two Questions, for his own sake and for the information of other hon. Members. The first of his Questions was, whether when a Motion for the adjournment of the House, or any other substantive Motion, had been put from the Chair, and had thus become a Question in possession of the House, such Question could be withdrawn from the possession of the House otherwise than by a Motion proposed and put as a Question from the Chair? His second Question was, whether a proposal to withdraw a Question from the possession of the House ought not to be made by way of Motion, and to be put from the Chair, as a Question to be decided by the House in the usual manner?
    MR. SPEAKER, in reply, had to say that when a Question had been once put from the Chair it could not be withdrawn from the judgment of the House except with the general consent of the House; and the general consent of the House was obtained in the usual manner, as the House was aware, by the proposition made from the Chair, expressed in the words, "Is it your pleasure that this Motion be withdrawn? " If any dissentient voice reached the Chair in opposition to the withdrawal of that Motion, it could not be so withdrawn; but the Question must be put and decided upon in the usual manner by the House.

  ORDER OF THE DAY.

    ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL— [BILL 88.]
    (Mr. Secretary Stanley, Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. William Henry Smith, The Judge Advocate General.)
    COMMITTEE. [Progress 26th June.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Re-engagement and Prolongation of Service.
    Clause 81 (Re-engagement of soldiers).
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLmoved, in page 45, line 12, to leave out " as an indulgence," and insert " at any time within one year of the completion of his term of Army service."
    COLONEL STANLEYagreed to the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that he had an Amendment to propose to this clause. He begged to move to leave out the words—
    " A soldier of the regular forces during his period of re-engagement shall be liable to forfeit his previous service in like manner as he is liable under this part of this Act during the term of his original enlistment."
    He did not think that there was any necessity for inserting a provision of this kind; it would be sufficient to make a soldier lose his service during his re-engagement, without exposing him to the grievous penalty of forfeiting all his previous service. When a soldier, during the period of his original enlistment, committed an offence, he was made to forfeit all his previous service; but he could see no reason for imposing upon the soldier who had re-engaged this severe penalty of forfeiting all his service under his original enlistment. A soldier who had served but a short time could fairly be expected to earn back his forfeited service; but when an older man was made to forfeit the best part of his life which had been spent in the public service, it was an additional punishment of a very severe character. The incidence of the punishment upon a man who was made to forfeit 12 or 15 years of his life was entirely out of proportion to the gravity of the offence. It was the general feeling of the Committee

    843
    that forfeiture of service was in every case a very severe punishment, and required to be very exceptionally guarded against. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had consented to put very large limitations upon that power; but when a soldier had served 12, or 14, or 15 years, there was no question that forfeiture of his service ought not to take place except under very special circumstances indeed. They could forfeit the service of a younger soldier without doing so much harm, because he had all his life before him; but to the old soldier the forfeiture of all his previous service would only drive him to despair.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member propose to leave out from line 23 to line 26 of Clause 81?
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that he moved the rejection of that part of the clause.
    COLONEL STANLEYhoped that the Committee would leave these words in the clause, because striking them out would introduce an inconvenient precedent between men who would be liable to forfeit their service under one engagement and the other. It should be recollected that a power had been put in the Bill to enable courts martial to recommend that a man's service should be restored to him. He thought that that recommendation ought to be given in the case of these men; and if they were anything like good men, there was no doubt a recommendation to restore their service would be given. It would be extremely inconvenient to strike these words from the clause.
    MR. PARNELLthought the portion of the clause to which attention had been drawn was extraordinarily stringent, and that there was no necessity for it. It practically put men who re-engaged under the risk of losing not only the term of their term of re-engagement, but the whole term of their previous service. A soldier of the Regular Forces, said the clause, who should be engaged, should be liable to forfeit his previous service under the term of his original enlistment. He could not see any justification for such a provision as that in an Act of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman had justified it by saying that, in all probability, good men would be let off. But this clause only applied to good men,
    844
    because it provided that only good men should, on the recommendation of their commanding officers, be allowed to renew their engagements. Why should they be placed under this enormous penalty, of having to serve the whole period of their service over again? The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Dungarvan seemed to him to be a very reasonable one, and one which would recommend itself to the sense of the Committee. Unless they heard some argument urged against it on the ground of practical inconvenience, he should thoroughly support it.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLwas of opinion that the portion of the clause to which attention had been drawn was unnecessarily severe. He did not think that in any case a man who had re-engaged should be placed under the penalty of forfeiting his previous service. This would be a very severe punishment for a man who had served 18 years, and if such a man deserted it would have the practical effect of compelling him to serve 20 years longer.
    COLONEL STANLEYremarked, that it did not at all follow that a soldier would be called upon to serve 20 years more, as the hon. Gentleman (Sir George Campbell) had said.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERremarked, that if a man had been five years clear of entries on the regimental record-book his former service was restored to him. As he understood the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, he had accepted a proposal to reduce the term of five years to two years. He certainly thought that a man's previous good service ought to be restored to him when he had been two years clear from entries on the record book.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLthought it a very improbable and unlikely thing that an old soldier would desert. He thought, however, that it would be desirable to amend the clause. If a man of 20 years' service deserted, it would be very unfair to make him forfeit all his previous good service. Ho would suggest that the clause should be amended by omitting the word "previous," in order to substitute the word "re-engagement," before the word "service." If that were done, a man who had re-enlisted would not be liable to the forfeiture of his previous service; and, therefore, the punishment would not be

    845
    so severe as that contained in the clause as it at present stood.
    COLONEL STANLEYremarked, that the words " previous service " in the clause would carry both the original service and the service after the re-engagement. It was very improbable that a man who had re-engaged would desert, and the provision was not likely, therefore, to inflict much hardship. But suppose a man deserted after 15 years' service, three of which were under a re-engagement, he did not know whether such a man ought to be liable to forfeit the 12 years' service. He thought the power should be retained, as it stood in the clause, to forfeit the whole of the previous service. No harm would be done by it, because nearly all the men who re-engaged were soldiers of good character, or non-commissioned officers.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTagreed with the view taken by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. Suppose two soldiers were tried together for the same offence; one man might be serving under his original engagement, and the other under a re-engagement. Suppose it were said that the penalty for the offence they had committed was forfeiture of their former service; if this power were taken away, the man who was serving under his original enlistment would forfeit 10 years' previous service, but the man who had entered into a re-engagement would only forfeit, perhaps, three years' service. He thought that it would be unjust that that should be so, and that it was right the Bill should contain a power to forfeit service under a previous engagement, although it might not then be necessary to exercise it.
    MR. RYLANDSwas not at all satisfied with the argument of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt). He should contend that the cases of the two men he had put were entirely different. A man who had engaged for 12 years, and whose term of service had expired, then entered into a re-engagement for a fresh period. But his previous service should be a closed account; and if he engaged himself again, the only period for which he ought then to be liable to forfeit was service under his new engagement. Considering that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was most anxious to induce
    846
    good soldiers to re-enlist in the Army, he trusted he would not press this clause, for it would tend directly to prevent men from re-engaging. It should be recollected that men were at present subject to very heavy punishments for desertion. What he should contend for was that only such service as had taken place under the re-engagement should be forfeited, and that in no case ought they to go back to the other engagement.
    MAJOR NOLANdid not think that the hon. and learned Member for Oxford understood that this clause was governed by the previous clause—76. It was argued by the hon. and learned Member that it would be unjust, in the case ho had put, to make one man forfeit a long period of service, and the other a short one; and that, no matter whether serving under a re-engagement or an original engagement, a court should have a power to make each man forfeit the same term of service. He should contend that no court should have such power; but that the court should have such power to declare the whole or part of the service to be forfeited which was being served under the then existing enlistment. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had not consented to put it in the power of the court as to whether a man's service should be forfeited; but he had placed it in the option of the court to recommend a man to the mercy of the Secretary of State, as to whether the whole or a portion of a man's service should be given back to him. That would not be nearly so good for a soldier as the provision that had been suggested, for every court was very much disinclined to recommend to mercy. Therefore, the provision introduced into the Bill would not be nearly so good for the soldier if the power to restore his service were left to the court. He thought they were entitled to divide against this clause, because it provided for the forfeiture of a much longer term of service than ought to be allowed.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEsaid, that it was very hard upon old soldiers to make them forfeit all their previous good service. The provision was most important, because the crime of desertion was far greater amongst old soldiers than new ones.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLrepeated his suggestion that the clause should be

    847
    amended by substituting " re-engagement service " for " previous service." It ought to be made perfectly clear that no man should be liable to serve for 40 years.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that this section of the clause seemed to him to be a direct discouragement to reenlistment. Soldiers would not like to re-enlist for a longer term, if, by so doing, they put themselves under the liability of forfeiting all their previous service. He had the greatest possible objection to this section of the clause. He thought that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Baronet would meet the case, and that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) should be withdrawn.
    MR. PARNELLwas also of opinion that the Amendment suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy would meet the necessities of the case. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. Member for Dungarvan would be willing to withdraw his Amendment, in order to allow that of the hon. Baronet to be moved. He trusted that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would accept this course. He wished to point out that the cases put by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford proved their case completely. He said that supposing two soldiers were serving, one under an original term of 12 years, and another under a re-engagement term, and that they had committed the same offence, that it would be unjust for one man to forfeit all his previous service, and for another man to forfeit only the service under his re-engagement. But, in reality, the power which was asked for would give the means of inflicting very great injustice on the man who had re-engaged. Such a man, in the case stated, would, for committing the same offence as the other man, forfeit a much longer period of service, for he would forfeit not only the service under his re-engagement, but his original term of service; and the sentence upon him, therefore, would be very much more severe than upon the other. He ventured to hope that the Government would accept the reasonable terms that had been suggested.
    COLONEL BARNEhoped that the Committee would have an assurance from the right hon. and gallant Gentle-
    848
    man the Secretary of State for War that he was willing to accept the proposal of the hon. Gentleman (Sir George Campbell).
    COLONEL STANLEYexpressed his willingness to carry out the object of the hon. Gentleman; but thought that it might be done more conveniently by retaining the words " previous service," and inserting after them " during such period of re-engagement."
    MR. O'DONNELLbegged to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment (Colonel Stanley) agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 82 (Continuance in service after 21 years' service).
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLmoved, in page 45, line 27, after "completed,'' to insert " or will within one year complete."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MAJOR NOLANthought that one year was a very short period to allow for a soldier to give notice. Perhaps he ought to have made this observation on the previous clause. He thought the period during which the soldier should give notice ought to be extended from one year to two years. There would be great inconvenience in limiting the notice of re-engagement to the period of one year. Perhaps he had better withdraw his Amendment then, and possibly the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would not object to two years being inserted upon Report.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid that, as he read the clause, a man could not re-engage until he had completed 21 years' service. For that purpose, he had moved the Amendment to insert the words " or will within one year complete." He doubted whether it would be wise to give a man a longer time to give notice, and he was inclined to think that one year would be quite sufficient.
    COLONEL STANLEYwas rather in favour of allowing a man to give two years' notice, and he would be willing to agree to an Amendment to that efiect, unless he found it to be practically inconvenient.
    MR. O'DONNELLasked, whether the clause was not specially meant to meet

    849
    the case of non-commissioned officers of long-standing who desired to remain in the Service? The only objection he had to it was that it seemed to him that the provision with regard to non-commissioned officers was too much in keeping with the usual system of non-promotion from the ranks.
    THE CHAIRMANinquired whether the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had any Amendment to propose, as there was none then before the Committee?
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that the next Amendment which he wished to move was on page 45, line 29, after the word " reserve " to insert '' or a soldier in the reserve whose time has been, or within one year will be, completed." This Amendment was for the purpose of enabling deserving soldiers to extend their service. Many of them knew that men at 50 or 60 might be capable of serving in their own country although not abroad; and, therefore, there ought to be facilities for men in the Reserve to extend their service so long as they were found capable. He believed that in the second Reserve Act a provision of this kind was inserted; and, perhaps, there would be no objection to putting in a corresponding provision in this Bill. The effect of his Amendment would be that a soldier in the Reserve might give notice that he desired, if his commanding officer were willing, to extend his service.
    COLONEL STANLEYhoped that hon. Members would not think him hypercritical in saying that he could not accept the words of this Amendment as they stood. This clause related to Army service, and not to service in the Reserve, and a man who had served his 12 years was provided for in another part of the Bill.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, that the fact was, this Reserve system had been copied from the Continental, system, and when they began to alter it they ought to see that they were not altering it in a manner different from the Continental system. In the French Army, if they kept a man four years in the Reserve, he had to come up again for training. If they intended to keep a man more than six years in the Reserve, some provision ought to be introduced into the Act, by which the Secretary of State should be able to bring up men for a month or two's training. Nothing was more dangerous
    850
    than to follow a Continental system, and then to make little changes from it without seeing that they were in the right direction. If a Reserve man was absent more than six years from the Colours there ought to be some provision that the Secretary of State might bring him up for training. The Germans always took care that a man who was absent four or five years from the Colours should be brought up again for training. There was another question—no provision had been made as yet for regiments going abroad. They now engaged men for ridiculously short terms. Formerly, when a soldier was going abroad, he always re-engaged for three years from that time; but that was not now done, and some provision was necessary to meet the case. He trusted that the matter would be attended to on Report.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, a very important question of policy was involved by this Amendment. This clause referred to service in the Regular Forces and not in the Reserve; and if they meddled with the Reserve system, as the hon. Member proposed to do, they would introduce very important alterations. If they gave Reserve men a power to re-engage for an almost unlimited period, they made some very radical and important changes in the Acts governing this whole question. He trusted that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would not agree to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that there was very great difference between the English and the Continental systems; on the Continent the service was compulsory, whether in the Army or in the Reserve, and a limit was fixed as to the liability to serve in the Reserve. In this country, they had to deal with voluntary service only. He quite agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan); it was desirable, and he hoped it would be provided as part of the system, that a man who should remain in the Reserve many years should be brought up for training in order to refresh his memory. With regard to the point as to one year, he admitted that in Section 81 there might be a question as to the liability for one year. But he did not think that any question could arise upon the present case. If there was any mistake, no doubt it could be rectified upon Report.
    COLONEL STANLEYthought they were somewhat wasting time by debating this Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERmoved, in page 45, line 31, to leave out the words " his commanding officer," in order to bring the clause into conformity with the Mutiny Act, and to leave it to the competent military authority to decide whether a soldier should be allowed to enter into a re-engagement after 21 years' service.
    MR. PARNELLdid not think they ought at all times to follow the Mutiny Act. It did not seem to him that it would make very much difference.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that the competent military authorities must be the persons who were to determine what the period of long or short service should be. No doubt, in many cases, the commanding officer would be appointed the competent military authority. But, in any case, the decision must be left to the discretion of the competent military authorities, and he saw no harm in leaving the matter as it stood.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERwished to point out that, by the 10th clause of the Army Enlistment Act, 1877, the words " commanding officer or other competent military authority " were used. The number of men who remained in the Army after the completion of 21 years' service was infinitesimal; almost every man wished to be discharged after that period.
    MR. PARNELLremarked, that if the expression " commanding officer " was covered by the term competent military authority," they ought not to leave the words as they stood in the clause.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that there could be no doubt that if the clause was left as it was, the recommendations of the commanding officer would be the chief guide in the matter, and the same would happen if an alteration were made.
    MAJOR NOLANdid not think it was any use debating this point, for the commanding officer would be as much the competent military authority if the words were left out as if they were retained.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that this clause allowed old and worthy soldiers to continue in the Service. In the second place, it had been admitted that this clause was intended to meet the case of non-commissioned officers who might be desirous of remaining in the Army after 21 years' service, and there was no doubt that it was a very proper thing for keeping them in the Service. He wished to move an addition to this clause, for the purpose of not only increasing the facilities for the retention of non-commissioned officers, but for the purpose of increasing the inducements to noncommissioned officers to stay in the Service after the full period of 21 years. It was very well known that there was now a complaint that when they had arrived at the rank of non-commissioned officer they could go no further, and the position of non-commissioned officers in our Army was not an encouraging one. In the German Army non-commissioned officers who had served a long time had a prior right to a certain number of places of civil employment under Government, and that gave them an inducement to stop in the Army. The inducement that he proposed to give to non-commissioned officers under this clause would, at the same time, tend to introduce into the general constitution of the Army an innovation that was in keeping with the tendency of modern times. The clause provided that soldiers might be re-enlisted, and that a soldier who had re-enlisted might be discharged at any period after giving three months' notice. The Amendment which he should propose was that non - commissioned officers, after 21 years' service, should have a right to an officer's commission on passing a qualifying examination. According to the present constitution of the Army, the arrangements as to providing for promotion from the ranks were entirely illusory. Every year only 10 commissions were placed at the disposal of the colonels of the Army for all the non-commissioned officers in an Army of 130,000 men. The result of that system was most illusory; and there was hardly, therefore, any promotion from the non-commissioned to the commissioned ranks. If they wished to induce non-commissioned officers to continue to serve in the Army, they must make provision for their retiring under favourable circumstances. The effect of

    853
    allowing non-commissioned officers who had served for a period of 21 years to have a right to commissioned rank, on passing a qualificatory examination, would be very good. It would not only tend to induce non-commissioned officers to stay in the Army, but it would distinctly increase the efficiency of the noncommissioned body—it would increase the efficiency of the Army generally, by inducing numbers of non-commissioned officers to hold on. It would be entirely in accordance with the spirit of modern times, which set its foot upon class distinctions, and, at the same time, recognized that there must be an educational qualification. The Amendment would not interfere in the least with the provisions of the clause with regard to privates. One very great advantage would be that they would introduce thoroughly experienced men into the commissioned ranks of the Army, instead of having, as was now too frequently the case, only very young and inexperienced men. He did not think there could be any objection to allowing men who had served 21 years with a high character, and who were able to pass a qualificatory examination, to obtain commissions.
    THE CHAIRMANfelt himself under the necessity to point out to the hon. Member that the Amendment which he proposed to make did not arise upon the clause under discussion. It seemed to him that it would be more properly raised by moving a new clause. The clause before the Committee was one bearing on the service of soldiers, and the question, what constituted the qualification of non-commissioned officers to have promotion to commissions, would be according to all rules most properly raised by a new clause.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that he readily acceded to the Chairman's suggestion, and he would raise the question by means of a new clause. At the same time, he would reserve himself the right of moving an Amendment embodying this principle, in case of any clause coming under discussion in which it could be legitimately introduced.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 83 (Prolongation of service in certain cases).
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that this clause was one of a very sweeping description.
    854
    It gave the power to continue a soldier in the Service for a year after his term of service had expired. He begged to move an Amendment. The clause provided that soldiers might be kept in the Service for a year while a state of war existed between Her Majesty and any foreign Power, or while the soldier was on service beyond the seas, or while soldiers in the Reserve were required by Proclamation to re-enter upon Army service. He would point out that they might as well give a permanent power to the Government to retain soldiers in the Service, as such a power as this. According to their recent experience, there was a continued state of war between Her Majesty's Government and some foreign Power. He would suggest that some Amendment should be made in the clause by which power should be given to Her Majesty's Government to retain soldiers in any case where they considered it necessary. That would be better than having such a cumbrous clause as this, giving them power to retain in the Service soldiers in the Regular Forces who would otherwise be entitled to their discharge. He should propose to omit from the clause the words "while a state of war exists between Her Majesty and any foreign Power." This clause was more particularly calculated for providing for foreign war rather than for home defence. He thought they might fairly object to give the power to continue Regular soldiers in the Service in such an indefinite way as was provided by the clause.
    COLONEL STANLEYcould not consent to strike these words from the clause. It was really important to have this power to retain a man in the Service, because it was inconvenient to discharge or to send home a man from a regiment which was on foreign service, and the practice was to keep men for a short time at the expiration of their engagements. So far as he was aware, no objection had ever been raised to this provision, and it was one which the public necessity justified, and public necessity alone.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that under that clause a man could be kept in the Service, although not required, if a state of war existed.
    COLONEL ARBUTHNOTsaid, that the question of retaining soldiers after their period of service had expired, in emergency, was very important. It would

    855
    lead to considerable inconvenience, if soldiers always had to be discharged when their engagements expired. He thought the question was one which would very properly come under the consideration of the Committee now sitting; and, therefore, he thought it would be best to leave it to be dealt with by them.
    MR. PARNELLdid not propose to press his Amendment; but he would ask whether this power did not practically give the Government means whereby to keep a man in the Service?
    COLONEL STANLEYwas not prepared to say that could not be done. As a matter of fact, it was not done, and men were seldom kept beyond the term of their engagement.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that in consequence of the withdrawal of that Amendment, he would move another Amendment in line 1, page 46, to strike out the words, " may be detained," and to substitute for them, "the soldier may re-enlist in the Service, and his service may be prolonged." He thought that that Amendment would deprive the Government of the power of detaining men who were unwilling to stay in the Service. There ought to be no compulsion; but additional inducements should be given to soldiers to remain. They should not force men to remain in the Service at a time when they were called upon to make greater sacrifices than ever, and the proper course was to offer inducements for them to remain.
    COLONEL STANLEYwas afraid that the soldier would say, " Save me from my friends!" for the effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member would be that, instead of the soldier being kept, perhaps, for three months or a year beyond the period of his old engagement, he would be re-enlisted for five or six years longer. At the present, at the end of the year a man left the Army; but, under the power proposed to be given, he would, probably, be re-enlisted for six years longer.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that the only objection he could see to the clause, as it stood, arose from the vagueness of the expression "while a state of war exists between Her Majesty and any foreign Power." If something were done to reduce the scope of those words, the
    856
    objection of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) would be removed. As the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had pointed out, Her Majesty was in a continual state of war with some foreign Power. He did not think that any answer had been given to the objection, for while a state of war existed the Government could retain a man in the Service. While they had a spirited Government, with a spirited foreign policy—he was not using the words in any partizan spirit — Her Majesty's Government were nearly always in a state of war, and they could always keep soldiers in the Service after their engagements had expired. At the present moment they had only King Cetewayo to deal with, and he certainly must be a foreign Power, otherwise it would not have been worth while to send 30,000 soldiers against him. They had, a little while ago, the Ameer of Afghanistan; and if the Khedive of Egypt had not abdicated, they, probably, would have had another foreign Power to have dealt with there. It seemed to him that the only course open to them was to omit those words.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that he would move to insert after the words " where a state of war exists," the words " constituting an imminent national danger or great emergency." In that case he thought no one could object to the powers given by the clause. If it were necessary, the Government would then be able to keep trained soldiers for a short period in the Service but they would only be able to do that when great national reasons required it. Surely the Government could not want to take advantage of every petty power in order to retain men in the Army. If they did not want to do so there would be no objection to the Amendment. It should be recollected that they were then passing a permanent Bill, and a power like this would be exercised by every succeeding Government, some of which might be less Constitutional than the present Government.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERthought that there was a great deal of force in the recommendation of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, for if a soldier had arrived at the completion of his service he might be detained, simply because some

    857
    little war was going on in India. He thought the soldier ought not to be under the liability to be detained under circumstances where his services were not required, and that, except in case of emergency or national danger, he should be discharged. The question raised by the Amendment was, he thought, well deserving of consideration. If the Amendment really interfered with the detention of a soldier in the Service anywhere where war was going on, then ho could understand the objection to its adoption, because there the existence of a national danger might be regarded as immediate. It could not, however, be very well considered to be immediate, because hostilities, perhaps, on a small scale, happened to be going on in some other, and possibly remote, part of the world; yet a soldier might, in those circumstances, under the operation of the clause as it stood, be obliged to serve for an additional 12 months.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that what those hon. Members who were in favour of the Amendment sought to secure was that a soldier should not be detained in the Army for an extra year unless his detention was really required by the necessities of the Service. He strongly objected to enabling the Government of the day to make use of the clause for the purpose of keeping a man 12 months longer in the Army when he was entitled to his discharge, or of preventing him from being transferred to the Reserve for a year merely because a state of war happened to exist between Her Majesty and any foreign Power. If the clause were passed in its present shape the Government would have a power placed in their hands which was evidently not required. He would suggest, therefore, the expediency of limiting the power which the clause would confer on the Secretary of State for War, though he was not prepared to contend that the words of the Amendment were exactly those by which the object which he had in view would best be effected. Some such words as " while he is required for active service," in lieu of the words " while a state of war exists between Her Majesty and any foreign Power," would, in his opinion, meet the necessities of the case, so that the military authorities might not be allowed to detain a soldier in India merely because a war happened to be going on in South
    858
    Africa, or in South Africa because a war was being waged in India. If a soldier was required for active service, it would be reasonable enough to keep him in the Army for a year longer as proposed; but it would be unreasonable to do so if his services were not so required.
    MR. CHILDERSwould like to make a suggestion which might probably have the effect of bringing the present discussion to a close. It was, that the hon. and learned Gentleman whom he saw opposite—he meant the Attorney General —should favour the Committee with his opinion as to the interpretation which should be put on the words " while a state of war exists between Her Majesty and any foreign Power." He should like to know whether those words were applicable to such a war as that in which we were now engaged in South Africa, or whether they related only to the more serious hostilities in which we might be involved with some great military Power?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, that as the right hon. Gentleman had asked him for his opinion, he should be happy to place it at the disposal of the Committee. It seemed to him to resolve itself into a question of fact whether Her Majesty was or was not at a particular moment involved in " a state of war with any foreign Power." If Her Majesty happened to be waging war against a foreign Power, and that Power was waging war against Her Majesty, then, undoubtedly, a state of war would exist. By way of illustration, he would say that Her Majesty was now in a state of war with Cetewayo, ac, a short time ago, a state of war existed between Her Majesty and the Ameer of Afghanistan.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERhoped the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) might be numbered among the supporters of the Amendment, because he could not fail to see that there was a considerable difference between a declaration of war by the Representatives of Her Majesty and by Her Majesty herself, in some respects; although, practically speaking, whatever was done by the Representatives of the Queen, in any part of the world, had all the force and effect of an act done by the Queen herself. That being so, his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) sought to provide that a soldier should not be made liable to a

    859
    year's additional service merely because some irresponsible person in some part of the world chose to make an attack upon a handful of savages, and so create a state of war. Such a state of things constituted, he contended, no justification for giving to the Secretary of State the power which would be conferred upon him by the clause as it stood; and he regretted that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Stanley) did not seem to see his way to accepting the Amendment.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the Committee did not appear to be very much in favour of the Amendment, and its terms were not, perhaps, the best which could be employed for the purpose of effecting the object which the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had in view. It would be better, perhaps, to follow the wording of the Proclamation which was issued on those occasions when the Reserve was called out in times of great national danger. The fact of such a Proclamation having been issued should, in his opinion, be referred to in the clause. But the Amendment, as it stood, was, he thought, entitled to the favourable consideration of the Committee.
    MR. O'DONNELLexpressed his willingness to withdraw the Amendment, observing that it seemed to be admitted by hon. Members on both sides of the House that the powers which the clause in its present shape would confer were too vague and general, and that they required to be limited. It gave to the Government authority to prolong for 12 months the period of service of a soldier whose time had expired, whenever there was a state of war between Her Majesty and any foreign Power. But Her Majesty was always in a state of war with some foreign Power; while, at the same time, such an emergency might not exist as to justify such an interference with the right of the soldier to his discharge, or to be passed into the Reserve, as the clause would enable the Secretary of State to exercise. He should, however, withdraw his Amendment, in the hope that some Member of the Committee might be able to propose another which would meet the circumstances of the case, and be acceptable to the Government.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. PARNELLthen moved the omission from the clause, page 45, lines
    860
    38 and 39, of the words " while a state of war exists between Her Majesty and any foreign Power or," with the view of inserting in lieu of them words providing that a soldier, who would otherwise be entitled to discharge, should be detained in the Service for 12 months longer only in cases where he was required for active service. If the words which he proposed to leave out were retained in the clause, it would, he said, be in the power of the Government to detain a soldier in the Service in any part of the world, whether there was a war going on there or not, and whether he was or was not required for active service, simply because we happened to be at war in some other part of the world. The words " while such soldier is on service beyond the seas," immediately followed those which he proposed to omit, and they would give the Government all the power which was really required, although, for his own part, he must say that he should like to have the words " beyond the seas " struck out. The effect of his Amendment would be that a soldier could be detained in the Army for a further period of 12 months after ho was entitled to his discharge only in the case of his being required for active service. In that way, provision would be made for giving the Government all the power for which, in his opinion, they could reasonably ask.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 46, line 10, to leave out the words " while a state of war exists between Her Majesty and any foreign Power or." — (Mr.
    Parnell.)
    Question proposed, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the power which was taken in the clause was merely intended to meet the exigencies of the Service in time of war. It was a power which it might be highly necessary to exercise in the case of soldiers who were not actually engaged on active service. In the case of a war at the Cape, for instance, it might be of the utmost importance to divert to that part of Her Majesty's dominions troops that happened to be stationed in India, and, instead of sending out drafts to the battalions in India, to retain there for a few months or a year soldiers who would, under ordinary circumstances, be entitled to their discharge. For these reasons, he hoped

    861
    the Committee would pass the clause as it stood, and would not agree to the Amendment.
    MR. PARNELLthought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman might secure all that he wanted in the matter by the substitution of words providing that a soldier might be detained in the Army for 12 months longer if he was required for active service, for those which it was proposed to omit.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, it appeared to him that it would be a foolish policy to draft men from India to the Cape within a few weeks of the completion of their period of service. Soldiers whose period of service was shortly about to expire were, he should have thought, not exactly the class of men whom it was most desirable to employ in warlike operations.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 192; Noes 16: Majority 176.—(Div. List, No. 135.)
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he had no wish to oppose the slightest obstacle in the way of the efficient use of Her Majesty's Forces at a time of national emergency. He was, at the same time, of opinion that the powers which were conferred by the clause on the Secretary of State were too extensive, and that they ought to be limited. He begged to move, therefore, that the following words be added to the clause—
    " Provided, That in all such Cases the fact of such detention, and the number of men so detained, shall be communicated to Parliament at the earliest possible date."
    He hoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would consent to the addition of those words at the end of the clause.
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided, That in all such cases the fact of such detention, and the number of men so detained, shall be communicated to Parliament at the earliest possible date."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
    Question proposed, " That those words be there added."
    COLONEL STANLEYwas quite sure the hon. Gentleman would not have moved the Amendment had he not believed it to be necessary; but he, nevertheless, hoped the Committee would not,
    862
    for practical reasons, assent to it. In the first place, the hon. Gentleman asked that Parliament should take cognizance of a matter, which was infinitely small in comparison with the other Business which it had to transact. There were cases, he would point out, in which, in time of war, it might be deemed by the Government necessary to detain men for service in the field or abroad, instead of replacing them by drafts. Men so detained were never, as a matter of fact, kept for more than a year, sometimes only a few months, and sometimes hardly at all beyond the period at which their term of service expired. Taking the matter in a broader point of view, he would say that it was, properly speaking, one of Departmental administration which probably did not affect at any one time so many as 1,000 men. The number did not, in fact, exceed the fluctuations which were, in a single week, caused in the Army, owing to the casualties of life. Under ordinary circumstances, it would not, of course, be necessary to detain men in the Army after their period of service had expired; and he would point out that it could be only after the fact that the retention of their services for a year longer would come to the knowledge of Parliament. Then and there, the conduct of the Minister reponsible for the administration of the Department might, if his action was deemed to be open to objection, be assailed; but it would, he thought, be a great mistake for the Committee to interfere in the way proposed by the Amendment on a point which was one, properly speaking, of a purely administrative detail. If the Minister, to whom the power which the clause conferred was intrusted abused it, then let him be displaced. That course could not too soon be taken; but something must be left to the discretion of the Minister in a matter of comparatively minute Departmental arrangement, and he, therefore, hoped the Amendment would not be accepted by the Committee.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINshould be sorry to give the Committee the trouble of dividing on his Amendment if, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to think, it dealt with only an "infinitely small" matter. As he understood the Bill, however, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to him to have

    863
    under-estimated the effect of the clause, and to be unaware of the enormous powers which he was asking the Committee to confer upon the Secretary of State. The clause would enable the Secretary of State to retain for service at his sole will, while a state of war existed, the whole of the troops who would otherwise be entitled to be transferred to the Reserve; and he could not help thinking that that had not been quite correctly described by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman as an infinitely small matter. Ho would only add that other War Ministers might not be so scrupulous as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman; and he, therefore, objected to giving them the powers which the clause would confer. Under all the circumstances of the case, he should feel it his duty to press his Amendment to a Division.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he had listened attentively to the reasons which had been given by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War for objecting to the Am end-meat; and that he could not help thinking the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had altogether failed to meet the position which was taken up by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain). He should like to know in what way the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would be hampered in the discharge of his duties as Secretary of State for War by the knowledge that his conduct would be liable to revision by Parliament? He did not see how the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's authority and power could, in consequence, be in the slightest degree impaired. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that it was only after a man had been retained in the Army at the expiration of his period that Parliament would become acquainted with the fact of such retention. He was well aware that that was the case, and that it was seldom Parliament was afforded the opportunity of shutting the stable door before the steed was stolen. But the fear of Parliament and of public opinion might, nevertheless, have some effect on the action of the Government. At all events, it would not be well, in his opinion, to relinquish the power of control which Parliament ought to have in the matter; and, looking at it from that point of view, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham appeared to him to be a
    864
    very judicious one, and one which was entitled to the favourable consideration of the Committee.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the power which was intended was one of a comparatively trival nature, and was practically the same as that which was already vested in the Secretary of State with regard to recruiting. It was the duty of the Secretary of State for War to see that there were a certain number of men in the Army, and it was necessary that he should be able, especially at a time when the country was actually at war, to meet the fluctuations of the Service by taking upon himself the responsibility of detaining men in the Army for a period not exceeding one year after the period of their service had expired. The real question was, whether it was wise and right that the Secretary of State should have that power under the circumstances contemplated in the clause? It might be of the greatest importance that he should be able to exercise such a power at a particular time, and a matter of the kind ought to be left to the discretion of those by whom a great Department was administered; otherwise, what could be the use of having such an officer as the Secretary of State for War?
    MR. RYLANDSwas sure the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down must have mistaken the object of the Amendment. He had had the pleasure of supporting the Government, a few minutes previously, by voting in favour of giving them certain powers which, no doubt, they would exercise on their own responsibility; but all that those who were in favour of the present Amendment asked was, that after those powers had been so exercised, Parliament should be informed of what had been done. The matter, so far from being a trivial one, was one which affected something like one-twelfth of the whole Army. The power which was conferred by the clause was, therefore, a very considerable one; and he might point out to the Committee that he held in his hand a Return precisely of the nature of that for which his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham now asked. On looking at that Return, he found stated there the terms of the re-engagements and retentions for the Service for the year 1877; and it was quite evident that the Government could lay on the Table of the House a similar Return, giving full in-

    865
    formation as to the number of men who might be detained in the Army for one year under the operation of the present clause. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had spoken of the question as being one of Departmental administration; but it was a well known fact that behind the Secretary of State for War there were permanent officials who controlled, to a greater extent even than the occupants of the Treasury Bench, the administration of the Army.
    MR. J. BROWNhoped the hon. Member for Birmingham would withdraw his Amendment, which seemed to him (Mr. J. Brown) to be useless. The power which the clause would confer was exactly the same as was given by the 111th Article of the Mutiny Act. The hon. Member for Birmingham looked upon the question raised by his Amendment as being a very important one; but he did not concur in that view. If it really was a very important one, due Notice of the Amendment ought to have been given, and it ought to have been placed upon the Notice Paper, so that the Committee might have had time to consider it. He ventured to think, however, that the matter was not of that great importance which the hon. Member seemed to suppose; and he entirely concurred in what had been said by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War with respect to it.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he never knew an instance in which an hon. Member had pronounced so decided an opinion as the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had done as to the merits of a question which was being discussed in that House, without advancing the slightest argument in support of that opinion. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the Mutiny Act, had made a few gestures in the direction of the Treasury, and had, in that off-hand fashion, disposed of the question—quod erat demonstrandum. Such a style of argument was absurd. The hon. Member for Birmingham asked that Parliament should be furnished with such information as would enable it to revise the action of any of the military authorities by whom the number of men serving in the Army might be needlessly increased, and neither of the right hon. Gentlemen who addressed the Com-
    866
    mittee from the Treasury Bench had touched the real question at issue. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department wanted to know of what use a Secretary of State for War could be if he were not intrusted with such a power as the clause would confer? But he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Amendment before the Committee would not, if carried, deprive the Secretary of State for War of that power. The Committee was, however, asked by the Government to go further, and to be silent while they were denying to the House of Commons the power of revising the action of the Secretary of State. It was absurd, in his opinion, to attempt to convince the Committee that the clause was a right and proper one by arguments so fallacious as those which had been advanced in support of it.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, it would be an extraordinary innovation to introduce into the proceedings of the House in Committee that every Amendment which was proposed should be placed on the Notice Paper, as the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. J. Brown) seemed to think it should be, before it could be discussed. It was only two or three days before that the Government had postponed two of the most important clauses of the Bill without having given the Committee any Notice whatever of their intention to do so. That was not simply a case of moving an unexpected Amendment, but of withdrawing from discussion provisions constituting the very essence of the Bill, when hon. Members had come down to the House prepared to discuss them. If the Committee was taken by surprise on the present occasion, the last person to complain should be the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, seeing what a surprise he had given the House on the previous Wednesday.
    MR. PARNELLshould like to know why it was that the Government declined to give Parliament information which it was clearly entitled to have? Why should they refuse to say in what way they proposed to work the clause? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had, indeed, told the Committee something as to the way in which he intended to work it

    867
    but the question with which the Committee had to deal was the powers which the clause, if passed in its present form, would confer upon a Secretary of State. The clause would give very extensive powers indeed. It would enable the Secretary of State for War to prolong the period of service of all the Regular soldiers of the Army for a year. That was a very great power, and one which might be used by a Minister to increase the number of men in the Army very materially. He did not mean to say that the present Secretary of State for War would do that; but other Ministers had used the powers with which Parliament intrusted them very extensively. In a recent case, in which it had been decided that the Crown could not call out the Volunteers on foreign service, the Lord Chancellor gave a contrary decision, and the Volunteers were called out. That was a case in which the Act of Parliament was stretched, and he knew no reason for supposing that the present or some future Government might not stretch the clause under discussion in the way which he had indicated. If the Government did not intend to use the clause, what objection could there be to giving the Returns which were asked for? If they did use it, but so seldom that the number of men affected by it was very few, then why should there not be a Return made of that number, in order that Parliament might see how the Government were employing the power which they possessed? Why should they, he would repeat, object to a harmless and necessary Amendment like that of the hon. Member for Birmingham? The hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. J. Brown) had referred the Committee to the Mutiny Act; but he would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Committee were engaged in discussing the present Bill, because it had been found necessary to alter that Act. He would now ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, whether it would not be possible for him, under the operation of the clause, to exceed the number of men serving in the Army authorized by the Mutiny Act? Indeed, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman admitted that it would; and, therefore, the Committee was entitled to ask that the power which the clause would confer should be limited. But as the Secretary of State
    868
    for War had declined to accept any suggestion which had been made with that object, he hoped he would, at all events, assent to the proposal that Parliament should, from time to time, be informed what use the Secretary of State might make of the clause.
    MR. O'DONNELLshould like to know how, unless some provision were made in the clause for the purpose, Parliament was to obtain the knowledge which would be necessary in order to enable it to revise the action of the Government in the exercise of the power which the clause would confer upon them? If a Question were put in that House as to the number of men who were detained in the Army after the expiration of their period of service, did not the experience of hon. Members show that an answer might be returned to that Question which would leave the questioner just about as wise as he was before he put it? Suppose the hon. Member who asked the Question, having good reason to believe that the Secretary of State had misused the power with which he was intrusted, was dissatisfied with the answer of the Minister, was he to move the adjournment of the House in order to express that dissatisfaction? Hon. Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway on the Ministerial side of the House had given only very recently those who sat opposite to them a severe lesson for presuming to be dissatisfied with the answer of a Member of the Government. Well, if an hon. Member proceeded in that which the occupants of the Ministerial Benches would, no doubt, consider the most unexceptionable and legitimate way, and asked the Government to grant him a day for the discussion of a matter which involved the question of the misuse of the power intrusted to him by the Secretary of State, the probable reply would be that the Government had so much precious Business of their own to transact, and could not possibly set apart a day for the disagreeable purpose of calling in question the conduct of the military authorities. How, then, could the action of the Secretary of State be revised by the House, seeing that the production of the necessary information was not made obligatory by the clause, and that the Government had got such a thick-and-thin majority at their back? Hon. Members knew very well how the supporters of the Go-

    869
    vernment flocked into the House when a Division was called, and without having heard a word of the discussion, or without looking to the merits of the case, followed the orders of their Whip and did whatever he told them. Now, any question which might be raised as to the misuse of his authority by the Secretary of State under the operation of the present clause would be sure to be treated in a similar way by the obedient majority at the back of the Government. Therefore, unless it was made obligatory by Act of Parliament that the necessary information should be furnished, neither the House nor the country could hope to obtain it. It was quite clear—and, indeed, it had been admitted by the Secretary of State for War himself—that there might be a great abuse of the power given by raising the number of men serving in the Army to a point beyond that which was sanctioned by Parliament; and, unless that House had some other means of learning to what extent the power had been used, it would be kept in the dark on a most important matter, because the Government would not be likely to supply it with the necessary information voluntarily. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, coming to the assistance of his military Colleague, began by saying that it was a trivial matter, but ended by saying that it was one which was very important. Now, either of those reasons for asking the Committee to reject the Amendment might be very good, taken by itself; but the two taken together appeared to him to be mutually destructive of one another. He could not understand why the Committee should refuse to give facilities for obtaining information which it was really so desirable to have, not only in the interest of the Army, but of the country. Hon. Gentlemen opposite could not expect to be always in a majority. There might be a Liberal Secretary of State for War one of these days; sooner, perhaps, than they expected; and it was in their interest, as well as in that of those who sat on the Opposition Benches, that the Amendment was moved. He would express a hope, therefore, though it was almost impossible to entertain it, that they would for once break loose from their mechanical obedience to the Government, and support the very reason-
    870
    able proposal of the hon. Member for Birmingham.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, it was quite clear that while a state of war existed between Her Majesty and any foreign Power, and the Reserve was called out by Proclamation, there was necessity for communicating the fact specially to Parliament. There was, however, an essential difference between the wording of the two sections of the clause which he should like to have explained. According to the wording of the 1st section, a soldier, on his discharge, might be detained in the Army after the expiration of his period of service for any time not exceeding 12 months " while he is on service beyond the seas; " but in the 2nd section the words were " on active service beyond the seas."
    MR . MORGAN LLOYDwished to know, before the Committee went to a Division on the clause, whether what had been said by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) as to a statement of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, to the effect that the clause, as it stood, would enable the Government to increase the number of troops in the Army beyond the limit annually sanctioned by Parliament was correct? If so, the matter was one of very serious importance, and the information asked for by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) ought, he thought, to be communicated to the House. He would call the attention of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General to the point, and if there was any doubt about it, he hoped the Government would agree to the Amendment.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that the appeal which had been made to him by the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. J. Brown) would have been more worthy of attention if it had been couched in different terms. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the Amendment as being entirely useless, and objected to its having been brought forward without Notice. But the hon. Gentleman must be aware that it constantly occurred in the course of the proceedings of the House in Committee that Amendments were moved on the spur of the moment arising out of something which took place during the progress of discussion. The Amendment now before the Committee was a conse-

    871
    quential Amendment arising out of that which had just before been moved by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), and which had been rejected. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was correct in thinking that the Amendments related to an unimportant matter, he could not see why the right hon. and gallant Gentleman so strongly objected to it. It could, in that case, do no harm, while there would clearly be no unfairness in bringing forward a harmless Amendment without Notice, so that it could not justly be held to be open to the objection which had been raised by the hon. Member for Horsham, who appeared to think that the Amendment would be useless, because it was simply intended to obtain information from Parliament. That was a doctrine which ho should not be surprised to hear enunciated by an hon. Member sitting on the opposite Benches; but he was, ho must confess, somewhat astonished that an hon. Gentleman sitting on the Liberal side of the House, especially after the experience which the House had of recent events, should think it was a serious objection to an Amendment that it was meant to secure information for Parliament. He was disposed to give the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who now filled the Office of Secretary of State for War every credit for desiring to take Parliament into his confidence; but he could not forget that not long since troops had been brought from India to Malta without any previous information having been given to Parliament on the subject. He did not propose by his Amendment, however, to impose upon the right hon. and gallant Gentleman so great a duty as would be implied in the necessity of furnishing Parliament with information in a case of that kind. All that he asked was that Parliament should be enabled to know to what extent the power which was conferred upon the Secretary of State by the clause under discussion was exercised. It was quite absurd to say that the powers of the clause were trivial and unimportant. In the first place, it was perfectly competent for any Secretary of State for War to increase the Army under the clause without giving Notice to Parliament. And, again, it was very likely to happen that the Secretary of VState for War might, on his own motion, break
    872
    what was practically a contract with one-twelfth of the Army, and that without the knowledge of Parliament either before or subsequently to the change. He would only add, in final answer to the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. J. Brown), that he should be quite prepared to withdraw his Amendment, be it important or unimportant, whenever important reasons were given for its rejection.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPPELLdrew the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the term " active service," in page 46, line 11, which was, doubtless, an error in the drafting.
    COLONEL STANLEYwas under the impression that the term should be " service " only, and would have it corrected.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 206: Majority 146.—(Div. List, No. 136.)
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 84 (In imminent national danger, Her Majesty may continue soldiers in or require soldiers to re-enter Army Service).
    MR. O'DONNELLcertainly did not condemn the provision of this clause which provided, in case of imminent national danger, that there should be the power to require soldiers to continue in or reenter the Army Service, nor did he object to the provision which required that the occasion of such imminent danger should be communicated to Parliament. But he did object to the provision which allowed Government to dispense with the communication to Parliament, and substitute Proclamation in pursuance of an Order of Her Majesty in Council. He could not help thinking that this provision came down from times when it was very difficult to re-assemble Parliament. At the present time, however, no such difficulty existed, and the first thing Government should do, when a case of imminent national danger arose, if Parliament was not sitting, was to call it together. He was, therefore, of opinion that this should appear in the Bill, instead of the authority to substitute Proclamation in pursuance of an Order of Her Majesty in Council. He, therefore, moved to leave out from line 20, page 46, all the words from "if," down

    873
    to the word " Council," in line 22, inclusive. The clause would then run—
    " It shall be lawful for Her Majesty, in case of imminent national danger or of great emergency, the occasion being first communicated to Parliament, to direct from time to time that all persons enlisted under this Act, &c."
    Thus, he held, would sufficient care be taken for the interests of the nation as against an external enemy on one hand, and in the interests of the nation as against the Government on the other. If the Government were always obliged to communicate with Parliament the occasion of what it considered to be imminent national danger, it was quite clear that a most useful check would be imposed on the carrying out of a policy of adventure; and when he called to mind the numerous and urgent complaints which had been raised in recent years against the manner in which Government had taken advantage of the separation of Parliament for the Recess or for Holidays to commence upon a new and startling policy, he could not but believe that his Amendment would be largely supported, at any rate, upon the Liberal side of the House. At the present time, there was no reason why Parliament should not be assembled with sufficient expedition to grant all necessary authority to the Government for the legitimate defence of the interests of the country.
    COLONEL STANLEYhoped the Committee would not consent to the omission of words which had been adopted by Parliament after deliberate discussion, and introduced by Lord Cardwell in his Enlistment Act of 1870. He (Colonel Stanley) conceived them to have been very properly introduced in the present Bill, and believed that, had Lord Cardwell thought it necessary that Parliament should be consulted during the Recess, he would not have put those words into the Act of 1870. There was on that occasion great discussion. It was felt that there might be a time when the Secretary of State for War might have to act on his own responsibility, and that, as Parliament must be called together very shortly afterwards to vote the necessary Supplies, it would be certain to have an early opportunity of confirming the policy of the Government. But it was thought, on the other hand, that to limit the Government and say that the Reserves should only be called out when Parliament was actually sitting,
    874
    would be, in many cases, to let slip time which might be of vital importance to the welfare of the country, and thereby lead to greatly increased expenditure. Such were the reasons which induced Lord Cardwell to place these words in the Act of 1870, from which they had been taken and renewed in this Bill without any alteration. Under the circumstances, it would be his duty to resist the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dungarvan.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the analogy between the circumstances referred to by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and those contemplated by the present clause began and ended with the words imminent national danger or great emergency. " 'With regard to the extension of service when Parliament was not sitting, he could not admit that any argument had been advanced in its favour. It was to be borne in mind that the preceding clause just carried authorized the Government to extend the time of the soldier's service for a period of one year, which, in his opinion, was sufficient. But when it became a matter of extending a soldier's service to double the term of his original enlistment, he thought that Parliament should certainly be consulted before the Government were allowed to exercise the powers given by the clause. For those reasons, he thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dungarvan should be accepted. There was an opinion among many people that the tendency of the governing classes in this country was, if possible, to get the Army into their own hands, in order to use it for the purpose of taking away the liberties of the people, and, of course, that contention would be very powerfully aided by the principle sought to be established by this clause, that the Executive Government should be able to advise Her Majesty to double the period of Army Service after the Prorogation of Parliament.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTpointed out that these clauses dealing with enlistment were contained in the Enlistment Act of 1870, when they were fully considered by Parliament, end he regretted very much that the Government had put them into the present Bill. The Amendment before the House was not upon the Paper; and he ventured to say that this course of raising Amendments on the spur of the moment, however neces-

    875
    sary they might be, had been followed with five-sixths of the Amendments proposed to the present Bill. The practice had been going on during the progress of the Bill to a very inconvenient extent, and he did not think it fair that Amendments should be brought up in the way referred to. The hon. Member who had just sat down said that the clause would enable Government to re-enlist men for the term of their original enlistment—that was to say, for 12 years more, without the control of Parliament. But was this a thing which could be done in the dark? He (Sir William Harcourt) knew perfectly well that Parliament would have the knowledge of what was going on; and if it should be of opinion that enlistment ought to go beyond the four or five months that had, perhaps, elapsed, it would say so when the Estimates were brought before it. Therefore, he was unable to see that any practical grievance existed with regard to the clause, and he was quite sure that had the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) looked into the matter a little further he would not, upon the spur of the moment, have proposed this Amendment. The clause which was now before the Committee, as well as a number of those which followed it, had been fully considered when the Enlistment Act of 1870 was passed; and, that being so, he asked whether the Committee ought to go on discussing them so minutely, and trying to alter Acts which had been so fully considered, and so recently prepared, as the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill? Ho entreated the Committee to leave the enlistment clauses alone, and allow them to pass.
    MR. PARNELLthought there was a great deal of force in what bad been said by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) with reference to the particular Amendment before the Committee; because he did not see how, if it were accepted, Her Majesty could be placed in a position to deal with a great national emergency, if it was necessary to wait until Parliament was summoned before the Reserves were called out. It might happen, although it was not very likely, that the country was about to be invaded; but, in that case, it would be known beforehand what was going to occur, because it would be necessary to get together ships, as well as soldiers and sailors. The kind of
    876
    national dangers and emergencies, however, likely to arise, was something like the sending over to the Bosphorus last year, when the hon. and learned Member for Oxford had taken up an entirely different position from that which he held on the present occasion. At the time referred to, the objections to the Government policy of not consulting Parliament were pointed out by the hon. and learned Member, and by his right hon. Associates, in the most able and eloquent speeches; but he was now showing the Committee that the control of Parliament could not possibly be availed of. Anyone, of course, was at liberty to change his opinion, and he had no objection to a change of opinion on the part of the hon. and learned Member. The clause, in his opinion, gave power to Government to enter into war, and to put troops into the field for the purpose of carrying it on, without consulting Parliament; and it was of great importance to consider this power, because it was well known that Government could always find money for the purpose of war. For instance, how were they carrying on the 'war at the Cape? They had long since spent the money voted, and yet they were still going on with it. Again, how were they bringing home the troops from India? There must be many ways by which Government could get money; and, of course, when once war had been entered upon, the country was obliged, so to speak, to stick to them. These considerations had, no doubt, been present in the mind of the hon. Member for Dungarvan when he proposed his Amendment; but he (Mr. Parnell) could not help thinking that there might arise a time when it would be of great importance to the country to have the power contained in this clause. He was afraid the Committee would have to leave these powers to the Government, great as they were, and possibly to be used, as they might be, in such a way as to avoid consulting Parliament until, at all events, the mischief had been done. He was quite sure that the progress of the Bill had not been delayed by his not putting his Amendments on the Paper, although ho pleaded guilty to having omitted to do this. Had he put all his Amendments on the Paper, they would have been much more numerous than those which he had proposed to the Committee. He did not at

    877
    all agree with the hon. and learned Member for Oxford that, because the Enlistment Act was passed in 1870, when none of the opponents of the present Bill were in the House, that imperfections, when they were found, should not be amended. The Government themselves had shown that there were imperfections in the Bill, because they had introduced several Amendments into it; and, besides, while the hon. and learned Member was absent from the House, the Committee had passed several Amendments of a beneficial character which were not on the Paper, because they were obviously useful and important. As far as the present Amendment was concerned, he thought it would not be wise for the hon. Member for Dungarvan to press it to a Division, because it would, if adopted, limit the power of the Crown in cases where there might be real emergency and danger.
    MR. O'DONNELLcould not conscientiously withdraw his Amendment. He quite agreed with the general tenour of the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford with regard to the Amendments of hon. Members; but, somehow or other, a custom had grown up of leaving very little time for placing Amendments on the Paper. The Amendment which ho had just moved had been in his mind for some time; he could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that it did not occur to him on the spur of the moment, and it had been his impression that it would receive the enthusiastic support of the Liberal Party, because he thought that it was the very objection which had been brought against Lord Beaconsfield's policy, that he always embarked the country in foreign expeditions and afterwards came to Parliament. He did not think that objection had ever been raised in the House with so much eloquence and effect as on the front Opposition Bench. He felt a little disappointed at the change which had taken place in the opinion of the hon. and learned Member, and thought that, inasmuch as the front Opposition Bench now deliberately agreed that the matters in question ought to be settled without consulting Parliament, it should be taken note of that they gave up nine-tenths of the contention which it had been raising against Her Majesty's Government for the last three years.
    878
    On this ground he trusted that, although he might have given a little trouble by raising the present question, he should deserve the thanks of Her Majesty's Government for the brilliant vindication of Lord Beaconsfield just elicited from the hon. and learned Member for Oxford. The hon. and learned Member had said that any person must see premonitory symptoms for months and weeks before an attack was made upon this country; but he (Mr. O'Donnell) wanted to guard against the possible chance of a Government being in power which would regard a trifling emergency, such as picking a quarrel, as a reason for calling out the Forces to guard the honour of the country, and afterwards for coming to Parliament and saying—" Our Army is in the field, our flag is waving, and will true-hearted Britons open their purse-strings? " Of course, he well knew that true-hearted Britons would pay, and the Government would be supported. He wished the Amendment to be put to the Committee, but did not intend to proceed to a Division.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Discharge and Transfer to Reserve Force.
    Clause 85 (Transfer of soldier to Reserve when corps ordered abroad) agreed to.
    Clause 86 (Discharge or transfer to Reserve).
    MR. O'DONNELLcould not see why the distinction was drawn by this clause, in regard to a free passage to the United Kingdom, between soldiers who wished to be sent home and those who were permitted to stay at the place where they were serving at the time they became entitled to their discharge. He, therefore, intended to move to leave out the words " not afterwards have any claim," in line 18, page 47, in order to insert the words " equally entitled." Why should the Government not pay the passage of men discharged abroad, who, thinking they saw a chance of earning a livelihood at the place where they were discharged, wanted to remain, but who were afterwards obliged to come home to the United Kingdom? Why should the Government pay the passage of the man who came home immediately,

    879
    and not that of the soldier who came back in six months? He thought the Government ought to accept his Amendment.
    COLONEL STANLEYhoped he should not be considered discourteous in asking the Committee not to accept the Amendment. Under this clause a soldier had a perfect option, when discharged abroad, either to come home or, at his own request, to stop where he was serving. He held it would be perfectly monstrous to say that a soldier should have the power at any time to come down upon the Government for a passage, say, from the Cape. The clause was perfectly well understood by the men; there had been no complaint as to the operation of it, and he trusted it would be accepted by the Committee without alteration.
    MR. BIGGARheld that the operation of the proposed Amendment would be beneficial to the Government. It was well known that a number of men would try their chance in the Colonies; but, having no option in the case, they were simply obliged to come home, rather than stay with the risk of having to pay the whole cost of the passage home to the United Kingdom. While, on the one hand, it could not possibly end in loss to the Government, it would be a great advantage to some of the discharged soldiers that they should be able to get a free passage home after remaining for some time in the Colonies.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 87 (Delivery of soldier on discharge with his wife and child at workhouse, or of dangerous lunatic at asylum).
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, the principles contained in this clause were rather Connected with the Poor Law of the country than with military questions. The clause dealt with lunatic soldiers, and provided what was to be done with them after discharge from the Army. Under the provisions of the clause, a lunatic soldier, with his wife and children, were to be sent to the parish in which the soldier was born. Now, he considered that a very unfair arrangement; and he proposed, instead, that a lunatic soldier should be sent, if possible, to the place at which he spent
    880
    the last 12 months before his enlistment. There seemed to be a general feeling in the House that when a man had spent a certain portion of his life in a particular parish, that parish should provide for him. The principle, that when a soldier became a lunatic he should be maintained at the expense of any particular parish, appeared to him doubtful. He should have thought that a lunatic soldier ought to be maintained out of monies voted by Parliament, under the Army Estimates. He begged to move the insertion, in line 88, page 47, after the word " to," of the words—
    " Any parish in which the soldier has resided at any period before his enlistment for twelve months; but, supposing the parish in which the soldier has last spent twelve months cannot be ascertained, then to any parish in the United Kingdom where he appears by his attestation paper to have been attested."
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSregretted that the Amendment had not been placed on the Paper, for then he would have had an opportunity of consulting with his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board on the subject. He would suggest, not that they should postpone the clause, but that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should withdraw his Amendment, leaving the Government to consider the matter before the Report, as this matter would require some communication between the two Offices.
    MAJOR NOLANreplied, that if the Government held out any hope that they were going to accept the principle of his Amendment, he was perfectly willing to postpone it till the Report. He did not care about the words of his Amendment at all; but the principle was a very simple one—one which ought to be discussed in Committee.
    MR. SCLATER -BOOTHobserved, that there were practical difficulties in the way of carrying out this Amendment; but there would be no difficulty in making the power of removal conform to the general law.
    MAJOR NOLANstated, that he proposed the Amendment from his recollection of the right hon. Gentleman's speech on another Bill, when the question of the removability or irremovability of paupers was being discussed. He then suggested that a man who had resided 12 months in a parish should have a claim on that parish. He (Major Nolan)

    881
    now proposed the same law in regard to soldiers. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman would pledge himself to move something of the same sort in better words he should be very happy to withdraw his Amendment.
    SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that in discussing the question of the removability of paupers he might have suggested a 12 months' limit; but this suggestion, which had to do with the removability of lunatic soldiers, was another matter. It might be a very serious hardship to carry out the proposed rule.
    Mr. O'CONNOR, POWERthought the appeal made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Nolan) might be granted without any fear of coming into collision with the existing law. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman was accurate in saying it could not be carried out. He remembered very well all the discussions which had taken place in the present Parliament on the question of poor removal, and he remembered that one point suggested was the difficulty of proving that paupers had not come over from Ireland a short time before and quartered themselves on English and Scotch Unions. There could be no such difficulty in determining the case of the soldier, for his previous career was known, and they could always determine the parish in which he had claim. There was always a difficulty in settling what general claim a man had, and it had often been complained by hon. Members representing sea-ports on the Western coasts of England that if the Law of Removal were altered, greater facilities would be given to the Irish to come over and quarter themselves upon those parishes; but about the soldier there could be now no doubt at all of the general claim he could establish; and he would ask the Committee what would be more likely to discourage recruiting in the Army than to find a soldier lame or blind coming home and resting in the workhouse of his native place, where all his friends were, and that the fact should be known that, after giving his life and his liberty to his country, he had come back as a burden on his native parish? He thought that the present system was a very great hardship, and that a principle should be laid down of sending a soldier to the parish in which he
    882
    was attested and recruited. In all probability he had been previously in that parish for some period, devoting himself to industrial work, which gave him a claim upon the community. He should listen with very great respect to any arguments of the right hon. Gentleman; but, surely, he did not mean to contend that men travelled long distances in order to be attested. Men would not go far to seek a recruiting sergeant; and he did not think there was any part of England in which they need go far to find one. Therefore, he maintained that the place in which a man was recruited was that on which he had a claim for relief.
    MR. MUNTZdid not think this proposal would be at all fair. Men very often went into a parish and enlisted there, and it would be very hard to throw the burden in that case on that parish. He would suggest, however, that the clause did require some alteration.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHoffered, if the Amendment were withdrawn, to consider whether anything could be done in the matter; but pointed out that the term "settlement" had, by recent legislation, been altered so as to be equivalent to "a status of irremovability."
    MR . PARNELLremarked that the position in which they found themselves was a very good example of the inconvenience resulting from the steps taken by the President of the Local Government Board to settle this very important question of the removability of paupers. This clause was brought from the old Mutiny Act, and it embodied all the old imperfections of the law; and yet they were now asked to accept it when there was an easy way out of the difficulty. He was not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman had moved for the Committee of which he gave Notice on this subject. He was told that there was a Committee sitting on this question, and they ought to put off deciding until that Committee had reported. Any delay which might arise was certainly not the fault of the Irish Members, but of the Local Government Board, for this question had been repeatedly brought before Parliament and they had been put off with excuses; and, finally, instead of the grievances which undoubtedly and admittedly did exist being remedied, they were put off with

    883
    a Select Committee. If they were to save any time, he did not see how they could take any other course than that of postponing the clause. It raised questions of the greatest magnitude, and it was impossible to deal satisfactorily with it until they knew the intentions of the President of the Local Government Board with regard to the general legislation concerning the removability of paupers. They were asked to send a lunatic soldier to a workhouse. That was not a proper place for him. If he was to go anywhere he should go to a lunatic asylum, provided at the expense of the State; and he should not be maintained at the expense of the parish in which he was attested. As it was pointed out, the soldier might have only been there a very short time. The right hon. Gentleman offered to consider the Amendment on the Report; but that Amendment only raised one of the questions contained in this clause, and it would be far more satifactory to wait for the Report and then to consider a matter of this magnitude. He really would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consent to the postponement of this clause, especially as he had postponed several others, and they would then have an opportunity of ascertaining the views of the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman must have some views. Did he propose to wait for the Report of the Select Committee? If that was so, what was the good of going on now? In reality, the Report was not required at all, for these grievances existed and were patent to everybody. They had occurred over and over again, and large expenses in consequence had been thrown on the rates for the maintainance of soldiers who had passed the best portion of their lives in Her Majesty's Service. He remembered, several years ago, a work which interested him very much, called The Soldier's Daughter, Wife, and. Widow. It referred to the Crimean War, and the end of the story was that the girl finally became chargeable to the parish. It certainly was a very fair finish to the gallant services the soldier rendered that, after his death, his wife should be left a pauper. But was it not more ignominious that he should be himself left chargeable to the parish after his own services with the Army, because he had the misfortune to become a lunatic?
    884
    There were many other imperfections in this clause, which he would not detain the Committee over at this time; and he hoped the Government would accept his proposition, as otherwise they might be engaged in a discussion which must be most protracted and difficult. He begged to move to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." — (Mr. Parnell.)
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHdid not at all say that this clause should be postponed in order to insert fresh words, but in order to make the removability of soldiers identical with the removability of paupers. His object would be to make the removals exactly in accordance with the existing law. He should be very glad if the Committee which was now sitting on this subject had reported before. They were certainly making progress. Ho was surprised at what had been said, when he remembered that his Motion for the Committee had been blocked for two months by a Notice of objection given by the lion. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell). Ho also wished to correct a mistake. The practice of the Service was to retain these lunatics in the hospital, and only when over-full were they removed to their parishes. That was the existing practice, and, no doubt, it would be continued.
    MR. CALLANsaid, within the last 12 months he had brought under the notice of the Department the case of a soldier not born in Ireland; but who, having served 28 years in India, became a lunatic and was sent to the parish of Dunis. Complaint was made, and the correspondence was on record. The notice of the Government was called to the subject by the late Member for Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing); and he was informed by that hon. Member that he was received with but scant courtesy, and no notice whatever was taken of his letters and representations. He added that his experience was that the practice as described by the right hon. Gentleman was not carried out.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not think the statement of his right hon. Friend had been thoroughly understood. His statement was to the effect that a Committee was now sitting to decide this point; but, in the meantime, he was

    885
    perfectly willing to frame the clause so as to provide that soldiers should be treated in the same way as any other pauper lunatics. When the law was altered, of course this law would be brought into accordance with it.
    MR. PARNELLwished to make an explanation with regard to the charge made against him by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth). That charge was that for two months he had blocked his Motion on this subject. If that was so, it was entirely unknown to him. The circumstances of the case were shortly these. When the right hon. Gentleman placed his Notice on the Paper, he was of opinion that there was no necessity for the Committee, as the grievance was so thoroughly understood. However, his hon. and learned Friend the senior Member for LimeriCk (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) being very much interested in this matter, came to him and asked him to withdraw it. He agreed to do so; and shortly after he asked that hon. Gentleman to go to the Clerk at the Table and take the Amendment off the Notice Paper. He said that he would, and he supposed that he had done so; he himself was away in Ireland at the time, and it was entirely without his knowledge that the Notice remained on the Paper, because he supposed that his lion. Friend would have at once executed the commission.
    MR. P. MARTINobserved, that there was some misapprehension as to the effect of the clause, and when it was pointed out he thought the Government might, perhaps, accede to the suggestions already made. The clause conferred a new power on the Secretary of State, which, at present, he did not possess. Was it in accordance with the spirit of our laws, or the dictates of humanity, that the soldier who became affected in mind, perchance from exposure on active service, should be liable on his return, if destitute, to be thus arbitrarily sent to his place of birth? His wife and children, too, might be taken from old friends and associations. It was especially unfair to Ireland. Under the Codes regulating the removal of Irish-born poor, the authorities in England were not entitled to send over destitute persons of Irish birth, who had become lunatics, to Ireland. The sending, by the Scotch authorities, of those dangerous lunatics to Ireland had been con-
    886
    demned as cruel, illegal, and unjust. Remonstrances had been made by more than one Irish Chief Secretary, in his official capacity, against the practice. Yet, what might be the effect of this section, if sanctioned by the Committee? A soldier born in Ireland, who had left when a child, resided for many years and married in England, then served his country as a good soldier for the best part of his life, could, if he became a lunatic, be sent, with his wife and children, even though they had a settlement in England, to the parish where lie had been born. This would be, in its operation, most inequitable and unjust. Why should parishes which furnished soldiers be subjected to those burdens. He would ask the Committee whether the proper course was not to act in analogy to the principle laid down in the Poor Laws, and to let the State which had the advantages of the services of the soldier also provide for him? Why should not the State be charged with the soldier's maintenance? There was not, it was said, at the present time, sufficient accommodation. It might be provided. It was a great hardship, he thought, that this state of things should be allowed to prevail, and it certainly was not retained to the honour of this country. Very often these illnesses were brought on by the services of the soldier to the State, and the State certainly ought to care for his declining years. He was perfectly ready to accept any suggestion from the front Bench, because he was perfectly sure it was well-intentioned; but they ought not to wait for any Report of this Committee, because he knew, as one of its Members, that its Report would be powerless to touch the principles set down in this clause. In its operation the clause would affirm principles more than once rejected by the House. It had been introduced without consideration as to its practical effect; and he did trust that they would have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that it would be amended.
    SIR. PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, they were practically creating a new Law of Settlement which did not merely affect broken down men or lunatics who might be discharged from the British Army, but also affected every parish where there was a depôt centre. Looking at this question from another point of view, he

    887
    was almost ashamed to find the way in which they dealt with men who had served the country well in tropical climes, and had become mentally affected from no fault of their own, but from the service they had gone through. Yet they were going to treat these men as pauper lunatics. Soldiers who had fought for their country in Afghanistan and Zululand were to be treated as paupers, and made dependent on the eleemosynary contributions of the district in which they were born. He protested against any such doctrine, and maintained that they owed a debt of gratitude to these men for services which could not be discharged in this way.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, it was evident this clause would postpone itself, as it was then nearly 7 o'clock. This was a very important question, exciting a good deal of feeling, both inside and outside the House. He hoped, therefore, the Government would make up their minds what qualification they would propose in this clause. The Government ought not, certainly, to complain of obstruction, if they were not prepared, at the next Sitting, to state distinctly what would be done in this matter.
    MR. BIGGARpointed out that the case of a soldier was very different from that of a man who occupied his time in business pursuits. He would like to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman, if he intended to propose an Amendment in this clause, that lie ought to have it ready the next evening.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, of course, the time had now come to report Progress; but he might say that they were not likely to take this Bill on Tuesday next; their arrangements had been made. If they were able to get the Votes which would be proposed in Supply later that evening, he proposed to go on with this Bill on Monday. If they did not, they must take the Navy Estimates on Monday.
    House resumed.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
    It being now Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
    order for Committee read.
    MR. W. H. SMITH, in moving that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair, appealed to the House to go at once into Committee of Supply, in order that some Votes on the Navy Estimates, which were absolutely necessary for the Public Service, might be taken. He made that appeal without the slightest desire to impede the other Business. The Votes would only occupy a few minutes; and if hon. Members who had Notices on the Paper would postpone their Motions until after the Votes had been taken, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would again propose that the House should resolve itself into Committee, in order that the Motions which stood upon the Paper as Amendments to Supply might be proceeded with without delay.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, " That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    MR. A. MOOREsaid he did not wish in any way to impede the progress of Business.
    MR. CHILDERSthought the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman was a very desirable one, though it might be unusual. He gave in his adhesion to the arrangement, on the understanding that the Government would undertake to keep a House.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERentirely accepted the duty of keeping a House, and expressed his acknowledgments for the consideration shown for the Government Business on this occasion. He would not have made this request had it not been absolutely necessary, seeing that they were so near the end of the quarter.
    MR. BIGGARasked what Business would be taken on Monday, supposing these Votes were got to-night?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill would be taken on Monday.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    (1.) £891,615, Half-Pay, Reserved Half-Pay, and Retired Pay to Officers of the Navy and Marines.
    MR. BIGGARasked, whether it was not the fact that a sum on account of this Vote had not been taken before?
    MR. W. H. SMITHreplied, that no sums on account had been taken on the Navy Estimates, and this money was required for the half-pay and pensions which became payable on the 30th June.
    Vote agreed to.
    (2.) £803,920, Military Pensions and Allowances.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, last Session, and again this, he had called attention to the large increase in the amount of pensions. He wished to ask whether the arrangements the right hon. Gentleman had contemplated were likely soon to come into force, and whether he expected this increase would last much longer?
    MR. W. H. SMITHreplied, that he hoped the increase would speedily be put an end to. He was glad to say that he had now ascertained that every pensioner who was entitled to draw a pension was liable to be called into active service, if circumstances required it; and, therefore, they had in these pensioners a Reserve Force.
    Vote agreed to.
    (3.) £301,211, Civil Pensions and Allowances.
    House resumed.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.

    SUPPLY.
    Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—CHILDREN IN IRISH WORKHOUSES.

    MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
    MR. A. MOORE, in rising to draw attention to the condition of poor chil-
    890
    dren in Irish workhouses, and to move that a Select Committee be appointed "to inquire into what steps it is desirable to take to improve the state of children in Irish workhouses," said, that it was a somewhat thankless task to bring an indictment each year against the existing Boards of Guardians in Ireland. He desired, however, at the onset, to say that he was fully sensible of the nature of the efforts of the Poor Law Guardians, and he did not wish to charge them in this matter with any direct or wilful neglect. The system adopted in Ireland in relation to pauper children was capable of great improvement, and his object in occupying the attention of the House at the present moment was two-fold—in the first place, to point out that there was an entire absence of industrial training in the Irish workhouses; and, in the second place, to show the evil consequences of the young children associating with the adult paupers. Now, he had opened a page at random in the Report of Major Trench's Commission, and from the answers given by the clerks to the Guardians in the Unions of Killarney, Listowel, Glyn, Limerick, and Newcastle, he found he was fully justified last year in saying that in Ireland there was no systematic and organized industrial training for boys and girls in workhouses. The Chairman of the Committees, in his valuable Report, himself admitted that the defect of the existing workhouses appeared to be the want of a continuous industrial training. What was the consequence of the absence of such a system? On account of the absence of industrial training, the time of the children must be squandered in idleness; because no one could sleep, without prejudice to his health, for more than eight or nine hours, and a child did not receive much benefit if it was kept in school more than four or five hours a-day. The rest of the children's time in the Irish workhouses must necessarily be spent in idleness. He recollected what wonderful results had been brought about by the establishment of industrial schools in this country. The Home Secretary, who took a very practical and lofty view of such subjects, at a meeting recently held at Chelmsford, said that between the years 1856 and 1878 the juvenile criminals of the country had been reduced 50 per cent,

    891
    He (Mr. Moore) thought they had every reason to congratulate themselves upon such a result; but he was confident that it was to be attributed to the establishment of correctional institutions, the saving principle of which was the employment of children in some " labour suited to their strength." Much as he valued the Report of Major Trench, he must say that he differed from him in some respects. For instance, he did not agree with him whoa he said that the results of his inquiries bad led him to the belief that very little of the corrupting influence of association in the workhouse prevailed in Ireland; but, certainly, that was not the opinion of other capable and well-informed people. In 1875 the State of New York passed an Act of Parliament absolutely forbidding children to be committed to workhouses between the ages of 3 and 16 years old. The English Poor Law authorities had also made successful efforts in the direction of separating children from workhouse influences; and the Home Secretary had introduced a Bill saying that it should not be lawful to keep a child any longer than three months in any workhouse in Scotland. In spite of the lavish expenditure of the Poor Law system, children and adult paupers were herded together in a most disgraceful manner, two and three in a bed, and even when sick. There was an instance where two children, affected with the itch, were put in the same bed, and this was made the subject of inquiry; but the Committee found nothing reprehensible in the practice, and, to the disgrace of the Medical Profession, the doctor backed that opinion. The other day he visited one of the best-managed of agricultural workhouses, whore the contagion of the town might not be expected to have reached, and from which a large number of tramps and paupers would be absent. He saw the school, and, undoubtedly, it bore traces of great care, and it was under the care of a most efficient mistress. He asked her what became of the children after they left her care, and she said there was nothing for them to do but to go to the common day-room, where they would be associated with the worst of the old and young. And the unfortunate thing was that most objectionable persons were appointed to take care of the sick in the hospitals, and for that there was no excuse.
    892
    Another objectionable feature was the early ages at which children were sent out to service. He incurred great odium last year for having, as was then understood, overstated his case when he said that children were sent out to work at the age of eight or nine years. There was evidence then that in as many as 20 Unions there was a habit of sending children of 10 years of age out to work, and never for any shorter period than three months. And what was the supervision which the Guardians afterwards exercised over these children? Why, absolutely none. In America there was a regular visiting agency appointed, and in Franco there were no less than 30 Inspectors to do this work; but there was absolutely no inspection in Ireland. It was supposed that the unfortunate relieving officer should discharge this duty; but there was small blame to him if he neglected it. What were the results which this system produced? Upon this point he would appeal to the testimony of some of the Clerks of Irish Unions, who, it must be remembered, were salaried officers dependent on the good will of the Guardians for their superannuations; and, therefore, the motive must have been a very strong one which induced them to speak out against the system in the manner in which they had spoken. The clerk of the Ballinasloe Union, whose experience extended over 30 years, said he was convinced that a workhouse was not a good place in which to bring up children, with few exceptions. The Clerk of the Castlereagh Union stated that, from his experience of workhouse training, he found, as a rule, that children did not turn out well, that they were always lazy, and preferred living in idleness to working. The Clerk of the Naas Union said he had no hesitation in stating, from his experience of 27 years, that a workhouse was the worst possible place that children could be brought up in. The clerks of Kilmacthomas, Dundalk, and other Unions, bore similar testimony to the pernicious effect which the present system had upon children. Major Trench, in reviewing this evidence, thought that it was balanced by reports of a favourable character, which, undoubtedly, had emanated from some of the Clerks of Unions. Major Trench set great value on a Return which showed that of the women who had illegitimate children in

    893
    particular workhouses very few had been reared in those workhouses. But the Return really proved nothing, for there was no evidence that those women had not been reared in other workhouses. But he (Mr. A. Moore) must repeat that it was only a strong sense of duty which could induce a number of salaried officials to speak out against the system. Theirs was not the only testimony upon which he had to rely. A gentleman residing in the West of Ireland, who had set his heart upon this question, had issued a circular to workhouse chaplains of all denominations, and had thus collected a very valuable amount of testimony on the subject. A Presbyterian clergyman said workhouses were the worst places in which to train children, and that the national workhouses were cesspools, the general effect of whose atmosphere was fatal to the proper training of children. Another said workhouse training begot a lack of self-reliance; while a third stated that there was nothing in the system to teach children habits of honesty and discipline, and that girls made shipwreck early. The Catholic clergyman of Roscommon said a case could not be made out for continuing the present unsuccessful and pernicious system of training young paupers, and it would be better for the virtuous girl under 18 years of age to starve than to enter a workhouse. Dr. O'Shaughnessy, a relative of a respected Member of that House, said that, owing to the absence of classification, the system was simply demoralizing. There were no means of obtaining accurate official information about children trained in workhouses, for their careers were not traced and registered as was done in the case of children brought up in industrial schools. The question was, what should be done to remedy the state of things to which he had drawn attention? He wished rather to demonstrate the necessity for some change than to advocate any particular reform. He had no hobby in this matter, and was only anxious that some improvement on the present system should take place. He had no objection to the boarding-out system; but it was, he thought, above all things, desirable that they should have a proper and systematic system of inspection. Let the children not be got rid of out of the workhouse, and nothing be known of them in after life.
    894
    With respect to orphan and deserted children, he could not see by what argument the State could possibly rid itself of the responsibility which it had undertaken in regard to these children without providing for them in well-managed industrial schools. As to the rest of the children, he would urge that if they had an extension of the system of boarding out, these children should be concentrated in such numbers as would allow of their receiving a proper and adequate training. There were at present 41 Unions in Ireland, where there were not more than a score of boys, and it was impossible to give a proper training to such a number except at immense cost. Major Trench objected to making a change for the small towns; but in some of the agricultural Unions the classification was worse than it was in the larger towns, and the children were less cared for. Two objections were urged, which he would call the fluctuation argument and the separation argument. It was said that the same children were not found in the same workhouse on the same day of two successive years; but this was rather due to the bad system of putting children out for terms of three and six months' service, and bringing them up in idleness, which produced an unwillingness to work. It would, in many cases, be an advantage to the children and to the State that the former should be separated from their parents. In England, pauper children were concentrated in large district schools, in which a variety of pursuits were carried on. The Irish system should be changed, so as to make it not only more industrial, but also more homely, by placing within the reach of the children inexpensive recreations. He hoped that, under an improved system, the odious brand bearing the name of the Union in largo letters would be abolished. Hon. Members who criticized the Army and Navy Estimates, considering that those Services cost the country too large a sum, forgot that the Poor Law system of the United Kingdom cost between £9,000,000 and £10,000,000. No one grudged what was necessary to succour classes who were unable to maintain themselves; but the least that could be expected was that this outlay would result in making the younger poor self-supporting and self-reliant when they reached maturity. He narrated the

    895
    case of a child, whose father was a tramp, and his mother a convicted felon, and who was born in gaol without knowing either father or mother. The child grew up to manhood, passing his earlier years in the workhouse, and he well remembered how his unguarded career ended on the scaffold. That young man was a type of the orphan and deserted children who were sheltered by the workhouse, where, whatever the care exercised, they were necessarily surrounded by untoward circumstances. How many children now growing into useful members of the community would find better careers if they started with equal disadvantages? It was for these young unfortunates ho appealed; for the waifs and strays of the great towns and cities; and ho asked the House to give them a chance to start even with the humblest of the self-supporting classes of the community, to enable them to enter the Army and Navy, and to acquire some handicraft. He therefore begged to move that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire what steps it was desirable to take to improve the state of children in Irish workhouses.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY, in seconding the Motion, said, that Major Trench and his Colleagues by their labours had very considerably advanced this question, because they distinctly suggested something very analogous to the recommendation of the Resolution. Major Trench's Commission suggested that there should be an inquiry into the condition of the children in Irish workhouses, and the effect upon them of the workhouse training, and it suggested what would aid the inquiries of any Committee of the House—namely, an inquiry, by inspection, of the Local Government Board into the respective effects of the workhouse, and the boarding-out systems. In England there had been a contest between the school and boarding-out systems, ending in favour of the latter. The boarding-out system, favourably as it was regarded in England, was more likely to be highly successful in Ireland, whose population was so largely agricultural leading simpler lives than those of the English people. So strongly had the House been impressed in favour of the boarding-out system that it had passed three successive Acts extending the ages at which it might be carried out. The first fixed the limit at five
    896
    years, the second at 10, and the third at 13 years of age. No doubt there were dangers in connection with the boarding-out system, and in Ireland it laboured under a want of inspection. The better classes might provide voluntary aid so as to make supervision complete; but that aid should receive official authorization. Such volunteers might be appointed by the Boards of Guardians, and might come under the sanction of the Local Government Board, and they should be selected with a view to the wishes and religious feelings of the people. Major Trench and his three co-Commissioners pointed out three courses—the district schools, the boarding-out system; and they mentioned, without discussing, the extension of the system of out-door relief. Their Report showed very great danger of the corrupting influences of workhouse associations, and pointed out that of the children in Irish workhouses very few were permanent inmates, the majority being transitory, and the offspring of vicious parents who took them out when it suited their interest. District schools would involve great additional cost, though some of the workhouses might be used for that purpose; but, for his part, ho should object to any scheme increasing to any considerable degree the burthens of the ratepayers, the poor rate at present being as heavy as could be borne. On that ground alone the idea might be dismissed as impracticable. The best plan for every reason, and in particular for the moral good of the children, would be to apprentice them to learn trades at the age of 15. It was further suggested that the children should be strictly segregrated from the adults, and that a place of industrial training should be attached to each workhouse. Such a scheme was, in his opinion, feasible enough, and would have the advantage of supplementing the three R's in a useful and even a necessary manner. Much difference should be made in the industrial training of boys and girls; the former could be taught in central schools easily enough; but as the duties of female domestic servants could not be learnt in that way, in the case of girls, he wished to see the greatest possible extension of the boarding-out system. As matters at present stood, girls, when they left the workhouse, were not so useful in their sphere of life; and he trusted, therefore,

    897
    the Government, in dealing with the matter, would bear in mind the great distinction which existed between the two sexes. He did not think they ought to be guided by English or Scotch experience exclusively, but that they were bound to pay due regard to the wants of the Irish people, and to the claims of that unhappy individual, the ratepayer. The more modestly and economically a change such as that proposed was begun the better.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word " That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words " a Select Committee be appointed to inquire what steps it is desirable to take to improve the state of children in Irish workhouses,"—(Mr. Arthur Moore,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed," That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    COLONEL COLTHURSTwas of opinion that in the extension of the boarding-out system would be found the most adequate remedy, and that which would be the most economical for the evils to which his hon. Friend who had brought forward the subject had drawn attention. That system, though fully developed in England, could not be said to be so in Ireland, where it had been adopted by scarcely one-half of the Unions, and by those only to a small extent. Where it had been adopted, however, the result had been found to be excellent. The Chairman of the Cork workhouse said that nearly all the children boarded out wore absorbed into the population, many of them being adopted by their foster-parents. The Chairman of the North Dublin Union said the same thing. Some came back, and at 15 they were drafted into the body of the house, and exposed to all its evils, the law making no other provision for them. In the North Dublin Union, where industrial training for boys was well carried out, the master, who had over 30 years' experience, said he would much prefer to see every boy out of the house. If, in addition to boarding out, the Guardians had power to apprentice the children to farmers or to tradesmen on the payment of a small fee, the ultimate disposal of those children who returned to the workhouse would be, in a great degree, secured. He trusted the
    898
    Government would accede to the Motion, and grant a Select Committee to inquire what steps should be taken to improve the condition of the children in Irish workhouses, so that the subject might be thoroughly ventilated.
    MR. J. LOWTHER: I am bound to say that those who are charged with the duty of dealing with this matter are indebted to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. Moore) for the manner in which he has brought forward his Motion to-night. The hon. Gentleman has treated the subject with great moderation in a speech replete with information, and marked by great ability. Last year he spoke with great ability on the same subject; but, I venture to say, ho was hardly quite so moderate in tone on that occasion as he has been this evening. The reason I venture to assign for this difference in tone is that during the interval a Commission has inquired into the subject, and has reported upon it. To-night he has refrained from such criticisms as he felt it his duty to offer on the last occasion. I am glad to notice this change, and I am disposed to say that most hon. Members who have read the elaborate Report referred to will feel constrained to go with the hon. Gentleman in most of his remarks. I am disposed to agree with most of what has fallen from him. The system he advocates meets, I may say, with general approval. He says, with regard to education, that where it is unaccompanied with industrial training it is almost worse to the children than no training at all—I mean, without conferring upon the child the means of enabling it to acquire a livelihood, and discharge its duty to society in after years. We have heard lately of extravagant expenditure on education under the London School Board, and I largely agree in that complaint, and if anything of the kind could be shown to exist in the establishments now under discussion I would at once admit the necessity for a change; but the charge does not arise with reference to the children in Irish workhouses. The three R's seem to be the utmost, and rightly so, that the Irish ratepayers are called upon to pay for. To poor children especially industrial training is the most important of all, and Major Trench points this out very forcibly. This Report, I need hardly say, is engaging the anxious attention of the Government. I cannot say at this

    899
    moment what particular remedies we may be in a position to propose; but I can assure the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion that the special points in the Report to which attention has been called have not been lost sight of. As to inspection, I think it should be conducted by those who are responsible to the authorities under whom the workhouses are placed, and that the same Inspectors should, if possible, attend to the general management of the children, and not devote their attention to one portion only of the training. As to boarding out, that, I know, is a question on which opinions very much differ; and I can only say that it, with all other matters in the Report, will receive the attention of the Government. I think the hon. Gentleman will not consider it necessary to press his Motion, as the labours of the contemplated Committee have been forestalled, and the attention of the Government has been carefully given to the subject since the hon. Gentleman first brought it under notice. I cannot go into the details of what we may propose; but we think industrial training ought to be combined with elementary education of no very ambitious kind, not going into those branches which are often improperly associated with the education of the young of the poorer classes.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, he would not have risen had it not been for the remark that elementary education was thrown away if not accompanied by industrial education. He held that even if education went no further than the three R's it was useful; and he regretted to have heard the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) suggest that it could be injurious to the children or the State that they should receive the highest possible education. It could never be disadvantageous to pauper children that they should be even highly educated. These poor children should not be reared as if pauperism was their heritage; but should be entirely separated from the surroundings of the poorhouse by a system such as the boarding-out system. This would reduce the number of paupers, and prevent the perpetuation of a pauper class. Nothing could be more detrimental to the character of children than to herd together in special pauper schools, even of an industrial description. They ought to be boarded out amongst industrious and in-
    900
    dependent workpeople, and sent to the ordinary schools of the -country. In this way they would be absorbed into the general population. He regretted that Her Majesty's Government had not thought fit to grant the Select Committee that had been asked for by the hon. Member.
    MR. SHAWregretted that the answer of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was not more distinct. There was no more important or difficult subject than this of the treatment of pauper children in the Irish workhouses. They were not in such numbers as to facilitate industrial training, such as was given to the children in reformatories. The widest difference was observable between the boys brought up under paid teachers and those trained by men who gave their lives to the work. He thought the Chief Secretary might have held out some hope of the introduction of a measure which would enable the Guardians to give an industrial training to the poor children, his own opinion being that there might be some central institution established, to which a selection of the children from each workhouse might be drafted for industrial training, or the Guardians might be empowered to allow the religious societies to do something more with the youth of the country who formed the raw material of the labour of which it stood in need. They did not make the most of it, and the money spent, if properly applied, would do a great deal more good.
    MR. VERNERagreed that there could not be a subject of greater importance to Ireland than that which was now being discussed; and hon. Members on his side of the House were quite as anxious as hon. Members opposite that the children who were brought up in the workhouses should be properly educated and looked after; at the same time he did not see the necessity for the appointment of a Select Committee on the question after the thorough investigation by the Commission, to whose Report attention had properly been called. He hoped the hon. Member would be satisfied with the discussion which had taken place, and would not press the Motion to a Division. He knew that in the case of the Rathdown Union both the boys and the girls received industrial training to qualify them for respectable employment in afterlife.
    THE O'CONOR DONsaid, he was exceedingly disappointed at the indefiniteness of the Chief Secretary's reply, which had not made them a bit wiser as to the views of the Government, nor informed them whether it preferred boarding - out or district industrial schools. Upon none of the topics raised by the hon. Member (Mr. A. Moore) had the right hon. Gentleman given the House the slightest information; and he did not know upon what grounds the right hon. Gentleman asked his hon. Friend to rest satisfied with the statement which he had made. The Rathdown Union was a most exceptional one, for there was scarcely another in which anything like such an industrial training was given. It had the advantage of being in the country, and yet corresponding to a Union in a large city, for it had to deal with the pauperism of Kingstown and all the Dublin suburban district. At all events, he thought that the Irish Members were entitled to know in what direction the consideration of the Government in this matter was likely to go. Did the Government intend to propose any alteration in the present system? Did they think it ought to be altered, and would they promise that between this time and next Session they would endeavour to devise means which would improve the existing state of things?
    MR. WHEELHOUSE, in supporting the Motion, said, he did not care whether children were in England or in Ireland who really required a reasonably good education to help them to earn a livelihood; for a child depended, especially in the case of Poor Law management, upon others for his education; and he considered that where a child went into a workhouse something ought to be done for him to make him a respectable member of society, and with a view of removing him from the pauper class by making him support himself, and thereby, in all probability, preventing him, personally, from again becoming a burden to the ratepayers. It had been said that either to-day, or to-morrow, or at some future time, something might be done, or something ought to be done, for children of this class; but he was one of those who believed in the necessity of doing something during the present time. What he did want most earnestly was that some
    902
    measure should be undertaken by the Government—whether it was an English child or an Irish child did not matter—to place every child in a position in which he would be able to earn his bread for himself. He thought the Resolution, as he understood it, was a very reasonable one. It was to draw attention to the condition of poor children in Irish workhouses—he did not care what workhouses they were—and to move for a Select Committee to inquire what steps it was desirable to take to improve the state of children in Irish workhouses. However a human being who professed a feeling of kindliness for his fellow subjects could doubt that such a Resolution ought to be passed he could not imagine. He was aware that very often Resolutions were introduced which were inopportune, and at a time when the subject was not likely to be productive of legislation; but that was not the case with reference to this question. If anything could be done to help the poor children of any workhouse it ought to be done, and there was no reason why they should deny investigation on the point. He did not for a moment say that anything would come out of that inquiry when held. Let relief be asked for most respectfully, and, if necessary, what he would contend for was—that if there was any necessity for investigation, in order to place these children in a better position than they were now, this House, which was the highest tribunal, with the exception of one, in the Realm, should not deny this investigation. He did not care from which side of the St. George's Channel the children came; for he looked upon the three Kingdoms as one, as far as this House was concerned, and he hoped that the House would not use its power to deny that which he considered one of the most reasonable propositions which had ever been laid upon the Table of the House. He asked the Government to look at the large number of children who were not properly educated, and the way in which they were likely to be brought up under the control of the Guardians. In the central institutions, as far as the institutions themselves were concerned, he was quite willing to admit that they did the best they could under the circumstances in which they were placed, and with the powers the ratepayers gave them; but if those powers

    903
    were too confined in themselves, or too small to give the necessary education to the children, then it was their bounden duty to see that they were not kept one moment longer on the Poor Law books than was necessary. He thought that this Resolution was one which he hoped would secure better education to children in workhouses. He sincerely hoped and trusted that it would meet with the approval of the House.
    MR. D. TAYLORexpressed his disappointment that the Chief Secretary should have suggested the withdrawal of the Motion. He (Mr. D. Taylor) was of opinion that the appointment of such a Committee as the hon. Member for Clonmel desired would be productive of great good. The Commission was appointed to consider the question of amalgamation of Unions, and they took no evidence from the public in reference to the subject before the House. Had there been any idea that the Commission would have inquired into this subject, there would have been plenty of evidence obtainable. He thought the subject was worthy of the most serious consideration, and he trusted the Government would see their way to give a more definite promise. If they did not do so, he should be glad to support the Motion.
    MR. BIGGARregretted that the Government should not have promised to redress the grievances complained of by the hon. Member for Clonmel. He was of opinion that had the hon. Member allowed the Government to wait for their vote in Supply, his prospects of obtaining a favourable reply from Her Majesty's Ministers would have been greater. He thought the Chief Secretary had not given the matter the attention it deserved; and as for the statement that it was receiving consideration, they all knew what that stereotyped reply meant —that they should never hear anything more of it.
    THE CHANCELLOR OP THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not entirely understand whether the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. A. Moore) was disposed to be satisfied with the discussion that had arisen, or whether he still thought that it would be desirable or necessary that a Committee should be appointed. There could be no doubt whatever that the subject to which the hon. Member had drawn attention was one of the very highest importance. They could not
    904
    doubt that this class of children to whom the attention of the House was turned was a class that required the most careful attention. It was very well known that they were children who were in the peculiar position of being withdrawn from, or of not having the advantage of, the natural influences of home, which went so far towards the education of most of the young. They knew perfectly well that children placed in such institutions as workhouses—however desirous those who had the management of those institutions might be to do their duty—must lack many of the advantages in the way of education which were enjoyed by children who were living at home. It was most desirable that whatever might be done in the way of the education of these children should not merely be confined to what was called head knowledge, and that everything should be done that could be done to fit them for after-life, and inspire them with a feeling of gratitude towards the place in which their youth was passed. The Government sympathized with the object of the hon. Gentleman, and he could only say that the subject was under the consideration of the Irish Government. He hoped and believed that this would lead to something practical being done. The Chief Secretary had spoken with the sympathy of the Government in assuring the House that the Government were thorougly anxious to inquire into the subject, and to adopt any measures which they might find to be desirable and possible. He was quite sure that the noble Duke at the head of the Irish Government would be as anxious to promote a good work of this kind as any Member of the Government. The question was, was it desirable or necessary to have a Committee after the recent Report of the Commission, considering that the Report was so recent, and that the matter was engaging the attention of the Government? It would be more convenient not to appoint a Committee at this period of the Session, and he was perfectly ready to promise that whatever measures could be taken would be taken. If the hon. Member for Clonmel, having heard all that had been said, and feeling that his object was one in which they all sympathized, was still of opinion that the appointment of a Committee was important and necessary, the Government would be prepared to concede that, on the under-

    905
    standing that it was not casting any reflection on the labour of the Commission; but that they had been looking into a number of questions, and had opened a subject which it appeared desirable should be further prosecuted.
    MR. A. MOOREsaid, he was happy to accept the offer of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question again proposed. "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  INDIA—EMIGRATION OF COOLIES.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLrose to call attention to the emigration of coolies from British India to the Colonies, which, he said, had of late years greatly fallen off. The reason why emigration of coolies from India was discouraged was, that the Colonies to which most of the emigrants went were practically under oligarchical government, and complaints were made by them of their treatment in our Crown Colonies. Complaints might fairly be made of those Colonies which were not made in respect of our self-governing Colonies; for instance, till recently he believed the coloured races were quite well treated in the Cape Colony and also in Canada. In the Crown Colonies there was a hankering after forced labour, in substitution for the slavery which was formerly relied upon for the cultivation of the plantations.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLresuming, said, in regard to the coloured races in those Colonies everything depended on the Governors; but there had been instances in which Governors who had done their duty by the subject-races had not fared well; and, in other cases, by conniving at the oppression of those races, Governors had earned popularity with the ruling classes and enhanced the success of their official careers. The great abuses that were practised in the Mauritius and other Colonies were matters of fact, which had been placed on record by Royal Commissions. Evil effects were produced on the coolie emi-
    906
    grants into the Colony of Grenada, owing to the way in which they were treated by the managers of the estates there.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, his attention had been called to the fact that the hon. Member had given Notice on this subject of an Amendment to a Motion which was fixed for the 15th of July. The hon. Member was out of Order in anticipating the discussion on that day.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, the hon. Member for Longford had given Notice on this subject of a Motion which was fixed for a day some weeks ago. To that Motion he (Sir George Campbell) put down an Amendment. The Motion was not moved on the day fixed for it, and the Amendment had been carried forward by the Clerk as a separate Motion until tonight.
    MR. SPEAKERrepeated that the hon. Member having given Notice of an Amendment to a Motion which the House had decided to hear on the 15th of July, he was out of Order in discussing the subject now.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLventured to ask if Mr. Speaker had quite understood what he (Sir George Campbell) had stated. [" Order ! "]
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, he clearly understood the hon. Member's point, and it did not make any difference.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked, whether he was to understand that he was not at liberty to proceed with the Notice of Motion which he now had on the Paper?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, he had already stated that any debate on this matter would be irregular.

    IRISH FARMERS—THE "SPENCER SYSTEM."—RESOLUTION.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN, in rising to call attention to the valuable encouragement given, during the last five years, to small farmers in certain districts in Ireland, by the system of rewards for improved cultivation, known as the " Spencer system; " and to move-
    " That, as it appears that great benefit has arisen in certain parts of Ireland by the working of the Spencer system,' under which small farmers have been encouraged and stimulated to improved Cultivation by a distribution of small money prizes for competition, it is therefore expedient that this system should be encouraged

    907
    by Her Majesty's Government undertaking to provide official inspection in all Cases where individuals, or public or Corporate bodies, are willing to provide funds for the carrying out of the system of rewards, more especially as the funds now available from the closing of Certain model farms will be more than sufficient to enable this to be done; "
    said, that according to Returns which were made a few years ago, half the holdings in Ireland were under an £8 valuation. He did not ask the Government to give any money themselves, but simply to provide a system of official inspection, which should aid those landlords who desired to provide rewards for their small tenants who cultivated their farms with success. The Spencer system had been inaugurated by Earl Spencer during his tenure of office as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with the object of encouraging the cultivation of small farms, consisting mainly of bog and heather land in Ireland, and it had been very successful in its operation. The general prosperity of Ireland had not as yet reached the small farmers, who were in want of some encouragement. There was at present a great waste in small farms in that country, both in the matter of cultivation and of gathering in the crops. He had himself visited one of the districts in which the Spencer system had been in practical operation, and he had been most agreeably surprised at the beneficial effects which it had produced. He saw land reclaimed from barren heath, and decent houses standing where miserable cabins formerly existed, with every sign of comfort and contentment among the small farmers and their families; and he had returned from his visit determined to do all he could to promote the extension of the system of small rewards judiciously applied, which had achieved such extraordinary results. As the knowledge of the benefits attending the system was spread among the gentry of Ireland, he believed that many of' them would be ready to subscribe the money requisite for applying it to the different districts of that country. He only asked the Government to help in that work by sending down accredited independent men from Dublin to act as official Inspectors in all cases where individuals, or public or corporate bodies, were willing to provide these small prizes and rewards. The funds now available from the clos-
    908
    ing of certain model farms would be more than sufficient to enable that to be done. All he asked was that the Government should do something to help them in this matter. There was hardly any object in the promotion of which public money could be more advantageously expended than in furthering the education of the small farmers of Ireland under the Spencer system. No class of men in that country were more in need of help than the poor farmers. A little knowledge would enable them to become prosperous and rising citizens, instead of being a class of men who were despondent and rapidly becoming dangerous. The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    THE O'CONOR DONbegged to second the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member. As he resided in one of the districts to which his hon. and gallant Friend had alluded, and was one of the proprietors who had joined in keeping up the Spencer system after the funds originally provided had been exhausted, lie thought it was his duty to say a few words in support of this Motion. Ho thoroughly agreed with all that had been said by his hon. and gallant Friend as to the advantages to be derived from the adoption of that system. He did not think it necessary to add one word to what had been said, and well said, by his hon. and gallant Friend upon that point; and ho wished only to speak upon the particular proposal that he had made with regard to inspection. It was his opinion that this system could not be carried out unless they had some such inspection as had been conducted by Professor Baldwin. He could testify to the advantages that had been derived in his district from that gentleman's instruction, and from the more than official zeal which he had displayed in carrying out that inspection. The success which had attended this experiment was due in a great measure to the exertions of Professor Baldwin; and in the particular district in which he lived it would result in a great loss, and, perhaps, a complete stoppage of the whole system, if the inspection of Professor Baldwin was withdrawn. His hon. and gallant Friend had said that they could not expect the duties of inspection always to be carried on gratuitously by public officials. It

    909
    was necessary, if this inspection was to be of any use at all, that it should be provided from a source free from all suspicion—in fact, the inspection to command confidence must be a public one. The amount of money which such inspection would cost was a mere trifle, if defrayed from the fund which his hon. and gallant Friend had alluded to. For these reasons, he had great pleasure in seconding the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That " to the end of the Question, in order to add the words " as it appears that great benefit has arisen in certain parts of Ireland by the working of the Spencer system,' under which small farmers have been encouraged and stimulated to improved Cultivation by a distribution of small money prizes for competition, it is therefore expedient that this system should be encouraged by Her Majesty's Government undertaking to provide official inspection in all cases where individuals, or public or Corporate bodies, are willing to provide funds for the carrying out of the system of rewards, more especially as the funds now available from the closing of certain model farms will be more than sufficient to enable this to be done,"—(Colonel King-Harman,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed," That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEYhad been very much struck by the very practical speech which had been delivered by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sligo (Colonel King-Harman), and perhaps one word from an English Member on a matter of this kind would not be out of place. The hon. and gallant Member had made a proposal, which he considered was a thoroughly practical and good one. They all were very much more convinced by example than by precept; and, from his experience, he could say that that applied with even greater force than usual to the small Irish peasantry. A man might talk to the small Irish farmers until black in the face without any effect; but the example of one of their class would have a very great effect upon them. He might mention that the late Lord Palmerston sent over to Ireland, to the property on which he (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) now resided, an agriculturist simply with the object of instructing the peasants, and inducing them to introduce improvements. But,
    910
    as everyone was informed, Lord Palmerston's efforts ,were of small avail, and the peasantry went on in very much the same state as they had before; but when these men saw their neighbours' farms properly cultivated and reaped, and observed the advantages which were derived from an improved cultivation, they would be induced to put their farms in a similar condition. All that was now asked for was that the Government should send down an Inspector to judge between these farms—. for the hon. and gallant Member had, with great propriety, disclaimed any intention of making demands upon the public pocket. He could endorse most emphatically, speaking from three years' experience, what the hon. and gallant Gentleman had said as to the little benefit which would result from a system of prizes conducted by an agent, or one connected with an agent, for the Irish peasantry, ever prone to believe in favouritism, would never think the judgment impartial or above suspicion; whereas the decision of a man coming down from Dublin would be regarded in quite a different manner, and would add importance to the distinction obtained. He would only add that the small peasant proprietors were not men to be pitied. He believed that the holders of 8, 10, or 11 acres were well able to live on their land, so long as their rents were not unduly high, and that they were able, and, as a matter of fact, generally did, lay by something. They were, however, very much accustomed to keep in old lines, as the hon. and gallant Member had said, and it was absolutely essential that they should be induced to adopt the improvements of modern agriculture. If they saw a neighbour receive a prize awarded by a Government official for the management of his farm, they would make every effort to do as well, and all the boys and girls would be employed in pulling up the weeds about the place. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would not treat this real Irish demand with disdain, but would think that by a little discretion, and by the adoption of the very practical proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Sligo, it could be satisfied.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAwould not have wished to have added one word to the observations of the hon. and gallant

    911
    Member for Sligo, but for a remark which had been made as to the want of utility in the Irish Agricultural Department. It was his opinion that very good lessons had been derived in practical farming from the Department at Glasnevin under the charge of Professor Baldwin. Those lessons had been given to the class which were most in need of them, and to the people at large. In addition to the teaching establishment, there was a farm of five acres, worked on a model system, which had produced very surprising results indeed. He would venture to say that one great reason why Professor Baldwin had been so successful in his exertions to encourage a better system was that he was enabled to show to all corners that he was able to produce such results on the model farm as he wished the country people to strive for. Having said this, he would only express his hearty concurrence with all the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Sligo. Of what had taken place in his own immediate district in the County Waterford he knew something, and he could say that the system in question had produced most favourable results. He was entirely in favour of the Motion.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that the system of prizes for well-managed farms was in theory a very excellent one; but the best prize that could be given to the Irish tenant farmer was to make him feel that, however much he might improve his position, his rent would not be raised. That was the simple truth, and was the reason why the peasantry did not improve their holdings in the way they ought, for it was the tenant's feeling that his rent would he raised exactly in the same ratio in which he improved his house or his farm. He would go further, and say that within the last 20 years the rent of the greater number of small tenant farmers in Ireland had been raised two or three times. That was the reason why the tenant farmer did not improve his holding in the way he should do. Irish tenant farmers were, without exception, the most industrious people on the face of the earth; but it was true their labour was not always well-directed. They did not like to make any improvements upon their farms or upon their houses, because they were afraid of the landlord or his agent, when he came to look how they
    912
    were getting on, seeing that there was some improvement, and raising their rent. They accumulated money, but they did not lay it out upon their farms or upon their houses—they put it in a stocking up the chimney, or sometimes in banks. It was his opinion that until they gave Irish farmers something to hold by, and a conviction was produced in the minds of the people that so soon as they had made improvements their rents would not be raised, no great improvement would be effected. He was persuaded that any system of prize farms was a mere nibble at the question, and would do nothing to gratify the aims and aspirations of those who desired to improve the condition of the peasantry in Ireland.
    MR. MACARTNEYbelieved that if an inquiry were made into the amount of rent paid for land in Ireland, it would be found that the Irish landlords were not such extortionate characters as they were represented to be. The amount of rent paid in Ireland would compare very favourably with the rent paid in any part of Europe. Although there were points on which the condition of the Irish tenant might be improved, yet the tenantry of Ireland. would compare most favourably in regard to the conditions of their tenure with the occupiers of land in any part of Europe, and especially in England or Scotland. In Ireland the tenants had advantages which were not possessed in England and Scotland; they had a right to claim compensation for improvements, and in the North of Ireland a right existed which was not claimed in any other country. Therefore, he thought that it was not correct to put forward the case of the Irish peasant as being a very hard one. England, Scotland, and Ireland had been alike suffering from unfavourable seasons during the past three years. But the unfavourable weather was by no means confined to the United Kingdom; it had existed in France, in Austria, in Hungary, and in other European countries. Therefore, when Providence, by the alterations of the seasons, inflicted sufferings, they could not be justly attributed to the proprietors of the land. He thought that the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Sligo was a very good one, and he hoped that it would make a favourable impression upon the right hon.

    913
    Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The advantages that had been derived from the inspection of Mr. Baldwin were well known to him, and that gentleman was himself a most excellent and thorough agriculturist; and he trusted that either he, or some other person equally well acquainted with agriculture, would be employed in this inspection of farms for which prizes were to be given. He trusted the Government would consider the proposal that had been made a practical one.
    MR. J. LOWTHERthought that the House ought to be much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for Sligo for having brought this subject before it; for, as was well known, he had carried into practice the theories which he advocated. It was well known that his hon. and gallant Friend had done his best with the people amongst whom he lived to carry into effect everything that would induce them to improve their condition and render them better agriculturists. He had done all he could to introduce improvements in agriculture amongst his tenants and neighbours without ostentation and without seeking public aid. And when his hon. and gallant Friend pointed to the results which had been obtained by the Spencer system, and desired that it should be extended, he did not wish the House to put its hand into its pocket for extending the system. He (Mr. Lowther) also was of opinion that excellent as the results of that system were, the State should not be called upon to enter into competition with private enterprize in the matter; but improvements should be allowed to be conducted by those interested. On these points he was sure that the House would be disposed to agree with his hon. and gallant Friend. The question had been raised as to the comparative advantages of large and small farms. That was a point on which he did not wish to enter; he knew that opinions differed very widely on that subject; and whether it was advantageous to erect or to level down banks and hedges was a point which might raise considerable discussion. He thought, however, everyone would agree with his hon. and gallant Friend in deprecating the tendency which, unfortunately, prevailed in Ireland, in common with other parts of the world, to be content with the state of the soil which had always existed, and in no manner to endeavour
    914
    to improve it. The hon. Member for County Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had taken that occasion to make some remarks as to what, in his opinion, was the cause of the want of improvement of farms in Ireland. The hon. Gentleman said that the lack of improvement was due to the want of security of tenure in Ireland. He confessed that the hon. Member was so far right, when he called attention to the fact that when a tenant put up permanent buildings, or anything of that sort, he was entitled to security, for the erection of such buildings was not properly the work of a tenant. But, at the same time, it must be remembered that tenant-right customs deterred landlords from embarking capital in the soil. He did not understand his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sligo (Colonel King-Harman) to impute, in the terms of his Motion, that improvements in buildings was a matter which should be the subject of rewards to the tenant; but rather that the tenant should be encouraged in the mere cultivation of the soil, which was a very different matter. It had been suggested by his hon. and gallant Friend that the Government should give some assistance in the matter of inspection of farms. There was no doubt that that opened up a question upon which, he thought, most of them would be disposed to agree with his hon. and gallant Friend; and if any reasonable facilities of that kind could be afforded, so far as he was concerned, as he thought it most desirable they should be given, he would do all in his power to provide them. But as to the mode in which the matter could be carried out, it would be necessary to consider the question thoroughly and to take counsel with those who, like his hon. and gallant Friend, had some practical knowledge and experience in such matters before attempting to arrive at any definite conclusion. All he could say was that there was every desire upon the part of the Government to afford every assistance they could to the practical improvement of agriculture in Ireland; for it was to the essential improvement of the agriculture of Ireland that the country must look mainly for any abatement of the evils from which it was suffering.
    MR. SHAWsaid, that he would not have troubled the House on that occa-

    915
    sion at all, but for the vagueness of the Motion which had been brought before it by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sligo. The Motion was one of a very mild character indeed; and if his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sligo had made the suggestion that Professor Baldwin should be placed in a position to give the country the benefit of his services, he should have been content. But as that had not been done, he must say that, in his opinion, no man was more thoroughly competent for the duties of inspection than Professor Baldwin. Ho trusted that the Government would be able to place Mr. Baldwin in some position where his services might be available to the country, and he might be properly compensated for them. In a country like Ireland, where the people were so dependent upon agriculture, there could not be a better head for the Department of Agriculture than Mr. Baldwin. He was afraid that what would happen now would be in accordance with what had occurred before. The Government would spend thousands of pounds in directions in which the money was not required; and these Votes were brought before them in such a manner that they could not effect any alteration, and the next year the same thing went on over again. He did not feel inclined to enter into the question of tenant right; although ho might say that, however good they might be, there was no doubt that mere prizes would not suffice to raise the condition of agriculture in Ireland. In his opinion, a little undiluted Communism would be about the best cure to be applied for raising the position of Ireland. As to the subject introduced by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), it would not be honest to him to allow the House to think that the statement made by the hon. Member as to the raising of rents in Ireland was applied universally. He felt very much disposed, indeed, to ask for some Commission to be sent down into those districts where the agitation had been going on; for he thought that by that course they would arrive at the facts of the case. He believed that for 10 or 15 years past rents in many parts of Ireland had been greatly raised, and that would be sufficient justification for agitation, although it would not justify the language that had been used. Espe-
    916
    cially in some of the poorest parts of the country would this raising of rents justify the agitation. Speaking of the South of Ireland, and more especially of County Cork, he might say, however, that there had been nothing like a raising of rents; and he believed that most of the tenants had their land at very reasonable terms indeed. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would comply with the request of the hon. and gallant Member for Sligo, and would make arrangements for this inspection to take place.
    MR. STACPOOLEconcurred with every word that had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw). He trusted that some inquiry would be made as to the amount of the rents, and as to the conditions of the tenants in Ireland; and he thought that it would be found, in the majority of cases, that the land was let at a reasonable rate. The fact was that the agitation had been got up, owing to the depressed state of agriculture, and was not so much against the old landowners as the new landlords, who had bought land and wanted cent per cent for their money. In his opinion, a Commission should issue to inquire into this matter. He trusted also that the Government would agree with his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sligo, and would appoint an Inspector; for unless the inspection were to be made by some thoroughly competent person or Government official the prizes would not be valued.
    MR. P. MARTINagreed with a great deal that had been said by his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw); but he trusted he would not be considered to travel outside the terms of the discussion which arose, if he said he could not agree with him as to his statements in respect to rent-raising. Within his own personal knowledge, in the Midland Counties, when the times were good the landlords had, as a general rule, but too frequently increased their rents. In estimating the rise in good times, landlords had looked only to prices, and not to the allowances which ought fairly to be made for the improvements created by the tenants. Now that prices had fallen, it was but fair and reasonable that rents thus assessed should be lowered. He believed a general increase of rents had been

    917
    made on tenants in Ireland. They had now had three bad years in succession, and there could be no doubt that a reduction in rents ought to be made generally by landlords in Ireland. In considering the case of the Irish tenant, it should be remembered that all the improvements that had been made had been made by the capital of the tenant. There was much to be said in justification of the strong expression of discontent on the part of Irish tenants; though he disapproved and condemned many of the expressions so recently made use of at the tenant-right meetings referred to by the Chief Secretary.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that the matter to which he is referring does not come within the scope of the Question before the House. The Question before the House is the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Sligo.
    MR. P. MARTINwas sorry that he had gone beyond the limits of the Motion. He merely intended to protest against the observations of the hon. Member for Cork being accepted as to the raising of rents being but partial and infrequent in Ireland, and thought the best apology he could make was to sit down.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question again proposed, " That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  ARMY-THE AUXILIARY FORCES- NORTH GLOUCESTER MILITIA.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. J. R. YORKE, in rising to call attention to the removal of the North Gloucester Militia from Cirencester to Horfield, and to move a Resolution, said, he would touch as briefly as he could upon the various circumstances involved in this matter. He had always understood that the system of local depot centres, which was adopted in accordance with Lord Cardwell's scheme, provided as part of the arrangements that a regiment of Militia should be quartered in the neighbourhood of the depôt centre, in order that it should be exercised with the troops of the Line who might be quartered at that centre. He had also understood that the ordinary arrangements were that some 200 men of the Line were quartered in
    918
    the depôt at the centre, and that substantial buildings were erected for their accommodation, and that extra buildings such as store-room and armoury were provided for the Militia, and that the Militia were encamped in the neighbourhood in order that they should be practised with their comrades of the Line. At Horfield, the place on which the Royal North Gloucester Militia was intended to be removed to from Cirencester, very few of the advantages which were supposed to be part of the arrangements were secured. The field at Horfield was about 15 acres in extent, and consisted of deep lias clay, which the weather they had recently had converted into a swamp. The sufferings of the Militia who had been encamped upon it would be related to the House by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Price). There were only 15 acres of land available for the purpose of exercising at Horfield, where the Militia were now encamped, and, at present, there were only two companies of the Line there, consisting mainly of invalids and boys. Therefore, the advantages would not be very great from associating the Militia with their comrades of the Line whom they might find at Horfield. The next objection to Horfield arose from its situation; and he might say it was not upon the main line, but upon a branch of the Great Western Railway, three miles from Bristol. The expense of collecting the Royal North Gloucester Militia from its recruiting grounds to Horfield would be very serious; payment was made to the men by mileage on the railway, and the distance which some of these men would have to travel from their residences was perfectly incredible. It appeared that if men started from Painswick in the morning, it took eight hours to reach Bristol—it was thus a longer journey than from London to Liverpool. From King Compton to Horfield was four-and-a-half hours. Cheltenham was as accessible as any part of the journey, and that occupied two-and-a-half hours. And yet the regiment was not more than 20 miles from any portion of its own recruiting ground. Without local knowledge, it would be impossible to form any idea of the difficulty of collecting men at King Compton and then to proceed to Didcote, thence to Swindon, and thence to Bristol, and, having got there, to start again by

    919
    the small branch line to Horfield. In seemed to him incredible that such an arrangement as the removal of the regiment to Horfield could have been made with the full knowledge of the circumstances which it involved. He could only believe that the order which lie understood had been issued, not from the War Office, but from the officer commanding the depot, had been made without consulting the War Office. He could not believe such an order could have been issued with the full knowledge of the authorities. He had put two Questions to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War upon the subject. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman declined to suspend the order for the removal of the regiment. Therefore, he had no alternative but to take that opportunity, although in the absence of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, to call the attention of the House to the facts of this case. He would briefly, in the next place, glance at the advantages possessed by the regiment at Cirencester. The county had erected buildings for the Militia at Cirencester at a cost of £150,000, and the accommodation in every respect was most ample and sufficient. There was a covered drill-shed, and Lord Bathurst's Park, which was close adjoining, formed the most favourable drill-gronnd in England, and was placed at the disposal of the regiment by its noble owner. The regiment, when at Cirencester, could collect from its own recruiting ground by 10 o'clock in the morning and march to any place at that hour. The regiment, moreover, was very popular in Cirencester, and there was no occasion to billet the men. There was a preference register kept of people who provided lodgings at a reasonable rate. He would next refer to the relative effect upon the morale of the troops by being quartered at Cirencester and at Horfield. The Royal South Gloucester Militia, after three months' training at Cirencester, had only averaged two defaulters per diem. But when the same regiment went to Horfield, he was informed that every man in the regiment had a mark against his name, except one. That man had since been regarded as a perfect miracle, and it had been found that he resided at Horfield. He had been told that the camp of the Royal
    920
    South Gloucester Militia last month, during the whole period of their residence in Horfield, presented a scene of discomfort that was hardly possible to conceive. His hon. Friend opposite would be able to give the House some particulars of what had taken place, and he could state that they had sometimes 80 defaulters per diem. This, therefore, contrasted very unfavourably with the result of their training at Cirencester. He thought he had shown that Horfield was unfavourable for the encampment in several ways, and it must be borne in mind also that the Militia were not always called out in spring, or at a favourable time of the year; but occasions might arise when they might be called out at any other time, and what would be the condition of these men if they had to come out in any unfavourable time of the year? At Horfield they would have to endure snow, and sleet, and wet, under the most distressing circumstances possible, encamped on the blue has clay field. What would become of what was at present a remarkably fine regiment if that were done he did not know. The result of such management as this was deplorable, and, in all probability, the entire regiment would be broken up next year, for those men who retained their liking for martial life would join the South Oxfordshire or the Warwickshire regiments. He did not suppose for one moment that the present Government were responsible for what had been done. Horfield was invented by Lord Cardwell. There was no reason why certain spots should be chosen, and he did not see any reason why they should be absolutely adopted. The system of selection of these centres seemed to him to have taken certain points, without the least reference to local convenience or railway systems. It might be that the necessity of concentrating the Militia at the depot centre was to prevent the inspecting officer having to travel down to another place to conduct the inspection; but it surely could not be very difficult to obtain the attendance of the inspecting officer for once at the head-quarters of the regiment, at a different spot from the depot centre. He could see no reason whatever why the present arrangements should be allowed to continue, if any possible harm had been shown to result from them. It was understood that the

    921
    removal of the Militia, having been postponed, would not take place, and they had hoped that the evil had passed. He believed that remonstrances were forwarded repeatedly to the War Office, and he was likewise informed that the inspecting officer reported against the removal. His right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War said that he was aware that circumstances were not satisfactory at Horfield, but that he intended to make some improvements upon the field of blue has clay into which it was proposed to empty the Royal North Gloucester Militia. He had not been able to obtain an assurance from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Order would be rescinded. In fact, his right hon. and gallant Friend expressed himself ignorant of the circumstances. In conclusion, all he could say was, that if this order had been made in deference to the arrangements that had been originated under the scheme of Lord Cardwell's Government, he trusted that it would not be thought necessary to sacrifice the welfare of a fine regiment to the supposed necessities of the scheme.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that as he has not given Notice of the terms of his Resolution he is precluded by the Rules of the House from moving it.
    MR. PRICEsaid, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had refused to rescind this order; but had promised to go down to Horfield himself to see the condition of affairs. His hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke) had asked him (Mr. Price) to give some account of his experience of the training of the Royal South Gloucester Militia in the field at Horfield. He did not feel justified in going into details at that time of the night; but he might say, after some 15 years' experience in the Army and in the Militia, he had never seen any such discomfort, and to so little purpose, as occurred at the training of his regiment at Horfield this year. If the House would allow him, he would mention the circumstance that a great deal of wet weather occurred in the middle of May. The day before the regiment went to Horfield, about the 3rd for 4th of May, there was a snow storm, and two days after the regiment arrived at Horfield and went
    922
    into camp there was another. When the regiment had been in camp three days a very heavy rainfall occurred, and while the officers were assembled at mess, the news was brought to them that the men would not turn into their tents at tattoo. The mess was broken up, and the officers were ordered to join their companies and look after their men, and they found that the latter were not to blame for not turning into their tents when the bugle sounded, there being no disposition on the part of the men to be insubordinate; but it was found that, owing to the water in the tents, it was absolutely impossible for the men to turn in. The men were literally up to their knees in water in their tents, and every bit of straw there was saturated. It seemed that the reason for this was, that at the end of the field where the men were encamped, the blue has clay, being badly drained, caused the water to accumulate. It was drained in a manner which anyone acquainted with agricultural draining could at once see was utterly absurd, It was pointed out that all they could do was to endeavour to prevent this occurring another time. It had been mentioned by his hon. Friend that the regimental defaulters' book showed, undoubtedly, a very serious increase of crime on this special occasion. He might say that the reason for that was, that 200 or 300 men of the Royal South Gloucester Militia had houses within a radius of two or three miles from the field in which the camp was situated, and many went off to their homes, returning to their duties next morning. On behalf of the officers, both of the Royal South Gloucester and the Royal North Gloucester Militia regiments, he might state that they had not the slightest desire to find any fault with any duties that might be imposed upon them. Both officers and men of these regiments were willing to do all that they were called upon to do; but he could not help thinking that what had been done would have a very serious effect upon the recruiting of both regiments, and especially on the regiment with which he had the honour to be connected, as there were various regiments whose head-quarters were not far from Bristol in which men could enlist in preference. He was very much afraid, therefore, if this arrangement were effected, that the Royal South

    923
    Gloucester Militia would become almost depleted. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had said that he had intended himself to go down to Horfield and see what could be done; he was sorry that he was not then in his place; but, probably, he would hear afterwards what had occurred. He wished to point out that the barracks of Horfield contained quarters for the brigade depot of the 61st and 28th Foot, and for a battery of Artillery; but there was no reason why the battery of Artillery should remain there. If the battery of Artillery could be got rid of — and it was a very bad place for Artillery—the part of the barracks then disused might be cleared, and accommodation might be provided at a small expense for one regiment of Militia at a time. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman went down, then he wished to ask him to ascertain whether or not accommodation could not be provided for one Militia Regiment at a time in those barracks, instead of occupying about one half of the field by the encampment, which rendered the position of the training ground left available very inadequate for the purpose?
    THE CHANCELLOR or THE EXCHEQUER: I thoroughly agree with the hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken, and regret that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State is not here to answer this Question. I must remind the House that my right hon. and gallant Friend has gone through two very severe days, and everyone who knows what the strain is in fighting paragraphs of a Bill through Committee will, I am sure, accept my apologies for his not being present tonight. When the Question was put to him, my right hon. and gallant Friend said that notice should be taken of the matter, and that he was quite prepared to make inquiries upon the matter, and even to go down personally and inspect the place. My right hon. and gallant Friend was not responsible for the selection of the spot in question; but he had felt it his duty to inquire into all the circumstances of the matter. I am quite sure that my right hon. and gallant Friend or one of his Colleagues would have been present to-night in order to hear what has been said, had it been thought that this Motion would have come on. Looking at the Paper, we
    924
    hardly expected that this Motion would have been brought on, as it was the last of a series of Motions; and you, Sir. have noticed that, although my hon. Friend has stated that he would call attention to the subject and move a Resolution, he did not put the terms of that Resolution upon the Paper. That encouraged the impression that the Motion was not likely to be taken. On behalf of my right lion. and gallant Friend. I can assure the House that the matter will be brought to his notice, and that he will pay great attention to the question, the importance of which he thoroughly acknowledged.
    COLONEL KINGSCOTEdid not wish the impression to be made upon the Government that the matter which had been brought forward concerned only one regiment. When a Militia regiment was quartered in a town where it got on so well as the Royal North Gloucester Militia had in Cirencester, it was a very great pity to move it to a central depot. But what had been said of the evil to the removal in the case of the Royal North Gloucester and the Royal South Gloucester Militia regiments applied to the case of many other regiments. In his opinion, a great deal of mischief would be done by drafting Militia regiments into these depots, and taking them away from their surrounding recruiting grounds, and the result would be that they would not be anything like so efficient. The regiment of which he had the honour to be the colonel was very full of men, and very efficient, and it was a great pity that these Militia regiments should in any way deteriorate or lessen in number. At any time they might be called upon to take their part in the defence of the country; and as he thought the matter was one which concerned the efficiency of the Militia he was entirely in its favour.
    GENERAL SHUTEsaid, in his opinion the Militia constituted the real Reserve of the Service, and he was very glad that this debate had been brought forward. A want of consideration appeared to have been shown to the Gloucester regiments; and it was a pity that any course should ever be adopted by the War Department which, from giving just cause of complaint, might be liable to produce deterioration in, or lessen the strength of, our great Constitutional Force. In the interests of the

    925
    Militia, it should always be recollected that the Militia was not only our most reliable Force for home defence, but formed the best Reserve for our Army in war. That Army was mainly composed of men lately drawn from the Militia which, under Wellington, gained that victory which gave Europe upwards of 50 years of peace. He was satisfied that they ought at once to enforce a fair Ballot Act, not the unjust rich man's Act. Those who had most to protect should contribute most to its defence, and, instead of a payment for a substitute, a sum should be paid for exemption in proportion to income—a man earning or possessing £20 a-year should pay 1 , £40 a-year £2, and so on; £1,000 a-year £50. Every man in the Militia who had seen two trainings should be allowed to volunteer for the Line. This would insure that the Militia would be brought up to its full strength; and he was satisfied that the result upon the Army would be, at the same time, that they would have no difficulty in recruiting for it. He said that a Ballot Act, with a graduated exemption, was suggested by him in speaking on the Army Estimates in May, 1875.
    Six DAVID WEDDERBURNthought that if the whole county of Gloucester could have been searched through, a worst place could not be found for the head-quarters of the two Militia regiments than Horfield. He was perfectly satisfied with the assurance they had received, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would go down and inspect Horfield.
    Motion, " That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," by leave, withdrawn.
    Committee deferred till Monday next.

    TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION
    (re-committeed) BILL—[BILL 215.]
    (Mr. John G. Talbot, Viscount Sandon.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, that the Orders contained in this Confirmation Bill were of the ordinary kind, as to which nothing particular need be said. With regard, however, to the Confirmation Bill itself, which had been before a Select Committee, it was only right that he
    926
    should state what had been done. Provision had been inserted in the Bill enabling the Board of Trade to grant licences to use steam on tramways for experimental purposes; but in order to insure that that licence should not be obtained in a manner detrimental to the interests of the locality, provision had been made that the licences should only be granted by the Board of Trade after the consents of the greater part of the local authorities interested had been obtained and the Board of Trade had made an inquiry. The power of the Board of Trade to grant licences was restricted to two years. Thus, if the experiment proved satisfactory, the Tramway Company would have one year to come to Parliament to obtain powers to use steam permanently. The question of allowing steam upon tramways had been debated in the House last year, and a very full discussion took place, and a very large majority then affirmed the principle of permitting steam on tramways. A Committee of the other House had sat this year, and the conclusion they arrived at was that steam should be permitted on tramways, and also that power should be given to the Board of Trade to grant licences for the experimental use of steam, in the manner which he had previously referred to. There was only one other remark which he would make, and that was with regard to the North London Suburban Tramways. He could not positively state whether it went through any district within the area of the Metropolitan Board of Works. His hon. and gallant Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board had drawn his attention to the matter, and he had given him an undertaking that if this tramway went through any part of their district, the rights of the Metropolitan Board should be reserved. He thought, however, that the expression used in the Bill, " local or road authority," would include the Metropolitan Board of Works. If that were not so, however, he would take care that words should be introduced into the Bill reserving the rights of that Body.
    MR. RAIKESwished to say a few words with regard to this very important Bill. This measure might probably on a future occasion come on for consideration as one of very great importance, for there could be no doubt that if the use of steam on tramways became

    927
    popularized a revolution over the whole of our lines of public roads would be effected. He wished he were able more emphatically to congratulate the Board of Trade upon the mode in which they were dealing with this subject. In the first place, the powers which were given to the Board of Trade were limited to the purpose of experiment. They were enabled to grant licences for one year, and to renew them for one year more. He did not think that the House would have been willing to give the Board of Trade, or any other authority, more extended powers than that. In his opinion, if the use of locomotives on roads was to be permanently permitted there would be a necessity for some considerable changes to be made as regarded the control of the Board of Trade. He was bound to say that much might be said against the present measure, and he could have wished the Board of Trade to have seen its way to lay down more stringent regulations than it had done. On previous occasions he had expressed opinions which, he believed, were shared by the majority of the House, that it would be necessary to provide, in all cases in which power to use the public roads was given, that such user should not have the effect of ousting the ordinary traffic; but that the persons having those powers should be called upon, if necessary, to widen and maintain the roads. When Parliament dealt in a more permanent manner with this subject he hoped that a good measure would be passed; he thought it should be understood that the present Bill was only temporary and experimental. With regard to the width of roads, he wished to give Notice to his hon. Friend that on another occasion, when the subject was being dealt with in a more permanent manner, ho should submit to the House a proposal for enforcing a minimum width of road over which these lines were to be permitted to run. There were other matters which arose in connection with the subject; but he would not enter into them at that late hour. He would only mention that two Bills had passed the House during the present Session, in both of which clauses carrying out the views he had endeavoured to express had been introduced. With regard to one in Essex, provision had been made that the promoters should maintain the roads. In one unopposed Bill which came before
    928
    him there were provisions in relation to the expense of paving a road which were contrary to the principles he had endeavoured to affirm. He, therefore, inserted the same clause as that in the preceding Bill, though subject to a Proviso giving an ultimate discretion to the Board of Trade, and should in future offer his opposition to any Bill which should be drawn in the same manner.
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, that he had called the attention of his hon. Friend to the position of the Metropolitan Board with relation to the roads of the Metropolis. He was quite satisfied with his undertaking that their rights should be reserved.
    Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

    PARTNERSHIP BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the Law of Partnership.
    Resolution reported: — Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. SAMPSON LLOYD, Mr. HERSCHELL, Mr. GREGORY, and Mr. WHITWELL.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 225.]

    CORK BOROUGH QUARTER SESSIONS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. MURPHY, Bill to regulate the sittings of the Quarter Sessions Court of the Borough of Cork, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MURPHY, Mr. SHAW, Mr. GOULDING, and Colonel COLTHURST'.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 226.]

    HIGHWAY ACCOUNTS (RETURNS) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, Bill to amend the Law with respect to Returns of Receipts and Expenditure as regards Highways, and to dispense with the verification before Justices of the Accounts of Surveyors of Highways, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH and Mr. SALT.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 227.]
    House adjourned at half after One o'cloCk till Monday next,

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Customs and Inland Revenue*; Civil Procedure Acts Repeal* (132).
Second Reading—Consolidated Fund (No. 4) *.

TREATY OF BERLIN—ARMENIA.

  ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON, in rising to call attention to the present condition of the Armenian people, in reference to the 61st Article of the Treaty of Berlin, and to move an Address, said, that 12 months had nearly elapsed since a discussion had arisen on the subject in that House—a discussion which was introduced by his noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury), whose name had, throughout the whole of his life, been associated with every principle of humanity and consideration for others. It was a discussion which excited a good deal of attention, and provoked from all sides of the House an expression of sympathy with the Armenian population in the circumstances in which they were placed. The Armenians, whether regarded as a nation or a race, were fully entitled to great sympathy indeed, for they possessed an intelligence which was far beyond the average, and had, in spite of numberless difficulties, developed themselves in education and general knowledge, and had shown a power of acting for themselves. Among the Eastern populations they deserved to rank next to, if they were not exactly on the same level with, the Greeks and Jews. When their case was brought before their Lordships on the occasion to which he referred, his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs expressed his cordial sympathy with those people, and his full determination to do everything in his power to assist them in the Congress that was then approaching. It would be well, perhaps, before proceeding further, that he should recall to their Lordships' attention the facts in connection with the subject of the past year. He wished, in the first place, to say that any observations which he might make would have reference to the Armenians, so far as he could dis-
  812
  tinguish them in Asia Minor, and not in Europe; and, in the next place, that he had no desire to state anything of a needlessly controversial character, knowing, as he did, that the opinions of their Lordships were divided on some points. The first point he desired to call attention to was an Article in the Treaty of San Stefano, concluded between Russia and the Porte. He referred to the 16th Article of that Treaty, which provided that, as the evacuation by the Russian troops of territory occupied by them in Armenia which was to be restored to Turkey might give rise to conflicts and complications detrimental to good relations, the Porte engaged to carry into effect, without further delay, the improvements and reforms that were demanded by local requirements in the Provinces inhabited by the Armenians, and should agree to afford them protection against the Circassians and Kurds. The next point to which he desired to direct attention was the fact that, as he had already stated, the greatest sympathy with the Armenians was expressed in the previous discussion in their Lordships' House, and that, in a subsequent despatch, the Foreign Secretary, after having joined in that expression of sympathy, gave an additional assurance in the matter. The next step was the assembling of the Congress at Berlin; and their Lordships would find that the case of the Armenians occupied the attention of the Congress on no less than three separate occasions, when the same sympathy was expressed for them as had been expressed by his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his despatches. The result was the insertion in the Treaty of Berlin of the Article which had led to his giving the Notice which appeared on the Paper in his name. That Article was a very important one. It guaranteed, in the first place, that there should be such reforms for the Armenians as were demanded by local requirements; and, secondly, that those reforms should be introduced immediately. It also provided that the guarantee should apply to the Armenians all over the Turkish Empire in all the Provinces inhabited by Armenians—it guaranteed their security and protection against the Circassians and Kurds; and, lastly, it was guaranteed that the Porte should periodically make known the steps which it had taken to carry

  813
  out these reforms to the Powers, who would superintend their application. It would be observed that there was a great difference between the Article and that which had been agreed to between Russia and Turkey and inserted in the Treaty of San Stefano. In accordance with the Article in the Treaty of San Stefano, the Armenians in whose case the reforms were to be carried out were confined geographically to Armenia proper; while, according to the 61st Article of the Treaty of Berlin, they were to be extended, not to Armenians living in any one particular district or direction, but wherever they might be all over the Empire. That, he thought, was a fair and reasonable construction of the two Articles. Their Lordships would also see that, by the 61st Article of the Treaty, there was a double duty laid down—first, that the Porte should make the reforms; and, secondly, that the superintending Powers should insist on their application. This duty of insisting on these reforms being carried out applied not merely to this country, but to all the superintending Powers. If any one of the superintending Powers failed to look after the execution of the guarantee, the obligation and right to do so in the case of the others would in no degree be removed. In other words, if we failed to carry out our part of the transaction, the right of Russia, would, unquestionably, still exist. But Her Majesty's Government had, over and above that, entered into a special Convention with Turkey, which had three objects. If Russia should hereafter encroach on Turkish territory in Asia, we undertook to protect her; that, in consideration of that undertaking on our part, Turkey should undertake to carry out reforms for the benefit of her Christian populations in Asia, among which the Armenians were clearly included; while the power was also claimed for this country, in a despatch of his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, dated 8th of August, to "insist," as it was said, on the reforms being made. The bond was sealed by the cession to us of the Island of Cyprus. Such, then, was the groundwork for what he had to say on the subject, and the facts, so far as they were known last year. He would now proceed to consider how the pledges to which he had referred had been redeemed by those who were parties to
  814
  them—pledges which were based, first, on an European Treaty; secondly, on a special Treaty with the country; and which, thirdly, had been cemented by assurances given on both sides—by Her Majesty's Government on the one side, and by the Turkish Government on the other. What was the state of the Armenian population now, as compared with what it was when those pledges were given? What progress had been made in the direction of the promised reforms? His noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had very clearly stated, in the despatch which he had just mentioned, the causes of the sufferings of the Armenian subjects of Turkey; and Earl Russell had, some 10 or 12 years ago, written a despatch which contained similar advice on the subject. Those sufferings might be referred to three heads; the police, the judiciary, and the fiscal system. Their Lordships knew what police in Asia Minor meant. There were either no police at all, or they were the agents of corruption, extortion, and oppression. The men who were employed as police received bribes in lieu of wages; and the natural consequences followed that criminals were allowed to escape from justice by the payment of bribes, and that innocent men were left to languish in prison unless they did the same thing. Nothing, he might add, could be more forcibly described than the shocking state of the prisons had been by Sir Henry Layard. Recruits were forced into the Army, and were permitted to go back to their homes only on the payment of money. A curious and instructive case was stated by a writer in a periodical who had a perfect knowledge of the subject, of a certain police officer in the Turkish service, whose salary was £100 a-year, but who, at the end of 14 years' service, found himself able to retire with a capital of £50,000. All knew that professional witnesses were to be had upon the payment of money. The system of false evidence carried on in Turkish Courts was so classified and graduated that aged men with white beards commanded a considerably higher rate of payment than young and less experienced men. Christian evidence was not received. He was quite aware that Codes had, in past years, been drawn up, and numerous proclamations issued, all affirming the principle that

  815
  Christian evidence should not be excluded from the Turkish Courts; but still, as a matter of fact, the law was over and over again disregarded, and in some places entirely set aside. The fiscal system was a cause of unmitigated oppression, exaction, tyranny, and extortion. There were cases where the valuation of land was so flagrantly unequal, as between Mahomedan and Christian, that where a property had been divided, the portion assigned to the former was assessed at 500 piastres, that of the latter was assessed at 5,000 piastres. As regarded the police, the Turkish Government had represented that they had no money to pay it. With reference to Judges, they ultimately suggested the appointment of Inspectors; but he doubted whether a single Inspector had been appointed. With respect to the fiscal system, they said it was impossible hastily to make the changes desired, and they must be made with deliberation. For his part, he feared these reforms would be postponed until the Greek Kalends. His noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in his reply, accepted the plea of delay on the part of the Turkish Government. That was the first attempt on the part of Her Majesty's Government to secure the reforms which Turkey had pledged herself to carry out, and which Her Majesty's Government had pledged themselves to insist upon. He had always maintained that it was impossible to get Turkey to carry out these reforms, and he was all the more satisfied of that as time went on. With regard to the Armenians in Asia Minor, he had a document, no doubt well known at the Foreign Office, which contained a list of the miseries, exactions, and oppressions which had been inflicted upon that people between the months of November last and January. So far as it went, it was an official document; it was drawn up by the Armenian Patriarch —and he begged their Lordships to remember that the Armenian Patriarch' had an official position and was recognized by the Porte. He would not weary their Lordships by going much into detail; but there were a few cases described in the document in question to which ho would refer. As to the people in the district of Moush, their condition was stated to be worse since the war—villages destroyed, convents
  816
  sacked—ono convent sacked four times with all the usual horrors—every sort-of oppression by Kurds, by police, and by all officials, sale of justice, and crushing taxation. As to Bitlis, in numberless villages the Kurds had carried off the grain and cattle, wounding and outraging and sometimes killing the Armenian peasants. In Divrig, the Armenians were ill-treated, insulted, and wounded. In Zeitoum, the people were crushed with taxes, the chief inhabitants were summoned to discuss grievances and then thrown into prison. In Van, the Armenian quarter was set on fire, and 50,000 Armenians were preparing to emigrate to Russia and Persia. It had been asserted, on evidence which he believed to be correct, that the taxes levied in one district nearest to our now acquisition southwards had increased since the period before the war from 25,000 piastres to 580,000. That was in the district of Saitchar. Some 200 Armenians seemed to have threatened opposition, and they were taken with arms in their possession, and committed to prison, where about 16 died. The remainder were released through the protest and representations of Mr. Mallet, who was acting for our Ambassador to the Turkish Government. A Commission was sent, and the first thing it did was to deprive these people of their arms, and leave them in the hands of their oppressors. Another cause of oppression was this. As their Lordships knew, the Turkish Exchequer, in its almost bankrupt state, had issued a great deal of paper money. A largo portion of this money found its way into the hands of the Armenians, who were small traders and the bankers of the East; and it did seem to him a most flagrant act on the part of the Turkish Government to issue this paper money, and then refuse the payment of taxes in this money. A short time since the Armenian Patriarch resigned his office in despair. He was told that the resignation was not accepted by the Turkish Government. He then appointed a Vicar to act for him; but the Vicar, lie believed, had never been recognized. The Armenian Patriarch, therefore, was in a state of suspended animation. The Turkish Government, as usual, issued a Commission; but the Patriarch objected to it, because there was not a single Armenian or Christian upon it. It appeared

  817
  that during the last month or so there were Commissions being issued everywhere; but on those Commissions Turks alone were appointed, or Christians of so inferior a grade that they exercised no influence. These Commissions, so far as good purposes were concerned, were useless. They were ridiculed in the country, and they acted as blinds for positive oppression. He understood that the Patriarch had protested, not merely to the Porte, but to all the Powers which were parties to the Treaty of Berlin. If that protest was in the hands of his noble Friend, he hoped it would be included in the Papers to be produced. What were the wishes of the Armenian people? Were they unreasonable? They had over and over again disclaimed, through their organs and representatives, any desire for political independence. Their claims were claims in regard to which the humblest man in England would think he was deeply wronged if the slightest doubt was thrown upon them. A denial of those claims in this country would turn men's blood into fire. The claims of the Armenians were for equality in the eyes of the law—equality in conscience, in religion, and in taxation; and they demanded protection from systematic plunder and oppression. They asked for security for their property, for the lives of men, and the honour of women. Lastly, they urged—and here they had the concurrence of his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary—very strongly the appointment of Christian Governors. There could be no real redress until Christian Governors were appointed, and until they obtained the presence of Europeans in the different civil and military organizations, such as the police, judicial and other systems, whether they acted as Inspectors, Judges, Officers, or Consuls. Only then could they obtain that tranquillity which was desired. Lord Clarendon and Lord Russell had written in the same strain on the subject. At the end of the Crimean War, Lord Clarendon, writing to Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, said—
  " Her Majesty's Government know by experience the utter inutility of appealing on such matters to the Porte; but the Turkish Government should be made aware that if this systematic misgovernment and persecution of Christians, and violations of engagements continue, it will be impossible to arrest the pro-
  818
  gress of the opinion which is now manifesting itself that Mahomedan rule is incompatible with Civilization and humanity, and can no longer be endured."
  That was the language of one of the coolest and wisest Foreign Secretaries they had had for many years. Four years afterwards, Lord John Russell wrote in a similar strain to Sir Henry Bulwer, and on the 8th of August, 1878, Lord Salisbury wrote to Sir Henry Layard—
  " The immediate necessity of Asiatic Turkey is for the simplest form of order and good government; for such security from rapine, whether lawless or legal, that industry may flourish, and population may Cease to decline. With this object in view, it appears to Her Majesty's Government that the subjects which most urgently require attention are the maintenance of order, the administration of justice, and the collection of the revenue."
  That which existed in 1856, in 1860, in 1872, 1874, and 1878, exists now—with only this addition—that our Government had given warnings in more solemn language—that the national policy had been pledged to see that the warnings given were obeyed. In conclusion, he came to this disagreeable question—What was the net result, after one year's experience of the 1st Article of the Treaty of Berlin? He would not say that it was simply a case of large promise and scant performance. In the present state of the population, there was a painful contrast between the Armenians on the Turkish side of the border and the Armenians on the Russian side. On the one side there was a debasing and grinding system, and on the Russian side, at all events, there was a sense of contentment. He thought this a dangerous state of things. He was afraid there was little feeling of gratitude to this country, either on the part of the Christian or the Mahomedan population of whom he had been speaking—on the part of the Christians, because they saw no performance of our promises, and on the part of the Mahomedans, because of our constant but ineffectual interference. The late Lord Aberdeen had said that it was only by actual and irresistible pressure that the Turkish Government would ever attempt to make reforms, and this still held good. He moved for the production of the Correspondence to which his Notice referred.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Correspondence respecting the 61st Article of the Treaty of Berlin, in respect of the Armenian people.—(The Earl of Carnarvon.)
  LORD HAMMONDsaid, that the 61st Article of the Treaty of Berlin was a reproduction of the concluding stipulation of the 16th Article of the Treaty of San Stefano; but the latter contained important words which were omitted in the former Treaty, and which limited the obligations of the 16th Article to the Province of Erzeroum or Armenia; while the Article of the Treaty of Berlin extended the Guarantee of the Powers, and the protection to be given, to all Provinces where there was an Armenian population. Now, in point of fact, there was no nation that could be called the Armenian nation. Armenia ceased to be a nation in 1393. But, though the nation no longer existed, there still existed an Armenian race, and Armenians dwelt in every part and city of the Turkish dominions in Asia Minor; and, therefore, the Treaty of Berlin gave to Russia and all the Powers a right to interfere in all parts of Asiatic Turkey. In dealing with the question of the Armenians, they must consider the 1st Article of the Treaty of the 4th June, 1878. The Government, in a despatch of August 8, pointed out certain specific reforms, and in a despatch of December it accepted as generally satisfactory the assurance received from the Porto in reply; and he would ask the noble Marquess whether those assurances had been carried into effect by the Porte? Much might be done by establishing an effective gendarmerie, and by modifications in the system of tithe-farming, by which present evils should be corrected, without driving those who had to pay the tithes into the hands of the usurers. It seemed to him that the establishment of a roving judicial inspectorate, as recommended by the Porte, was preferable to the appointment of foreign Judges, and that the system which had been adopted in India, in regard to the expenses for the entertainment of public officers, would be beneficial in Asia Minor. But, after all, it seemed to him that however anxious they might be for the introduction of reforms by the Porte, they must not be unreasonable, and expect that they could be generally and immediately
  820
  put into execution. It was not easy, after the existence of evils of long standing in any country, to remove them altogether and at once. It was suggested by the Porte that, at first, any reforms should be applied to a limited area; and that was well worthy of consideration, as any new system must be tentative in the first instance, and might require alteration. Such alteration could be made more easily within a limited area; and when the new system was found to work well it could be applied to the whole country. He wished to ask the noble Marquess whether he could lay before the House the Treaty concluded between Turkey and Russia within the last few months? It might be inexpedient to lay before them the comments by the Government or by the Ambassador; but it would be a great convenience to the public to know what the clauses of the Treaty were, especially as regarded those which bore on the pecuniary interests of individuals in this country.
  THE MARQUESS or SALISBURY: My Lords, in all that was said by my noble Friend, when expressing his sympathy with the sufferings of the Armenian people, or, indeed, the sufferings of any of those who inhabit the Turkish Provinces of Asia Minor—in all that he said in indignation against the Government which undoubtedly prevails there, I certainly should not have found anything to differ from. But, while expressing my concurrence with his compassionate views, and with the interest which he very naturally takes in a people whose present qualities and whose past history entitles them to sympathy, I must demur to the political complexion which ho seemed to me to give to the subject. To judge from his tone—to judge from the way in which he flung these various abuses at the head of Her Majesty's Government, one would have fancied that he was talking of some place which was under the dominion of the Crown; that he was speaking of Ireland, or of India, or of some other place for whose good government the Ministers of Great Britain are responsible. It is undoubtedly true that on two occasions we have made efforts, by means of formal stipulations, to obtain for the inhabitants of Asia Minor a greater share of the blessings of tranquillity, of good government, and of prosperity; and we have given to those

  821
  stipulations on the part of the Porte all the formality that we were able to give. But I entirely deny the doctrine that because we made those efforts, and because we were successful—whatever that success may have been worth—we are to be treated as responsible for every case of abuse and misgovernment which the correspondents of my noble Friend may have been able to produce to him. My noble Friend complained, as if it were our fault, that the Turkish Government had issued paper money; he complained that tithe-farming still existed; he complained that sufficient salaries were not given to the Judges and other judicial functionaries; and he complained—I think, somewhat inconsistently—of the severity of the taxation out of which all increased payments must come. He complained that Commissions were not sent, and he complained that they were sent; and that on those Commissions we had not taken care that the persons appointed were of the rank that the Armenian Patriarch would desire. I entirely repudiate all these responsibilites. We have done our best by the stipulations that we were able to obtain. We have done precisely what was done by the Ministry which was in Office at the time of the Crimean War. We have inserted in our Treaty terms and engagements which, in the short interval that has elapsed, we have endeavoured by diplomatic pressure to make a reality. How far the Ministry that succeeded to Office after the Crimean War are justified in taking the same credit to themselves is a matter into which it might not be pleasant to inquire. What I wish to insist upon, my Lords, is this—that even if the reform of all these abuses were possible—even if it were possible to make any substantial and palpable impression upon them within the brief time that has elapsed—there is no special responsibility upon Her Majesty's Government to see to them, certainly, as far as the Armenian people are concerned. All the Powers of Europe equally signed the 61st Article of the Berlin Treaty, and reserved to themselves an equal right to receive from the Porte an account of what was being done. The truth is that there was evidently lying at the bottom of my noble Friend's complaints the idea that we have incurred a responsibility on a very different ground. The idea that we could incur responsibility, because we
  822
  had obtained certain stipulations, is in itself absurd. But what my noble Friend meant, when he said that we had attempted the impossible—what he meant, when he referred to the condition of the Russian Armenians over the border, was this—that we have taken an active part in a policy of which the object is to rescue those countries from the domination of Russia; and what he would imply is, that the domination of Russia is infinitely preferable to that under which they are now.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he had never used words to that effect.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I certainly understood my noble Friend to say that there was contentment over the border, although I am not aware of any proof of that statement having been brought forward. Whether there is contentment in different parts of the Russian Empire is, perhaps, a matter which it might not be convenient for me to discuss. But while I repudiate the obligations to which I have referred, and maintain that the utmost that we can do is to urge upon every suitable opportunity, with all the energy we can, that the promises which the Porte has given should be fulfilled, I still think that hard measure is dealt out to the Porte, when the expectation is entertained that a sudden reform of all these evils can be effected. Why, what was the nature of the evils which my noble Friend dwelt upon? One matter upon which he was most eloquent was the perjured character of the witnesses who appear in the Law Courts. By what possible contrivance—I will not say by what diplomacy—could the most despotic, the most earnest Government which could possibly be imagined at Constantinople, bring any effective cure to such an evil as that? And when this is brought forward as though it were a special inheritance of the Turkish Government, and as though there existed no other part of the world where witnesses may be hired at pleasure in order to testify to anything which the parties may desire to have proved, I hardly think my noble Friend has followed with sufficient care the contemporary history of some of the Eastern Dependencies of the British Crown. I have heard similar complaints in regard to various parts of India. How far they are true I will not venture to say; but that such a

  823
  reproach has been constantly levelled at witnesses in parts of India, as well as in Turkey, your Lordships are perfectly aware. It is one of those things which it is entirely out of the power of any Government or diplomacy to cure, and I think the reference to it in the speech of my noble Friend was out of place. Well, then, my noble Friend dwelt a good deal upon the oppression which the Turks—not, the Turkish Government, but the Turkish Mahomedan population—were prone to exorcise upon their Christain fellow-subjects. It is a melancholy truth that this should be so; but is it a thing which any Government can cure, much more that any diplomacy can cure? These things are certainly the evil inheritance of centuries—they are the traditions of the people, and are rooted in their hearts; and if they are to be cured, assuredly it is not by a cure that can come from politicians or diplomatists. In all the consideration that one can give to the difficult question of reforms in Turkey, one hack quotation comes up constantly to the mind— "Quid leges sine moribus?" It is perfectly useless to multiply Codes or diplomatic promises, if you expect that by them you can alter the nature or the temper of a people. But, my Lords, my noble Friend also alluded—I thought with great bitterness —to the maintenance of the tithe-farming system in Turkey. Well, we all know that the system is a great abuse; but we also know that it has been repeatedly denounced. Are the Turks the only people who maintain the system to which so much objection has been taken? Modern Greece, which has been free for 50 years, has not yet been able to abolish the system of tithe-farming. When it fell to my lot to consider the changes which should be introduced in the government of Cyprus, I was, like other persons, trained in Indian traditions, in favour of trying the Indian system, and Sir Garnet Wolseley made great efforts of persuasion in that direction; but I found our course met by the protests of persons who knew the country well. We found that there was great danger in an inelastic system of settlement, owing to the changeableness of the Eastern climate—where there is drought one year and plenty the next. We were in this difficulty; we must either put the settlement far too low to meet the
  824
  just claims upon the revenue in years of plenty, or so high as to be oppressive in years of drought. I do not say, however, that my noble Friend has not brought forward very forcible reasons for the abolition of the system in question. I believe it ought to be abolished; but this I say, its abolition must be attended with very great difficulty. It cannot be effected by the stroke of the pen, or in a single year. There is one reform which, as I have stated over and over again in your Lordships' House, ought to be introduced, and that is the creation of a strong force of gendarmerie for the maintenance of order, for the protection, not for the oppression, of the people. That, I believe, lies at the root of every reform in the Turkish Empire. With reference to the imputations of bribery which have been so freely made, I believe they refer much more to the past than to the present. I do not deny that these things exist; but I believe that of late public opinion, contact with Europe, and the dread of exposure, have had a salutary effect upon Turkey, as they have in every other part of the world. What really is the great evil at the present time is the utter disorganization of society in many parts of Asia Minor, owing to the want of sufficient force to restrain the predatory habits of the nomadic tribes—and that fact ought to be borne in mind. It has been pointed out that the Porte has not kept all its promises; and that is true; and it is a fact which will justify us in employing every diplomatic opportunity in our power with a view to having those promises carried into effect. But the Porte has one simple answer, which in every part of the world has been always held to be conclusive—it cannot spend money which it has not got to spend. Where there is no money, not only Kings, but diplomatists, lose their rights. When that happy time conies that political pressure can have its due effect—when the wounds of a cruel war are healed—when Armies can be disbanded and expenditure rednced—when men can be enabled to go back to their fields, and produce again those crops from which only, after all, the Treasury can be supplied—when the blessings of peace shall have taken the place of the horrors of war—then the period will have arrived when the reforms which we all desire to see carried out can be

  825
  introduced. You tell us that it ought to be done sooner. I tell you that a war, so terribly disastrous as the late war has been to Turkey, must be succeeded by a time of disorganization, of weakness, of inability to carry out reforms—of evils, which are not peculiar to Asia Minor. I remember reading lately, in reference to Asia Minor, an article in which it was said that there was a famine in many parts of the Empire, but that the real famine was a famine of men. Men were drawn from all parts of the Empire to defend its frontiers; and, surely, no one can blame the Turkish Government for having had recourse to such a measnre—no one can be surprised that a considerable time must elapse before those terrible wounds are closed. I have, my Lords, insisted on those circumstances, in order to bring before you the injustice of expecting from a prostrate, half-ruined, distracted Empire such as Turkey is at the close of a war in which she has been so terribly defeated—the injustice of expecting from her, in her circumstances, the activity which it would be a good deal to require of a Christian and civilized country in the height of its prosperity. I do not at all allude to them for the purpose of insinuating that we should not be eager to do our utmost to get rid of misgovernment, or that our earnestness in pressing upon the Porte the necessity of reforms should be at all abated. My noble Friend has mentioned one case which shows that our diplomacy has not been altogether idle. He mentioned the case of Zeitoum, in which great efforts have been made to remedy the evils that are going on. With respect to Armenia itself there has been a Commission issued, and it is sitting to inquire into the reforms to be introduced. It is composed of statesmen not inferior to the average of the statesmen of the Turkish Empire—but it does not go fast; nothing Turkish I ever knew did go fast; and that is one of the qualities of the people which I am afraid no politics and no diplomacy will change. But the Commission has been issued, and is proceeding to do its work. My noble Friend has said that there is no Christian upon it; but he is wrong in that, as there is one Christian on it—an Armenian—and I do not believe that these Commissioners are in any way inferior to the average run of the statesmen from whom they have been chosen.
  826
  We have taken some precautions—of course, they have not begun to bear fruit yet—to enable our pressure to act upon the Turkish Government with more effect. We have improved machinery; our Consular staff in Asia Minor has been considerably increased, and we shall be able to bring to the knowledge of the Turkish Government abuses that exist and of which it is not fully aware, and so help to bring about a more rapid and effectual remedy. I only wish to add this—that, while in all our endeavours to obtain those reforms we uphold, and shall continue to uphold, the Sovereignty of the Sultan as the centre and symbol of the only authority that exists or can exist in the Turkish Empire, I must, on the other hand, say that we have always found in the present Sultan a most earnest desire to wipe out those abuses which are a reproach to his Government—a desire which, as far as I can judge from the study of written documents, I believe to be absolutely and genuinely sincere; and that such a belief is also entertained by Sir Henry Layard is well known to your Lordships. I can only, my Lords, conclude as I began. I repudiate any responsibility for the acts of the Turkish Government. It is the Turkish Government, not the English, which is bound to introduce reforms. But, while I repudiate that responsibility on the ground of any written stipulations, I do not repudiate the higher responsibilty which comes from the. consideration of policy and duty. We feel the duty earnestly; I believe we have acted up to it steadily; I believe we shall do our utmost to act up to it in the future, and do all that diplomacy can to abate the existing evils and to produce those salutary changes by which alone the Turkish Empire can be maintained.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, the noble Marquess repudiated all responsibility for the acts of Turkey in Asia Minor. This seemed a most remarkable doctrine, when they considered the Treaty of Berlin and the Convention with Turkey. As he understood, the object of the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) in bringing forward this Motion was to show that, to a considerable extent, England had become responsible for the good government of Asia Minor; while the noble Marquess

  827
  limited their responsibility to diplomatic action, and said they had done their best to obtain the performance of the promises made by the Porte.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I said it would be no use to apply diplomatic action in the hope of curing what was inherent in the nature of the people.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYhad been much surprised at the contrast between the speech they had just heard from the noble Marquess and his vigorous despatch of the 8th of August last year, which embodied a most comprehensive scheme of reform for the Christian subjects of the Porte. Now, what were our responsibilities towards Armenia? The Armenians had a distinct claim upon this country in two distinct documents —the Treaty of Berlin and the Convention with Turkey — we had made ourselves responsible for the good government of Armenia. The expressions used in the Treaty of Berlin were that—
  " The Porte agreed to carry out without delay the improvements and reforms demanded by local requirements in the Provinces inhabited by the Armenians;"
  and it gave a guarantee for their security against the incursions of the Kurds and. the Circassians; and it further promised " periodically to make known the steps taken to secure those results" to the Powers signing the Treaty. He would like to ask the noble Marquess the definition of two terms; what did the words " without delay " mean? A year had passed since the signature of the Treaty; but were we to wait for another year or so, or to look forward to a still more distant future, when the finances of the Porte were in a satisfactory condition, before any attempt was made on the part of the Porte to redeem its promises? Then, again, he desired to know the meaning of the word " periodically;" and, whether, in accordance with its undertaking, the Porte had given the noble Marquess any account of its efforts in the direction of reform, and, if not, whether any of the Powers had taken action in consequence of the abandonment of those efforts. In common with other Powers, we had taken responsibility on ourselves, and, so far, there was a fairly exact parallel between the existing Go-
  828
  vernment and that which succeeded the signature of the Treaty of Paris; but the celebrated Anglo-Turkish Convention, on which the noble Marquess's speech had thrown so much cold water, made it impossible to trace a further resemblance. We were solely responsible, according to that document, of which the words were as explicit as possible. The fact was, the Government had taken a responsibility upon themselves which they now found it impossible to carry out. What view did the noble Marquess take of the Treaty and Convention? Were they merely formalities? Now, there were four points to which the noble Marquess had called the attention of the Porte—and the first of those was the importance of a well-officered gendarmerie. The Porte, however, had replied that there was no money available for the purpose—an answer not likely to raise unduly the hopes of the population of Asia Minor. Next, the noble Marquess had urged the desirability of creating Central Tribunals, under the direction of European lawyers; and had been answered that such a change would interfere with the Sovereign rights of the Porte, and that, moreover, no Europeans understood the Turkish vernacular. The third recommendation of the noble Marquess was that the collection of the revenue should be reformed, and that the system of tithe should be abolished. To this demand a simple Non possumus had been returned. The despatch concluded with the admirable advice that the tenure of office by the Governors should be for a fixed period, and during good behaviour; and the Porte thereupon enlarged on the difficulty, not to say the impossibility, of finding competent and upright functionaries. It came to this, then—that when the noble Marquess insisted on four cardinal points of reform, the Porte merely replied that it had neither money nor upright functionaries; and that at present was the sole result, as far as Armenia was concerned, of the Treaty of Berlin and the Anglo-Turkish Convention. It seemed to him that the responsibilities we had undertaken were very grave, and that we had accepted them under a miscalculation of the means at our disposal; but, at least, they were solid and still existing engagements. It was surely not too much for

  829
  the noble Earl, all the circumstances considered, to ask for evidence of the desire of the Porte to fulfil its promises. The fact was that, after all the promises that had been made, after all they had heard about " peace with honour," the whole arrangement had turned out no better than a sheet of waste paper.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, the noble Earl the Prime Minister told us last week, with some pathos, as an excuse for your Lordships' House not meeting before 4 o'clock, that some difficulty had more than once been experienced in getting his younger followers to take a sufficient interest in such a question even as the Zulu War. My Lords, it is not the custom to follow a speaker on your own side of the House; but I must rise to express my surprise that a speech so deserving of an answer as that of my noble Friend who has just sat down should be allowed to pass unnoticed by noble Lords opposite. At the same time, I can quite understand the unwillingness of the Members and supporters of Her Majesty's Government to discuss the question which has been raised to-day. However great may have been the success claimed for the Turkish Convention when it was made public, I am afraid that after a year's reflection noble Lords on the other side do not care to discuss or defend the policy of that Convention. I cannot help feeling that the case of the noble Marquess with respect to this question is one of very great difficulty. The other day he candidly admitted that reforms in Asiatic Turkey could not be carried out without money, and that there was no money to be had. To-day he has told us in Latin, what we have all been constantly insisting on in English, that reforms are not compatible with the character and habits of the Turk. But, may I ask, were these facts perfectly unknown when the Convention was made—when we took upon ourselves these formidable engagements? Ought we not to have known when we undertook them that it would not be in our power to see them carried out? Were not Her Majesty's Government perfectly aware that Turkey had just passed through an exhausting war, and that she was in a state of utter bankruptcy? Under these circumstances, it is scarcely conceivable that they should within the past 12 months have come to view the governing capacity of the Turk in an altogether new
  830
  light from that in which they viewed it when they undertook these engagements. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he last spoke on this subject, took a hopeful view of the condition of Asia Minor, owing to what he considered the extraordinary success which Her Majesty's Government had achieved in the matter of reforms in Eygpt. Well, when we are in possession of the Egyptian Papers which have been promised us we shall be able to judge whether the success of Her Majesty's Government in Eygpt has been as great as the Chancellor of the Exchequer seeems to imagine. But I entirely agree with him in thinking that there is a great deal of connection between this Turkish Convention and the progress of affairs in Eygpt. I will not here stop to discuss the acquisition of Cyprus, which I, for one, have always held, and still hold, to be neither a politic nor a creditable act. Nor will I comment upon the joint action of this country with France in regard to the affairs of Eygpt further than to say that, in my opinion, it would be very unwise in our statesmen to sacrifice in the slightest degree the perfect independence of this country. What I wish to observe is that if Her Majesty's Government have been able— whether following France and Germany, or being followed by them—to bring such pressure to bear upon the Sultan as to make him dismiss the Khedive for not having carried out reforms which the Sultan himself has entirely neglected in his own dominions, surely some similar concert of European Powers might force the Turks, say, to appoint Christian Governors in Armenia, to abstain from carrying off every shilling of tribute from the country, and if they would not defend the inhabitants of Armenia from the attacks of the Kurds, at all events, to allow these inhabitants to take some measures for defending themselves. I am perfectly certain that if Her Majesty's Government were to take energetic measures in that direction, in concert with other European Powers, they would to a great extent mitigate, if not altogether abolish, the horrors which have been described by the noble Earl who introduced the subject, and which have been so freely acknowledged by the noble Marquess.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

INLAND NAVIGATION (IRELAND)—(LIMERICK TO BELFAST).

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMrose to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the Inland Navigation of Ireland (Limerick to Belfast), and to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Board of Works, Ireland, so far as it affected that system. The inland navigation of Ireland was one of the utmost importance to the development and to the prosperity of the trade of that country. Last year, a Committee of the House of Commons inquired into the constitution of the Irish Board of Works; and one of the subjects to which the attention of that Committee was directed was that of the inland navigation of Ireland and its financial condition, and how far it was available to traffic. The system might be said to be divided into five sections, of which he proposed to refer to two—namely, the Ulster and the Ballinamore Canals. The Ulster Canal came into the possession of the Board of Works in 1865. After much discussion the Board determined to improve the navigation, and for this purpose they obtained a grant from the Government of £17,000; but, although this sum and more was spent upon it, matters were as bad as they were before. The principal defects were, an insufficient supply of water, and a great amount of leakage, by which the water in the canal was constantly drained away. One of the questions which came before the Committee was that of the insufficiency of water. This point was brought more particularly under their notice, by reason of a meeting of canal owners, carriers, &c., who passed a resolution declaring that the want of a sufficient supply of water in the Ulster Canal prevented the regular course of traffic along its line. That being brought before the Government, they could either take it in hand themselves or appoint a Committee to inquire into the subject. The question of the insufficiency of water was gone into before the Committee; and the Commissioner of Public Works, in examination, maintained that the water was sufficient for the amount of existing traffic; while, in answer to the questions, he stated that traffic was almost nil. At the time the resolution was passed at the meeting he had referred to it was summer, and
  832
  the water was very low, and the reply did not come from the Board of Works until the winter. Six months afterwards when, owing to the rains, there was more water in the canal, the reply was to the effect that there was sufficient water in the canal. It was stated in evidence before the Committee that there was no complaint of the depth of the water, and that in face of the meetings held to protest against it. He contended that the development of the traffic along the canals would tend greatly to reduce the price charged for carriage along the railway lines of Ireland. There were many instances where canals were running in direct competition with the Railway Companies. If the canals were put into a proper condition, he had no doubt it would prove remunerative, and would contribute very much to the advantage and prosperity of the whole of Ireland. The Ballinamore Canal was in a peculiar position, because it was a junction canal, and joined the northern navigation with the Shannon. The repair of those canals was the cheapest way of opening up the country and developing trade, for the canal could be put in working order for about £8,000 at the outside. The Ballinamore Canal was formerly in the hands of the trustees of the four counties through which it passed; but it was subsequently handed over to the Board of Works, and at that time one of the Commissioners stated that his future policy in regard to the canal would be to "wait and see." He could not conceive a more disastrous or unbusiness-like policy, and trusted the Government would take up and decide this very important question.
  LORD HARLECHsaid, the history of that question was one of those matters which had gained for the Irish Board of Works the character of being the most inefficient and unpopular public body in Ireland. There had been great waste in the construction of the canals, for the estimate was £132,000, while the cost incurred was £228,652. This excess arose from the fact that, instead of putting the work to contract, day-labourers were employed without proper supervision, with the result of completely demoralizing labour. One bridge which had cost £1,100, he had been credibly informed could be built as well for £300. So much for the

  833
  past. As regarded the future, he was not sanguine enough to believe that any return for many years could be expected on the past outlay; but he saw no reason why such a moderate outlay as that suggested by his noble Friend for the purpose of opening the entire length of the canal from Belfast to the Shannon should not do more than cover the costs of maintenance. However, the indirect return in the shape of developing the resources of the country was the legitimate view to take of the question. The turnpike trusts failed to give a good return to those who advanced their money; but the country through which they passed were benefited to an inestimable extent, and this case of the canals might be considered parallel. Under such circumstances, he hoped the Government would take up and deal with the matter.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he could not be expected to follow the noble Lord into all the details of the matter which he had referred to, nor should he enter into a discussion on the merits or the demerits of the conduct of the Irish Board of Works. He quite admitted that the question raised by his noble Friend was one of the greatest importance in connection with the opening up of that portion of the country with which he was connected. His noble Friend seemed to take a much more sanguine view of the relations of railways and canals in Ireland than was taken by the Committee who sat on the subject, because they said that the competition by canals was so small that it was scarcely appreciable. On the other hand, there was a direct argument against the canal navigation. They said that there was the indisputable fact that whatever might be the cost the enormous outlay already made on them had hither to produced little or no result—they had proved nothing but a complete failure; while the navigation had a deleterious effect on the drainage of the country by forcing it beyond its proper level. It seemed to him that if this matter was to be dealt with in a manner to be to the advantage of the public it should be dealt with as one complete and regular system of through traffic. To put a portion of the navigation in a perfect state while another part was in the condition described would be of no use. His noble Friend suggested that the Government should take up the matter
  834
  and put the whole of the navigation into a complete state—that they should lay out whatever sum of money was necessary for that purpose, and so carry on the work which had hitherto been done partly by trustees and partly by the Board of Works, and which at present had led to unsatisfactory results; or else that the Government should inquire into the matter and see whether anything could be done to improve the present system of navigation. Without going into minute details, he would say that it was quite obvious that it must be shown to the Committee that the system could be put into a proper state for a sum which might be considered reasonable; and they would also have to ascertain whether, if put into that condition, there would be any reasonable prospect of its being not only a paying concern, but also that it would be a benefit to the district. What he had to say was, that the Government had in contemplation the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the subject. He hoped the Committee might be able to report that the restoration of the canal referred to would be likely to produce the effect which his noble Friend had suggested, and whether it would be possible to put it in that condition with any reasonable hope of success. He trusted the answer would be satisfactory to his noble Friend.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION—REGIMENTAL COMMANDS — OVER - REGULATION MONEY.—QUESTION.
  LORD TRUROasked the noble Viscount the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether lieutenant-colonels upon half-pay who have been restored to full-pay to command regiments under the new system of five years' tenure of command are entitled, upon their retirement, to their over-regulation money, if they have not already received it from their regiments? On the answer he received would depend whether he should call further attention to the question hereafter.
  VISCOUNT BURY: This is a matter of importance, and I may satisfy the noble Lord's mind by saying that the officers will not suffer pecuniarily under the new system. In reply to the noble Lord's Question, I would reply that the decisions on which cases coming under the Question would be decided are detailed in the

  835
  Army Estimate Vote 19, G. 6. Generally speaking, it might be said that if an officer retiring from a five years' regimental command has not received any over-regulation, presumably he was not entitled to it; for up to November, 1871, Purchase having been in force, he would have received over-regulation from his successors. There are two exceptions to this, which are defined in the Royal Warrant of 1871. If an officer was placed upon half-pay owing to the reduction of his regiment, or through promotion for distinguished service, he would receive the customary over-regulation money of his rank when he retired to half-pay after the completion of his five years' command; provided always that only one lieutenant-colonel shall be allowed to return to full-pay and retire on these terms each year. But if the officer appointed to a five years' regimental command from half-pay has been placed on half-pay subsequent to the Warrant of 1871, he would receive no over-regulation money. The fact of being appointed to a five years' regimental command would not of itself give him any claim to over-regulation money.

  CIVIL PROCEDURE ACTS REPEAL BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for repealing certain enactments relating to Civil Procedure which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary, and for abolishing outlawry in civil proceedings—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read la.(No. 132.)
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.