Sitting of 30 June 1879

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee —Resolutions [Juno 27] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Charity Commissioners' Expenses [Stamp Duty].
Ordered—First Reading—Customs Buildings *[228].
First Reading—Children's Dangerous Performances* [229].
Second Reading— Public Loans Remission * [218]; New Forest Act (1877) Amendment* [210].
Committee—Army Discipline and Regulation [88]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Volunteer Corps (Ireland) (re-comm.) [200].
Third Reading—Tramways Orders Confirmation * [215], and passed.
Withdrawn — Dogs Regulation (Ireland) Act (1865) Amendment * [129].

QUESTIONS.

  NEW NORTHERN (VICTORIA) UNIVERSITY.—QUESTION.
  MR. BIRLEYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Government have decided upon the advice to be given to the Crown in regard to the recent Memorial for a Charter in order to found a University in the north of England?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: A Memorial has been presented to Her Majesty in Council, and referred by Her Majesty to a Committee of the Privy Council, which will offer Her Majesty advice with reference to granting the prayer of the Memorial.

  POST OFFICE—CAPE AND ZANZIBAR MAIL CONTRACT.—QUESTION.
  DR. CAMERON(for Mr. J. HOLMS) asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer,
  948
  Whether, having regard to the early termination of the Cape and Zanzibar Mail Contract, and in view of the intended establishment of a submarine telegraph along the East Coast of Africa, under a large subsidy from the Government, he will inform the House if Her Majesty's Government intend to continue the present postal subsidy for the conveyance of Mails between the Cape and Zanzibar after the termination of the present contract in February 1881?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The contract does not expire till February, 1881. It is at present too early to say what arrangements might be contemplated on its expiry.

INFANT LIFE PROTECTION ACT, 1872—INFANT MORTALITY, EXETER.

  QUESTION.
  MR. A. MILLSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received a Memorial from the Guardians of the Poor in the city of Exeter, calling his attention to the increase of infant mortality there; and, whether it will be possible to amend " The Infant Life Protection Act, 1872," and " The Registration Act, 1874," so as to bring foster mothers who have charge of one infant only, and all persons who may procure the burial of still-born children without obtaining a medical certificate, within the provisions of these statutes?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, that the Memorial had been received, and he had consulted the Local Government Board on the subject. He was told that, in their opinion, neither of the suggestions of the Guardians was practicable. Each of those suggestions had been considered and rejected at the time when the Bills relating to them respectively were passing through Parliament. He might, however, add that he had issued a Circular to the different local authorities and members of the police force, requesting that the provisions of the Infant Life Protection Act should be properly put in force.

MINING ACCIDENTS—LEGISLATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When he will introduce the Bill that

  949
  will give him the same power of holding an inquiry into mining accidents as he now possesses in regard to accidents from explosive substances?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Not until I see that there is some reasonable chance, from the state of Public Business, of passing it. I am quite ready to do so when I see a favourable opportunity.

ARMY COMMISSION (INDIA).

  QUESTION.
  MR. FAWCETTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is the case, as stated in a telegram from Calcutta, published in the " Times" of Monday last, that the Native Army alone will come within the scope of the inquiries of the Commission which has been appointed in India to investigate Military Expenditure and Organisation; and, if so, whether he will inform the House what are the instructions which have been given to the Departmental Committee at the War Office with regard to the inquiry into the cost of the European Army which is charged on the revenues of India?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No, Sir; the statement in The Times that the Native Army alone will come within the scope of the inquiry is not correct. The instructions contemplate a thorough and exhaustive inquiry into our whole military system in India, and the organization and distribution of the Army, and the Commission will sit at once.

THE LATE PRINCE IMPERIAL,

  QUESTION.
  SIR WILLIAM FRASERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Correspondence relating to the late Prince Imperial leaving this country for the seat of war; whether he will state the precise position of the Prince in, or in connection with, Her Majesty's Army; and, whether he will give at once, or so soon as they can be ascertained, the name and rank of the Officer by whom the Prince was put in orders on the 1st of June for the specific duty in the performance of which he lost his life?
  COLONEL STANLEY: I endeavoured, Sir, to answer this Question, with some
  950
  others of a similar nature, the other day. I then explained what the Prince's position was in connection with the Service, as far as I understood it. And I also said that instructions were immediately sent out by telegraph to have an inquiry instituted and a Report made as to the facts. I have not yet received further particulars than those which I was in possession of last week.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—POST OFFICES IN MAYO.—QUESTION.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Postmaster General, Whether he has received a Memorial asking for further postal accommodation at Dooleague Post Office, County Mayo; and, if so, whether he will be able to accede to the request of the Memorialists; whether he is aware that, by the abolition of the money order office in Mulranny, County Mayo, much inconvenience is caused to the poor people of the district, who have to travel over twenty miles to get remittances cashed which are sent by their friends engaged at the harvest in England; and, whether he will order the re-opening of the money order office at Mulranny?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: I received a Memorial on the subject of the hon. Member's Question on Friday last, and sent it to. Ireland for investigation. As soon as I receive it back it will receive attention. With reference to the second part of the Question, the office has been temporarily closed owing to the dismissal of the Postmaster. A new appointment has now taken place, however, and the office will be re-opened immediately.

IRELAND—CHURCH MISSIONS IN THE NORTH—CIRCULATION OF OFFENSIVE TRACTS AND PLACARDS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether any representations have been made or will be made to the authorities of the Irish Church Missions Society, in the hope that they may cease to issue and circulate tracts and placards offensive to the religious belief of the great majority of the people of Ireland, and calculated to provoke ill-will and consequent disturbance of the public peace?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Some few weeks back I had an interview with Canon Cory, the recognized head of the Mission in Galway, and he assured me that it had always been, and would be, his personal endeavour to restrain the circulation or exhibition of any tracts or placards of an offensive character. He also stated that his attention had been recently called to a breach of the instructions given on that point; and, that he had called the attention of those whom it concerned to the desirability of abstaining from the use of any such placards or tracts as had been referred to. He hoped that those representations would have the desired effect.

  AFGHANISTAN — THE TERRITORIAL ARRANGEMENTS — THE KHYBER PASS, &c.—QUESTIONS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If the Khyber Pass is to be held by British troops; if the Khost district is one of those assigned to the British Government; and, if the British troops are to leave Candahar at once; or, if not, whether, while they remain, that district is to be administered by British authorities or by Yakoob Khan?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The text of the Treaty with Yakoob Khan has given to the House the general character of the territorial arrangements between the two Governments. As regards the details for which the hon. Member asks, perhaps he will be good enough to repeat his Question on some later day, when I can give more accurate information. The British troops are not to leave Candahar at once; but the only reason for this delay is that it is unadvisable on sanitary grounds to move them until the commencement of the cold season.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the hon. Gentleman to state, Whether, in the meantime, the Candahar districts were to be administered by the British or the representatives of the Ameer?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Perhaps the hon. Baronet will repeat that Question also on a future day.

ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL—THE CAT-O'-NINE-TAILS.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. CALLANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will make
  952
  arrangements to facilitate the inspection by honourable Members of the cat-o'-nine tails, the sealed pattern of which for the Navy, it has been stated, is deposited at the Admiralty in custody of the First Sea - going Lord, so that honourable Members may be enabled to inspect it without loss of time, by having a specimen of the cat-o'-nine-tails deposited in some convenient room of the House?
  COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, I have given orders that the pattern should be placed so that it could be seen by any person who has any business to see it either at the Horse Guards or at the War Office. I will be glad to give any further information in a day or two.
  MR. CALLAN: Sir, may I ask, Whether Members of this House are presumed to have a right to see it?
  COLONEL STANLEY: Yes; Sir, for they are concerned in the legislation under which the punishment is inflicted.
  MR. CALLAN: Sir, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will arrange to facilitate the inspection by honourable Members of the Prison cat-o'-nine-tails by having a pattern cat deposited in some convenient room of the House? I ask this in addition to my former Question, as specimen cats differ as much as a lady's riding whip and her husband's thong.
  MR.ASSHETON CROSS: Certainly, Sir. I shall give the same facilities for inspection as those promised by my right hon. and gallant Friend.

  POST OFFICE ORDER DEPARTMENT—UNPAID ORDERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. RICHARDasked the Postmaster General, If a list is kept by the Controller of the Post Office Order Department of the unpaid Orders payable in London (the central or branch offices), the place of issue, remitter, and payee; and, whether he would grant a Return of the number and amount of such unpaid Orders for each year from 1870 to 1878?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS,in reply, said, there was such a list as the hon. Member referred to; but the preparation of such a Return as was indicated in the Question would be a work of so much labour and expense, that he did not think he should be justified in requiring its production by the officers of the Department.

  CRIMINAL CODE (INDICTABLE OFFENCES) BILL—QUESTION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked Mr. Attorney General, If he has seen the statement in the letter from the Lord Chief Justice on the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences) Bill, that he read with "astonishment" Clause 19, which continues all the common law so far as justification of offences, and that such a provision is, in his opinion, " altogether inconsistent with every idea of codification of the law," and his further statement as regards codification of the statute law, that the measure is so incomplete that—
  "The passing of the Bill in its present condition would really be a misfortune compared to which delay would be of little importance;"
  and, whether he will now consent to withdraw the Bill for the purpose of having it introduced in a more complete form next Session?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER): I have read and considered most carefully the letter of the Lord Chief Justice of England alluded to in the Question of the hon. Member. It appears to me to be clear that when he wrote that letter the attention of his Lordship had not been drawn to the Report of the Commissioners who revised the Criminal Code. I say this, because in that Report excellent reasons are given for the insertion of Clause 19 in the Bill; and by the same Report it is also very clearly shown that it would not be advisable at present to attempt a larger measure of codification than that contained in the Bill. Perhaps, owing to the condition of Public Business, it will not be possible to proceed with the Code this Session; but I should not propose to withdraw the Bill for the reasons suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

  IRELAND — ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS.—QUESTION.
  THE O'CONOR DONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When the Returns relative to the arrests for drunkenness in Ireland, ordered on the 5th of May, will be presented to the House?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, they will be laid on the Table to-morrow.

  THE GREEK PAPERS.—QUESTION.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEasked the Under Secretary of State for
  954
  Foreign Affairs, On what day the Greek Papers, promised for Friday last, will be in the hands of Members?
  MR. BOURKE,in reply, said, he had not definitely promised that the Greek Papers would be out on Friday. He had only expressed a hope that they would be out then, or soon thereafter. They had passed out of the Foreign Office on Saturday, and should be in the hands of hon. Members very shortly.

POOR LAW (IRELAND) — NORTH DUBLIN BOARD OF GUARDIANS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR ARTHUR GUINNESSasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the report in the "Freeman's Journal" (19th June) of a meeting of the North Dublin Board of Guardians, held on 18th June, in which it is stated that the chairman of that meeting refused to receive a notice of motion relating to the present high death rate in Dublin on the ground that such motion "would be a slur on the Public Health Committee of the Corporation;" and, whether the chairman was justified in doing so?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, when my hon. Friend gave Notice of this Question I sent over to Ireland for information, which, however, I have not yet had time to receive. I cannot, therefore, say how far the report alluded to is correct; but I understand it is the duty of the Chairman of a Board of Guardians to put any question to the meeting which has reference to the administration of the Poor Law. As to whether this particular question came under the category I cannot at present say. It would, however, I apprehend, be no part of a Chairman's province to consider whether or not a resolution constituted a reflection upon any other public body.

ARMY—THE AUXILIARY FORCES—THE ROYAL NORTH GLOUCESTER MILITIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. R. YORKEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he contemplates countermanding the orders for the removal of the Royal North Gloucester Militia from Cirencester to Horfield?
  COLONEL STANLEY,in reply, said, he was not at present able to state whether the orders referred to by the hon. Member could be cancelled. He hoped, however, to have an opportunity of inquiring personally into the matter.

DOGS REGULATION (IRELAND) ACT (1865) AMENDMENT BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MAJOR NOLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If, considering the lateness of the Session and the inconvenience to which Irish Members have already been put in watching the Dogs Regulation (Ireland) Act (1865) Amendment Bill, he would now consent to postpone that measure until next year; and, if not, could he now definitely state on what day that Bill would be proposed for Second Reading?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: With respect to the inconvenience which the hon. and gallant Gentleman says hon. Members have been put to by having to watch this Bill, I have certainly endeavoured to avoid it by giving due Notice of the day when it will be brought on; and as I have introduced it at the request of many Gentlemen sitting on both sides of the House, I am very unwilling to withdraw it from the Notice Paper any sooner than it is necessary to do so. But I must say that, looking at the state of the Order Book, some sacrifices of, perhaps, a more serious character than the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers to will have to be made. The Bill stands for this day fortnight; and when the time comes, I shall be very glad to give an example by moving that that Order be discharged.

  CUSTOMS RE-ORGANIZATION — CIVIL SERVICE WRITERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. RATHBONEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in the forthcoming scheme for reorganization of the clerical branch of the Customs, any alteration will be made in the position of the staff of Civil Service Writers of that service?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON,in reply, said, that all reasonable claims would be duly considered in the forthcoming scheme.

  BUILDING SOCIETIES—LOANS-6 & 7 WILL. IV. c. 32.—QUESTION.
  MR. JACOB BRIGHTasked Mr. Attorney General, If Building Societies registered under the old Act (6 and 7 Will. 4, c. 32) are authorised to borrow money so as to bind the funds and property of said societies, or only on the individual responsibility of the trustees?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER): No express authority to borrow money is given to Building Societies by the old Act 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 32. But any loans contracted prior to 1874 in accordance with the certified rules of a Building Society are declared by the 15th section of the Building Societies Act, 1874, to be valid and binding on the Society. The Building Societies certified under the Act 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 32, have now the powers of borrowing money set forth in the Act of 1874, section 15, sub-section 4.

  CYPRUS—PURCHASE OF LAND BY FOREIGNERS.—QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether by a Turkish Law of the 18th June 1867, to which several Foreign Governments gave their adhesion by Protocols dated the 9th of June 1868, the 10th of May 1869, &c. Foreigners acquired the right to purchase land in Turkey; and, if so, whether such right is now a Treaty right which cannot be taken away by local ordinances; and, if the foregoing inquiries are answered in the affirmative, whether Her Majesty's Government have considered the effect of the above Law and Protocols on the Ordinance recently promulgated in Cyprus forbidding the sale of lands to other persons than subjects of Great Britain or Turkey, the Island of Cyprus being still a part of the dominions of His Majesty the Sultan?
  MR. BOURKE: I apprehend that the way the matter stands is this. Under the law of Turkey of 1867 foreigners were permitted to have the privilege of acquiring and holding land in Turkey, with certain reservations, which reservations were expressed in a Protocol that was drawn up at that time between Her Majesty's Government and the Turkish Government; and both the law of Turkey and that Protocol are already

  957
  a Parliamentary Paper by themselves. Certain other Powers—Austria, Denmark, and one or two others—joined in the Protocol afterwards with Turkey; and I believe that the Protocol entered into with Turkey was similar to the one entered into at the time with Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, strictly speaking, I should not say that there was any Treaty right; but, whether that be so or no, we do not apprehend there will be any difficulty arising out of the Ordinance to which the hon. Baronet alludes: because if any foreigner does apply to purchase and hold land in Cyprus, certainly any right which he has, either under Turkish law or under the Protocol which may have been entered into by the Power to which that foreigner belongs, would have due consideration when application is being made to the Commissioners for licence to hold land.

THE LATE LORD LAWRENCE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Perhaps I may be allowed to ask a Question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of which I have given him private Notice. It is with reference to the interment of the late Lord Lawrence, Whether Her Majesty's Government have considered the propriety of paying some national tribute of respect to his memory, either by communicating with the authorities of Westminster Abbey as to the burial there, or in any way that the Government may approve of?
  THE CHANCELLOR OT THE EXCHEQUER: Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt of the very great services which the late Lord Lawrence rendered to his country; and I am sure that there is no place in which those services will be more appreciated than in the Houses of Parliament, and that there are no persons by whom they are more appreciated than by Her Majesty's Government. We do not consider that precedents would justify us in proposing a funeral for Lord Lawrence at the public expense; but I am happy to say that arrangements have been in progress, and, I believe, are now completed, by which it is arranged that the funeral shall take place in Westminster Abbey. I think this announcement will give great satisfaction to the House.

EGYPT—THE SUCCESSION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. OTWAYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he proposes to include in the Papers relating to the affairs of Egypt the correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the Porte with reference to the various Firmans which have been issued in reference to the Egyptian succession; and, if he does not propose to include them, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence relating to the Firmans issued since 1841 in reference to Her Majesty's Government and the Porte?
  MR. BOURKE: I do not think it would be convenient to the House that any delay should take place in presenting the Egyptian Papers. Therefore, if any of the Papers referred to by my hon. Friend be presented at all they had better be presented afterwards in a separate form. I am sure my hon. Friend does not wish us to present all the correspondence upon those Firmans; because they already fill a very large and bulky book, and I think that all the necessary information will be found in that book. With regard to the Firmans of 1846, 1856, 1857, 1866, and 1873, they are, no doubt, very important, and I have already given orders that they shall be translated, and that is now being done. As to the correspondence, I think there is very little that will throw light on the matter; but if my hon. Friend will communicate with me privately, I shall be glad to show him the Papers, and those that are of any use can be published.

  ARMY—WAR DEPARTMENT—PURCHASE OF HAY.—QUESTION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will state the circumstances under which the War Office about a year and a half ago bought a large parcel of Dutch hay, kept it for over a year, and then sold it again; what price it cost per ton, including freight and other expenses, and what price per ton was realised for it, deducting interest, storeage, and other expenses; why the hay was not used; and, whether none has been bought since that parcel was sold?
  COLONEL STANLEY,in reply, said, that the hay was bought, not by the War Department, as the hon. Member supposed, but by the Admiralty. The War Department merely lent an officer for the purpose of inspection. The price paid was, he believed, £5 15 s. a-ton, and some of it was sold as low as 10 s. a-ton, for unsound hay. Other particulars desired by the hon. Member were not in his possession; and perhaps the hon. Gentleman would repeat his Question, and address it to his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he would put a Question on the subject to the First Lord of the Admiralty; but he could not see why the Admiralty should buy hay, unless it was for the Horse Marines.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL— [BILL 88.]
  (Mr. Secretary Stanley, Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. William Henry Smith, The Judge Advocate General.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 27 th June.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 87 (Delivery of soldier on discharge with his wife or child at workhouse, or of dangerous lunatic at asylum).
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 47, line 38, to leave out from the word " sent " to the word " paper," in line 1, page 48, in order to insert the words " any parish in which the soldier has resided at any period before his enlistment for twelve months, but choosing as far as possible the parish in which the soldier has last spent twelve months, and, if this cannot be ascertained, then."—(Major Nolan.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  COLONEL STANLEYthought it would save the time of the Committee if he asked them to postpone this clause. If the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), who had moved the Amendment, would be good enough to confer with him, he might be able to bring up a clause which would recommend itself to the Committee.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, he had no objection to withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. PARNELLremarked, that some very important questions were involved in the clause, and he thought no harm would be done if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War devoted a little consideration to them. The clause made a very radical change in the present law. It provided that a soldier should have a settlement at the station to which he was attached; and it also provided that if the place of his birth was known, he should have a settlement there also. Now, he thought that both of those provisions were unfair; and it was just as well that the Committee should express an opinion upon the matter at once. It would, he thought, save time hereafter.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. and gallant Member for Galway had expressed a wish to withdraw a particular Amendment now before the Committee; and neither the hon. Member for Meath, nor any other hon. Member, would be in Order in speaking upon the clause generally on the question of withdrawing that Amendment.
  On Question, "That the Clause be postponed?"
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, his object in postponing the clause was to save time, and to carry into effect the views expressed by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell.) Inasmuch as matters of considerable importance would have to be taken into consideration, ho should like to obtain the opinion of those who were practically cognizant with them; and he would be glad if the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Major Nolan) would be good enough to postpone his Amendment.
  MAJOR NOLANremarked, that the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) had got an Amendment on the Paper which he hoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would consider at the same time. It was an Amendment somewhat in the same direction as his; and he confessed that it was a much better one. If the Secretary of State for War Gould not consent to the amendment of the clause in the direction he had suggested, he should be pleased if

  961
  he would consent to the proposal of his hon. Friend.
  MR. BIGGARdesired to make a few observations upon the present Amendment. He did not consider it the most satisfactory plan to adopt, for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to state that he would confer with one Member of the House of Commons and try to settle these matters. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway was, no doubt, an authority upon military subjects, and, generally, he (Mr. Biggar) was found at one with the hon. and gallant Gentleman; but, nevertheless, he thought it right that every Member of the House should have the opportunity of offering his opinion. In reference to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mayo, it was his opinion that if a place were to be selected at all upon which the wife and children of a soldier should be chargeable, surely the proper place was where the marriage had been solemnized. It was only reasonable to suppose that when a soldier got married, the woman belonged to the place at which he had originally lived. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board seemed to think that they should not ask that the law relating to soldiers should be made different to the general law with regard to all paupers chargeable on their different places of residence. The right hon. Gentleman should take into account the fact that by the Bill now before them it was not proposed to act in conformity with the general law, and that afforded a precedent why they should ask for a change of the law in this particular instance. There was another matter upon which he wished to remark, and that was that the military authorities should not allow the soldiers to marry, if it were possible, and especially under the short-service system. When a soldier enlisted for 21 years there was some reasonable excuse for his wishing to marry; but when a man at 18 years enlisted for six years, with the intention of going in the Reserve at 24, he did not see any excuse for his asking to be married. As far as possible, the military authorities ought to throw all the obstacles they could in the way of young soldiers marrying.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he was not disposed, in view of the arrangement which had been made between the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Major Nolan) and the Secretary of State for War, to detain the Committee with the consideration of his Amendment; but there were one or two points in connection with it to which he wished to call attention. He was opposed to the clause as it stood, first of all, on the ground of justice; because, when they were debating the question of poor removal, it was always admitted that if a man had lived for a certain number of years in any given place he was entitled to a settlement. Now, a soldier was, above all contradiction, in that position. By his having spent a certain number of years in the Army he had established a claim on the State. In the clause, as it at present stood, that claim was not recognized. A lunatic soldier would be sent down to his native parish, a proceeding which could not be justified on the ground of justice. It certainly would not be calculated to increase military ardour, or to excite enthusiasm in the recruit, if he were to know that the track of glory commenced on the village green, and traced all through the world, was to terminate at the workhouse. That, however, would be the only practical effect of the present clause. There was no reason why an asylum should not be provided for military lunatics. That was what he wished to press on the consideration of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War and his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway, when they had constituted themselves into a Committee of two on this important question. He was glad that the hon. and gallant Member for Galway would have the opportunity of conferring with the Secretary of State for War on the subject; but, of course, he joined with the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) in declaring that they would not abdicate their functions as critics of any proposals that might be made in Committee. The question of what proper provision should be made for the wife and children of soldiers was, no doubt, a very difficult one; and the more he looked at the clause, and considered every Amendment suggested, the more he was convinced of the desirability of postponing the clause. He trusted,

  963
  however, that the Secretary of State for War might even now be able to see his way to cause Army asylums to be provided for mentally disabled soldiers. From every point of view—justice, expediency, national honour, and military honour—it seemed very necessary that military asylums should be established.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was about to confer with the hon. and gallant Member for Galway on this clause, he would not oppose its postponement, because that seemed to be the only course that could reasonably be taken. On Saturday he drew up a number of Amendments to this clause; but, unfortunately, he had not been able to get them upon the Paper. He felt that he owed an apology to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War and to the Committee. As a conference was about to take place, he wished to point out, for the consideration of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway and the Secretary of State for War, some matters to which they might devote their attention. They had, as his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) justly observed, hopes of the establishment of State lunatic asylums for the maintenance of lunatic soldiers, instead of allowing them to go to some workhouse in the country, as might be determined upon, and from thence sent to the lunatic asylum connected with the workhouse. If it were decided to send a lunatic to the workhouse, it would be fair that the cost of maintaining the lunatic should be reimbursed to the workhouse or the Poor Law authorities. If lunatic asylums for soldiers were maintained at the cost of the State, and there were difficulties in the way of sending a lunatic soldier there, it was, at least, proper that the Poor Law authorities, who had charge of the patient, should be recouped by the War Office. Then they were confronted by the question of what provision should be made for the wives and children of soldiers. They all know very well that soldiers in the Army were very seldom allowed to marry. They were only allowed under very exceptional circumstances to marry, and then their wives were placed upon what was called the strength of the regiment. Soldiers were only allowed to marry in consequence of
  964
  some special good conduct, or on the supposition that the wives could be useful to the regiment in some way or other. He presumed that the clause now before the Committee covered the case of the wives and children of soldiers permitted to marry under the circumstances he had enumerated; and he was of opinion that the cost of maintaining those women and children should be borne by the State. It was manifest that it was for the convenience of the regiment, and for the advantage of the Service, that soldiers were allowed to marry; and, consequently, the wives and children of soldiers ought not to be thrown upon the local rates for support. These were the several points to which he wished to direct the attention of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War and the hon. and gallant Member for Galway, when they came to consider the whole matter; and he hoped that they would be able to frame a clause which would carry out the views of the Irish Members in reference to that important question.
  Clause postponed.
  Clause 88 (Regulations as to the discharge of soldiers) agreed to.
  Authorities to enlist and attest Recruits.
  Clause 89 (Regulations as to persons to enlist and enlistment of soldiers).
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he had an Amendment to the clause, which lie regretted did not appear on the Paper. He was prevented, by unavoidable circumstances, from causing their appearance on the Paper; and, consequently, he was afraid he should have to submit the Committee to some inconvenience in introducing his Amendments. He proposed, in page 49, line 28, after the word " expedient," to insert the words—
  "In addition to those regulations, directions, and forms contained in the blank Schedule of this Act."
  That Amendment was to provide for the insertion in the Schedule of a set of rules and regulations with regard to attestation and enlistment. It was most unusual to pass an Act of that kind without inserting, at all events, some general provisions and rules, so far as they could be framed by Parliament, and so far as they could be known and devised by the experience they had had

  965
  in carrying out the desires and intentions of the military authorities and he submitted that it would be right and proper for the Secretary of State for War to agree to insert a Schedule of the rules and regulations with regard to attestation and enlistment in the Bill itself. There were, of course, a great many provisions which were perfectly well known, and about which there could be no practical difficulty whatever; and his Amendment would not preclude the War Office authorities from the right to make alterations in such rules and regulations afterwards. He proposed to leave to the War Office full permission and liberty to make any alteration in such rules and regulations; and, also, full liberty to make any addition to those provisions that they might feel disposed to make from time to time, or that the exigencies of the Service might requuire. All that he asked, in fact, was that the Secretary of State for War should embody his experience in the Bill, so far as he knew what regulations might be necessary for the purpose of attestation and enlistment. He asked that they might have the opportunity of considering what the rules and regulations were that the Secretary of State for War now considered necessary for the purpose of carrying on the enlistment of recruits, and that he considered a very reasonable request. They had had several years' experience of the short-service system of enlistment; and within that time they had had ample opportunity of ascertaining almost everything that was requisite respecting rules and regulations, and the like. It was more than ever necessary now that they should understand the form of attestation and enlistment, and the regulations that had been adopted by the War Office with regard to attestation; because, by a previous clause of the Bill, they had abolished the interval between the time of the sergeant meeting the recruit and handing him a copy of the form of attestation, and the time that the recruit appeared with the sergeant for enlistment. There was nothing to prevent a recruit being taken by a recruiting sergeant forthwith before a magistrate and enlisted, without any interval whatever between the time that the recruiting officer induced the man to think of enlisting in the Army and the time when he was actually bound to the Service.
  966
  Under those circumstances, it was extremely necessary that the Committee should have the opportunity of weighing well the rules and regulations that had to be adopted by the War Office; otherwise, they might have recruiting carried on in such a hasty and inconsiderate manner that a good many young men would repent that they had ever enlisted. The other day, an Amendment, proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway, was rejected, it being there required that no magistrate should enlist a recruit when the man was under the influence of liquor. It might be all very well to say that such an Amendment would throw a slur on the magistrate; but, at least, they had a right, seeing that that Amendment was rejected, to require that rules should be adopted which would provide against hasty enlistments, and the enlistment of persons at a time when they were not in a proper condition to enter into such a contract. They ought, also, to know under what rules magistrates were to act; and, taking into account all considerations, it was only right that they should have the experience of the Secretary of State for War embodied in a set of rules and regulations in the Schedule, to be annexed to the Act, with regard to enlistment and attestation.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 49, line 28, after the word " expedient," to insert the words "in addition to those regulations, directions, and forms contianed in the Schedule of this Act."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
  COLONEL STANLEYwas afraid he could not consent to the insertion of the words suggested. Certain duties devolved upon the Office of Secretary of State for War; and so long as the Gentleman appointed was competent to hold the Office, it was required of him to give his directions according to the exigencies of the Service. It was perfectly impossible to describe all the circumstances with which the Secretary of State for War had constantly to deal. All reforms could not be submitted for the consideration of the House, and he would not recommend that such a course should be adopted. These were clauses of mere procedure; and he asked the Committee whether they felt bound, on clauses which were really continuance clauses

  967
  than anything else, to move Amendments on every clause? He had no objection to offer to a fair discussion of all points; but he felt bound to appeal to hon. Gentlemen to make progress with the clauses.
  MR. O'DONNELLremarked, that after the postponement of one of the clauses of mere procedure, on the ground of its very great importance, the suggestion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was a little inopportune. Furthermore, these clauses of mere procedure might be a matter of small consequence to the Government; but where they had to deal with the terms of a contract—a contract the breaking of which was severely punished—clauses of that kind might have a great deal of importance to persons outside the Government. Besides; it was almost necessary for him to point out a remarkable fallacy which ran through the whole speech of the Secretary of State for War. It must be within the recollection of the Committee that his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) did not propose to tie the hands of the Secretary of State for War in any particular; but, on the contrary, the hon. Member for Meath, in his Amendment, expressly left a wide field in those matters of detail which might reasonably be altered from time to time; and so it was less ingenuous on the part of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman than was usual when he addressed the Committee, to see him ignoring what was expressly the view of the hon. Member for Meath, and trying to persuade the Committee that that Amendment was intended to limit the action of the Secretary of State for War. What was sought, and what was legitimately sought, was to make sure that in some general form all instructions relating to essential points, which ought not to be altered without consulting the House, should be incorporated in the Schedules of the Bill; and that all the minor points should be left to the temporary determination of the Secretary of State for War. He could not help thinking that one very important matter which ought to be included in the permanent instructions to be given to the authorities empowered to enlist and attest recruits was an instruction that the enlisting authority should satisfy himself that the recruit perfectly understood the conditions of the
  968
  Service he was about to enter. On both sides of the House it had been admitted that, at present, recruits were continually deceived in the most serious way by the present mode of enlistment. For instance, a recruit enlisted, as he believed, for home service—he enlisted in a battalion that was at home, and would be at home, for some years—and, therefore, he reasonably imagined that he would have to serve at home. According, however, to the linked battalion system, the unfortunate recruit, who had enlisted in the home battalion, discovered that he had made himself liable for service in the linked battalion serving abroad; and, probably, in a few months time, he found himself serving out in India, which was contrary to his expectations. Such a practice was decidedly prejudicial to the reputation of the Government and the Army; and, beyond the slightest doubt, it was one of the frequent causes of those numerous desertions which took place. They allowed a recruit to enlist in a battalion for home service—they did not tell him that he had thus rendered himself liable for service abroad—the unfortunate man soon found himself so liable and he deserted, for which he was punished severely. Ho (Mr. O'Donnell) could not think otherwise than that many desertions had been occasioned by the acts of the military authorities. Such a provision as he had suggested ought to appear in the Schedule of the Act, in order that the enlisting authority should satisfy himself that the recruit, when he enlisted under the linked battalion system, should thoroughly understand that though he enlisted in a home battalion he was liable to be sent out for foreign service. Such a provision ought to be inserted in the Schedule—indeed, it was to favour an admittedly most frequent source of desertion to leave the point open, instead of settling it while the Bill was before the Committee. Those continual appeals to the Committee not to discuss those clauses were really tantamount to a demand, on the part of the Government, that the whole Army discipline was to be passed in full at the mere ipse dixit of the Secretary of State for War, and the Party which stood at his back. The Secretary of State for War could not have been listening to the words of the Amendment, or heard the speech of the hon. Member for

  969
  Meath, or he would not have completely misrepresented the express object of that Amendment, and the repeated explanations contained in the speech of the hon. Gentleman. There was nothing asked of the Secretary of State for War but what was legitimate and fair. He was asked to consent to having a few special points placed in the Schedule annexed to the Bill; and he was left full and entire liberty to introduce fresh provisions with regard to new special points which might require to be settled from time to time. He was afraid the Government was relying on the connivance of their Party organs in those matters. While the just and reasonable arguments on the one side were suppressed, the action of independent Members was being misrepresented by a clique of journalists acting, if not avowedly, in de facto, connivance of Her Majesty's Government. They now had the Secretary of State for War utterly and entirely misrepresenting the speech of the hon. Member for Meath, and asking the Committee, in so many words, to disregard the Amendment; while he (Colonel Stanley) had completely misrepresented it, and had evidently not been attending to a single word addressed to him by the hon. Member for Meath. On no other ground could he account for the action of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman; and he could not help thinking, judging by his past action towards the Committee, that if the Secretary of State for War were left to his own independent judgment on the conduct of the Business of the Committee, he would not now be found objecting to a course of conduct hitherto pursued. It was most right, most fair, and most necessary, that some, at least, of the essential points of the contract which the soldier was required to enter upon should be settled in the Bill. His hon. Friend was inclined to leave to the Secretary of State for War full liberty to change, from time to time, the nonessential points it might be found convenient to change; but it was a very serious misrepresentation of the object of the hon. Member for Meath, and it was a most serious injury to the recruit, and a blot on the reputation of the Army and on the good faith of any Government, to refuse on such flimsy pretexts to have something settled with regard to the conditions of a contract, the break
  970
  ing of which was punished with such extreme severity.
  MR. BIGGARcould not see on what ground the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could object to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath. In introducing the Amendment, his hon. Friend did not ask that a hard-and-fast line should be laid down; all ho proposed was that the leading general principles should be laid down, while the minor details should, from time to time, be carried out by the authorities at the War Office. They knew, as a matter of fact, that the present system of recruiting was anything but satisfactory; and they were equally well aware of the desirability of some rules being laid down for the proper carrying out of recruiting. Several evils existing in the system could be pointed out—as, for instance, the youthful age at which a recruit entered the Army. It would be well, in his opinion, for a law to be passed the effect of which would be to prohibit a man being received in the Army unless he had reached a certain age. All the authorities he had heard speak on the subject had declared that the present system was most injurious to the British Army, and likewise to the man enlisting. He trusted that the Secretary of State for War would, after all, be able to consent to the provisions of a Schedule containing the rules to be observed in respect to enlistment.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he intended to take a Division on the Amendment, because it was a very reasonable one—so reasonable, in fact, that he was surprised that the Secretary of State for War had not thought it right to agree with it. He altogether demurred from the suggestion the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had made — that because these were clauses which were in the Army Enlistment Act of 1870 they ought to be passed over without discussion or alteration. Why, the Government themselves had altered several of them, and had introduced fresh clauses. Since 1870 they had seen it necessary to modify, very materially, many of the clauses of the Army Enlistment Act; they had introduced fresh clauses, and just now one clause had been withdrawn altogether from consideration, in order that it might he materially altered, if not entirely changed. If the Government were inclined to alter these

  971
  clauses—the Government, who were in the House of Commons at the time of the passing of the Army Enlistment Act—if they were prepared to alter and bring in new clauses, he certainly thought that independent Members of the House were entitled to make Amendments where they considered them necessary; and more particularly those Members who were not, in any sense, responsible for the Army Enlistment Act of 1870. He had no wish to fetter the action of the War Office in this matter; but merely asked that the Department should tell them what rules and regulations they considered proper with regard to attestation and enlistment, and that they should cause them to appear in the Bill. He left to them full power to make any alterations in those rules and regulations subsequently, upon the understanding that such alterations should be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. There were, certainly, precedents for what he proposed; because there was no other Act of Parliament besides that Army Discipline Bill in which such unfettered power would be given to a Minister to make alterations. Every Act of Parliament had certain rules and regulations embodied in it; but, afterwards, power was given to the Minister to make rules and regulations, on condition that they should be submitted to Parliament. The Secretary of State for War wished to retain power to make rules and regulations without submitting them to Parliament. It was only recently that they had succeeded in obtaining an audit of the accounts of the War Office; and, no doubt, it was only one by one that they would be able to break down all the obstacles which the War Department raised. He felt compelled to take a Division on that question; and he was of opinion that had the Secretary of State for War had a desire to facilitate the progress of Business, he would have at once assented to the present very reasonable Amendment.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that upon the suggestion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War he wished to make one or two observations. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman deprecated discussion of these matters on various grounds—he described the clause under consideration as a continuance clause. They decidedly objected to continue what
  972
  they thought to be bad; and it was no argument at all to say that, because the clause happen to be a continuance one, it ought to be passed. That was the cry raised when the Mutiny Acts had been under discussion; for people and the Press said—"Don't meddle with what has gone on for years." Strange to say, the very journals which took a leading part in denouncing the hon. Member for Meath for his interference with the Mutiny Acts had now altered their tone, and admitted that the hon. Member had rendered great service to the public and the Army by his criticism of these Acts. And, surely, their memories were not so treacherous that they did not remember that the same thing was said of the Prisons Act—"Can't you leave it in the hands of the benevolent and excellent Home Secretary? " Appeals of that kind had nothing whatever to do with the merits of the question, and the best justification of the criticism which the present Bill had so far received was to be found in the action of the Government, and in the clauses they themselves had postponed for further consideration. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was anxious to facilitate the passing of the Bill, he ought to weigh more carefully than was his habit the suggestions which were, from time to time, made. If there was any one Member of the Committee who had a right to make suggestions upon a question of that kind, it was the hon. Member for Meath, because he had studied the subject minutely, and he was a Member of the Committee appointed to revise the Mutiny Acts. His attention to that subject had been uninterrupted for several years; and, therefore, for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to suggest that they should pass over the Amendment and not discuss the clause, on the supposition that it would facilitate the Business of the Committee, seemed to him the most extraordinary fallacy that could be offered. He recommended the Treasury Bench not to contract prejudices against suggestions coming from that part of the House, and not to imagine that when a proposal was made from the Benches occupied by the Irish Members it was made with the object of embarrassing them. All the suggestions he and his Colleagues made were made with the bonâ fide object of amending im-

  973
  portant legislation; and no suggestion that had ever been made during the progress of the Bill was more intimately connected with the good of the Army, or with the ideas which would discourage desertion and make the recruits and soldiers satisfied with their position, than the suggestion which had just been made by his hon. Friend. The Secretary of State for War stated that the question of attestation forms, and of rules and regulations which formed the contract into which the soldier entered, was a matter which had to be altered from time to time. They did not ask the Secretary of State for War to put in the Schedule those small matters which varied according to the strength of the Army; they did not wish to fetter him at all. A variety of minds had been exercised upon the question of Army Law; and if the Secretary of State for War would give them the leading regulations and conditions of the contract between the State and the soldier in the Schedule attached to the Bill, they might, from time to time, be able to devote that attention to the subject which was required of them. He advised his hon. Friend to persevere in his Amendment, and thought much good would be done if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could only receive it.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEhoped that the Amendment would be withdrawn, because it was utterly impossible for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to state what were to be the conditions of enlistment. That was more especially the case now that a Commission was sitting to inquire into that and other matters, and their Report was not yet published.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, his hon. and gallant Friend entirely misunderstood the Amendment. He said it would be impossible for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to state the rules and regulations for enlistment, until the Commission had delivered its Report. He trusted that his hon. and gallant Friend would explain how they were to act until such Report had been published. Did he suppose they would have to abandon all enlistment and all attestation until the Commission had fully considered the question? He told them it was impossible for the Secretary of State for War to frame rules and regulations. Where, then, were they to get their regulations from? What he simply asked was that, for the time being, the rules and regula
  974
  tions necessary, in the view of the Secretary of State for War, for enlistment, should be inserted in the Schedule appended to the Bill. He left full power to the Secretary of State for War to alter those rules at any time afterwards, or even to add to them, if such a course was, in his opinion, desirable. Therefore, when the Commission had made its Report, when it had decided the question of short or long term of service, it would be perfectly open for the Secretary of State for War to alter those rules, or to make any addition to them required by the altered circumstances of the case.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 17 Noes 169: Majority 152.—(Div. List, No. 137.)
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that the next Amendment he had to propose was one which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would have no difficulty in agreeing to. It contained a provision which was in every Act of Parliament he was acquainted with, except the present Bill. At the end of Clause 89, he proposed to add the words—
  " Provided always, That any such order so made shall be laid as soon as may be before both Houses of Parliament, and if either House of Parliament, within the next forty days after the same has been so laid before such House, resolve that such order ought to be annulled, the same shall after the date of such resolution be of no effect, without prejudice to the validity of anything done in the meanwhile under such order or to the making of any new order."
  That was a clause which had been inserted in all the important Acts of recent years. It was inserted in the Prisons Act and in the Factories Act; and wherever power was given to any Minister to make rules and regulations, at the same time provision was inserted to the effect that those rules and regulations should be laid before Parliament. He had copied the clause he proposed to insert from the Factory Act of last Session. That Act was, perhaps, the best sample of drafting they had had for some time, and it simplified that clause in a very material manner.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the Clause, to add the words, " Provided always, That any such order so made shall be laid as soon as may be before both Houses of Parliament, and if either House of Parliament, within the next forty days after the same has been so laid before such House,

  975
  resolve that such order ought to be annulled, the same shall after the date of such resolution be of no effect, without prejudice to the validity of anything done in the meantime under such order or to the making of any new order."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  COLONEL STANLEYfelt it his duty to demur to the Amendment, very much for the same reason as he objected to the previous one. Parliament was asked to prescribe certain limits within which the duties of the Secretary of State for War were to be exercised. He thought it absolutely necessary that in such Services as the Army and Navy, those who had to administrate discipline, and had to provide for the ordinary procedure of the regulations from day to day, should have the requisite power retained in themselves, always controlled, as it might be, by Act of Parliament. It was perfectly impossible to work any Departmentin the manner now proposed. If anything were really wanted, it was pretty well known that on the occasion of the passing of the Estimates the Secretary of State for War, and. others with whom he acted, were put through a very severe, though not unreasonable, cross-examination; and upon those Votes almost every manner of subject could be discussed. Further than that, there was a practice which now prevailed of moving for Returns; and those Returns were, as a general rule, granted without opposition. It would be absurd to lay on the Table of the House all the orders that might be given; because the effect of that would be that Parliament would then transact the common business of the Army, which was now transacted by the Secretary of State for War.
  MR. RYLANDSwas astonished at the doctrine which had just been laid down by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. They heard too much of the assumption, on the part of the Government, that because they occupied the position of Executive Administrators the House of Commons was debarred from laying down certain rules as to the course of Public Business. In fact, the very same argument that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had just used would justify the Home Secretary in coming down to the House, and—in many cases of Acts of Parliament—positively refusing to be
  976
  bound to submit to lay on the Table any regulations he might make under the Bills, the charge of which devolved upon his Office. It was only a short time ago that, in reference to the Valuation Bill, an hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House stood up manfully in defence of the rights of Parliament, and in favour of there being some check upon the central control of the Local Government Board. He voted in the last Division. He had some slight hesitation in voting; but he did so entirely in the sense that the Government ought, in the present Bill, to place Parliament in that position that would enable them, to some extent, to control the action of the Department. But while he had some hesitation in voting for the last Amendment, he had not the slightest in voting for the one now before the Committee, because it seemed to him so reasonable. Whenever any regulations were to be made, it was only right and proper that Parliament should be made acquainted with them, and that they should be laid on the Table of the House. There was another reason why the Amendment ought to be accepted, and that was, that it was extremely undesirable that regulations of that kind should easily be changed. One of the greatest objections to the present system was, no doubt, that men were called upon to enlist sometimes when they were not clear as to the conditions of the contract. It was quite evident that, as far as possible, those conditions should be known; that they should appear in a regular and authorized form; and that the form of contract between the recruit and the War Office should not lightly be changed. There could be no reasonable objection to the Government allowing a Copy of such regulations to lay on the Table of the House, not in any sense that the consent of Parliament should be required; because, unless Parliament expressly dissented from them, no doubt the regulations made by the Department would continue.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Stanley) had stated that the effect of the Amendment was to require the assent of Parliament to these regulations. He did not think that was so at all. As he understood, the rules would be laid on the Table of the House, and would be open to the whole world; and if any Member of the House, or the public

  977
  outside, thought any of them unreasonable or unfair they would criticize them, as they had a right to do. For instance, any Member of the House might dispute their validity by bringing in a Motion in a formal way. He might not, however, have the chance of obtaining a place within 40 days, and so have no opportunity of asking the opinion of the House on the question at all. Still, however that might be, the fact remained that if the Amendment were carried these rules would become public property, and discussions could be carried on—in the newspapers, at any rate—from time to time. At present, however, they did not know what these rules were, and had no means of knowing their contents, except by making a very formal Motion for a Return of Papers, which Government could either grant or not, as it chose. The rules might work great injustice to the recruits; because, without some such provision as this, men, on enlistment, had really no means of knowing the conditions under which they would serve. They were taken before a magistrate and sworn to be members of the British Army, and they were told nothing more. If there was anything objectionable in these rules the recruits should be able to know them, and so to join with their eyes open, and have no cause of complaint afterwards. As the matter stood, great injustice might be done them, and he therefore hoped that his hon. Friend would divide.
  MR. O'DONNELLwas afraid that the last speech of the Secretary of State for War gave a further illustration of the extraordinary tactics to which he had already had recourse. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had evidently not paid the slightest attention either to the Amendment or the arguments by which the hon. Member for Meath supported it. The hon. Gentleman proposed that the orders which the Secretary of State should make should be laid upon the Table of the House; and he also proposed, in the ordinary common form which was usually incorporated with such Motions, that any orders or regulations made in this way should be valid until they were invalidated by a Vote of the House. If he was not very much mistaken, the Secretary of State for War had represented that the effect of the Amendment would be to invalidate any orders during the
  978
  period that they were waiting for validation. That, as he understood, was just what the hon. Member for Meath did not propose, and just exactly what was not contained in his Amendment. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman told them that under the Amendment all orders, and all recruiting returns, and all forms relating to the Department, which came to hand from all the recruiting centres, would have to be laid on the Table of the House. But he under stood the hon. Member for Meath distinctly to propose that only the general and special orders which the Secretary of State made, from time to time, should be laid on the Table. He protested against the right hon. and gallant Gentleman standing up and stating to the Committee, as the views of the hon. Member for Meath, what distinctly were not the views of the hon. Member for Meath, and what was not in the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member, nor contained in any portion of the arguments advanced by the same hon. Member. What could be the object of this sort of tactics? Could the Government believe that their partizan Press would only report the speeches of the Ministerial Benches, and repress all the statements of the Opposition? Were they satisfied that only their extraordinary misconceptions of the statement of the hon. Member would get publicity, and that publicity would be refused the Amendment moved from that side of the House? He could not congratulate the Members of the Government on that policy; and, certainly, he did not think they could congratulate themselves on it. They were told that on the Army Estimates they could demand information upon all these points. They were told to ask for everything on the Army Estimates, and to move every point on the Army Estimates, to raise any number of questions on the Army Estimates. Yet, if they did anything of the kind, they were accused of obstructing Public Business. If they brought forward questions of this kind on the Army Estimates, they were told, again and again —" Why don't you take advantage of the time when Bills are passing through the House, to embody your objections in the form of Amendments? " They were being boxed from legislation to Army Estimates, and from Army Estimates to legislation; and, certainly, it

  979
  seemed to him that the Government was not distinguished for candour, in their representations either on Army Estimates or on Bills going before the House. Let the Government come fairly to the consideration of the matter, and save their time and avoid the policy now inaugurated with double force—first, misunderstanding; secondly, misrepresenting the speeches and Amendments of himself and his hon. Friends. It was not to the advantage of the Business transacted, or to the advantage of the reputation of the Government; and they might be perfectly sure that even if a few partizan journals did follow the hint given them, that could not prevent the facts of the case coming to the knowledge of the country.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEsupported the Amendment, because he thought it was a very reasonable one. He could not understand the objection to place these Returns on the Table. It could not give anybody any trouble, and it would be highly satisfactory to know what the Government had done. The thing had been done previously, with regard to enlistment, in short and long services; and he did not see why the Government should not do it again.
  MR. PARNELLthought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman must have misunderstood the purport of his Amendment, as he had said the effect of it would be to suspend these rules and regulations until Parliament had approved them. Now, as a matter of fact, the effect of the clause in various other Acts, of which this Amendment was a copy, was simply to cause the rules and regulations to be laid on the Table of the House. Any Member had then an opportunity of directing the attention of Parliament to the matter; but nothing more would be done, in all probability, unless some alteration of vital importance had been made in these rules and regulations by Ministers. Rules laid on the Table, in pursuance of a section like this, were seldom or ever challenged; but, still, it was important for Parliament to have the power of checking a Minister, if it desired to do so. It was that power of controlling a Minister which was what the War Office seemed to be very much desirous of evading. Not only in this matter, but in a good many others, it had put itself in an exceptional position as regarded the other Departments. He
  980
  pointed out, a few months ago, that it had evaded the control of the Auditor General for a great many years, and had refused to submit to his audit of its accounts; and now the right hon. and gallant Gentleman refused to submit his Department to Parliament. He told them that they could move for Returns if they wanted them; but how did they know, when they did move for them, that they would get them? The giving of such Returns depended entirely on the Government; and it was very difficult indeed to show a reason why they should be granted before they bad got the Returns. Then, besides, a multitude of questions was continually cropping up, with which it was not to be expected that private Members of Parliament could keep themselves acquainted. But when they had the Papers laid on the Table, any hon. Member could study the rules and regulations, and could direct attention to the matter. To suppose that these orders and rules would be of no effect until they were sanctioned by Parliament was entirely a mistake; for his Amendment specially provided, at the end, that only after a Resolution carried to the contrary should they be of no effect. And that then, even, the Resolution should only take effect as to the future, and should have no effect as to the past. As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had left the matter entirely unanswered, he thought he might accept the Amendment.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, of course, there was a difficulty in following an Amendment when it was not put on the Paper. He was quite willing to accept the correction; but it would not affect his views.
  MR. PARNELLreplied, that he had already apologized for not having put his Amendments on the Paper, and nobody regretted more than he did that he had not been able to do so. He was conscious that it was exceedingly inconvenient to the Committee; but it was also evident that his Amendments must suffer more or less from this fact, because the Committee did not thoroughly understand them. There were also many Members who were not in the House when he explained them; and, therefore, did not know what they were about, and, consequently, voted more or less blindly. However, the points in

  981
  this Amendment were so palpable that, after he had ventured to direct the attention of the Committee to them, he did expect the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would have accepted it.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that whatever might be the ultimate judgment of the country upon this discussion, it was very desirable that they should have correct information. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath had been very much mis-stated by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman; but they now knew exactly what that proposition was, in clear and definite terms. It was a very important point, founded on Acts of Parliament already passed by the House. In the last Division the Government had refused to put the rules and regulations in the Schedule of the Bill, and the Committee, siding with them, had endorsed their view. The proposition now was, that as the Government would not place these rules in the Schedule of the Act, to give an opportunity of judging of their scope and character that they should be laid upon the Table of the House. So that if Parliament should disagree with anything in them, Parliament might have the power of annulling the order. That was so very simple and plain a proposition that it did not seem necessary to him to write it down in black and white, in order that it might commend itself to intelligent comprehension. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, unfortunately, had not seen his way to accept this proposal; and, consequently, they were placed in this position—that if they assented to the proposition, the control of Parliament on this subject was not valuable at all. On the other hand, if there was anything which Parliament viewed with suspicion, and of which Parliament had always been distrustful, it was the power of the Army, and the power of the military authorities. The Constitution was interlaced. with provisions designed to prevent the civil power from being made subject to the Army. And it, therefore, followed, on strictly Constitutional principles, that there was more need for Parliament retaining control over the proceedings of the War Office than over the proceedings of the Home Office. Yet they assented to this proposition. Whilst they would not trust the Home Secretary in the administration of Home affairs, they were willing to trust the
  982
  War Secretary in the administration o the Army. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath took very good care that every word and syllable of his Amendment should be justified by precedent; for he went to the Factory Acts for it, and took from one of them the Amendment now before the House. Ho would appeal to anyone, who might think it worth while to follow their proceedings, whether they should surrender this principle unless they were prepared also to surrender a great Constitutional principle? It was a matter very similar to the proposition brought forward by Sir Boyle Roche, in the Irish Parliament, when he said that he was in favour of the abolition of the whole of the Constitution, in order to save the remainder. In the same way, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in order that he might pass a clause of this Bill, was in favour of abolishing, or, at any rate, of refusing to recognize, a very important Constitutional principle which had been deemed to be necessary in reference to prisons, factories, and places of that kind. He failed to see on what grounds the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could justify this extremely unconstitutional position, and he trusted his hon. Friend would divide. These Divisions were not a very enlightened way of settling a question; and it would be far better, instead of marching up and down the Lobby, if the Government were to act in a spirit of intelligent compromise. This proposition was brought forward by Gentlemen distinguished by their services for the Army in connection with legislation and matters of this kind. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne), who had differed from them on the last occasion, had now announced his support of the present proposition; and, as an officer in the Army, he was well entitled to have his views heard on the subject. As a Member of the Committee, also, he had devoted considerable time to it, and ought to have his views considered. When he urged a policy of intelligent compromise on the Government, he did not mean to say at all that they should accept propositions made by persons who knew nothing at all of the matter; but he did think the Government should recognize proposals brought forward by persons who had devoted themselves to the consideration of these matters, and whose Amendments

  983
  were based on sound Constitutional principles.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 148: Majority 115.—(Div. List, No. 138.)
  MR. O'DONNELLobserved, that this clause gave power to the Secretary of State to make all the regulations he might choose with regard to troops; and the Government had refused to give any information whatever as to what these regulations would be, and they had even refused to submit them to the House as they were made from time to time. He could not but think that this was treating the question in anything but a serious view. The Amendments moved were not even attended to by the responsible official; and the Government simply seemed to be actuated by a desire to pass the Bill through the House just as it stood. This was not a serious way of legislating; and it seemed to him that they wanted to treat the matter in an Opera Bouffe spirit, just as they had treated University legislation. He was not going to take a Division against the clause; but he should vote against it, and he should negative it, in order to give Members an opportunity of expressing a conviction that this was not the right way to deal with important questions.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 90 (Justices of the peace for the purposes of enlistment).
  MR. PARNELLmoved, in page 49, line 35, to leave out " although he is not," and insert " provided he is."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he had a similar Amendment lower down; to leave out from "although he is appointed, &c.," down to "Act," in line 39, inclusive.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. O'DONNELLmoved, in page 50, line 11, to leave out the sub-section. This paragraph was merely a survival of the time when there was no such thing as Foreign Enlistment Acts, prohibiting the enlistment of soldiers in foreign dominions. It was all very well for the House to say that soldiers should
  984
  be attested within the United Kingdom and the British Colonies; but it was a very difficult thing when it was done outside the limit of Her Majesty's Dominions; and, if he was not very much mistaken, they had no power to do anything of the kind. It was tried in Washington, during the Crimean War; but the United States Government objected, and the proceedings of the British Representative were very summarily stopped. There was hardly a country, at the present time, in the civilized world in which Foreign Enlistment Acts were not in vogue; yet, by this Act, they authorized an official, accredited to a particular Government, and bound to observe the rules of the country, and to respect the laws of the country, to violate these laws by enlisting soldiers. All these Governments prohibited foreign enlistments; yet this clause allowed the British Consul, or similar official, to violate that law. He, therefore, begged to move the rejection of the paragraph.
  COLONEL STANLEYwas quite aware that these powers were not put into very frequent use. At the same time, he did not think that a reason to strike them out of the Bill. Unless he had totally misapprehended the hon. Gentleman, he only referred to the enlistment of foreigners. This sub-section would apply to enlistment abroad of a British subject, and, therefore, subject to the enlistment laws of the country. Then, again, if he referred to the next clause, he would find that persons who were aliens might be enlisted up to a certain number in Her Majesty's Regular Forces. For both these cases, he apprehended, it would be necessary to have this clause; and he thought the words ought to be left in. Of course, the policy of Englishmen in foreign States was another question.
  MR. PARNELLthought this was a very old-fashioned clause, entirely obsolete and out of date, and, therefore, one which might be done away with. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had said that the powers given by it were not often exercised; but, for his part, he believed they never were, at any rate, since the Foreign Enlistment Acts. It would, certainly, be extremely dangerous to enlist even British subjects, for complications might arise. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had

  985
  referred them to the next clause, and asked them how they would enlist aliens, unless the Consul in foreign parts had this power? But it would clearly be a breach of the Enlistment Act to enlist an alien; and he presumed the object of Clause 91 was to enable the Government to enlist aliens in this country, or within the jurisdiction of Her Majesty. He really thought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman might give up the sub-section, for it was never used at the present time. It was exceedingly unnecessary, and, on more than one occasion, it had given rise to complications. He remembered that when Sir John Graham, at Washington, during the Crimean War, did take a prominent part in enlisting men in New York, and other American States, for the Crimean War, the United States Government complained; and their complaint had such force, that the Government found it necessary to recall Sir John Graham.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he would not divide on the question, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would undertake to introduce some words providing that this clause should not be used in any country where there was legislation against foreign enlistment.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, it could not be.
  MR. O'DONNELL,if that was so, would withdraw his objection.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEmoved, in page 50, line 15, after "officer," to insert "on full-pay." If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to Clause 166, he would find that amongst officers, under military law, were included officers on half-pay, retired-pay, and otherwise. It appeared to him very undesirable, if that was the case, that officers on full-pay should be prevented from attesting recruits; because they were the very officers who would be able to give a man information of the nature of the Service—what regiments were abroad, what regiments were likely to go abroad, and how long they were likely to stay. They would also be able to contradict any popular delusions which were prevalent with regard to the Army. There was one, very commonly believed for many years—that deserters were
  986
  branded with a hot iron. A man desirous of enlisting would be able to get correct information on such a subject from an officer who was serving in Her Majesty's Service.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, when they came to Clause 166, he might have to ask the Committee to listen to some observations on the subject, dealing with the whole question of full and half-pay.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, this Amendment had raised a very important question, and he conceived that the difficulty could only be settled by dealing with the whole question of half-pay. It had never been the custom for officers on full-pay, or, in other words, officers who were amenable to military law, to attest recruits. That had been held to be entirely a civil duty. If the Government intended to press the clause which put officers on half-pay under the Mutiny Act, they certainly must alter this clause. It was most desirable to keep enlistment in the hands of civilians; and, at present, officers on half-pay were considered to be civilians.
  MR. PARNELLhoped the Government would accept the Amendment, because it really was very important that there should be an independent tribunal concerned in the enlistment of the recruits. Even officers on half-pay might have a bias; and it was very desirable that they should only have civil magistrates to deal with the matter. It would be far better than to leave the clause as it stood.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. PARNELLasked whether the word " soldiers " meant only soldiers of the Regular Forces, or soldiers belonging also to the Auxiliary Forces? because, if it were the former, he should have to move, in line 16, to insert, after " soldiers," the words "of the Regular and Auxiliary Forces."
  COLONEL STANLEYreplied that if the hon. Member would look at Clause 180, he would see that the word " soldier" included—
  " Any person belonging to Her Majesty's Regular, Reserve, or Auxiliary Forces, and who is, for the time being, subject to military law."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Special Provisions as to Persons to be Enlisted.
  Clause 91 (Enlistment of foreigners and negroes).
  MR. PARNELLmoved to leave out the words—
  " So, however, that the number of aliens serving together at any one time in any corps of the Regular Forces shall not exceed the proportion of one alien to every fifty British subjects, and that an alien so enlisted shall not be capable of holding any higher rank in Her Majesty's Regular Forces than that of a warrant officer or non-commissioned officer."
  This was one of the old parts of the Mutiny Act, and it was entirely unnecessary now.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, this was a clause of somewhat antiquated character, and he hoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would give them some information on the subject. Whether it was desirable that the proportion of aliens to British subjects should be one in 50 was for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to judge, and he would not express an opinion on the subject; but he wanted to know what was the exact meaning of the second portion of the clause, which said that negroes and persons of colour might be enlisted? What did the right hon. and gallant Gentleman understand by the words "persons of colour?" Did it include an Afghan, or did it apply to a Belooch, or an Arab? This was really a matter of very practical and pressing importance, for the Government must be very well aware that there were very many Afghans in Her Majesty's Service. They were, of course, principally employed in the Indian Forces, to which this Act did not apply; but there were many Belooches and Arabs employed by Native Powers on the coast of Africa; and, supposing Her Majesty should desire to employ on that coast a corps of these Belooches, which was an event not at all improbable, could she enlist them under the clause of this Bill? Were these words meant to draw a definite and intelligible line as regarded the question of persons of colour, or was it meant to apply to negroes alone? He should very much like to know what was the meaning of the law. Also, he believed some aliens were now employed as officers in Her Majesty's Service; and
  988
  he should like to know if it was the case that, while they might be employed as officers, an alien, when employed as a soldier, was debarred from ever rising to the condition of officer, under any circumstances whatever?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, that, in his opinion, the words "negroes, or persons of colour" meant a negro, or something like a negro—such as an octoroon or a quadroon—and that Arabs, and the other persons mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, would not come within the meaning of the clause. He would leave the question of the policy of the clause to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War.
  MR. PARNELLasked whether Zulus would come within the meaning of the term "person of colour?"
  COLONEL STANLEYreplied, that the term "person of colour" had always by custom been interpreted in the sense in which it was interpreted by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. As regarded the policy of not allowing an alien to hold higher rank than warrant officer or non-commissioned officer, there had always been a considerable, and not an unnatural, jealousy against employing, in positions of trust connected with the Regular Forces, those who were not natives of the country. Personally, he saw no special reason why, under certain circumstances, aliens might not rise to ranks higher than those named in the Bill; but it had always been held that those ranks were sufficient to cover the ordinary run of men who were likely to enlist; and, inasmuch as the limitation had not been found to work unfavourably, he could find no reason for making the change in the clause which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Meath.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, it would seem to be a hard case that a negro, or a man of colour, should be precluded from arriving at the rank of commissioned officer. The hon. and learned Attorney General had given, no doubt, the best opinion as to the meaning of the words "person of colour;" but, from the tone in which it had been delivered, he (Sir George Campbell) thought it was one which admitted of very considerable doubt. He foresaw that great difficulty might arise if the clause was passed in its pre-

  989
  sent form. At the same time, it was very hard that Her Majesty's Government should be debarred from enlisting in the Colonies the persons to which it referred. Under the circumstances, therefore, he suggested that the clause should be postponed, with a view to its further consideration.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTpointed out that the clause only applied to the Regular Forces; and that, if the limitation of number was withdrawn, the Crown might be able to bring into this country Forces mainly composed of aliens, which he, for one, did not wish to encourage, or see done. It was all very well to allow the Colonial Forces to be recruited by Natives; but, by constituting the Regular Army of aliens, they might have a Force like the Turcos brought into England, which, in his opinion, the people would not like. He was certainly unwilling to give the Secretary of State for War such a power. He did not think that the Proviso gave unlimited power to enlist negroes, but that it was to be read with the principal clause in the sense that if the negroes were aliens they were to be limited in number. There was no greater licence to enlist alien negroes than any other people who were aliens. The Proviso had been only put in its present form to prevent these persons being treated as slaves; it was, practically, a provision against slavery. In his opinion, the Proviso was subject to the limitation in the principal part of the clause, and he could see no reason why any power should be placed in the hands of the Crown to fill the ranks of the Regular Army with aliens when brought into this country. Therefore, for his own part, he proposed to admit the clause as it stood.
  MR. O'DONNELLread the clause as not guarding against the possibility suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt). It appeared to him that the clause might be passed; and yet that the Regular Army might, practically, be crammed with persons who, in race and sentiment, were really aliens. Were not the Punjabees, Ghoorkas, and other British subjects in India, aliens? He thought there would be a very strong feeling in this country against having the martial races of India in the Regular Army; but the Government could get any quantity of these people, who, as soon
  990
  as their territories were added to our Empire, ceased to be aliens, and could be crammed into the regiments. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Kircaldy (Sir George Campbell), that the term "person of colour," made use of in the Proviso to the clause, was singularly obsolete and difficult, and that it ought not to be introduced. At the time this Proviso was originally made, negroes everywhere outside the British Dominions were liable to be treated as slaves, and an Act was, therefore, passed to say that whenever a negro enlisted in the Army he should be treated as a British subject. Now, however, a negro might be a fully protected citizen of the United States, and to treat him as a British subject might involve very unpleasant consequences. He thought the first part of the clause might be allowed to pass without amendment; although he felt it to be ungenerous, after allowing aliens to enter the ranks, to say they should not rise higher than the rank of warrant officer, or non-commissioned officer. But the fact was, a number of German gentleman, connected with the Royal Family, who, but for that connection would be aliens, were not only officers, but held positions of command in the Army. He spoke with the utmost respect for the Royal Family, and treated this question quite seriously; but could not help thinking that this system might not merely be limited to connections of the Royal Family, but extended, say, to numbers of the Polish nobility in exile here, or others only technically aliens. Provision ought also to be made by a new clause against the enlistment of the Natives of India in the Regular Forces. He intended, at the proper time, himself to propose to amend the clause relating to negroes, by leaving out the word "although," in line 27, and inserting, after the word " dominions," in line 28, " in a country where slavery prevails." He could not but think that the Government would withdraw what seemed to be an ungenerous restriction against coloured aliens being rewarded for their services in saying that they should not rise higher than the rank of non-commissioned officer. If the Government would consent to strike out that limitation, the limitation as to number might be agreed to.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, that he was in

  991
  clined to think that any number of alien negroes might be enlisted, and might serve; but the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) having interpreted the section in a contrary sense, he was doubtful whether or not he (the Attorney General) had placed upon it a right construction.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, the matter was one about which there ought to be no doubt whatever. His disposition was to bow to the opinion of the hon. and learned Attorney General; but, at the same time, he could not but think that the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford was deserving of consideration. But, seeing no object in pressing the clause forward at that moment, he thought it should be postponed. He could not understand why, if aliens were allowable in the Army, any restriction should be placed upon their promotion, although, of course, he could see why their number should be limited. He suggested that the clause should be postponed, and re-drafted in a manner which would leave no room whatever for doubt.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTdoubted whether the Proviso was wanted; but hoped it would not be necessary to postpone the clause.
  COLONEL STANLEYthought that the Proviso might be dispensed with, if the Committee saw no objection to that course; but, perhaps, he might be allowed to make a note of the point, in order to see what was its real bearing, and refer to it on Report. With regard to aliens not being allowed to rise to higher rank than that mentioned in the clause, if the Committee were in favour of striking out the words in question, he had no objection. He admitted that the system of allowing them to rise higher in the Service might be open to abuse; but he confessed that he went a little further than some people, in the hope that such persons might be found fitted to rise in the ranks. The Committee would have to bear in mind that Parliament had passed a special Act for the purpose of dealing with foreign legions.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTheld that if these words were struck out the Crown might make all the aliens in the Regular Forces, in the proportion of one in 50, officers at once. The question involved a good deal more than the promotion of aliens to the rank of officers;
  992
  and he was too old a Whig to give the Crown such unlimited powers. No wonder the Secretary of State for War was ready to accept these powers. There was no Secretary of State for War who would not be willing to receive such a boon at the hands of the Liberal Party. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) would really be giving power to the Crown which, since the days of William III., had never been heard of for a moment. He (Sir William Harcourt) was much too old a Whig to hear of such a thing.
  MR. RYLANDSthought, after listening to the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, that the Amendment had better not be made.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLwished to ask, whether, at the present time, an alien could be appointed by commission in the British Army?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLDER)expressed the opinion that aliens could not be appointed officers by direct commission without having first ceased to be aliens.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the provision, after all, appeared to have been introduced for the purpose of guarding against a state of things in English history which was not likely to re-occur. On the other hand, there were dangers existing, and which were likely to exist in future, which could not be guarded against. It had been pointed out that they might have negroes, Zulus, and all kinds of people in the Regular Army if his Amendment were accepted; but there was nothing in the world which would prevent our having them in the Regular Forces now—that was to say, as soon as they become British subjects. When Zululand was conquered, there was no reason why Zulus should not enter the Army; and all that was necessary to their obtaining the highest position in the regiment was that they should become naturalized British subjects. He referred to this subject, in order to show that the possibility involved in the objections taken to his Amendment existed already. Many persons had so risen in the Service; and, owing to the vast extent of the Empire, there was hardly a people of colour in the world who could not be brought into the Army, if the Government felt so inclined. It was clear that the Committee were asked to retain an

  993
  old provision of the Mutiny Act, merely because it was devised against an old danger.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. O'DONNELLdid not think the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) would be gained by the limitation upon aliens which existed in the clause, which provided that none of those persons who enlisted as private soldiers, no matter what might be their country, could become officers. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the clause guarded against aliens being brought into this country in the Regular Forces. But it was held that Her Majesty could naturalize an alien, and that a naturalized subject could become an officer; so that any number of these foreigners getting naturalized could be made officers, and the provision would not apply, because they were not aliens when they were made officers. Therefore, he (Mr. O'Donnell) ventured to say that while this clause did effectually bar the promotion of aliens who entered the Service as privates, it did not at all affect the possibly large number of aliens who might be first naturalized, then made officers, and afterwards raised, by the favour of the Crown, to the very highest ranks in the Army.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTpointed out that a foreigner, except by special Act of Parliament, could not be naturalized unless he had been resident in the country for five years.
  MR. O'DONNELLreplied, that having satisfied that condition, and being capable of naturalization, they could become officers, and, therefore, no safeguard was given under the clause. He ventured to point out that while there was distinct power in the clause against the promotion of poor men, there was really none against any number of wellborn foreigners being made officers; and the opinions of these might be just as disagreeable to the country as those of poorer men.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLthought it would be very desirable that it should be made clear that the restraint on Her Majesty against employing alien officers should not be confined to the ranks; and, therefore, he would propose to leave out the words " so enlisted," in line 24, page 50, which would prevent any alien,
  994
  whether appointed from the ranks or by commission, from holding the position of officer in the Regular Forces.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaw no objection to leaving out the words.
  MR. BIGGARthought that no aliens should be allowed to enter the Army at all. At the time of the Crimean War he remembered to have seen the German Legion, and from their appearance he was by no means impressed with the idea that it was a good thing to have them serving with the Army. On the contrary, he came to the conclusion that the money spent upon them had been thrown away. He held that the Army should be a British Army, and not an Army of aliens, either in a large or small degree, and thought that it would be best to withdraw the clause altogether.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, there was great force in the observations of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell); but he trusted that the Amendment would not then be pressed. Perhaps the hon. Member would allow the matter to stand over until the Report; and, in the meantime, it should be considered.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLdesired nothing more than that the clause should be made clear. He had no opinion, one way or the other, with regard to it.
  MR. PARNELLsuggested that the clause should be withdrawn, and that Sir Henry Thring should be allowed to exercise his great talent upon it; the Committee would then have a clause in the Bill which would meet the exigencies of the present day. He did not agree with the proposal of the hon. and learned Attorney General, that the clause should be postponed for further consideration, because the Committee would not be able to consider it on Report at all. If any Amendment was necessary, he was sure that Sir Henry Thring would produce a clause that would be satisfactory to the Committee.
  Sin GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, it was only a question of drafting, and the matter could be left until Report; but he asked the Government seriously to consider whether they were prepared to withdraw the latter part of the clause, which related to persons of colour; because if it was left out of the Bill it would, in his opinion, be quite impossible to keep up the Colonial Forces.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the points raised were matters of drafting, as had been very truly pointed out by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell); but they were of a kind that it would not be safe to introduce at a moment's notice. He should be better satisfied to look into the whole question before Report, and preferred that the Amendment should stand over.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he had to move an Amendment, at the end of line 26—namely, to add the words—" And the same restrictions shall apply to Natives of Asia and Africa, not of European descent." If the country was not to have aliens in the Army, ho could not see why there should be any distinction made between technical aliens belonging to a foreign country and the large masses of people without any sense of loyalty to our Government, except a mere acquiescence in the authority of that which was strong. He held that these were as much aliens as the former; and failed to see why the Secretary of State for War should not immediately admit that the same restrictions with regard to the admission of aliens should also apply to the admission of Asiatics or Africans in the Regular Army. The Punjaubee, Ghoorka, Mahratta, Kaffir, or Zulu—all these people might become our fellow-subjects technically, but they should not be eligible for service in the British Army; because its character would be disordered by the presence of any considerable number of such men. He, therefore, thought it worth while to provide against the introduction of the Natives of Asia and Africa who, though technically our fellow-subjects, were, in reality, nothing of the kind.
  COLONEL STANLEYthought it would be a mistake to insert the words proposed, which would give rise to great difficulties in the attempt to settle whether the persons in question were of European descent or not. The endeavour to trace the genealogy of a negro would be a matter involving some difficulty.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the Amendment guarded against a more practical and serious danger than that which was guarded against by the clause—namely, the bringing over of the Natives of India or South Africa and their enlistment in
  996
  the regular regiments, as well as their forming part of the garrisons in those countries. There was nothing to prevent regiments from being filled up with Natives and being brought back to this country; and in that way, practically speaking, a very much more dangerous power was given to the Crown than that which the clause sought to guard against. The power given to the Government to enlist aliens, in the proportion of one to every 50 British subjects, was most objectionable; but as the question was a novel one, he suggested that it would be better to give Notice of a new clause, so that the Committee might have an opportunity of considering whether it was right to leave to the Crown the power of recruiting to any extent in South Africa, or in any other Colony which we might annex.
  MR. O'DONNELLproposed to amend his proposed Amendment, by leaving out the word "descent," in order to insert the word "parentage," which would render unnecessary the genealogical researches alluded to by the Secretary of State for War.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, this would not entirely remove the difficulty, because the parentage of Natives was sometimes doubtful. He wished to point out an important consideration bearing upon this matter. Hon. Members were aware that each country engaged that its subjects should not enlist in foreign Armies. The consequence of this would be that if aliens were enlisted in the Army, the Government to which they belonged would have the right of recalling them from the Service at any time; and no Government could refuse this demand, because it would be a violation of neutrality to do so. This would be a conclusive reason why, at the very moment they wanted them, aliens would have to be dismissed from the Service, and a very strong reason why they should not become officers in our Army; because if they found the regiments deprived of their officers by the demand of a foreign Government, it would destroy their organization altogether. Therefore, he thought this legislation with regard to aliens must be maintained. He was as unwilling as anyone to see this country filled with regiments of Ghoorkas, enlisted as British subjects; but Parliament had always its controlling

  997
  hand upon them, and therefore he was not afraid of that occurring. He objected to the Amendment on the ground that it drew an invidious and odious distinction between different classes of British subjects.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. O'DONNELLmoved to leave out the word "although," in page 50, line 27, and after the word "dominions," in line 28, to insert the words "in any country where slavery prevails." This would merely have the effect of bringing the section down to the requirements of the present day. When the section was first passed there was a chance that a person of colour, born outside Her Majesty's Dominions, might be treated as a slave; but that was now impossible in most civilized States. The Proviso, as it stood, would raise the difficulty mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt); and they might have a demand made upon them by foreign States for the return of persons of colour serving in the ranks of our Army; and he (Mr. O'Donnell) could not see why an alien negro should have the powers which were denied to an alien European.
  Amendment proposed, in page 50, line 27, to leave out the word "although."—(MR. O'Donnell.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'although' stand part of the Clause."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTagain asked the Government to re-consider their decision in this matter. There was no reason whatever to place negroes, or other persons of colour, in a different position to other aliens. If they were British subjects, they could be enlisted like other British subjects; and if they were not British subjects, they must be aliens, and should be treated as such. He could not see why a special provision was necessary to deal with persons of colour, or why negroes were to be treated in a different manner from white men. So far as he could see, the clause only provided that every negro, or person of colour, born out of Her Majesty's Dominions, who had enlisted, should be entitled to all the privileges of a British subject. He must again repeat that if negroes were British subjects, no special authority was needed to
  998
  enlist them, for they could be enlisted like anyone else; and if not British subjects, they must be aliens, and their enlistment should be governed by the general provisions relating to aliens. This Proviso was founded on the 56th clause of the old Mutiny Act, and was totally unnecessary.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLtrusted that if the Government could not see their way to altering this clause now, they would give an assurance that, if possible, it should be done upon Report. They might debate all night upon this matter without coming to any satisfactory conclusion, as things stood at present. He thought it was very desirable that the Government should make up their minds upon this matter, and decide this question one way or another.
  MR. PARNELLwas of opinion that this clause should be postponed. There was some reason why the clause should be altered from the way in which it originally stood, because when the provision in the Mutiny Act, upon which it was founded, was passed, slavery existed in many parts of the world. Probably, the reason for this clause in the old Mutiny Act was that it enabled slaves to escape, and, by enlisting, obtain protection in the British Army. But, as it stood at present, the Proviso did not accomplish that object; and, really, it was only a compromise between the draftsman of the Bill and the Government. The Government appeared to want to retain the old form, and the draftsman seemed to have inserted it, although with the opinion that it was absolutely unnecessary; and so between the two a hash had been made. He thought there was considerable force in the argument of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), and perhaps it would be well to retain a power to enlist slaves who had escaped from countries where slavery existed, and had enlisted into the British Army. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) was of opinion that the Proviso was totally unnecessary, and, in his opinion, seemed to be based upon the idea that slavery did not exist at all. Under the circumstances, he thought it would save time if the clause were postponed until the Government had made up its mind as to what to do in the matter. He should, therefore, suggest

  999
  that the Government should postpone the clause, in order to save further discussion then.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, that it seemed to him that they could do without the introduction of this clause into the Bill, as they had ample power already to enlist persons from countries where slavery still prevailed. The Proviso only gave persons who enlisted in the British Army the privilege of British soldiers while serving with the Colours. He did not think that there was any necessity for doing that by this Proviso.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that this clause only threw the protection of British citizenship around the negro while actually serving in the British Forces. When the negro had served in the British Army, and had left it, the protection of British citizenship should be around him still, in any part of the world in which he might settle. It seemed very ungracious to say, as this clause in effect did, that negroes should be protected while serving in the British Army, but when they had left our Service they might be compelled to fall back into slavery. He did not think that could be the intention of the Government, and thought the best plan would be to omit this Proviso.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had promised to consider this clause before Report; and if he arrived at the conclusion that it ought to be left out, then it would be left out of the Bill. There were some points in connection with this Proviso which had not been touched upon by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford. It might be that the meaning and intention of this Proviso was that a greater number of negro aliens should be allowed to enlist in the Army than the proportion provided in the former portion of the clause—namely, one alien to every 50 British subjects. But, still, it was desirable that there should be inquiry into this matter; and he would not express any definite opinion as to the clause. If there were ultimately found to be no practical necessity for the provision, and no necessity for enlisting a greater number of negro aliens than one in 50, then he thought that the Proviso might be altogether
  1000
  dispensed with. It was a subject which required reflection, and Her Majesty's Government ought to have an opportunity of consulting those practically acquainted with the matter before coming to any decision upon it. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) seemed to consider that if the negro subject of any foreign State entered Her Majesty's Service, he would only be entitled to the privileges of a British subject while actually serving in Her Majesty's Forces. No State could complain of one of its subjects, while serving in Her Majesty's Army, being entitled to the same privileges as a British subject. The clause, however, did not make such persons British subjects, but only gave them certain rights while serving in Her Majesty's Army. It seemed to him that the suggestion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, to consider this matter and to deal with it on Report, was reasonable; and he hoped that the Committee would allow the clause to be passed on that understanding.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that if the hon. Member for Dungarvan pressed his Motion to a Division, he should certainly vote with him. This Proviso was, so far as he could understand, contrary to every principle of International Law. It declared that the negro should be liable to be enlisted into Her Majesty's Army, and be entitled to all the privileges of a natural-born English subject, and in that way he was placed in a different category from any other alien. Let them take the case of a white American, and of a black American. The white American was an alien as to whom it was not declared that he could be lawfully enlisted, and enlisted to the privileges of a natural-born British subject; but if a black American were enlisted, he was made subject to an entirely different rule. With reference to an American subject, the American Government could say that he was a citizen of their State, and should not be enlisted, and must be allowed to return to his country. There was nothing whatever in this clause to prevent that being done in regard to a white American; but the black was dealt with in an entirely different way. If the intention of the clause was to deal with every citizen of

  1001
  foreign States as a natural-born British subject, the Government were entirely wrong. They had no right whatever to enlist a black American subject, and to put him in a different category to other aliens. If the Government contested this point, he should go to a Division against them.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, that his hon. and learned Friend was quite right in saying that the same provision should be applicable both to white and to black aliens. The difference that existed between the two was this—that there was a practical necessity for allowing a greater number of alien negroes to enlist in the Army than of any other kind of aliens. That was the practical question which his right hon. and gallant Friend would have to consider. It did seem to him to be eminently reasonable to allow this clause to pass, and then to let the Government see whether the Proviso could be altogether dispensed with and struck out.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that, no doubt, the object of the provision, with regard to negro aliens, was not so much with regard to enlistment in America as in certain Colonies in the West Indies. In his opinion, this clause was perfectly unworkable, and he should vote for its rejection, unless an undertaking were given that it should be dealt with on Report.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, there might be some necessity for making provision for the enlistment of negroes into West India regiments. The negroes who would be enlisted into these regiments would be, many of them, persons who had escaped from barbarous States where slavery still prevailed. There was no reason to enlist black aliens belonging to the United States of America. The Amendment, which he was desirous of proposing, provided for this contingency, and exactly met the case of negroes born out of Her Majesty's Dominions, and in a country where slavery prevailed. By that provision the enlistment of negroes from the United States would be prevented; but they would be enabled to enlist the subjects of the King of Dahomey, or the King of Bonney, or other countries where slavery now existed. There was nothing in international comity which should make them protect the claims of slave holders.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 65; Noes 18: Majority 47. — (Div. List, No. 139.)
  MR. O'DONNELLdid not wish to move another Amendment then; but he should like to ask for some explanation as to the manner in which negroes who had been enlisted into the British Army were to be treated after they had left the Army. It was provided that negroes from slaveholding countries were to be treated as natural-born subjects, so long as they were in our Forces. He should like to know whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would insert a Proviso that a negro who had passed through our Service should afterwards retain the privileges of a natural-born English subject? If this country protected the negro while he was in its Service, it ought also to protect him afterwards. He might be a pensioner, and consider himself still in the Service of this country; but if he had served any time in the British Army, he ought always to have the protection of a British subject around him.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he had no objection to take the point suggested by the hon. Member into consideration. He could not, however, give any promise with regard to the matter now, for it would involve some very nice principles of International Law if any alteration were made. The hon. Gentleman would observe, however, that a man while serving in the British Army acquired the status of a British subject, but was not made one. He would, however, consider the point of International Law which arose in the matter.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 92 (Liability of apprentices enlisting) struck out.
  Clause 93 (Claims of masters to apprentices) agreed to.
  Clause 94 (Application of apprentice provisions to indentured labourers) agreed to.

  Offences as to Enlistment.
  Clause 95 (Penalty on unlawful recruiting) agreed to.
  Clause 96 (Recruits punishable for false answers).
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that he had a small Amendment to make in this

  1003
  clause. It was provided by the clause that any person who made a false answer to any question in the attestation paper should be liable to certain punishments. He thought it would be right to insert, after the word "person," the word "wilfully," in order to provide that the false answer to be punishable should be wilfully made.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that he did not like the word "wilfully;" but if the hon. Gentleman would withdraw that Amendment, he would consent to insert the word "knowingly."
  Amendment (Mr. Parnell), by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment (Mr. Assheton Cross) agreed to.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he had a further Amendment to propose—namely, to leave out the words " at the discretion of the competent military authority." The clause would then run—
  "If a person guilty of an offence under this section has been attested as a soldier of the regular forces, he shall be liable to be proceeded against before a court of summary jurisdiction, or to be tried by court martial for the offence."
  His reason for moving to omit those words from the clause was to provide that every person who had been enlisted should not be tried before a military court for an offence committed before his enlistment. He should move, subsequently, an Amendment to insure that the offender was only prosecuted before a court of summary jurisdiction. It could not be right that a person who was entirely ignorant of military law should be punished by a military tribunal.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, that the Amendment seemed to him to be much the same as the present Mutiny Bill; but, so far as his recollection went, a person who committed an offence under this section was usually only tried by the military authorities after being six months in the Army. He believed that Clause 48 of the Mutiny Act was similar to this provision. He thought that if the present practice were made the law, and words were introduced into this clause providing that where an offence was discovered before six months had elapsed, it should be dealt with by the Civil Courts, and, after that time, twice by the military authorities, then practical
  1004
  justice would be obtained, and they would be keeping to the old rule.
  MR. A. H. BROWNremarked, that when an offence was discovered and punished immediately after attestation, the civil courts would probably deal with it; but, where it was only discovered when the offender had been some time in the Army, then the offence would be dealt with by the military authorities.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was much of the same opinion as the hon. Member who had just spoken.
  Mr. PARNELLthought that the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) had mistaken the intention of this Amendment. His object was to provide that, in the case of a person who had not been a soldier, but had only been attested, that he should be tried by the civil authorities, instead of the military authorities. A man, who was not a soldier at the time he committed the offence, ought not to be tried by any but a Civil Court. He might observe that there were offences which this Bill made triable by a court martial which could very well be tried by Courts of Civil Judicature. He did hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would agree to the Amendment; for it was a very reasonable thing to say that when a recruit made a false answer on his attestation paper, before the process of enlistment was completed, he should be punished by a Civil Court.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSwould be very sorry if the old manner of enlistment were revived. The whole process of enlistment had now been so completely altered, and had been surrounded by so many safeguards, that he did not think that there was the smallest necessity for this Amendment, and he, therefore, hoped that it would not be pressed.
  MR. BIGGARagreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Meath, in thinking that it was only fair that the Civil Courts should try a man for an offence committed while he was still a civilian.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYwas very much of the same opinion as the hon. Member for Wenlock (Mr. A. H. Brown). Supposing a man was discovered to have committed the offence within six months after the attestation, it might be provided that he should only then be tried by a Civil Court; but that if discovered at the end of six months, then there was no reason

  1005
  why he should not be dealt with by a competent military authority, who might send him over to the civil tribunal, or deal with him itself.
  MAJOR NOLANobserved, that the only false answer that could be practically given, under this clause, would be the answer with respect to age. Other false answers in the attestation paper would be dealt with under other clauses, by which much more heavy penalties were inflicted. The matter was not, therefore, of much practical importance.
  MR. O'DONNELLremarked, that under this Bill severely graduated penalties were provided to follow conviction by courts martial. Under Clause 80, a man who was sentenced to a certain term of imprisonment was liable to general service, and might be sent abroad—that was, he would be made to undergo penal servitude. There was a danger, if this clause were retained, that the court martial might give a man sufficient imprisonment to qualify him for penal foreign service, in addition to his sentence. There was a great tendency in the Bill to attach penal consequences to sentences by courts martial. A man would find, under the Bill, that the result of having got so much punishment was that he was liable to other penal consequences of some kind. Therefore, he thought that they ought to provide, by this clause, that an offence committed while a man was a civilian should be dealt with, not by a court martial, but by a civil tribunal.
  MR. PARNELLsuggested that the period should be limited to six months, and that a Proviso should be inserted, securing that the offence should also have been discovered within six months; otherwise, they might have a military authority discovering the offence, and yet not bringing the man to trial within six months after. He begged to withdraw his other Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERobserved, that this discussion had suggested to him an Amendment which appeared to be very necessary in this clause. He would suggest that the word " soldier " should be substituted for the word "person," and that would make it clear what they aimed at. The sub-section would then run thus—
  1006
  "If a soldier guilty of an offence under this section has been attested as a soldier of the regular forces, he shall be liable, at the discretion of the competent military authority, to be proceeded against before a court of summary jurisdiction, or to be tried by court martial for the offence."
  He thought that carried out the original intention of the clause.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)pointed out that in the Definition Clause this point was dealt with.
  MAJOR NOLANobserved, that when they did come to the definitions, they would have to go back a very long way. The Solicitor General was perfectly right in saying that at present the clause did include this matter; but the word " soldier " would probably give rise to a very important discussion; and, therefore, they ought not to trust much to the present definition. He was sure they would have very great difficulty when they came to the Definition Clause.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONwould really like to understand whether the recruit was liable to be taken before a magistrate and sworn in the very minute that he had been enlisted, and that no time at all was to be allowed for reflection? It was a very serious change to make; for ever since the year 1688 it had always been laid down that 24 hours must pass before the attestation. That was contained in the very first Mutiny Act passed after the Revolution, and it had been retained in all of them since. Many a young man might be inveigled, against his will, into the Service, if he was carried in this way before a magistrate at once, before he had time to turn himself round and think over what he had done. He did not understand this fully, nor until he heard the remark made a few moments ago.
  COLONEL STANLEYreplied, that the point was very fully discussed when the clause was before the Committee, and it was then adopted unanimously. Formerly, a man was allowed 24 hours' notice; because what was held to be the act of enlistment then was slipping a shilling into his hand. He himself thought that system of keeping a man hanging about 24 hours before he was attested was very objectionable; and he proposed to make the legal enlistment date from the attestation—from the time when the recruit went before the magistrate in the Court and made a civil engagement to

  1007
  serve the State. They could not go back, of course, to that question now; but, for his part, he saw no reason why there should be restrictions upon that contract, any more than on the making of any other contract. There, certainly, was a reason for this change. A lad might be half drunk, and he had a shilling slipped into his hand; the sergeant clapped him on the shoulder, and said—" You are enlisted to serve the Queen." He did not say that was the custom; but he was speaking of abuses which arose. But, under the present system, a man went before the magistrate at even, perhaps, five minutes' notice, and declared himself ready to serve the Queen, and there was no reason why he should not do so; but, then, the very important right was given him of going away within three months on payment of his expenses.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the question raised by the last two speakers was dealt with by Clause 77, which had already been passed, and was not now before the Committee.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, that he was going to speak on that point, but, of course, he would not now do so; although he wished to say that he was entirely with the Government in their proposals, and only regretted that they did not accept his Amendment, making it imperatively necessary that a magistrate should not enlist a man if there was any sign of liquor. Probably, a verbal mistake in the clause had led to some confusion as to the words " or attested as a soldier of the Regular Forces." Formerly, there were two words " attestation " and "enlistment." Three-fourths —probably, nine-tenths—of the officers in the Army never knew the difference between the two, although it was always cropping up. They were now about to abolish the attestation, because they were now making the enlistment what was formerly the attestation. Yet they retained the same phraseology that was in use in the old Mutiny Acts throughout this Bill, and sometimes they called it attestation, and sometimes enlistment, without making any distinction. The enlisted. soldier was sometimes drunk. The attested soldier was invariably so, now that the two processes had been rolled into one. It was of immense importance that they should. do away with the drunken stage altogether; for he did not suppose that
  1008
  one-tenth of the soldiers at the present time were drunk, or anything like it. They ought to get rid of the old phraseology, and either one term or the other should be adopted throughout the Bill.
  COLONEL STANLEYquite agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He would look into the matter, and decide on it before the Report. If the attestation was not complete, the recruit's status as a civilian remained; but if he was attested, and an offence turned out to have been committed in this section, then he had become a soldier, and could be proceeded with under another clause.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had gone three-fourths of the way with him, he might as well go the whole distance. There was no payment of enlistment left now, for a man was not enlisted at all, unless he was attested.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERmust acknowledge, with all humility, that ho really did not know whether the hon. Gentlemen who had addressed the Chair were in favour of his Amendment or were opposed to it. He should like to know really what had become of his Amendment during all these negotiations?
  MR. PARNELLobserved, that he would oblige his hon. Friend by speaking to the Question; but, really, this question of Amendment had actually a good deal to do with the Amendment. They had entirely changed the system of enlistment. Instead of the sergeant meeting a recruit and giving him a shilling, and 24 hours elapsing before attestation, what now happened? The sergeant met a likely recruit, and said" Will you enlist in Her Majesty's Service; it is a very splendid Service; there is great glory to be got in all parts of the world, and you will be a General in a very few years?" The recruit said "Yes;" and, thereupon, the sergeant gave him this form, which was to be drawn up by the Secretary of State for War, and then said—" Now, come before the magistrate." They went straight before the magistrate, without giving any opportunity of reading the form, or of understanding it, or of comprehending the nature or the extent of the questions raised in the form. Then, when they were before the magistrate, it was his duty carefully to explain, and to see that the recruit understood it; and, he would ask all

  1009
  practical and reasonable men whether it was likely, under the circumstances of the case, whether any magistrate would be able to know whether the recruit understood these questions or not? He knew that if he were a recruit he would defy any magistrate to find out if he understood them or not. If he were to enlist, he should not trouble about the form one way or another; but he should say " Yes" to all the questions, and make him suppose he thoroughly understood all that was asked of him, and knew all about it. That would be the case with the recruits who were not very ignorant; but when they were ignorant, it would be impossible for the magistrate to explain to them the nature of the questions he had to put; and it would be equally impossible, even if he tried to explain them, for the recruit to understand them. From the very nature of the case, the magistrate would have to be satisfied with a very perfunctory discharge of his duty, even supposing he were an experienced magistrate, which, in all probability, would not be the case. And supposing that he had been in the habit of explaining these forms to recruits, which was very unlikely, it would be almost impossible for the magistrate to explain, really and fully, the nature of the engagement the man was making. Therefore, he thought it both important and necessary that the recruit should have the power of studying these forms for himself. If it was explained to him he got out of his depth at once, and had no chance whatever of understanding it. They must all have noticed that in reference to servants. It was the case also with clergymen. They preached long sermons on certain texts; and although they had been brought up to the Church, they were just as wise at the end of a sermon, as to the meaning of the texts, as at the beginning; whereas, if they had the opportunity to spell it out quietly for themselves, they would have been able to come to some reasonable conclusion. So it would be with the recruits, if they deprived them of the opportunity of studying these forms, and sent them before the magistrates without any interval whatever; and yet they committed them if they made any false answers. That was not reasonable; and it was not reasonable also to subject a man to the pains and penalties of a court martial. They, at least, ought to
  1010
  give him the opportunity of being tried by men of the same status as himself. They ought not to create the extraordinary inconsistency of making a man subject to an Act of Parliament of which he was, by the nature of the subject, entirely ignorant, and so to bring him under the operation of the military law. By this clause they made persons into soldiers, who had gone through the form of attestation, subject to military law for an offence which they had committed through ignorance.
  MR. WHITWELLremarked, that the hon. Member got up with the assurance that he was going to speak to the Amendment before the Committee; but he was very much afraid that he had not made a single allusion to it. He himself had had some experience in attesting soldiers, and he had never found that there was any difficulty in the recruits understanding the questions; while he always made himself perfectly sure that they had understood them before he swore them in. He did not apprehend that any difficulty would arise. At the same time, he did think it a serious matter to make a man liable to be tried by a court martial at once, the moment he was sworn in, and without experience.
  O'SHAUGHNESSYwas sorry to trouble the Committee again; but ho did not think the clause would read. In the first place, a man was spoken to by a recruiting sergeant. He agreed to enlist. He went before a magistrate and was attested. Now, in the second part of the clause, they had a provision that—
  "If a person guilty of an offence has been attested as a soldier of the regular forces, he shall be liable, at the discretion of the competent military authority, to be proceeded against before a court of summary jurisdiction, or to be tried by court martial for the offence."
  Now, what was the use of introducing the first part of the clause, which introduced a procedure which must be called into action within the five months of the bringing of a recruit before the magistrate? If he was correct, the first part of this clause was inapplicable. It was meant to be brought into effect after the conversation between the recruiting officer and the recruit. He would go further—
  "If a person makes a false answer to any question contained in the attestation paper, and

  1011
  read or put to him by or by direction of the justice before whom he appears for the purpose of being attested," &c.
  It was quite plain he must make the false answer in the attestation paper, and if it was made there must be an answer made after he was attested. But that was a matter altogether dealt with in the second part of the clause; and what, then, was the use of the first part? It evidently referred to a false statement knowingly made in the regular attestation, because it was not merely a false statement made knowingly in the attestation paper, but also a false answer to the questions put to him by the justice before him. It appeared, therefore, they were dealing, in the first part of the clause, with a matter which was dealt with in the second part of the clause.
  MR. A. H. BROWNthought the hon. and learned Member was not quite correct. The first part of the clause dealt with the case where a man came before a Justice of the Peace for the purpose of being attested. In the course of questions put to him by the justice, the magistrates found out that the man was making knowingly false answers. But the recruit had not been attested when the magistrates discovered these answers were knowingly false; for if the hon. Gentleman would look to Clause 78, he would find that the recruit was not attested until after the answers had been given and the man had been sworn. Consequently, if the Justice of the Peace found that the man was making false answers knowingly, the man could then be tried under the first part of the clause; but after he had made these false answers, and had been sworn in, he came under the second part of this clause; and, under it, he could be tried by court martial, or by a court of public jurisdiction. The real difference in the two was this—that after the discovery that a man had made false answers in his attestation, within six months, he was sent to the civil power to be tried before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction; but if the discovery was made after the six months, then he was tried by a court martial. He believed the clause to be very simple and well-worded.
  MR. PARNELLobserved, that this explanation only put them in a more extraordinary position. If the magistrate interrupted the attestation, and refused, in fact, to enlist a recruit, the
  1012
  first part was entirely illusory. If he found that the man was making a false statement in the preliminary process, he stopped it, refused to put any more questions, according to the clause, and sent the man before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction to be tried for the offence; but where in the clause was the power of the magistrate to do that? It did not appear anywhere, as far as he could understand. According to the clause, the magistrates had only power to put certain questions to the recruit, from the power which was supplied him by the War Office, under the Summary Jurisdiction Act. The magistrate, also, had no power to order a recruit to be summoned for making false statements during the process of attestation. If there was to be this change in the law, they would have to have other changes introduced also; for otherwise, the magistrate could not punish a man for what was actual contempt of court, simply because he had come before him for enlistment.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the clause struck him as being a rather curious one. Take the case of two recruits, each of them making false statements in answer to the attestation questions. One went before a rather sharp and capable justice, who found out he was telling lies in the process of examination, and thereupon the man was subjected to the lighter penalties imposed by the less serious procedure of the first part of the clause; the other recruit made exactly the same kind of false statements, appeared before a rather stupid justice, who did not find out he had made false statements until the attestation was over; thereupon the recruit attested by the stupid justice came under the more severe procedure of the second part of the clause. Therefore, the recruits, it appeared, were not punishable in any proportion to their guilt, because they were, probably, equally guilty, but according to whether they happened to be brought before a capable or incapable Justice of the Peace. That principle certainly appeared to him rather curious, and was another example of the singular way in which this Bill had been drawn.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, if the account given by the hon. Member for Wenlock (Mr. A. H. Brown) as to the working of the clause were correct, the magistrate would be both prosecutor

  1013
  and judge. If the clause was to work at all, there must be some lapse of time between the period when the offence was committed and when the matter was to be re-examined in a judicial way; because it was absurd to say that a magistrate could, in the course of the process of attestation, say that the recruit had made a false statement, and at once sentence him to three months' imprisonment. If the Solicitor General, who had been good enough to define the term "soldier" employed in the second part of the clause, would point out how the two different portions of the clause were to work in a legal way, he had no intention to press his views upon the Committee, and should be happy to withdraw his Amendment; but, until then, he did not see his way to doing so.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)said, the clause would operate legally thus. If a man appeared before a justice, and told a falsehood—saying, for instance, that he was a single man when he was married—and the justice knew it, the justice would, by passing that man, be aiding and assisting in an offence against the law. The first part of the section contemplated the punishment of a person for that offence which the man had already committed by giving a false answer. The effect would not necessarily be that he would be punished there and then. He would have committed an offence, and would have to be summoned before an ordinary tribunal of summary jurisdiction, when, if the justice came to the conclusion that he had not offended wilfully, he would be entitled to be discharged.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER,after the reply of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. O'DONNELLpointed out that the effect of the second part of the clause would be that if a soldier, not a whit more guilty than the man who, being brought before a justice, having exceptional means of knowing that he had made a false statement, were brought before a justice who did not know so much about the matter, he would, thereupon, without any additional aggravation of guilt, become punishable in consequence of the greater ignorance of the second justice. Such a law was truly extraordinary and indefensible.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the Secretary of State for War, having refused to put the rules and regulations into a Schedule, and also to lay them on the Table of the House, he certainly thought that he should be asked to agree to insert the Amendment which had been placed on the Paper by the hon. Member for Wenlock (Mr. A. H. Brown). He therefore intended to move to add, in page 52, line 21, at the end of the clause—
  "Provided, That no person shall be tried by court martial for any offence under this section which has been discovered more than six months after attestation."
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsuggested " less than six months."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSrose to Order. He thought the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was really playing with the Committee and uselessly occupying their time. It was evident that the hon. Gentleman had not in his own mind a clear idea of the Amendment he wished to move. It would have been more convenient had the Amendment appeared on the Notice Paper.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERthought it quite competent for the hon. Member for Meath to endeavour to make intelligible what the hon. Member for Wenlock (Mr. A. H. Brown) had assented to, but had not the courage to put it into words. He thought the hon. Member had been very wrongly taken up by the Homo Secretary.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that while he was repeating the Amendment the hon. Member for Mayo had suggested an alteration, and while he had turned his head round to catch the words of his hon. Friend the right hon. Gentleman rose to Order. He was quite ready to submit his Amendment in writing as soon as the Chairman had ruled the question of Order; but he pointed out to the Home Secretary that the course of interruption pursued by him was not calculated to secure the object which lie had in view.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had risen to Order because the hon. Member for Meath was not prepared with the Amendment which he had announced his intention to submit to the Committee. No doubt, if that were the case, the hon. Member for Meath might claim some indulgence from the Committee; but he must point

  1015
  out to the hon. Gentleman that it was not respectful to the Committee to stop, as he had done, in the midst of his speech and consult with hon. Members near him when he ought to be addressing the Chair.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he was sorry for having appeared to show any disrespect to the Committee; but he had only imitated the example repeatedly set by Ministers, who, upon points of difficulty, even when standing at the Table of the House, frequently turned aside to consult with their Colleagues. He had frequently seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer do this; but he was quite certain that on such occasions the right hon. Gentleman had no intention of being disrespectful to the House; therefore, he hoped the Committee would not believe that he (Mr. Parnell) had any such intention. The hon. Gentleman then proposed, in page 52, line 21, at the end of the clause, to add—
  "Provided, That no person shall be tried by court martial for any offence under this section which has been discovered within less than six months after attestation."
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 110: Majority 95.—(Div. List, No. 140.)
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 97 (Compulsory service of fraudulent enlister).
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that the expression "whether otherwise punished or not," contained in line 25 of this clause, was of a very objectionable character, inasmuch as it seemed to contemplate two different kinds of punishment for the same offence—namely, that of fraudulent enlistment. His idea was that when any offence was committed there should be but one trial and one punishment. The objection to this part of the present clause was also the principal objection taken to Clause 92, which the Committee had abolished. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had consented to strike out that clause; and he (Mr. O'Connor Power) now moved to omit from the present clause the words " whether otherwise punished or not."
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, that formerly, when a man enlisted in a regiment and
  1016
  afterwards confessed that he had previously enlisted in another, he was transferred back to the regiment which had a prior interest in him. He thought that principle was utterly absurd, and that nothing in this Bill was more deserving of support than the clause which provided that a man should be compelled to serve, if the competent military authority so directed, in the regiment in which he enlisted after having enlisted in another. He saw no objection to the omission of the words " whether otherwise punished or not," because there was no reason for treating service in another regiment as a punishment.
  COLONEL' STANLEYapprehended there would be no objection to the change proposed.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.

  Miscellaneous as to Enlistment.
  Clause 98 (Validity of attestation and enlistment or re-engagement).
  MR. O'DONNELLmoved to omit the words—
  " Where a person not attested or re-engaged is in pay as a soldier in any corps of Her Majesty's regular forces, such person shall be deemed for all the purposes of this Act to be a soldier of the regular forces as if duly attested or re-engaged, with this qualification, that he may at any time claim his discharge; but until he so claims and is discharged in pursuance of that claim, he shall be subject to this Act as a soldier of the regular forces duly attested under this Act."
  It seemed to him that the principle which was there recognized was a very unsafe one. He thought it was rather a dangerous and irregular proceeding that the authorities should be encouraged in that way to have in the ranks persons who were no longer soldiers, but who were passing off as soldiers. He thought that the authorities should be careful that nobody was serving in the ranks who was not properly attested and engaged as a soldier, and that to pass the cause, in its present shape, would establish a bad practice.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 53, line 3, to leave out from the word " discharge," to the word " Act," in line 11, inclusive.—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  COLONEL STANLEYexplained that the object of the provision which it was proposed to omit was to enable the authorities, when a man was continued in pay as a soldier, to deal with him as a soldier of the Regular Forces. For instance, it was very likely that a man might be detained a few days over his service of 21 years, and during those days he would receive pay, and all other benefits of the Service. It might be—and very often was—for his own convenience that he was so detained; and it would obviously not be right that he should be perfectly free from liability to discipline.
  MAJOR NOLANadmitted. that questions as to discharge were continually arising, and he knew of one case, such as was contemplated by the clause, which occurred in a battery in which he was serving at Woolwich. In that case a court martial was convened to try a man after his '21 years' service, and the president refused to try him because of the absence of such a provision as that now introduced into this clause. At the same time, ho thought that this was a very doubtful provision to introduce, as its effect would very likely be to encourage officers to be very loose and easy in the performance of their duty of discharging a soldier. If it were retained, he would suggest that after a man had claimed his discharge there should be a limit of time, say a week, fixed after which he should not be kept on.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman had read the next section, he would see that that point was provided for—
  "Where a person claims his discharge on the ground that he has not been attested or re-engaged or not duly attested or re-engaged, his commanding officer shall forthwith forward such claim to the competent military authority, who shall as soon as practicable submit it to a Secretary of State, and if the claim appears well grounded the claimant shall be discharged."
  Of course, if he found it was possible to add any force to that section he would do so; but he did not then see how it could be done in an Act of Parliament, because cases might arise which it was impossible to meet.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONremarked, that this question had been settled long ago. If a man received pay as a soldier, it was held to bring him under the Mutiny Act, In a case
  1018
  which was decided at the end of the last century, by Lord Lough borough, a soldier, who was punished by corporal punishment, appealed to the Court of Queen's Bench, and said he was not re-enlisted as a soldier, and the Court decided that he was a soldier because he received pay as a soldier.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, that the observations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman applied to the former paragraph of the clause where a doubt existed as to a man's enlistment. But these questions of discharge were continually occurring; and in the case which he had cited as happening at Woolwich, the president refused to try unless he received a direct command from the convening officer, overruling the man's objection. He did not think that point had ever been decided. No officer, if he could possibly help it, would, under the present law, place himself in the position of trying a man whose 21 years had expired. The Government were getting rid of that difficulty, and settling in this section what had always been a very doubtful point of law, which an officer was very anxious not to overstep. It stood to reason that if a man were enlisted for a term of 21 years, or 12, it was a very delicate thing to punish that man when his time was up if his engagement had not been renewed either by himself or by a general officer. He must say that there was a great deal in the objection of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell); and something ought to be done to provide that if a man claimed his discharge he should not be proceeded against unless his claim had been considered within a certain period.
  MR. PARNELLthought the clause required to be carefully considered. He found that there was really no redresss for the soldier who claimed his discharge and did not obtain it. The succeeding paragraph to which reference had been made did not give him any redress. That paragraph would appear to refer to a different class of cases; but, at any rate, it only provided that a claim to be discharged should go before the Secretary of State as soon as practicable, and if it appeared to be well-founded the claimant should be discharged. He thought it would be well to guard this clause by giving some tribunal the power to decide the question on the spot. Surely, the ordinary courts of the land should

  1019
  be competent to decide a question whether a man was a soldier or not who had not been re-enlisted or re-engaged. So far as he could see, there was nothing in the clause to prevent the Secretary of State for War from detaining a man for an indefinite time.
  MR. O'DONNELLdid not think that the section of the clause to which the Secretary of State for War had referred was of a character to remove their objections. That section recited that where a person claimed his discharge on the ground that he had not been duly attested or re-engaged, his commanding officer should forthwith forward such claim to the competent military authority; but this latter officer would not have power to decide on the man's case. His duty would be, as soon as practicable, to submit it to the Secretary of State, and if the claim appeared to be well-founded, the claimant should be discharged. What had the Secretary of State to say to the case of a soldier who, being in India, claimed his discharge on the ground that he had not been duly re-engaged? In such a case all this circumlocutionary process would have to be gone through; and, meanwhile, the soldier, who was not duly re-engaged, would be liable to all the penalties of the Service. He did not think that the Committee would be justified in giving such very large powers to the authorities. He desired to repeat, much more strongly and emphatically, that there was abundant evidence that the Bill was badly, loosely, and negligently drawn; and that, sooner than take the trouble of having it properly drafted, the Government were asking the Committee to pass over this, that, and the other irregularity and illegality. That was not a proper way in which to treat the Committee. It seemed to him that throughout the discussion of this Bill the Government had adopted something of a plan of this kind. Supposing that they wanted an inch of permission anywhere they, in fact, asked the Committee to grant them the whole ell; and then, when they objected to their getting any more power than they had any real need of, the result was to call up their majority and trample down all opposition.
  MAJOR NOLANsuggested that the difficulty might be got over by the insertion of words to provide that a man
  1020
  might be tried for any offence previous to his claim for discharge.
  COLONEL STANLEYpointed out that if a man was not tried he had no practical grievance; and asked how they were to deal with a case where a claim had been made which turned out to be groundless, and was, therefore, not allowed?
  MAJOR NOLANreplied, that, in that case, he would be tried as a soldier.
  MR. BIGGARdid not see why there should be any discussion on this point at all. If a man engaged to serve in Her Majesty's Forces for a certain number of years he ought, at the expiration of his term, to be entitled to his discharge at once, without any more ado or trouble on his part. But, certainly, to say that a man whose time had expired, and who had made a formal application to be discharged in accordance with his contract with the State, should thereafter be liable to the rules of the Service was perfectly preposterous.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that very likely there might be a tendency to keep a man on longer; but his broad contention was, that if a man remained on receiving pay, drawing rations, and living in barracks, he should be amenable to discipline as a soldier. As regarded India, his impression was that the authority there did decide these cases, and the men were sent home.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman were correct in his impression, then the clause would take away that power.
  MAJOR NOLANdesired to know whether the paragraph was an innovation, or whether it merely carried out the old Mutiny Act?
  COLONEL STANLEY: The clause is new in the wording, but it is old in its substance.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 156; Noes 14: Majority 142.—(Div. List, No. 141.)
  MR. PARNELLmoved to leave out "as," in line 15, down to " appears," in line 16, in order to insert the words—
  "Bring such claim before the nearest court of summary jurisdiction, and if the court decides that."
  The object of the Amendment was that if a soldier claimed his discharge on the

  1021
  ground that he had not been attested or re-engaged, or not duly attested or re-engaged, the commanding officer should forthwith forward such to the competent military authority, who, having submitted it to the Secretary of State, should then order the case to be dealt with by a court of summary jurisdiction.
  COLONEL STANLEYdid not see how such an Amendment would work.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, his point was this—that the attestment was a civil act, and not a military one. Therefore, a court of civil judicature was the proper tribunal to decide whether the man had or had not been duly attested or re-engaged. It was not a question of breach of military discipline; but it was a question of the legality of an act committed by the recruit before he was a soldier. Under those circumstances, he submitted the only proper tribunal to settle the matter was a civil, and not a military, one. Of course, if the Secretary of State for War objected, he would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 99 (Application of Part Two of Act).
  COLONEL STANLEY: I propose that this clause should be struck out.
  Clause struck, out.
  Clause 100 (Construction of Acts relating to enlistment).
  COLONEL STANLEY: I propose that this clause also should be omitted.
  Clause struck out.
  Clause 101 (Definition for purposes of Part Two of competent military authority and reserve) agreed to.

PART III.
  BILLETING AND IMPRESSMENT OF CARRIAGES.

    Billeting of Officers and Soldiers.
    Clause 102 (Suspension of 3 Chas. I, c.1; 31 Chas. 2, c. 1;
    6 Anne (I.), c. 14, as to billeting) agreed to.
    Clause 103 (Obligation of constable to provide billets for officers, soldiers, and horses).
    MR. O'DONNELLconsidered this clause gave too much power to a very inferior authority. It provided that—
    1022
    "Every constable of any place in the United Kingdom mentioned in the route issued to the commanding officer of any portion of Her Majesty's Regular Forces, shall, on the demand of such commanding officer, or of an officer or soldier authorized by him, and on production of such route, billet on the occupiers of victualling houses, and other premises specified in this Act as victualling houses in that place, such number of officers, soldiers, and horses entitled under this Act to be billeted as are mentioned in the route, and stated to require quarters."
    His desire was that the term "every constable" should have some limit. There was a large number of constables in the Irish Constabulary to whom this power ought not to be given, and to whom, he supposed, the Act was not intended to apply. Words ought to be put into the clause to the effect that barony constables, and persons of that kind, were the constables intended, as far as Ireland was concerned. No doubt, the phrase " constable " had a different meaning in different parts of the United Kingdom. In order to raise the question, he would move, pro formâ, that after the word "constable," in line 9, to insert—"Other than a constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary." As the clause at present stood, its powers might be used by constables to worry and harass licensed victuallers and others. It was a very nice theory to suppose that every member of the police force was perfect; but, as a matter of fact, he was not; and if the performance of this duty fell to men of little status or experience, he was not at all sure it would not be improperly performed. They all knew cases were constantly occurring in which the police misused the powers intrusted to them.
    MAJOR NOLANthought the hon. Member might modify his opinions on this subject, because, at the end of Clause 108, there were certain safeguards. For instance, a justice of the peace might require a constable to give an account in writing of the number of officers, soldiers, and horses billeted by such constable, together with the names of the keepers of such victualling houses on whom such officers, soldiers, and horses had been billeted, and the locality of such victualling houses. Generally speaking, he (Major Nolan) did not object to the billeting clauses of this Bill, because they were far better for Ireland than the existing law, and they removed the invidious distinctions which at present existed between England and Ireland in

    1023
    this matter. Therefore, on the whole, he did not disapprove of these clauses; though before they came to the consideration of the Schedules, which referred to the prices which were to be paid, he hoped the Government would set up the preparatory Committee, because until that was done they could not discuss the prices which ought to be paid to the hotel-keepers.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I may point out to the hon. and gallant Member that what he is now referring to does not relate to the Amendment at present before the Committee, which is to exclude the constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary from the operation of the clause.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, after the explanation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that these billeting clauses placed Ireland in a better position than she was under the old Mutiny Act, he trusted they would be allowed to pass. With regard to the question of the employment of the constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary, he would ask, if they were not to perform a duty of this kind, who were? Now, that body was classified according to service. He suggested that some words should be introduced limiting the performance of this duty to one of these classes.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that what was pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) was well worthy of consideration. Practically, the clause would apply to the chief constable in any place, the word "constable" having been substituted for "billet-master," who it was found had little executive power; but there was a great deal, he thought, to be said in favour of the suggestion which had been made, and ho should confer with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the matter.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYpointed out that in several towns in England there might be only one constable; but that in almost every Irish town there were four or five.
    COLONEL ARBUTHNOTsaid, the difficulty which had been raised might be met by the substitution of the words "the senior constable" for "every constable" of any place.
    MR. PARNELLthought it would be well for the Committee to adopt the words which had been suggested by the
    1024
    hon. and gallant Member for Hereford (Colonel Arbuthnot). They would, in his opinion, meet the case. The fact was, the clause, as it stood, was based on a very old clause in the Mutiny Act, which was framed at a time when it was not anticipated that there would be such a large force of police in Ireland. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was probably not aware that there were now 15,000 constables in Ireland. Now, many of those were very young men; and although they were, generally speaking, men of excellent character and exceedingly intelligent, they were scarcely fit to carry out the requirements of the clause. It was very necessary, therefore, that there should be some such limitation introduced into the clause as that proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Hereford. What he would suggest was, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War should now adopt the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman; and that if, after consultation with the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he should find that any further alteration was necessary, that alteration might be made on the Report. He always liked to see the work before him disposed of, if possible, and not put off to another day. To put it off was a kind of procrastination which was not business-like, and which did no good. The Committee, he thought, were agreed as to the necessity of making a change in the clause; and all that was required was the insertion of some words which would affect the object which they all had in view.
    MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he quite agreed with those hon. Members who contended that it was not right to give the authority which the clause would confer to any constable. What he would suggest was, that it should be intrusted only to the senior constable—that was to say, the constable that was in charge of the police station in any locality to which the clause would apply. If that alteration were made it would, he thought, effect his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan's (Mr. O'Donnell's) object.
    MAJOR NOLANwas also of opinion that some such words as " the senior constable of every police station in Ireland " would meet the difficulty.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the point which the Committee were engaged in discuss-

    1025
    ing was really a very important one. The police force in Ireland was directly under the control of the Government, and not, as in England, under the control of the local authority. Being under the control of the local authority, the police in England were, of course, more amenable to local influences, and would be more careful not to do anything which would give annoyance to the inhabitants of the locality. But the state of things was entirely different in Ireland. There the police were, in reality, the military force. They carried rifles, and were, in fact, better drilled than many soldiers of the Regular Army. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War were to see the Irish Constabulary he would say, he was sure, that he never saw in the ranks of the Regular Army men who were superior to them in size or appearance, or in the way in which they went through their drill. Being essentially a military force, they were, as he had already said, under the control of the Government, and in no way under that of the local authority, as was the case in England; and it was necessary, therefore, to be very careful how such a power as that given by the clause should be intrusted to them.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he should have no objection to the insertion, after the words "every constable," in the clause the words "for the time being in charge."
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he should have no objection to withdraw his Amendment in favour of that proposed by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment (Colonel Stanley) agreed to.
    MAJOR NOLANasked, whether the point at which the Committee had now arrived was not that at which it was desirable that the scale of prices to be paid to the proprietors of licensed victuallers' houses, under the operation of the Bill, should be fixed?
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he thought it would be better that the discussion on that point should be taken on the Schedule fixing the scale of prices.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, the matter ought, in his opinion, to be settled without further delay. It was of con-
    1026
    siderable importance; and it was doubtful whether, when the Schedule came to be 'discussed, it would be open to a private Member to propose an alteration in the scale, and it would be only right, therefore, that a preparatory Committee should be set up. He should like, therefore, to know whether it was proposed to set up such a Committee? The most practical way of dealing with the question would be to settle it at once.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not think there was any necessity for proceeding in the way which the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested. The Bill under discussion was an entirely new measure; and it would be open to the hon. and gallant Gentleman to propose any changes which he might think desirable when the Schedule came before the Committee.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that in the case of an ordinary annual Bill, like the Mutiny Bill, it would not be open to any hon. Member, without the consent of Her Majesty's Government and a Resolution of the Committee of the Whole House, to propose an increase of the charges which might be made under the operation of any clause. He understood, however, that the present Bill was not to be regarded as a measure in any way analogous to an ordinary Bill. He had to point out that, in accordance with Clause 2, the Bill would not come into force except in pursuance of some Act of Parliament to be hereafter passed. This Bill, therefore, and any Amendment introduced into it, would be, if left to itself, wholly inoperative. Under these circumstances, it might, he thought, be fairly held that a Member should not be prohibited from proposing to amend the money provisions of the Schedules of the Bill, although the assent of the Government and Resolution of the Committee had not been previously obtained as regarded the financial points involved, and although it would be necessary that such authorization should be obtained in the case of an enforcing or reviving Bill passed year by year.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 104 (Liability to provide billets).
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he objected to some of the exceptions which it was proposed to make under the operation of the clause. He, therefore, begged to

    1027
    move the omission of sub-section 2, which provided that an officer or soldier should not be billeted " in any canteen held or occupied under the authority of a Secretary of State." He could not understand why a canteen, occupied under the authority of the Secretary of State, should be exempted from an obligation to which other victualling houses were liable. Canteens held, or occupied, under the authority of the Secretary of State, were, ho thought, fit and proper places in which to billet soldiers; and he could see no good reason why they should not be made use of for the purpose. He, therefore, begged to move the omission of the word " nor," in line 10, down to the word "nor," in line 12.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the canteens were intended only for the accommodation of the soldiers in barracks, and were not fitted up so as to be capable of affording sleeping accommodation, except to those in charge of them. They were, in fact, established for military purposes, and there was no spare accommodation for the billeting in them of troops.
    MR. O'DONNELLcontended that there was no need for the exemption which was made by the clause. In those cases in which there was room enough, canteens ought to be made use of for the purpose of billeting soldiers. Where there was not, of course, it would he impossible to make use of them. But, in any case, the exemption seemed to be an invidious one. If canteens were not fitted for the purpose of billeting soldiers, then they ought to be returned as being unfit; if they were fitted, then they should be returned as being so, in the same way as any ordinary victualling house. The billeting constable would know whether there was room or not, and would act accordingly.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. PARNELLmoved the omission from the clause of the 3rd sub-section, which provided that an officer or soldier should not be billeted—
    "On persons who keep taverns only, being vintners of the City of London, admitted to their freedom of the said Company in right of patrimony or apprenticeship, notwithstanding the persons who keep such taverns have taken out licenses for the sale of any intoxicating liquor."
    He could not, he said, quite understand why the exemption was proposed.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the exemption was one which had been allowed ever since the year 1761, and one which had, he believed, been provided for in the Charter of the Vintners' Company.
    MR. PARNELLregarded the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as affording a very good argument why the privilege in question should be taken away. The free vintners of London had been so long exceptionally treated that it was time, in his opinion, they should give up their monopoly- for the good of the Army.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the argument of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), if carried to its legitimate conclusion, would go to the extent that a man might be deprived of his hereditary property on the ground that it had been so long in his possession that he ought to possess it no longer. His family had enjoyed it for a very long time, and therefore it ought to be taken away from them. It would scarcely be right, he thought, that the Committee should accede to such a proposition as that, and abolish a privilege which had now existed for a considerable time, especially as the hon. Member had given no Notice of his intention to move such an Amendment in the clause. The change which the hon. Member proposed might be a very proper one to make at some future time; but the Committee, ho was sure, would be of opinion that it ought not to be made on a sudden, affecting, as it did, several hundreds of persons.
    MR. O'SULLIVANhoped the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) would not press his Amendment. The question which it raised was purely a London question, in which Irish Members had little or no interest. It was one, also, which in no way affected the general public.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he could not agree with the hon. Member who had just sat down, that the matter was one in which the public generally were not interested. The exemption given by the clause to the publicans of London was, in his opinion, unfair; and it could hardly, with justice, be argued that they had a vested right to the exemption, because it was given to them by the provisions of a Bill which had to be renewed year by year.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, the privilege had been given by an Act passed in the reign of Charles II., and that the reason for conferring it was that the free vintners did not reside on the promises in which they carried on their trade. They had shops, but not dwelling-houses in which soldiers could be billeted.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that if the vintners of the City of London had not houses in which soldiers could be billeted, they would not be returned by the constable for the time being in charge as being in a position to afford the necessary accommodation. If, on the other hand, they had houses, there was no good ground, so far as he could see, why they should be exempted from the operation of the clause. If the licensed victuallers of London were exempted, why, he should like to know, should not a similar privilege be extended to the licensed victuallers of Kilmallock? There was, in his opinion, very little force in the argument that, because the London publicans had enjoyed a certain exemption for several years, they ought to be allowed to enjoy it for ever. It would, therefore, he maintained, be better that they should be placed on the same level as licensed victuallers in other parts of the United Kingdom. He would not recommend his lion. Friend the Member for Meath to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing; but he did not, at the same time, think that the Amendment ought to be withdrawn.
    MR. PARNELLwould remind the Committee that the present Bill was, after all, only an annual Bill. The question raised by his Amendment was, under those circumstances, placed upon a different footing from that upon which it would stand if they were engaged in passing a measure which was intended should be of a more permanent character. If the privilege to which he objected were now done away with, it would be only for one year; and, at the expiration of that period, Parliament would be in a position to see what was the effect of the proposed change. If it was found that it operated injuriously, then the privilege might be restored. It was said that the vintners of the City of London had no houses in which soldiers could be billeted; but he was never before aware that they were so poor, or that they carried on their business in places something like a Noah's Ark. He had
    1030
    always been under the impression that those gentlemen had good houses; and he had very little doubt but that they would be found adequate to carry out the requirements of billeting.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEsaid, he could see no good reason for the exemption of the vintners of the City of London from the operation of the clause. He knew of instances, in his own experience, in which troops marching through the City had accommodation provided for them there.
    MAJOR NOLANthought the Amendment was a very sensible one, and one, therefore, which the Committee would do well to accept. He was under the impression that troops were never billeted in the City of London; but his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne) had just informed the Committee that instances in which they had been had come within his own knowledge. The proposed exemption, he might add, was, so far as he could judge, likely to be of no benefit to the citizens of Loudon; while it might have the effect of causing considerable inconvenience in the case of troops marching through the City. Under these circumstances, he would appeal to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to say whether, in his opinion, the privilege was one which should be allowed to continue to exist?
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONexplained, that the proposed exemption was the natural consequence of the privilege enjoyed by the City of London, that no troops should march through it without the sanction of the City authorities. Leave had to be obtained from the Lord Mayor before they could be marched through; and the privilege had its origin at the time of the Great Fire in London, when the Lord Mayor found fault with the officer in command of the troops for proceeding as far as the Mansion House, and not stopping at Temple Bar.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, he understood that troops could march through the City of London without the permission of the City authorities.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, they could march through the City, and that the prohibition which had been referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) related only to troops marching

    1031
    with fixed bayonets, colours flying, and bands playing, adding that the 3rd Buffs were exempted from the prohibition.
    Amendment negatived.
    SIR HENRY JAMESproposed the omission from the clause of sub-section 5, which provided that an officer or soldier should not be billeted—
    " In the house of any shopkeeper whose principal dealing is more in other goods and merchandize than in brandy and strong waters, so as such shopkeeper does not permit tippling in such house."
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 105 (Officers, soldiers, and horses entitled to be billeted) agreed to.
    Clause 106 (Accommodation and payment on billet) agreed to.
    Clause 107 (Annual list of keepers of victualling houses liable to billets).
    CAPTAIN MILNE-HOMEmoved, in page 56, line 32, after "houses," to insert "and all other persons." The object of his Amendment, he said, was to bring the wording of the clause into accordance with that of Clause 104, in which the provisions of the Bill were made to extend not only to all inns and hotels, but to "all houses of persons" selling brandy or strong waters by retail. In the clause before the Committee the words "all houses of persons" were omitted.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, the Amendment was unnecessary, for the clause provided that the list made out should include " all keepers of victualling houses within the meaning of this Act; " and Clause 104 provided that " all houses of persons" selling brandy or spirits of any kind should come under the operation of the Bill.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 108 (Regulations as to grant of billets).
    MR. J. BROWNcalled attention to sub-section 6, which gave authority to a Justice of the Peace, on the request of an officer or non-commissioned officer authorized to demand billets, to vary a
    1032
    route by adding or omitting any place for billeting purposes; and suggested that it would be desirable that provision should be made in the clause for informing the Quartermaster General by telegraph of the proposed change of route. Otherwise, he would have no means of knowing how matters stood, and great confusion might be the result if he was kept in ignorance of the direction in which the troops were marching, and the place in which they were about to be billeted. Under these circumstances, the Justice of the Peace ought, he thought, to have the duty imposed upon him of informing, by telegraph, the officer in the Quartermaster General's Department, who might originally have signed the order for the route, of the alteration which it was intended to make in the line of march.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the matter was one with which, in his opinion, it would be best to deal by means of regulation. The sub-section in question was framed to meet the case in which it might occur that there would be inconvenience attending the billeting of the troops on the line of route originally marked out, and in which it might be found desirable to march them to a point further on, or to halt at a point nearer than was at first intended.
    MR. J. BROWNsaid, that there was the objection to dealing with the matter by regulation that the Justice of the Peace would not, in all probability, be acquainted with and would not be subject to the regulations.
    COLONEL ARBUTHNOTsaid, the commanding officer was the person who would have to obey the regulations, and he, of course, would be acquainted with them.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that, under subsection 3 the keeper of a victualling house, if he felt himself aggrieved by having an undue proportion of officers, soldiers, or horses billeted on him, might complain to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction; and pointed out that the words " court of summary jurisdiction " must be taken to mean the Court of Petty Sessions, from whose decision, whatever it might be, no right of appeal was given. Now, a man upon whom a portion of a regiment might have been quartered for a length of time might wish to carry any grievance of which he had to complain, in the event of the

    1033
    decision of the Court of Petty Sessions being against him, before a higher tribunal; and, in his (Mr. Parnell's) opinion, it was but fair that he should be enabled to do so. There was no good reason why he should not have the power of appealing to the Court of Quarter Sessions, for instance.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSpointed out that the power of appeal which the hon. Member proposed to give would really be of no use to the keeper of a victualling house; for all that could be done, if the decision of the court of appeal was in his favour, was to order the troops, which had been billeted upon him, to be billeted elsewhere, and they would probably have left his house long before.
    MR. PARNELLcontended that the right of appeal to the Court of Quarter Sessions might be of use in many cases; and as the exercise of the right would be entirely optional with the keeper of the house, ho could see no good reason why it should be refused to him. If he thought he could do himself any good by appealing, he would probably take that course; if not, he would refrain from doing so.
    Clause agreed to.
    Offences in relation to Billeting.
    Clause 109 (Offences by constables).
    MR. PARNELLsaid, there was really less excuse for the commission of any of the offences mentioned in the clause by constables than almost anyone else, because they were supposed to understand thoroughly well the nature of the duties which they had to perform; and the Committee had decided that it was only to a duly qualified officer that the carrying out of these billeting clauses should be intrusted. That being so, power should, he thought, be given to inflict a heavier penalty than the clause proposed on a constable who transgressed its provisions. As the clause stood, the offender was made liable, on conviction, to a fine of not less than 40 s., and not exceeding £5. Those amounts appeared to him to be too small, seeing that it was difficult to know to what inconvenience and expense and annoyance the owner of a house might not be put, by having troops billeted upon him. He was not able to say whether it was open to him to propose that the maximum fine of £5 should be
    1034
    raised without raising the minimum; but he should like to move, by way of Amendment, that the word" five" should be omitted from the clause, and the word "ten" inserted instead of it. £10 would not, it seemed to him, be at all too high a sum to impose as a fine on a constable who had been convicted of committing any of the very serious offences which were set forth in the clause. It would be a very serious offence, for example, for a constable, in consequence of the receipt of a reward, to excuse or relieve a person from his liability to have troops billeted upon him—an offence against which subsection 2 was directed—or that he should billet or quarter on any person without his consent, persons or horses, who were not entitled to be so billeted, as provided against by sub-section 3; and he ought, he contended, to be made liable to a heavier penalty for such offences than the clause proposed. He begged, therefore, to move that the word "five" be omitted from the clause.
    ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 110 (Offences by keepers of victualling houses) agreed to.
    Clause 111 (Offences by officers or soldiers) agreed to.

    Impressment of Carriages.
    Clause 112 (Supply of carriages, &c. for regimental baggage and stores on the march).
    MR. O'SULLIVANmoved the insertion, after the word " purpose," in line 16, of the words " Provided the owner does not require them for his own special purposes." A man might, he pointed out, under the operation of the clause as it stood, be compelled, by the order of a constable, to supply carriages and horses for the conveyance of the regimental baggage and stores of troops on the march, no matter at what inconvenience to himself. Now, it was, in his opinion, unfair that a man who, perhaps, might have entered into an important contract for the carrying out of some work, and who was bound, under heavy penalties, to perform this

    1035
    contract within a certain time, should be prevented from doing so by being forced to place his horses and carriages, under all circumstances, at the service of the Army, when a demand was made for them. It was to provide against cases of hardship like that, that he proposed his Amendment.
    COLONEL STANLEYwas afraid that the adoption by the Committee of the. Amendment would have the effect of rendering the clause completely nugatory; for if the words proposed were inserted, the probable result would be that when the occasion for the impressment of horses and carriages arose, few owners would be backward in alleging, as an excuse for not complying with the demand, that they wanted them for their "own special purposes." He might also observe that waggons and other vehicles which were required when troops were on the march were hired by contract, or in other ways, in all those cases in which it was possible to enter into a pre-arrangement; and that it was but seldom that it would be found necessary to put the powers which were given by the clause into force.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, it seemed to him somewhat curious that power should be taken by the clause to impress carriages and horses in the United Kingdom, while the same power was not extended to the Colonies. He should like to know what difference, in principle, there was between the case of the Colonies and that of the United Kingdom? Lately, as the Committee was aware, operations at the Cape had been brought to a standstill, because it was found impossible to procure the means of transport. Now, lie was not going to contend that either the Colonists or the inhabitants of the United Kingdom should not be entitled to make their own bargains in such matters when a state of war existed, as appeared to have been done in the Colony of Natal. It might be right, or it might be wrong, that they should be at liberty to do so; but what he should like to ascertain was, what the principle was on which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Stanley) proceeded in limiting the operation of the clause to the United Kingdom? for it seemed to him to be a somewhat extraordinary thing to say that that which they would have a right to do in the United Kingdom they
    1036
    would have no right to do in the Colonies. The United Kingdom was placed, so far as he could see, in pretty much the same predicament as Zululand, where waggons were impressed when it was deemed to be necessary; although in the Colonies that could not be done. The clause, in short, would put the United Kingdom on a par with a country between us and which a state of war prevailed. But the subject was one on which he desired rather to obtain information than to express any positive opinion of his own.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the fact was that the Colonies were entitled to deal themselves with all matters which were of local interest; but that the right was reserved to the Imperial Legislature to interpose in all matters of Imperial importance in connection with them. Now, the point raised by the hon. Member for Meath was clearly one of such local interest that the Imperial Parliament would not be justified in overruling the wishes of the Colonists with respect to it. That explanation would be sufficient to meet another difficulty to which the hon. Member had alluded. They could impress carriages and horses for the Army in Zululand, and not in Natal; because in Natal there was a local authority capable of regulating questions of local interest, while Zululand was an enemy's country, in which no such authority, so far as we were concerned, existed, and. in which, besides, a state of war existed.
    MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, the right lion and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War appeared to think that great inconvenience to troops on the march might arise from the adoption of this Amendment. He would, however, point out to him that there was provision made further on in the clause that when sufficient carriages or animals could not be procured within the jurisdiction of a particular justice, any justice having jurisdiction in the next adjoining place would be obliged to supply the deficiency.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the clause, he believed, gave power to impress drivers as well as carriages, and contended that the explanation which had been given by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) did not cover the case of drivers. He noticed that drivers were impressed when they

    1037
    were found beyond the borders of the Colonies in South Africa, but that while they remained within those borders they were not interfered with. As he understood the Mutiny Bill, it gave power to impress drivers wherever they were; and the drivers so impressed were, he thought, always subject to martial law, whether on active service or not. He should like, therefore, to know whether, if the present Bill were to pass, they would in the same way he subject to martial law in the Colonies? It was a monstrous thing, in his opinion, that a driver, who was simply accompanying troops, should be placed under martial law.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, there was a wide distinction to be drawn between military law and martial law. Martial law might be regarded as existing where there was no law, and the Mutiny Act was not martial, but military law. That being so, the present Bill would place the drivers of waggons, who might be impressed in accordance with the provisions of the clause, under military law and the Mutiny Act, and it was absolutely necessary that that should be done; because they might drive away with their waggons, and take them over to the enemy, at a time when they were most needed. The control of military law must be kept over those men, and that control was exercised over them in the Colonies when the troops were on active service.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he did not think the point which was raised by the Amendment had been at all settled by what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last. Soldiers in the Army were subject to military law; but it did not follow from that, that men who were outside the Army, and without any obligation to enter its ranks, should be impressed as drivers, and, having been compelled to become drivers, be subjected to military law. To do that would be to impose a burden on them to which they ought not, in his opinion, to be exposed. Such a proposal was, in reality, one which would introduce the thin end of the wedge in the direction of conscription. He should like, then, clearly to understand whether a civilian driver could, under the operation of the clause, be forced to become an Army driver; and whether, having become an Army driver,
    1038
    he would then be subject to all the requirements of military law? If they could be made Army drivers only with their own consent, nothing could be more easy than to make provision to that effect.
    MR. PARNELLthought the change proposed by the clause was one of a very important and radical nature. Under the old Mutiny Act, there was power to impress a driver, but not to place him under military law, and now it was proposed to extend that power. Nobody, in his opinion, ought to be brought under military law who did not understand. and was not in a position to understand, that to which he was being subjected. A very great hardship would, he could not help thinking, be inflicted by the clause.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that a driver was impressed because there was urgent occasion for his services, and that once having been impressed, he must be dealt with as if the case was one of voluntary enlistment. If a man, with a yoke of oxen and waggons, was impressed, and if he were to be at liberty to leave guns and ammunition in the midst of the bush, it would be better not to impress him at all. The reasons which justified the impressment of a man also justified measures being taken to secure that he should do that for which he was impressed. Nothing could be more ridiculous than when a man had carried guns or regimental stores half-way to their destination, he should be allowed, if he pleased, to leave them half-way, and move them neither backward nor forward.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONthought some misapprehension existed with regard to the true meaning of the clause, which did not contemplate that civilian drivers of waggons should be placed under martial law, except when the troops were on active service beyond the seas; and he would also observe that, in accordance with the provisions of the clause, it was simply contemplated that drivers should be impressed for the purpose of removing regimental baggage and stores on the march, and that the carriage of guns was not provided for.
    MR. PARNELLhoped the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) would not press his Amendment to a

    1039
    Division, for private convenience must be limited by the exigencies of the public service. The point, however, to which ho (Mr. Parnell) had called the attention of the Committee did not seem to him to have been at all clearly explained. The hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) said a driver would not be subject to military law except while the troops were on active service, and he should be very glad to be assured that that was so. But he found, on looking to Clause 167, which defined the persons who were to be subject to military law, that it included—
    "All persons who are or may be hired to be employed in a corps of Artillery or Engineers."
    And those words applied, so far as he was able to understand, to persons who might be hired to drive the extra horses or the extra bullocks which might be required. He wanted to know whether drivers employed for horses and waggons used in the service of the troops might not be said "to accompany Her Majesty's troops or any part thereof?" He would read that portion of the Bill which, he thought, included them—
    "All persons not otherwise subject to military law who are followers of or accompany Her Majesty's troops, or any portion thereof, when employed on active service beyond the seas; subject to this qualification, that where any such persons are followers of or accompany any portion of Her Majesty's Forces consisting partly of Her Majesty's Indian Forces subject to Indian military law, and such persons are natives of India within the meaning of Indian military law, they should be subject to that law."
    Perhaps, however, they came within sub-section 9 of the same clause, which said that—
    "All persons who are or may be hired to be employed in a corps of Artillery or Engineers,"
    should be subject to military law. As, however, the number of persons who would be included under this head was limited, he did not think it worth while in insisting upon the point.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 113 (Payment for and regulations as to carriages, animals, &c.).
    MAJOR NOLANdesired to insert, in sub-section 3, before the word "town,"
    1040
    the word " county." The sub-section would then read as follows:—
    "In Ireland the grand jury for a county, a county of a city, a county of a town and city, or a city, or town and county, also any council of any such county, town, or city, having by law the fiscal powers of a grand jury,"
    might exercise the powers given under the clause for payment and requisition as to carriages and animals.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 114 (Annual list of persons liable to supply carriages) agreed to.
    Clause 115 (Supply of carriages and vessels in ease of emergency).
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONproposed to insert in the clause, after " carriages and animals," the words " kept on hire." The object of this Amendment was to keep the law in the same position as it had been hitherto. At present, on any occasion of emergency, the Government was able to make out a requisition for the impressment of all persons and carriages kept for hire. That provision was made in 1795, when there was a question of the country being invaded, and it was considered most important to move the troops from one part of the country to another with dispatch. The law then made had been kept in force ever since, and all horses and carriages kept for hire could be used for the purpose of the conveyance of troops when necessary. This regulation was made on the same principle on which all houses kept for the entertainment and lodging of guests were made available for lodging troops. It was thought that those who kept houses of entertainment for travellers should be compelled to take in soldiers when on the line of march. But by this Bill, instead of restricting the requisition for transport to those who kept horses and carriages for hire, the requisition was made to apply to all private individuals throughout the country; and other persons who kept a horse or carriage would be liable to have them seized for the removal of troops under a requisition. This was a most important change; and he wished the Committee to thoroughly understand what it was doing. The change was so very important that it ought to be carefully considered, especially when it was re-

    1041
    membered that there was no provision in the Bill for ascertaining what number of horses or carriages were kept, and that they might be impressed without a warrant. All that was provided was that a constable should make a list of all persons liable to furnish carriages and animals under the Act, and of the number and description of the carriages and animals of such persons; and everyone, rich and poor, would thus be liable to have his property requisitioned. Horses, carriages, carts, and waggons might be taken from every person, although there was no provision to specify what particular number might be taken from any individual. He thought that it would be better to leave the law in its present condition, restricting the power of requisition to such horses and carriages as were kept for hire. He should, therefore, move the Amendment to insert the words he had mentioned in the clause.
    MAJOR O'GORMAN: I beg leave to say, Sir, that I am of a contrary opinion.
    COLONEL STANLEYhoped that the Committee would not agree to the insertion of the Amendment in the clause. In that clause they had departed from the former Act, and they did it advisedly for this reason—because it was thought that on an emergency there was no reason why everyone should not be called upon to have his horses and carriages used for the purposes of the State. They had thought it right that in time of emergency, and in that time only, the Government should be able to lay its hands upon any horses and carriages, and not only upon those that were kept for hire. The Committee would notice that by another clause it was provided that this should be done only in time of emergency, the existence of which should be signified by an Order in Council, and any undue use of the power would thus be guarded against.
    MAJOR NOLANdid not think that this Bill went far enough. It was much more necessary to have a power to take the troops over any portion of the country in any direction than it was to be enabled to seize horses. Moreover, under the power the horses that would be seized would not be those belonging to rich persons, but those of the shopkeepers and traders. In his opinion, the clause required to be thoroughly amended. It would be perfectly im-
    1042
    possible to take the troops in large bodies through the country under the powers given by the Bill. They ought to make full provision for the case of troops crossing the country, and this could not be done by merely impressing a few horses. He thought, also, that it should be provided that in time of peace only hired horses were to be used.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that this clause was one of a very extraordinary character, which the Government appeared to be desirous of smuggling into the Bill. Under the old Acts, which he had carefully looked into, he found that the power of impressing carriages and horses was limited to saddle-horses, and post-chaises, and for four-wheeled carriages kept for hire. But, by this clause, the Committee was asked to sanction a provision for the impressment of any horses or carriages, whether kept for hire or not. In time of emergency it would be necessary to have requisitions not only for the impressment of carriages and horses, but for the conveyance of troops in other ways, and, further, for billeting them. The provisions under the present Bill were inadequate for times of emergency; and, for all ordinary purposes, this clause would be entirely out of place.
    MR. WHITWELLwished to draw attention to Clause 114, which they had just passed. By that clause, provision was made for an annual list Of persons who were liable to supply carriages. Provision was made for a constable to call upon any person to furnish horses and carriages; but it was not provided that this requisition should be made without favouritism; and it was possible that one person might be called upon for all the horses and carriages he possessed, and another might not have to furnish any.
    MAJOR NOLANsuggested that the clause should be amended, by inserting that only such horses and carriages should be requisitioned as were " kept for hire, or are public carriages."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTobserved, that in the old coaching times there were numbers of horses and carriages kept for hire all through the country. Post-houses existed on every road, within six or seven miles of each other, where numbers of horses and carriages were kept for hire. Now, all these things were altered, and they

    1043
    might go for miles and not find a single hired horse or carriage. Things had been entirely changed by the introduction of railways; and, therefore, if the provision for obtaining horses and carriages for the use of the public service in times of emergency were limited to hired horses and carriages, they would not be able to obtain any at all. Under these circumstances, it had been thought right that all persons, in any parish, who kept horses or carriages should be liable to have them taken for the public service when required. He did not see what objection could be made to the provision in the Bill.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERremarked, that the impressment of carriages often took place in London. Whenever a battalion of Guards left London, the commanding officer issued an order to impress carriages to remove the baggage to the railway station.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, that there was no difficulty in obtaining hired carriages in London. But this was a question of right; and he did not think that such a sweeping measure as this should be passed.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that this clause only applied to times of emergency, the existence of which must be declared by an Order in Council. He understood his bon. and gallant Friend to state that it was the practice now to impress carriages and horses in certain places. But, so far as this clause went, the provision only came into force in times of emergency.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that considering the very important powers given under this clause, he thought it right that they should have au assurance from the Government that the provision was only to come into force on the occurrence of the most grave and serious emergency, and that the emergency under which these powers were to be used should be communicated to Parliament when it arose. He should, therefore, move, at the end of Clause 115, page 62, line 28, to insert—
    "Always, Provided that the existence of the emergency be communicated to Parliament previous to the powers of this clause being used."
    As this clause interfered with private property to a very great extent, it was
    1044
    most important that the existence of an emergency rendering it necessary should be communicated to the House. He did not think there could be any excuse for not communicating such emergency to Parliament.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause agreed to.

    Offences in relation to the Impressment of Carriages.
    Clause 116 (Offences by constables) agreed to.
    Clause 117 (Offences by persons ordered to furnish carriages, animals, or vessels).
    MR. PARNELLsaid, in line 15, page 63, he had to move an Amendment to this clause—namely, to provide that the maximum penalty for an offence in relation to the furnishing of carriages, animals, or vessels under this clause, should be reduced from £20 to £10. He thought £20 was an excessive fine, and he did not see why such a fine should be imposed.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 118 (Offences by officers or noncommissioned officers) agreed to.

    Supplemental Previsions as to Billeting and Impressment of Carriages.
    Clause 119 (Application to court of summary jurisdiction respecting sums due to keepers of victualling houses or owners of carriages, &c.) agreed to.
    Clause 120 (Provisions as to constables, police authorities, and justices) agreed to.
    Clause 121 (Fraudulent claim for carriages, animals, &c.) agreed to.

PART IV.
  GENERAL PROVISIONS.

    Supplemental Provisions as to Courts Martial.
    Clause 122 (Royal warrant required for convening and confirming general courts martial).
    MR. PARNELLtrusted that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would now agree to report Progress, as the Committee had made very satisfactory pro-

    1045
    gress with the Bill that evening. They had now entered upon a part of the Bill which would necessitate considerable discussion; and as they had arrived at a very late hour, he hoped that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would not refuse his request.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and asked leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that he was quite in the hands of the Committee; but ho would remind hon. Members that the Bill had already been four months upon the Table of the House. There did not seem to be many Amendments to the next few clauses—he only saw one Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon), who proposed to leave out "fourpence" and insert "twopence"—and he, therefore, thought that the Committee might proceed a little further that night.
    MR. RYLANDSdid not think that the Government ought to refuse the very reasonable request that had been made to report Progress. It should be remembered that many Amendments, which it was proposed to make, were not down upon the Paper.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTthought that the Government ought to be well satisfied with the progress that had been made that evening. Personally, he would be willing to go on; but, still, as there was a disinclination on the part of some hon. Members to proceed, he thought the Government should be satisfied with what had been already done. It would be unwise on the part of the Government not to show its appreciation of the manner in which the Bill had been treated that evening.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas conscious that the Committee had been allowed to make a good deal of progress with the Bill that evening. The only thing that weighed with him was a consideration of the state of Public Business; and he thought, in view of that, they might be allowed to make some slight further progress. He did not think there was any reason why they should not do a little extra work that evening.
    MR. BIGGARsupported the Motion to report Progress.
    MR. PARNELLhoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not continue to resist the Motion to report Progress. There was a good deal of contentious matter in the clause at which they had arrived; and it ought not to be supposed that because Amendments were not down upon the Paper that nothing was to be said. It was true that the lion. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins), who had a Motion on the Paper, was away; but there were others besides him who were interested in this question of courts martial. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not desire to press them to go on when they had passed 34 clauses—only fancy, 34 clauses of a Bill of that magnitude!
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwould not further resist the Motion; but he must remind the Committee that at the time of the Session at which they had arrived it would make it necessary, unless they were allowed to make reasonable progress with this Bill, for him to propose that the House should sit on an unusual day at this period of the Session—namely, on Saturday. He trusted that the progress that had been made that night would be an augury as to the manner in which they would proceed hereafter with the Bill. Under the circumstances, he would consent to the Motion that Progress should be reported.
    Motion agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

    SUPPLY-REPORT.
    Resolutions [27th June]reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Resolutions be now read a second time."
    MR. RYLANDS: I rise for the purpose of making a complaint against Her Majesty's Government for taking a course which appears, so far as my experience goes, entirely unprecedented. The effect of the proceeding on Friday night was certainly to prevent hon. Members who might have been desirous of taking part in the consideration of Votes in Supply from doing so. I did think, Sir, of appealing to you to say how far these

    1047
    proceedings were strictly in Order; but I came to the conclusion that they were in Order, or they would have been stopped. But, admitting they were strictly in Order, I can say they were entirely contrary to custom; because on Fridays it is the usual Order of Business to put down Supply, in order that the Motion for your leaving the Chair may give the opportunity to Members of bringing forward Motions. There is no doubt that in ordinary cases the questions introduced by private Members, though worthy of consideration, do not excite interest and attention among the House generally; and it is not thought necessary, during the discussion of these preliminary Notices on going into Committee, that Members should be present when the matter under discussion is only of special interest; but there can be no doubt at all, from the practice of the House, that Members rely on the fact that these discussions on going into Committee will take a certain amount of time, and then Members come down to the House, about 10 or 11 o'clock, in the expectation that after the Notices of Motion are disposed of the House will resolve itself into Committee and take the Votes of Supply. Instead of this, on Friday night, the Government took a course somewhat in the nature of a surprise, and instead of the Votes in Committee being taken at the close of the proceedings they were taken at the commencement. A form was gone through to which the hon. Member having the first Notice gave consent. That Notice was put aside—in fact, was not made—Mr. Speaker left the Chair, and three Votes in Supply were gone through unexpectedly and without discussion; then, these three Votes having been passed through, the Chairman left the Chair, and, Supply being again set up, the Motions on the Paper were proceeded with, and hon. Members coming down to the House expecting to have the opportunity of discussing these Votes found they had been agreed to. Now, I maintain if the Business of the House of Commons is to be conducted in this way it is unfair to private Members, and it is calculated to prejudice our proceedings in public opinion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his conduct of the Business of the House, would not—as I am sure we can all bear testimony—willingly take a course unfair to any Member; but the
    1048
    Chancellor of the Exchequer did not, at the earlier part of the day, give the slightest intimation that the course would be taken, and I do not suppose at the moment he had the intention to take that course when he announced that, if possible, the Navy Estimates would be taken in the evening. It was not stated at the Morning Sitting that there was an intention to take the unusual course, the step was taken while most of us were away from the House, and what is the excuse put forward? I am told it was said these Votes did not necessarily involve any contention, it was such a matter of course to take them that no one could complain of the course taken. But the Votes were for £2,000,000! A sum by no means insignificant. I do not know how long the Committee sat, but I suppose the Votes were taken in about two minutes; but even if this were not so, and the amount of money of no consequence at all, I should equally complain of this course being taken, because it forms a precedent. Though hon. Gentlemen on the other side support with so much loyalty a Government in which they have such unbounded confidence—though they support the Government now—let me remind them that it may possibly happen that Members on the front Bench may change sides. Then the Government may take the same course, and the then Opposition may complain. I cannot let the House understand that I am raising the question in a Party spirit at all. I am speaking as an independent Member; and hon. Gentlemen who remember the course I took in the last Parliament will believe me when I say that had the then Government acted as the Government did on Friday night, I should have protested as strongly as I am now doing. I say, moreover, these Votes were of the greatest importance, and the excuse is not a good one. Not only was the amount of £2,000,000 a large one, but there was an increase in the amount of the Votes in excess over previous years of something like £30,000. Another excuse put forward is that Supply is very much behindhand, and I dare say the First Lord of the Admiralty will say that he was absolutely obliged to take these Votes. But why are the Government in this state? If I take the Return circulated amongst hon. Members this morning, I find that out of the

    1049
    Votes of Supply we have taken 100, and there are 88 to take—a large number, certainly. We have still to pass 58 Civil Service Votes, and 15 in the Navy. We have taken four, including these three surreptitiously obtained. ["Oh, oh"] Well, obtained in this unusual way. We have others in the Army, and in the Indian Home charges. We have 88 in all—a very serious number, I admit; and I fully sympathize with the Government in this matter. But why are they in this difficulty? Do not right hon. Gentlemen recollect they took Mondays away from us at the beginning of the Session, and are now entitled to go into Committee on Mondays, without independent Members having the opportunity to interfere with Motions; and I remember we were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his happy mode of looking at the bright side of things for the future, that by this means we should have Supply so far advanced as to avoid all complications. But the Government have not taken the Mondays for Supply. Why did they not take to-night, or last Monday, or the Monday before? If the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty had taken these Votes a fortnight ago, he would not have been driven into this corner. Why did he not take them on Monday? I know I may not with propriety refer to what has taken place to-night; but I am quite sure that if the conduct of Business is fairly examined, it will be found that a good deal of the delay has arisen from the mode in which Business has been brought before the House of Commons. Be this as it may, I do say Government should have taken the Mondays for Supply. They have not done so, and now they complain they are driven into a corner; for I am told the First Lord admitted this, and said it was absolutely necessary for the Public Service that he should have these Votes scrambled through as they were on Friday. It is not my object to make an attack upon the Government; but I do wish to give them the opportunity of saying this is not to become a precedent for the future, and to assure us that though Votes are put down preceded by Motions on going into Committee, that we shall not run the risk of losing the opportunity of discussion if we are not down here at the very first moment of the Sitting.
    MR. W. H. SMITHwould give the reasons for the course which he took on Friday night. Anyone who took an active part in the proceedings of Parliament would know the reasons which had prevented the Government from putting down Supply for Monday last, or for the preceding Monday. Except on those two occasions, the Government had put down Supply for every Monday. But, with reference to those two occasions, the Government gave them up in order to allow hon. Members to express their opinion upon the course taken by the Government. He might say that he was, personally, responsible for the Votes being taken; and, in the ordinary course, they would have been taken on Monday. But they were unable to be taken that night, and it was a matter of the greatest importance that they should be taken on Friday. Under these circumstances, at 9 o'clock, he asked the hon. Gentleman the Member for Clonmel (Mr. A. Moore), who had a Notice on the Paper, to allow the House to go into Committee, in order that these Votes might be taken, as it was absolutely essential to the Public Service that they should be got through that night. That proposal was accepted by the hon. Member for Clonmel, and was adopted by the House. The hon. Member said that the House was taken by surprise by the course; but it was impossible to communicate to every hon. Member what the Government was about to do. The Government proposed to take these Votes in this manner—they announced it publicly in the House, and appealed to the hon. Member for Clonmel to withdraw his Motion. The hon. Member for Cavan was in his place, and he was by no means careless with regard to the proceedings of the House. No objection was made on that occasion; and if there had been an Amendment put down against the Votes by any hon. Member, an opportunity would have been allowed him to have brought it on. But no Amendment of any kind was put upon the Paper; and the Government felt themselves obliged, in the interests of the Public Service, to take the Votes that night, and they, therefore, took them at an early period of the evening, in order to avoid any contingency which might afterwards occur to prevent them being brought on.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that the objection made was not so much that the

    1051
    Government took the Votes on Friday as that they took them at a time when they did not usually take them. Hon. Members had every reason to suppose that the Government could not take Supply later in the evening; and the conduct of the Government, in taking the Votes in this manner, in his opinion, amounted to nothing less than sharp practice. There were about 650 Members in the House of Commons, and how many of those knew that the Government intended to depart from the usual practice to take the Votes at the commencement instead of the close of the proceedings? And when Votes were taken out of their usual course, and Members were ignorant that they would be so taken, they did not attend in their places to discuss the Votes. He thought that the Government should not adopt any such irregular proceedings as those, and they could, if they chose, have taken Supply on Monday; and, if so taken, it would not have been necessary to do so unprecedented a thing in Parliament as was done on Friday night. The point to which he wished to draw attention more particularly was this—that, up to the present time, they had not taken any Irish Votes in Supply at all. It was a question of great importance to Irish Members to know when Irish Supply was to be taken. There were 50 Notices of objections to the Irish Votes, and yet no sign was made by the Government of their intention to take those Votes. The Government had given up their practice of taking Supply on Monday in favour of certain Bills, and when Irish Votes were reached the opportunity was taken away from hon. Members to bring forward matters of importance which they desired to have discussed. If the Government had continued their practice of going on with Supply on Monday, the Irish Votes would have been taken in their ordinary course. He knew that he should be told that Irish Supply had been brought on, and objection had been made. But that objection was some time ago, and they would not have objection to Supply being taken immediately after the Whitsuntide Holidays; but they were then told by the Government that Irish Supply should not be taken. But when Irish Supply was brought on on the last occasion, the Government had previously allowed them to suppose that it would not have been
    1052
    brought forward, and all the hon. Members that desired to be present at this discussion were not in their places. He wished to ask whether they were to have an opportunity of discussing the Irish Votes that Session?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that it was absolutely necessary for hon. Gentlemen to understand that the time of Parliament was limited, and that there were certain things which must be done before they separated. Although there were things upon which it was perfectly right to have a full discussion, yet it should be borne in mind that the effect of those long discussions, so much in favour with certain hon. Members, was to take up a great deal of time, and to delay the progress of Public Business much more than was necessary. On Friday the course taken by the Government, no doubt, was not a usual one. He did not know whether there was any precedent for it or not. Supply was taken under circumstances which he did not think he should be going too far in saying were circumstances which arose from an emergency. It was absolutely necessary that certain Votes in Supply should be taken. It was proposed on Friday to take certain Votes of a non-contentious character at 9 o'clock, when the House sat, and that course was adopted with the full consent of all hon. Members who were present at the time, and who were thoroughly conversant with the matters in question, and aware that what was being done was not to the prejudice of the Public Service. It was very much the same thing whether the Government took Supply at the commencement or the end of the evening when matters were not pressing; but when there was an emergency, and it was absolutely necessary to get the Votes passed, Supply was taken at the beginning of the evening, in order to prevent the possibility of its not being taken at all. And that possibility was not ill-founded, for on Friday night an attempt was made to count out. If that had been done, Supply would not have been taken at all; and, in that event, immense inconvenience would have arisen to the Public Service. With regard to the charge of not having taken Supply on every Monday evening, he must remind hon. Gentlemen that upon several occasions during the present Session the Government had been urged

    1053
    to bring forward their Business in such a manner as would enable hon. Members to introduce Motions amounting to censure upon the conduct of the Government. They had been anxious that these Motions should be fairly discussed, and for that reason had given up some nights. Then there had been the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, and the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill, which required to be pressed on. He must put it to the consciences of hon. Members, who had made reflections upon the course of Public Business, to decide who was responsible for the delay of Public Business. Hon. Members knew that the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill was a measure essential and necessary; and they knew the reasons for which the Government had brought it in. On the suggestion that it would necessarily take up considerable time and discussion Government had agreed to pass a short temporary Act, in order that no delay might occur. One might have thought that by that time the Bill would have passed the House; but although they had now got to the end of June—or, rather, into the month of July, when the temporary Act would expire—they had not got the Bill through Committee. It was absolutely impossible, in the interests of the Public Service, that they could allow other Business, however important, to take precedence of that very important measure. Let them imagine what a state of things would happen if no Mutiny Act were passed. The only course for the House to adopt would be to sit for long after the usual time, and to ask for a prolongation of the temporary Act, while the permanent measure was being passed. Hon. Members must feel that it was the object of the Government in that way to facilitate the taking of Public Business, and to press forward the measures which were necessary. No harm was done by taking the Votes on Friday; and when they proposed to go into Committee at once, they were only proposing to take that course with Votes of a non-contentious character. If they had proposed to take Votes which would lead to a long discussion, there might have been objections to the course which they pursued. But the Government had no intention to do anything of that sort. What was done was only done with the concurrence of hon. Members who were present at
    1054
    the time. Any hon. Member had a right to oppose the Motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair. He trusted that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) would be satisfied with the explanation that had been given; and although he was quite right in drawing attention to the matter, he hoped that the House also would be satisfied that nothing had been done that could hear the name of sharp practice. It was only for meeting an absolute necessity that they were obliged to take the Votes in this manner. With respect to the Irish Votes, they were very anxious for them to come on, and they had always promised to take them at a convenient time. It was impossible, however, to put aside other Business in their favour, and they must be brought on when there was an opportunity.
    MR. DILLWYNhad never before seen anything like the course which the Government had taken on Friday night. Unless the Government carried on the Business of the House in a due and orderly manner, it struck at the root of the confidence of the House. It was not a question of Party, but only a question of the conduct of Public Business. He did not see that there was any necessity, or any emergency, which would justify what had been done. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had alleged that if Supply had not been taken at the commencement of the proceedings on Friday, it might not have been taken at all. But he would remind the Government that they could always keep a House. There was no objection to taking Votes at an early period of the evening, if Notice had been given; and many hon. Members would have been in their places if they had known that the Votes were to be taken. But by bringing on the Votes without any previous intimation they were got through when very few Members were in the House. His belief was that the Votes were passed two minutes after 9. He was very glad that the hon. Member for Burnley had brought this question forward; and he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give an assurance that what had been done would not be used by the Government as a precedent for future occasions.
    MR. MONKdid not think that the right hon. Gentleman was right in saying that no harm had been done by the

    1055
    course taken on Friday, for the harm done was that the conduct of the Government would be drawn into a very inconvenient precedent. This was no Party question, and equally concerned hon. Members on both sides of the House. Had a precedent of this kind been established by a Liberal Government lion. Members on the other side of the House would have been the first to have protested against it; and he fully agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley in raising his voice against any such precedent being established. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty had informed the House that it was not taken by surprise in this matter; but he ventured to differ from him. He was in his place at a quarter past 9, and the Votes had then been taken; and had he been there at 9 he should certainly have made some remarks before the House went into Committee. He trusted that, for the future, no Government—either Liberal or Conservative—would ever take such a liberty with the House again.
    MR. A. MOOREsaid, that on Friday night an appeal was made to him to defer his Motion, on the ground of necessity for the Public Service. He yielded to the appeal on that ground, and should always take the same course for a like reason.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that perhaps the House would allow him to state that it had always been the desire of the Government that the Irish Votes should be properly discussed when they were brought on. He would remind the House, and hon. Members from Ireland, that there were some very important Bills that had to be passed, and that the time they had to do it in was limited. Until a very important Bill which was now in Committee had been discussed Supply would have to be postponed. But when that had been got through they would take the Irish Votes in the regular order; but until that Bill went through everything else must be postponed.
    MR. BIGGARsaid , that on Friday night the Votes were taken without discussion, and, in his opinion, the entire proceedings were wholly irregular; and he did not think that it was right to conduct the Business of the House by means of a system of private arrangements. He thought that the Government should
    1056
    give an opportunity for these Votes, which had been taken in Supply, to be discussed; and for that purpose he should move the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question .proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Biggar.)
    MR. RYLANDShoped that the Motion for adjournment would not be pressed by the hon. Member for Cavan. In his opinion, the discussion that had been raised would show the Government that the course which they had taken was open to considerable objection, and ought not to be persisted in. There was no reason why they should refuse to pass the Report of Supply now under discussion, as the observations which had been made had been answered in a fair and reasonable manner.
    MR. PARNELLdid not think that they ought to ask the Government to postpone the Report of Supply; but he thought that the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury was a most extraordinary one. The hon. Gentleman had stated that he did not intend to bring forward the Irish Votes in Supply until the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill had been passed. It would be seen whether the Government would persist in that determination or not—he rather thought that they would want a Vote on Account before the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill had passed the House; and, in all probability, they would want a Vote on Account in a month's time. They were then at the end of the Session, without a single Irish Vote having been brought forward. It was utterly monstrous that Ireland should be treated in this manner; the same thing had been done year after year up to the present time; and he thought they ought to resent the conduct of the Government in continually postponing Irish Supply until the end of the Session, when it was impossible to freely discuss it. The consequence of postponing these Votes was that no discussion could take place upon them, although they were continually promised by the Government that they should have an opportunity of considering the various questions. The practical effect was that there was no control whatever over the Votes taken for Ireland. He might say that, so far as the efforts of an individual Member could go, he should

    1057
    do his best to prevent Supply being taken at a much later period of the Session.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I leave it to the House to judge between the hon. Member and myself as to who is responsible for the delay that has taken place, and which may prevent our arriving at these Votes. If hon. Members will assist us a little by somewhat condensing the speeches they make upon other subjects, I do not think there will be any difficulty in getting the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill thoroughly discussed, and in getting Irish Supply through in good time. The hon. Member for Cavan spoke of some private arrangements; but I can state that all that was done took place openly across the floor of the House. An appeal was made by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty to the hon. Member for Clonmel; and, so far as I remember, the hon. Member for Cavan took part in the discussion which followed. In the discussion which ensued five or six hon. Members took part.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that he did not wish the House to divide upon his Motion, and he begged leave to withdraw it. But, at the same time, he wished to make a personal explanation, as he saw that the right hon. Gentleman was convinced that what he had stated was thoroughly true. He knew that before Mr. Speaker was in the Chair, the hon. Member for Clonmel was sitting on this side of the House, conversing with one of the Members of the Government. Afterwards, he went up to the hon. Member, and asked him to tell him the purport of the conversation.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions read a second time, and agreed to.

    CHARITY COMMISSIONERS' EXPENSES [STAMP DUTY].—RESOLUTION.
    CHARITY COMMISSIONERS' EXPENSES, considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee).
    MR. MONKinquired the object of the Resolution?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that the object of the Resolution was to fulfil a promise made to the House in the early part of the year, to the effect
    1058
    that he would introduce and submit to the House a scheme, by which the expenses of the Charity Commissioners, which amounted to about £25,000 a-year, should be met. In the discussion that took place, he stated that he had some difficulty in the matter, and that various suggestions had been made for raising the sum required. He had since been in communication with the Commissioners, and had looked into the matter; and, after some consideration, he had decided to submit to the House a proposal giving effect to the existing law in respect to the Charity Commissioners. A provision was inserted that would enable the Commissioners to issue stamps, by which they would be enabled to obtain their revenue.
    Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the imposition of a Stamp Duty of One per centum on the gross income of Charities towards meeting the Expenses of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, and to make further provision respecting the Accounts of Charities.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

    VOLUNTEER CORPS (IRELAND) (re-committed) BILL.
    (Mr. O'Clery, Major Nolan, Lord Francis Conyngham, Major O'Beirne.)
    [BILL 200.] COMMITTEE.
    [Progress, Clause 2, 26th June.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 2 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 7 (Power for volunteer to quit corps).
    MR. WHITWELLobjected to the power of appeal given to a Volunteer who had been dismissed from his corps by his commanding officer. He did not wish to offer any formal opposition; but simply to inquire what kind of discipline could be maintained over a man after he had been re-instated by the magistrates in opposition to the decision of his commanding officer?
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 8 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 22 (Discipline of volunteer force when on actual military service).
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERbegged to move an alteration in this clause, pro-

    1059
    viding that Regulars might sit on courts martial upon Volunteers. The Army Discipline and Regulation Bill provided that officers of the Regular troops were to be allowed to take part in courts martial upon Volunteers. He thought that a provision of that character should be inserted in this Bill, which provided that courts martial on Volunteers should be composed only of Volunteer officers.
    MR. PARNELLthought it would be better to postpone the decision of this question until the English precedent had been decided in the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill. That Regular officers should sit with Volunteer officers in trying members of the Auxiliary Forces, was a change recommended by the Committee that sat last Session; but whether it would be adopted, the House had not yet decided. It Would be better to allow the clause to pass in its present form. In his opinion, the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill did not alter the matter. And if the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill altered the law, it would alter the law as regarded Ireland as well, and in that respect would override this Act. Any other course would be forestalling the opinion of the House.
    MR. O'CLERYsaid, that the provision in the Bill was similar to that contained in the previous Acts. He certainly thought it would be best to permit the clause to be passed in its present shape.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEhoped that this clause would be allowed to remain in its present form, as there was a difference of opinion in the Committee which recommended the alteration.
    COLONEL LOYD-LINDSAYtrusted that the hon. Member would not press his Amendment. No doubt, when the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill was carried, it would alter the law.
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERwished merely to obtain the information from Her Majesty's Government, as to whether the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill would govern this Bill when it was passed? He had no desire, however, having elicited this information, to press his Amendment to a Division.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, that if the hon. Baronet would look at Clause 44 of the Act—that dealing with the interpretation of terms—he would see that, under the words "Mutiny Act," the effect would be that the Army Dis-
    1060
    cipline and Regulation Bill would govern this Act.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 23 to 46, inclusive, agreed to.
    Schedule and Preamble agreed to.
    Bill reported, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

    CUSTOMS BUILDINGS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. NOEL, Bill for the transfer of property held for the service of Her Majesty's Customs to the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. NOEL and Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 228.]
    House adjourned at Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILL—Select Committee—London Bridge*,nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS —First Reading —Prayer Book Amendment * (133); University Education (Ireland) (134).
Second Reading—Wormwood Scrubs Regulation * (128).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Customs and Inland Revenue*.
Committee—Report—Local Government Provisional Orders (Aspull, &c.) *(113); Consolidated Fund (No. 4) *.

THE LATE LORD LAWRENCE.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LATE LORD LAWRENCE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I rise to put a Question to the noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government, of which there has not been time to give more than a private Notice. A great man has passed away from this House and from this life. It required a singular combination of distinguished men and of extraordinary circumstances to build up the Indian Empire of the Queen. It also required an unusual concurrence of mental and moral qualities, much time, and unusual opportunities to build up such a reputation as the late Lord Lawrence has established for himself in the history of India and of this country. My Lords, I think that these are qualities which it is wise in a great nation to acknowledge. I wish to ask, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to advise that any mark of public respect should be paid to the memory of Lord Lawrence? I purposely abstain from any suggestion as to the mode in which such a tribute should be rendered, because these are not matters of mere sentiment—they must in some degree be governed by precedent—and also because it is right that the Advisers of the Crown should take the initiative in a question of honours.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: Everyone must be conscious of the services of Lord Lawrence. They were eminent, and will be honoured and remembered. I understand that an offer has been made that his body should be interred in Westminster Abbey, and that that offer has been accepted by the noble Lord's relatives.

  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS—VILLAGE OF LEIGHTON.—QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF SANDWICHrose to ask a Question respecting the village of Leighton, in the county of Hunts, the property of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The noble Earl having read a letter from the Chairman of the Board of Guardians, describing the imperfect sanitary condition of the place, and the injurious effects of overcrowding in the cottages of the poor, said, he contended that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, on whose property the village was situated, ought to take immediate steps to remedy the state of things of which he complained.
  EARL STANHOPE,on behalf of the Church Commissioners, said, that when the village was bought by them it had a population of 450 persons, and contained 45 cottages and 22 poor cottages. Their object had been from the first to improve the condition of the village, and, with that object, nine of the worst cottages had been pulled down; while the others were being gradually rebuilt in such a manner as to compare favourably with the new cottages on other estates. In the course of last summer certain complaints were made by the rural sanitary authority respecting the state of some drains, but the defects pointed out had been speedily and satisfactorily remedied, and at a very trifling cost. He hoped that his noble Friend would be satisfied with the answer he had made. He should be happy to furnish him with any correspondence that he might desire, as well as a list of the cottage occupiers.

  NEW NORTHERN (VICTORIA) UNIVERSITY.—QUESTION.
  LORD WINMARLEIGHasked the Lord President of the Council, Whether the Government have decided on the advice which shall be given to Her Majesty with regard to the institution of a new University in accordance with a Memorial recently presented to Her Majesty?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONreplied, that a Memorial had been presented to the Queen in Council, praying that Her Majesty might be graciously pleased to grant a Charter for a Northern University, to be called the Victoria University, and that the

  931
  advice of Her Majesty's Government was, that Her Majesty be pleased to grant the prayer of the Memorialists.

  INSURANCE COMPANIES—PARTICIPATION OF PROFITS.—QUESTION.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether, in consequence of a decision of Mr. Justice Fry, persons who have insured in Insurance Offices which give a participation in the profits will be liable for the debts of those Insurance Companies; and whether Her Majesty's Government intend to bring in a Bill to remedy this state of things?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would endeavour to give the best answer he could to the Question; but he must submit to the noble Lord that it was a somewhat inconvenient course to adopt, with regard to a decision which had been given by one of the Primary Courts of Law, to ask the Government what their opinion of that decision was, and whether they meant to introduce a Bill in consequence of it? Of the particular details of the Judgment to which the noble Lord referred, he had no accurate means of informing himself; but he was told that it would give quite an inaccurate description of the Judgment to speak of it in the way in which it was described in the Question, or as going to the length which was there indicated. He was informed that the Judgment in this particular case had not the universal application the noble Lord supposed. He would merely add that the Judgment was one against which anyone who was affected by it, and considered himself aggrieved by it, might appeal. If the Judgment were ill-founded, it would be reversed; if it were pronounced to be consistent with law, the House would probably not expect the Government to introduce a measure to alter the law, in order to meet the exigency of one particular case.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in rising to call the attention of the House to the subject of University Education in
  932
  Ireland and to the present arrangements under which University degrees are conferred in that country, and to present a Bill on that subject, said:—My Lords, in inviting your Lordships' attention for a short time to the question of University Education in Ireland, I think I ought at the outset to offer your Lordships' some explanation of how it has come to pass that, at this period of the Session, a measure on this subject is about to be laid before your Lordships, and is about to originate in this House. My Lords, the explanation is extremely short and simple. Her Majesty's Government have at various times had their most careful attention directed to the question of University Education in Ireland, the various demands made with respect to it, and the opinions which were entertained on the subject. Before the commencement of the present Session, they felt it to be their duty to consider the whole subject with great care and attention. My Lords, the Government at that time were of opinion—an opinion which we still entertain—that without entering on ground which was, to some extent, debatable—there was in the arrangements connected with University Education in Ireland—I will not call it a grievance, but a deficiency and an inconvenience which called for a remedy. My Lords, the Government have considered whether they would make a proposal for the purpose of remedying that deficiency in the present Session of Parliament, and they came to the conclusion that it was not their duty to do so—and that for two reasons. The first reason is, that the Government well knew that, however simple might be the proposals which they were prepared to make, the whole subject of Irish University Education, and all the opinions which were entertained with regard to it, must be thrown open by the introduction of any Bill whatsoever on the subject. The Government were, at the same time, conscious that there were other measures of great urgency and importance which it would be their duty, in the first place, to submit to Parliament, and upon them to have the judgment of Parliament pronounced, before they approached the question of University Education in Ireland. The other reason tended in the same direction. In the course of last Session of Parliament the Government carried through Parliament pro-

  933
  posals, with which your Lordships are well acquainted, for the improvement of Intermediate Education in Ireland. At the commencement of the present Session the legislation on that subject had hardly begun to take effect, and may be regarded as being yet in its infancy. The Government were of opinion that, looking at the question of University Education as being closely connected with Intermediate Education, it would be extremely desirable and advantageous to have some experience of the working of the measure with regard to Intermediate, before they proceeded to legislate on the subject of University Education. It was for these reasons that the Government determined not to introduce a Bill dealing with University Education in Ireland among the measures which were to be presented to Parliament during the present Session. I believe that soon after Parliament met one of my Colleagues, in answer to a Question which was put, either in this or in the other House of Parliament, stated that it was not the intention of the Government to propose legislation on the subject in the present year. But, my Lords, the position of matters has changed since that time. A Member of the Legislature—a Member of great experience and ability—who upon this subject must be looked upon as occupying, to a certain extent, a representative position (the O'Conor Don)—acting entirely within his own right, introduced into the other House a measure on the subject of Irish University Education. My Lords, that measure is not before your Lordships, and it would be extremely improper for me, and it is not my intention, to enter into any controversy with regard to its provisions. Indeed, I am anxious to avoid, in dealing with this subject, every appearance of controversy—I wish to state merely those facts which are necessary to explain the position of the Government. In considering the measure to which I have just referred, the Government were of opinion that the financial proposals which it contained would have the effect of constituting an endowment for denominational Colleges in Ireland, contrary to what they conceived was the Parliamentary compact entered into in 1869 with regard to the funds of the Disestablished Church, and contrary, I may say, to that which they considered as having been the uniform policy of
  934
  Parliamentary legislation with respect to grants of public money for the purposes of Collegiate education and instruction. In these circumstances, the Government felt that they could not support the Bill. There is no doubt that the Government might have contented themselves with opposing the Bill, and criticizing its provisions on the grounds which I have stated. They felt, however, that they would not be acting with candour towards Parliament if they did not make some statement with regard to what they themselves considered to be the great deficiencies in the case of University Education in Ireland, and if they did not, at the same time, state the extent to which they were prepared to propose a remedy for those deficiencies. No doubt, they might have confined themselves to such a statement; but they thought it fairer to Parliament, and fairer to those outside of Parliament, who would not be likely to be satisfied with a mere statement on the subject, that their views should be distinctly and clearly set forth in the form of a Bill, to which the assent of Parliament should be asked, as containing the remedy which the Government would advocate for the deficiency of the existence of which they were conscious. My Lords, for these reasons it was that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, a few days since, announced that it would be my duty, as the Representative of the Government, to introduce in this House, where the state of the Public Business admitted of its being done, a measure on the subject. My right hon. Friend—probably not bearing in mind our form of procedure—stated that I should be prepared to lay before your Lordships the measure I refer to on Thursday last. I greatly regret that your Lordships were inconvenienced by a misunderstanding on the subject. As far as I myself am concerned, it was a matter of perfect indifference to me whether I proposed the measure on Thursday last or to-night; but I found that Business was already arranged for last Thursday; and it appeared that it would be more for your Lordships' convenience that the Notice I gave on Thursday should be given, and that I should make, what I hope your Lordships will find, a very short and concise statement on the subject to-night. My Lords, that is the explanation—a clear and simple one—of

  935
  the circumstances under which this Bill now comes before you.
  Now, my Lords, in order to explain the proposals of the Government, I must ask your Lordships to refer for a moment to the state of matters in England with regard to University Education and University degrees. In England you at present have four Universities—Oxford, Cambridge, London, and Durham. I put aside Durham, because it is a University local in its operation, confined to the College and Hall of which it consists, and it does not in any way affect the general arguments which I wish to lay before your Lordships. I come to Oxford and Cambridge. Your Lordships are well aware that in order to obtain a degree in these Universities a student must become a member of the University—in other words, he must be matriculated. He must reside for a greater or less period of a certain number of years in order to qualify himself. By submitting to these conditions, and by proving the proficiency which he has acquired, he obtains in regular course the degree which he wishes to obtain. My Lords, it is, therefore, impossible for any person to obtain a degree in Oxford or Cambridge without becoming a resident in one of the Colleges or Halls of those Universities. I now turn to the University of London. The University of London proceeds upon a principle materially varying from that of Oxford and Cambridge. A student there must, indeed, matriculate as a commencement of his relation to the University; but he is not, after his matriculation, required to reside either in the University or in any College or Hall connected with the University. The University takes no account of how a student who may obtain his matriculation or his degree has obtained education. He is allowed to educate himself where he pleases, and as he pleases, in private under such conditions as ho may think proper, or in any private Hall or College. All that the University requires is that, at the proper time, he should present himself for his further examination, and show that ho has attained the standard of education which the University thinks desirable and necessary to qualify him for a degree. If, when the time comes, he can show that degree of proficiency, he receives a degree of the University. Now, my Lords, that being the state of things in England, let me
  936
  also turn for a moment to consider what is the state of things in Ireland. There are in Ireland two Universities. There is the University of Dublin—that is to say, the University of Trinity College—and there is the University of the Queen's Colleges, called Queen's University. Let me explain separately the arrangements of each of these Universities. With regard to Dublin, the University and College are co-extensive. The members of the College are members of the University, and there are no members of the University who are not members of the College. In order to obtain a degree in Dublin University a student must be matriculated, as he would be at Oxford or at Cambridge. He must go through a certain amount of Collegiate education, which must either be done with residence in Trinity College, or, if he does not actually reside in Trinity College, he must, at all events, come up certain times within the year to undergo a periodical examination—not examination for a degree, but periodical examination to test his progress in the particular course of learning laid down by the College. During that time he must be on the books of the College, and he must pay the annual fees that the College requires. My Lords, the endowments of Trinity College are entirely open to every denomination. I am glad to believe that to some extent in practice the advantages of Trinity College are availed of by all denominations in Ireland. I speak myself as one who has been an alumnus of the University of which I have now the honour to be Chancellor; and I well remember that in the time of my Collegiate course several of my intimate friends were members of the Roman Catholic Church, receiving there the same education which I received—and I recollect that I had the advantage of having as my private tutor one of the most accomplished mathematicians of the day, who was a Roman Catholic. My Lords, the tests for the higher endowments of Trinity College which then existed have been entirely removed, and there is absolutely at this moment no disqualification to any person whomsoever with regard to any endowment or preferment in Trinity College. And your Lordships cannot have a more conspicuous proof of that than that which has occurred within the last few days. One of the

  937
  great prizes of Trinity College had to be filled up—one of the Fellowships of the College. There was the usual examination for the purpose of filling up that vacancy. The successful candidate, I am informed, belongs to the Moravian denomination; and if there had been another vacancy, the next in order of merit was a Roman Catholic. Your Lordships, then, cannot but be satisfied with the complete openness to all denominations of the endowments of Trinity College. Your Lordships, at the same time, will understand that, although all the endowments are open in the way I describe, a degree cannot be obtained by any person in Trinity College without his becoming a member resident, or attending periodical examinations, in the University. Now, what is the case with regard to the Queen's University? My Lords, the history of the Queen's University is this:—In the year 1845 there were founded three Queen's Colleges in Ireland—one at Belfast, one at Cork, and one at Galway. They were founded, in the first instance, as Colleges, without any arrangements for conferring degrees. They were provided by Parliament with grants for building, and with considerable endowments for the foundation of scholarships and exhibitions. In a few years afterwards—I think in 1850—the Queen's University was incorporated for the purpose of conferring degrees upon those who were students of those three Colleges. Now, your Lordships will understand that the Queen's University itself has, what I may term, no local or real existence beyond that of its corporate character. What I mean to say is, it does not undertake to teach; it has no Professors, it has no Fellows. It is not provided with any scholarships or exhibitions—it is simply an Examining Body. But, then, your Lordships will observe the peculiarity of this Examining Body is this—it does not examine for the purpose of conferring degrees at large, but for the purpose of conferring a degree only on those who pass through a curriculum or course of study in one of the three Queen's Colleges. Now, with regard to the Queen's Colleges, as I stated of Trinity College so I say of them—they are entirely open. They are open to persons of all denominations, without any restriction whatever. And, my Lords, I am glad to say that,
  938
  looking at the number of these Colleges, they appear to be availed of, to a considerable extent, by persons of all denominations. I have got the numbers upon the books of the three Colleges. I have here a list of the students who were attending in the year 1876-7, matriculated and not matriculated. As to Queen's College in Belfast, the number of members in it belonging to the Church of Ireland was 86. The Presbyterians, who are the greatest number in that part of Ireland—more particularly those who are to be ministers of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland—are generally educated there. The Presbyterians were 370. There was a very small number of Roman Catholics—only 13; of other denominations, 68. I turn to the Queen's College at Cork. I find that at Cork there were members of the Church of Ireland, 101; of Roman Catholics, 113; and of Presbyterians, 6: so that in Cork the Roman Catholics in Queen's College actually outnumber the members of the Church of Ireland and the Presbyterian Church put together. All other denominations number only 13. In Galway I find the numbers are—Church of Ireland, 26; Presbyterians, 77; Roman Catholics, 89. So there, —again, Roman Catholics are, roughly speaking, equal in numbers to the members of the Church of Ireland and the Presbyterians put together. Taking the three Colleges together, the numbers are — Members of the Church of Ireland, 213; Roman Catholics, 230; Presbyterians, 387; and of all other denominations, 90. Now, my Lords, I do not stop to inquire how far these numbers are out of proportion, or in proportion, either with the whole population of Ireland or that part of the population which may be supposed to require University Education. I do not refer to it for any purpose of controversy—I wish to place your Lordships in possession of what the facts are; and it will be seen that in the Queen's Colleges there is a substantial—a very substantial—admixture of persons of all denominations. The result, therefore, of what I have stated is this: you have got in Ireland two Universities; you have got in those Universities all the endowments and privileges open to persons of all denominations; and you have got provisions for conferring degrees upon all the members of those Universities. But then comes

  939
  this state of things which is entirely peculiar to Ireland, which does not exist in this country; you have got no means in Ireland of conferring a degree upon any person who does not submit to become a member of one or other of those two Universities. My Lords, that is a state of things which Her Majesty's Government consider to be a deficiency, and an inconvenience to those who do not wish to become members of those Universities, and which constitute just and reasonable ground of complaint. I ask your Lordships to consider what is the meaning of a degree. A degree in a University is, after all, just like any other honour proceeding from the Crown. It is a mark of honour given by the Crown. The Crown is unable, personally or immediately, to superintend the giving of degrees, because it is unable to conduct the examinations which are necessary for the purpose of conferring degrees. It is, therefore, necessary for the Crown, and it is the habit of the Crown, to delegate to a University the duty, responsibility, and privilege of examining for degrees and conferring degrees. But degrees are, in one respect, unlike other honours. With regard to other honours, you may have them or not have them; they are not absolutely requisite for the purpose of daily life. With regard to University degrees, the state of things is entirely different: for a University degree with regard to many Professions—indeed, with regard to all our great Professions—is absolutely requisite:—or, if not requisite, it is, at all events, an honour, an attribute, which carries with it certain advantages and privileges with regard to the terms upon which the holder of it enters the learned Professions. Therefore, it becomes a just matter of complaint to any member of the community if he is placed at a disadvantage compared with other persons in obtaining a degree which it may be necessary for him to have, having regard to his advancement in life. Now, we know there are in Ireland, as in England, many private Colleges—Colleges which do not choose to submit to the conditions and rules which must necessarily attach to public institutions like Trinity College and the Queen's Colleges. They may be able to educate young men with great success and advantage; and it is a considerable loss to them to be unable to secure the advantages arising
  940
  from the power of conferring degrees, when those advantages are to be obtained elsewhere. Even with regard to private tuition the same observation applies. I am one of those who attach the greatest possible advantage to Collegiate education. I look upon it as undoubtedly the highest class and form of upper education; and I certainly should be sorry to put in comparison with a Collegiate education the education received under private tuition. I could understand it being said—" We shall give no degrees whatever unless those who come forward to claim them show they have been educated under a Collegiate curriculum." But you cannot say in England—" We will give degrees to all corners, wherever they have been educated, whether in a public College, in a private College, or under private tuition"—you cannot say that in England, and with any justice say in Ireland —" We will adopt a wholly different course. We will give no degrees here but for those who pass through Trinity College or one of the Queen's Colleges." That is a defect—a deficiency of the arrangements with regard to conferring degrees — of which the Government were sensible in Ireland; and the object of the measure which the Government are prepared to recommend to Parliament is to meet and remedy that deficiency.
  My Lords, I will now state very shortly the way in which the Government propose to remedy that defect. In the Bill, to which I shall ask your Lordships to give a first reading to-night, provision is made for founding and incorporating a University in Ireland. The University is to consist of a Chancellor and a Senate. The Senate, of course, will be appointed by the Charter of the Crown; and the proposal of the Bill is that the Senate shall not exceed 36 in number, and that they shall be nominated, in the first instance, by the Crown. Arrangements will be made to fill up a certain number of the vacancies which afterwards occur, so that Convocation —the constitution of which I will presently describe—may have the power of electing six members of the Senate. We propose that the Convocation should consist of graduates who may obtain their degrees in this University, and any graduates who may be transferred and become graduates of the Uni-

  941
  versity. We propose that the Senate should elect its own Vice Chancellor. We propose that the University, thus constituted, should make provision for such public examination of candidates for matriculation and degrees and such other University examinations in secular subjects as may be necessary, and shall appoint Examiners in the several subjects of secular learning usually studied in a University; that it should confer degrees in all faculties except theology, and confer these degrees without requiring, as a condition, residence in any particular College or Hall, or tuition under any particular form; that it should look in the examination to the standard of proficiency necessary for degrees, and confer degrees on those who have attained that standard. We propose that there should not be any Professors or Lecturers connected with the College—and, in that respect, we follow the example of the London University.
  The question then arises, what do we propose with reference to the Queen's University? Your Lordships will remember that the Queen's University itself is but an Examining Body; but it is an Examining Body simply for the purpose of examining those students who are members of the three Queen's Colleges. It appears to the Government that it would be an arrangement not only inconvenient, but without precedent, to establish in one Metropolis three Universities—Trinity College (the University of Dublin), the Queen's University, and the University which is proposed to be created by this Bill—and that it would be still more indefensible to adopt that course, when you consider that two of these Universities would be performing exactly the same functions—namely, examining for degrees—with only a trifling distinction. We, therefore, propose that as soon as the University to which I have referred is constituted by Royal Charter, steps shall be taken for the dissolution of the Queen's University; that the graduates of the Queen's University should become graduates of the new University with all the privileges which they had before; and that all who are matriculated students of the Queen's University shall become matriculated students, with all the same advantages, of the new Universities. My Lords, I said that as to the Queen's
  942
  University there were no endowments in the shape of professorships, or scholarships, or exhibitions. There is, however, a fund of moderate amount which has been collected by private contributions, and placed under the management of the Queen's University, for the purpose of supplying exhibitions for those students who come from the Queen's Colleges. Of course, that is a private fund, contributed for a specific purpose, and that will not be interfered with or diverted from the purpose for which it was intended. In other respects, the Vote of Parliament which is taken for the expenses of the Queen's University will, of course, apply itself to the University of which I have spoken. In what I have said your Lordships will observe that our intention and anxiety has been not in any way to interfere with the Queen's Colleges—we do not touch them in any respect — and if there is any change whatever, it is for their advantage, for they will be connected with a University larger and more extended, and, I hope, stronger than ever the Queen's University has been.
  These, my Lords, are the proposals which your Lordships will find in the Bill for which I shall ask a first reading. They are extremely simple. They avoid much of the debatable ground connected with University Education in Ireland; and I can honestly say, however we differ as to endowments or other questions of controversy, so far as I can understand, there is not a single provision in the present Bill on which we may not all find it possible to agree. Whether that is so or not, Her Majesty's Government have thought it to be their duty to make this proposal to Parliament. They propose it in the hope of solving the difficulty connected with the University Question in Ireland. This is the first difficulty which ought to be solved, and I hope your Lordships will give this Bill your most favourable consideration. I have only to thank your Lordships for the patience with which you have heard a statement of some technicality and detail.
  Bill to promote the advancement of learning and to extend the benefits connected with University Education in Ireland. — Presented. — (The Lord Chancellor.)
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, whether this Bill is to be accepted or not, it is one which will certainly require the gravest consideration by Parliament. I can, however, conceive of nothing more inconsistent with that grave consideration, than that immediately after the statement of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack a debate should follow. I shall confine myself, therefore, to saying one word only on the subject. The noble and learned Lord has naturally thought it necessary to make some explanation to your Lordships of the circumstances under which the Government have found it desirable to bring in this Bill. The noble and learned Lord told us that his should be a short and simple statement. It was certainly not a long one; but, as to its simplicity, notwithstanding the great power of exposition of the noble and learned Lord, I am not sure whether I quite understood, at the moment, the reasons he has given for the introduction of the Bill. I understood him to say that this matter was carefully considered by Government during the winter, and that they came to the conclusion that they would not be able to deal with it any easy and simple manner; but now the noble and learned Lord says that he sees no reason why this Bill should not be agreed to by all parties. He stated, on the one hand, that there were more urgent matters to engage the attention of Parliament; and, on the other hand, that the Government wished to judge of the success which has followed on the adoption of the measure of last year. If I make any complaint at all, it is not that the Government have brought in this Bill and endeavoured to settle the question, but that they have brought it in at this particular moment. The noble and learned Lord has propounded what is to me a perfectly new doctrine—namely, that a Bill having been introduced into the other House of Parliament some weeks ago on the subject, it would not have been fair on the part of the Government for them to state their objections to it, but that, in fairness, they were bound to present a Bill themselves on the subject. I cannot conceive why, looking at the want of Business in your Lordships' House, this measure was not introduced before the very end of June. I wish now to ask one question of Her Majesty's Government, and that is, Whether it is
  944
  their intention by this Bill, in the words which were used in " another place," merely to place on record their opinions in regard to this subject, or whether they intend to ask your Lordships to give it a second reading with the bonâ fide intention of passing it through Parliament this year? This is a question which I hope Her Majesty's Government will be good enough to answer.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: I agree with the noble Earl that this is not an occasion on which it is desirable or convenient to enter upon a discussion of the measure which my noble and learned Friend has now asked permission to introduce, and I only rise to answer the direct question which the noble Earl has asked. It is certainly the intention of Her Majesty's Government to pass this measure, if it be in their power to do so. They will attempt to do so, and their chances of success to some extent depend on the support they receive from the noble Earl himself. In that case, they will not despair of being able to pass it even through the other House of Parliament. At all events, there is a bonâ fide intention to pass it through your Lordships' House, and to ensure its success in the other.
  EARL GREYdesired to enter his protest against the doctrine laid down by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that one Parliament should by its action bind all future Parliaments. The Act of 1869, which disestablished the Church of Ireland, set aside important arrangements which were contained in the Act of Union; and it was not beyond the power of Parliament now, if it thought fit, with regard to a future appropriation of the Irish Church funds, to apply them for the benefit of the Irish people in any way it might think fit. He thought that the fund should be so applied. He did not now express any opinion, one way or the other, as to how that fund ought to be appropriated; hut he protested against what was implied in the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that what was done in 1869 fettered the power and action of Parliament.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEasked, When the Bill would be laid upon the Table, and when it was proposed to take the second reading?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he hoped the Bill would be in their Lordships' hands to-morrow; and, with regard to the second reading, he should be glad to place it on the Paper for a convenient day—he would say for that day fortnight, if not earlier.
  EARL GRANVILLEhoped the Bill would be put down for second reading at an earlier day than was stated by the noble and learned Lord.
  Bill read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday the 8th of July next. (No. 134.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would consider whether the Bill could be taken for second reading on an earlier day.

THE LATE PRINCE IMPERIAL.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD CAMPBELL: My Lords, the Question I have to put might have been suggested to anyone on this side of the House, or on the other, by something which fell from the noble Earl the Prime Minister a week ago, as to what might be done, at the proper time, to mitigate a great, a rare, a terrible bereavement. As to the merit or demerit of those who accompanied the late Prince on a fatal and memorable day opinions vary, controversies multiply, new details are produced, new inquiries are demanded; and the only true course would seem to be that of avoiding praise and blame with strict impartiality. That which is manifest, that which all classes of society, all shades of judgment, may unite in is, that the late Prince sacrificed his life in a manner glorious, if glory can belong to any human action, for the civilization of Africa, and for the service of Great Britain. But the essential point to be remarked is, that the debt of honour and of gratitude incurred by us falls not on individuals, even the best and highest, but on the community in general. I do full justice to the individuals and the personages who are organizing a Memorial, and, according to my humble means, I shall contribute to their effort. But, unless there is a national proceeding of some kind, the nation will not have acted on the subject. It will have continued mute, where its expression was
  946
  desirable and necessary. If we glance at monuments in the Abbey, raised during the last century to Naval or Military excellence, their value is seen to reside, not so much in their sculptural or classical perfection, which has often been debated, but in the simple terms " accorded by the King and Parliament of Great Britain." As regards the late event, by a well-known form the Court has already done its part, and it rests for the public to endorse and share in the acknowledgment, by whatever mode the Government may deem the most emphatic and appropriate. At present, no more, perhaps, can be expected of the Government than a statement that some proceeding is contemplated; and that it will not make individual zeal, however just, seasonable, and well-directed in itself, a ground for overlooking a debt of State which can only be discharged by the Executive and Legislature. The noble Lord concluded by asking Her Majesty's Government, Whether it was intended by a public funeral, or any other form of national acknowledgment, to do honour to the memory of the late Prince Imperial?
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: It is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government—using the formal phrase in connection with such ceremonies—to propose a public funeral of the remains of the late lamented Prince; but what is contemplated at present is, that when his body arrives at Portsmouth, or, perhaps, I should rather say Sheerness, in the ship Orontes, it shall be transferred to another of Her Majesty's ships for conveyance to Woolwich, where it will be received with the honour and respect which it deserves. I am sure it will interest your Lordships to know that the Royal Artillery, with which Force the lamented Prince was connected, has expressed, in a most becoming manner, sympathy with those who are suffering under this great misfortune, and their anxiety to attend the funeral of one whom they regarded as a brother in arms. Members of the corps will accompany the body from Woolwich to Chislehurst, and then, in due course, to the grave. The date of the funeral must necessarily depend upon the ceremonies at Chislehurst, and which are not in any way under the control of the Government.

  PRAYER BOOK AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Book of Common Prayer —Was presented by The Lord EBURY; read 1a (No. 133.)
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.