Sitting of 15 May 1879

MINUTES.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—£6,694,816, Consolidated Fund.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—University Education (Ireland) [183]; Metropolis (Whitechapel and Limehouse) Improvement Scheme Amendment* [184].
Second Reading—Hares (Ireland) [165].
Committee—Army Discipline and Regulation [88]—R.P.

QUESTIONS.
  COLLEGE OF SCIENCE, DUBLIN— PROFESSOR GALLOWAY.

    QUESTION.
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIRasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is true that Professor Galloway has been dismissed from his Professorship of Chemistry in the College of Science, Dublin, after twenty-three years' service, during which he has carried on efficient laboratory instruction, as evidenced by various
    392
    Parliamentary Returns (Nos. 67, 1873; 219, 1878; and Report on Scientific Institutions, 1864); and, whether he objects to lay upon the Table any Papers explaining the grounds for dismissal?
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: It is quite true that Professor Galloway's services have been dispensed with from the termination of the present session of the College of Science in Dublin. As Professor Galloway had been connected with the College for 23 years, it is, I trust, scarcely necessary to inform the House that the Lord President and I only adopted this course after the most careful and anxious consideration, and when we were convinced that it was absolutely necessary for the welfare of the College of Science, for which we are responsible. There will be no objection to lay upon the Table letters and papers from the Science and Art Department, which will explain our grounds for acting as we have done.

  CRIMINAL LAW—MANSLAUGHTER OF A GAME-WATCHER—THE SENTENCE.

    QUESTION.
    MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of four men sentenced at Stafford, on the 3rd of May, to penal servitude for life, for 20 years, and for 15 years (two) respectively, on account of the death of a game watcher in a poaching affray; and, whether he will cause inquiry to be made with a view to the mitigation of the sentence?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: The learned Judge who tried this case informs me that he is quite sure, if the hon. Member had known the circumstances, he would never have thought of putting the Question. These four men were out, armed, at night, and they were tried for wilful murder; and, in the opinion of the Judge, it was a very merciful jury that let them off on that charge, and found them guilty of manslaughter. The offence, as the hon. Member knows, does not consist in poaching; but in going out by night, armed, and in gangs. The poor man who was murdered was simply a farm labourer. Two farm labourers were called out to watch, and four men came up to one of them—they were not keepers, but watchers—who ran away, and was pursued by the four men.

    393
    They made a most violent attack upon the poor fellow, and injured him in such a horrible manner that I will not describe it to the House. I am bound to say that, in my opinion, the sentence is not at all too severe.

  CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT—THE REORGANIZATION SCHEME.

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. RITCHIEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to his statement that no further delay need occur in the issue of the re-organization scheme for the Customs Department after the reports that had been called for from that Department had been received, Whether such reports have now been received by the Treasury; and, if so, when the scheme will be issued?
    MR. PEASEasked, When the decision on the scheme for the improvement of the position of the Customs Establishment, mentioned at page 32 of Parliamentary Paper No. 106 (ordered to be printed on 19th March 1879), is to be produced for the information of the officers in the Customs Establishment?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, in reply, said, that different branches of the Customs Department had been dealt with separately in Reports from the Customs to the Treasury. These separate Reports required, each of them, very careful consideration, and the last of them was only received on the 7th of April. Three of the most important of the schemes proposed had been considered and approved generally, and no delay would take place in the consideration of the others. The moment all were considered no time would be lost in bringing- the re-organization scheme into operation.

    ADMIRALTY AND WAR OFEICE REGULATION ACT—THE SECRETARIAT OF THE ADMIRALTY.—QUESTION.
    MR. CHILDERSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to the Admiralty and War Office Regulation Act of last Session, Whether any steps have been taken to deal with the Secretariat of the Admiralty?
    MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, some six weeks ago application was made to the Treasury for a Committee
    394
    to inquire into the Secretariat of the Admiralty, and he was daily in expectation of receiving communications.

  PUBLIC HEALTH ACT—SUPERVISION OF SLAUGHTER-HOUSES.

    QUESTION.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, if public slaughterhouses for killing butchers' meat cannot be established throughout the country, after the manner of many Continental States, Her Majesty's Government will not consider the propriety of bringing private slaughterhouses and other places used for killing animals for human food more directly under Government supervision, as well for economic and sanitary purposes as to prevent the cruelty to animals often practised under the present system?
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: In reply to my hon. and learned Friend's Question, I may be permitted, perhaps, to state what the law is on this subject. My hon. and learned Friend is aware that the whole of the Kingdom is under the jurisdiction of urban or rural sanitary authorities. With regard to the former, the Public Health Act enables all urban sanitary authorities to provide slaughter-houses and to make by-laws for their management; and, as regards private slaughter-houses, urban sanitary authorities are empowered by the same Act to make regulations for the licensing, registering, and inspection of such slaughter-houses, for preventing cruelty therein, and for keeping the same in a proper sanitary condition. Moreover, the Local Government Board may, on the application of any rural sanitary authority, confer upon them all the above-mentioned powers regarding slaughter-houses. The Local Government Board have issued a series of model by-laws for the regulation of slaughterhouses, which have been adopted in numerous instances. Such being the existing provisions of the law, I am asked whether I will consider the propriety of bringing slaughter-houses under Government supervision? But I must say that, having regard to the duties and responsibilities thus vested in the local authorities, I cannot think it would be expedient to adopt the course proposed.

    INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL.—QUESTION.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the honourable and learned Member for Louth, Whether, having regard to the advanced stage of the Session, the desirability of pushing on many Irish measures of importance now pending, and the virtual impossibility of continuing the discussion of the Intoxicating Liquors (Ireland) Bill, he will move that the Order for its Second Reading be discharged?
    MR. SULLIVAN: I quite agree with my hon. and learned Friend that it is desirable to push on Irish measures as much as possible, and I should, therefore, be glad to push on this particular one. I feel, however, that while, on the one hand, it would be exceedingly undesirable to leave it on the Paper from week to week without its being possible to discuss it, it is duo to hon. Members who are opposed to it to endeavour to give them an opportunity of arriving at its discussion; and, therefore, if I cannot bring on the discussion in a week or so, I shall move that the Order be discharged.

  IRISH CHURCH TEMPORALITIES COMMISSIONERS—MR. BALL.

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. SULLIVANasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If his attention has been called to the proceedings in the Court of Appeal, Dublin, on Tuesday last, in reference to the claims of Mr. Ball, late Solicitor to the Irish Church Temporalities Commissioners, opposed by the Treasury; more especially to the language of the Master of the Rolls, who, in delivering judgment, is reported to have said—
    "A more discreditable or more disgraceful course was never pursued than that adopted by the Treasury before Judge Flanagan;"
    and the language of Mr. Justice Deasy, who said—
    "It was one of the most unjust attempts ever made in a court of justice to defraud a man of money due to him for plain services under a contract sanctioned by the very people who now come forward to oppose him;"
    and, if he can inform the House what Government Department or what Government official directed and is responsible for the proceedings thus characterised by the Irish Judges?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman is—what Department of the Government is responsible for the proceedings to which he has called attention? I have to say that it is the Department of the Lords of the Treasury. With respect to the circumstances to which his Question refers, I can only say it is a long story, and I could not possibly trouble the House by going fully into it; but I will endeavour, in an observation or two, to make the matter plain. The remarks referred to as having been made by the learned Judges were delivered under a misunderstanding as to the course which the Treasury had pursued. The state of the matter appeared to be this—By the Irish Church Act, the Church Temporalities Commissioners were authorized to pay various officers such salaries as might be recommended and sanctioned by the Lord Lieutenant and approved of by the Treasury. In regard to Mr. Ball there were two alternatives—that he should be paid by fixed salary, or that he should be paid by fees. The Treasury were asked to choose which alternative they preferred, and they preferred the former. They understood certain letters as meaning that the fixed salary was to cover all the services that would otherwise have been paid by fees. A question arose, however, as to whether it did cover certain classes of fees. In the litigation that followed Justice Flanagan upheld the view taken by the Treasury, and the case was so decided; but, subsequently, it was taken before the Court of Appeal, when the former decision was reversed, and the other view taken. I do not express any opinion as to which view was right; but I think the view expressed by the learned Judge was stated under a misunderstanding that could be easily explained.
    MR. SULLIVAN: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman was the Treasury represented by no one before the Court of Appeal that could explain the matter; and if not, why not?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Treasury was not represented directly at the suit. The suit was one between the Church Temporalities Commission and Mr. Ball, and the Treasury was not represented by anyone. I regret it was not, and I am unable to account for it.
    MR. MELDON: Sir, I beg to give Notice that to-morrow I shall ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury intends to appeal to the House of Lords?

  POST OFFICE—AUSTRALIAN COLONIES—CONVEYANCE OF MAILS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. BAXTERasked the Postmaster General, If the Post Office has employed any line, other than that of the Peninsular and Oriental Company, of full powered steamships, for the conveyance of the Mails to and from Australia; and, if so, whether he can state the average time occupied by such steamers, as compared with those of the Peninsular and Oriental Company; why tenders wore not invited for the conveyance of the Mails direct between this Country and Australia; if there will be any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the Correspondence which has taken place with the Australian Colonies on this subject; and, if he can state to the House, in the event of the Contract of the 7th of February being ratified, what sums are to be received from the Australian Colonies for the conveyance of their Mails between this Country and Point do Galle?
    LORD JOHN MANNERS: Since the beginning of 1874, the Imperial Post Office has not employed any line of steam vessels for the conveyance of mails to and from Australia, the conveyance of all such mails from Point de Gallo, Singapore, and San Francisco having boon provided for by the Governments of the several Australian Colonies. Bags of ship letters have, at intervals during the last two years, been despatched from the United Kingdom by steam vessels other than those of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company; but the Post Office has no record of the average time occupied on each voyage by such steam vessels. Tenders were not invited by the Home Government, because, as already stated, the arrangements have been left in the hands of the Australian Colonies. There has been no Correspondence between the Post Office and the Australian Colonies on the subject. The arrangements under which the Australian Mails will be conveyed between this country and Point de Gallo, in the event of the contract of
    398
    the 7th of February being approved by the House of Commons, are being considered at the Treasury. But there is no reason to suppose that any sums will be received on that account from the Australian Colonies.

    ARMY MILITARY PENSIONS—ROYAL WARRANTS, 1877, 1878.—QUESTION.
    COLONEL ARBUTHNOTasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he is aware that certain officers who retired from the Army on pensions under the provisions of the Royal Warrants of 1877 and 1878, and who now hold appointments in the Prison Department, are precluded from drawing any portion of their pensions; that one of these officers is actually drawing less income by £55 10 s. per annum than he would be in receipt of if he drew his pension and were not serving the State; if he would state under what Clause of what Act the withholding of these Military pensions is justifiable; and, whether it is intended to place all retired Military and Naval officers who may be holding Civil appointments on the same footing as other Civil servants, viz. that they shall be permitted to draw their pensions until their Civil salaries amount to three times their pensions on half-pay?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: I am aware of the cases referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend. The withholding of the military pensions is in accordance with Clause 1,174 of the Royal Warrant of May 1, 1878; but, inasmuch as considerable dissatisfaction has been caused in several cases by the operation of that clause, it has been arranged by the Secretary of State for War that representatives of the War Office and Treasury should meet and discuss the conditions under which the clause shall be applied in future.

  TREATY OF BERLIN—ARTICLE 23.

    QUESTION.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, since it has been officially stated that all the provisions of the Treaty of Berlin have been or are being duly carried out, except that portion of the twenty-third Clause which provides that institutions analogous to those of Crete shall be granted to those parts of European

    399
    Turkey not specially provided for, he can say whether Her Majesty' Government are determined to insist on the fulfilment by the Turks of the stipulations in consideration of which they were saved from extinction, as firmly as they have insisted on the stipulations by which the advance of Russia was restrained?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Her Majesty's Government have more than once pressed upon the Porte the importance of taking speedy action under the 23rd clause of the Treaty of Berlin; and representations to that effect have recently been repeated.

  ISLAND OF CYPRUS—ORDINANCES OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

    QUESTION.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Sir Garnet Wolseley has sent home Copies of all Ordinances enacted by the Council in the Island of Cyprus; and, whether in any case the Cyprus Ordinances will be laid before Parliament, or placed from time to time in the Library of the House?
    MR. BOURKE: Many of the Ordinances passed by the Legislative Council in Cyprus have been received; but I am not quite sure that we have as yet received all. I said some little time ago that I should place these Ordinances in the Library, and that I purpose to do before very long.

    SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR—THE EXPENSE.—QUESTION.
    MR. CHILDERSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When the Estimates of the Expenditure of the War in South Africa during the present financial year may be expected to be laid upon the Table?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am anxious to lay the Estimate upon the Table as soon as I am in a position to submit an Estimate that would give information to the House. The same reason that prevented me laying one before the House at the time of the Budget still prevents me doing so, until we get some further information. I hope that before long we may be in a position to propose a Vote of Credit. Of course, before the close
    400
    of the Session it will be necessary for us to do so, and I hope it will be at an early date. As soon as I am in a position to place a Supplementary Estimate before the House on which any reliance can be placed, I shall be happy to do so.

    THE MEDICAL BILLS—THE SELECT COMMITTEE.—QUESTION.
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIRasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether the Select Committee to which he proposes to refer the Medical Bills before the House is to have powers to summon witnesses and hear evidence from Universities and Corporations affected by the Bills?
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, it is proposed to give power to summon witnesses. What witnesses may be summoned depends on the decision of the Committee.

    THE SAMOAN ISLANDS.—QUESTION.
    COLONEL MUREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can give the House any information as to a Treaty lately concluded between Germany and the Government of the Samoan Islands, by which certain rights of property have been guaranteed to German subjects in those islands; and, whether British subjects in those islands have complained that under Article 6 of the said Treaty their proprietary rights are endangered?
    MR. BOURKE: I think my hon. and gallant Friend is correct in supposing a Treaty has been lately made between the Governments referred to. Last January the German Consul in Samoa communicated to Her Majesty's Consul a Treaty which had been made between the German Government and the Government of the Samoan Islands about that time. It was at once ratified by the Samoan Government; but we have not heard whether it has been ratified by the German Government. We have received a copy of the Treaty; but have had no complaints from British subjects or others affected by it.

  THE LAW OF DISTRESS—LEGISLATION.

    QUESTION.
    COLONEL BARNEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Government intend to introduce a Bill

    401
    to amend the Law of Distress; and, if so, whether they will be able to lay it before Parliament this Session?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, it would not be possible for the Government to introduce a Bill this Session to amend the Law of Distress.

    EDUCATION DEPARTMENT— TEACHERS' SALARIES.—QUESTION.
    MR. SAMPSON LLOYDasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether, in the Return, No. 3, in Parliamentary Paper, No. 71, of Session 1879 (which gives the average salaries of teachers in various schools), the principal teacher only of each school is reckoned in computing such average, or whether all the teachers of every grade are so reckoned?
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, in reply, said, the Return included all the teachers who held certificates.

  POST OFFICE, EDINBURGH.

    QUESTION.
    MR. M'LARENasked the Postmaster General, Whether, referring to applications which have been made at various times on the part of the Telegraph Clerks in the City of Edinburgh Post Office, it is intended to raise their pay to an equality with that given to the Clerks in the principal towns in England performing similar duties; and, if so, when the advance will take place.
    LORD JOHN MANNERS: The telegraph establishment of the Edinburgh Post Office has been recently revised, and there is no intention of making any alteration in the existing scales of pay.

    SOUTH AFRICA—ESTIMATE OF MILITARY EXPENDITURE.—QUESTION.
    MR. WHITWELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If the Government will lay upon the Table of the House the Correspondence which has passed between the Home Government and the authorities of the Colonial dependencies in South Africa as to the expenditure incurred by the Home Government for Military Expenditure and Military Stores up to the close of the year ending on March 31st last on behalf of any or all of the above Colonial dependencies?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, that Papers were now being prepared.

    ARMY—THE 60TH RIFLES—COURT MARTIAL.—QUESTION.
    MR. FRENCHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will be able to lay upon the Table of the House Copies of the Evidence produced at the trial by Court Martial in South Africa of a sergeant of the 60th Rifles for retiring a picket on an alarm of the enemy without the order of his officer, at which he was sentenced to five years' penal servitude and reduction to the ranks?
    COLONEL STANLEY: I have not yet received the Papers to which the Question refers, and I am bound to modify the answer I made the other day, in which I stated that the Papers were privileged. In the strict sense of the word they are not; but it is only when special causes have been assigned that it has been considered convenient that such Papers should be produced. Until I have seen the Papers I am not able to say whether there is anything special in their character or not. I expect them by the next mail.

    PUBLIC WORKS LOANS COMMISSIONERS—THE REPORT.—QUESTION.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he can arrange to furnish the House, before the debate on the Public Works Loans Bill comes on, with an Account of the Public Works Loans Commissioners for the year ending 31st March 1879, with an explanatory note of the errors to the Account of those Commissioners for the year ending 31st March 1878?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, in reply, said, he hoped to be able to present in the course of next week the annual Report and Accounts of the Public Works Loans Commissioners, in which explanatory notes of the errors referred to would appear; but he could not promise to wait until it was in the hands of hon. Members before proceeding with the Public Works Loans Bill.

    BLIND AND DEAF-MUTE CHILDREN (EDUCATION) BILL.—OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. MONK, who had the following Notice on the Paper:—

    403
    "To ask the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has come to a decision as to the desirability of placing Amendments on the Paper showing the conditions and qualifications upon which the Government had assented to the Second Reading of the Blind and Deaf-Muto Children (Education) Bill,"
    said, the Question bore a very faint resemblance to the Question he had placed in the hands of the junior Clerk at the Table. Indeed, two Questions had been jumbled into one, so as to make them meaningless and absurd. He, therefore, declined to put the Question; and would simply ask, what steps it was intended to take with respect to the Blind and Deaf-Mute Children (Education) Bill? He would remind the Government that on the 26th March they consented to the second reading of the Bill with certain qualifications.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the Bill now contained Amendments he had suggested with the view of making its provisions permissive; and he did not, therefore, think it his duty, on the part of the Government, to offer any further opposition to it.

MOTION.

  PARLIAMENT—ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in moving—
  "That the Orders of the Day subsequent to the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill be postponed until after the Notice of Motion for leave to bring in a Bill for promoting University Education in Ireland;"
  said, he made the Motion in accordance with a promise which he had given the other evening to the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don), which was partly dictated by the consideration that the Government, by fixing a Bill of their own for a Morning Sitting, had prevented him from bringing forward his Bill on the occasion on which he would otherwise have done so. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) wished to take that opportunity of saying that the businesslike spirit in which the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill had been discussed encouraged the Government to hope that they would be able to make further progress with that measure that night; and he trusted that the House might be disposed to allow them to take a Morning Sitting to-morrow, in order to
  404
  go on with it, so that they might, if possible, get it through Committee before the House rose for the Whitsuntide Holidays.
  MR. NEWDEGATEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intended to take the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill? The House was aware that he had a Notice of some importance to be considered before the second reading of that Bill. He would also like to know when it was proposed to take the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences) Bill? At present it stood for Tuesday next; but it appeared to him impossible that the Government should propose to go on with it before the Whitsuntide Recess.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that having balloted with praiseworthy perseverence during the Session, he had obtained first place to-morrow for his Motion on the subject of Brewers' Licences, and he thought it rather hard that at the very last moment Notice of a Morning Sitting should be given, which placed him at a disadvantage. He hoped the Government would take steps to make and keep a House at the Evening Sitting.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDcalled attention to the fact that it was only at the last moment the Government informed the House that they proposed to hold a Morning Sitting; and he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in future, it would not be possible for him to give some longer and more formal Notice with reference to the intention of the Government to hold Morning Sittings?
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONhoped the Government would not put down the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill for the Morning Sitting. This was a Bill in which he had several important Amendments to propose; and as he was j also a Member of the Parliamentary Reporting Committee which would meet at 12 o'clock to draw up their Report, and this was also a subject in which lie took a great interest, he trusted the Government would not then take the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill.
  MR. E. JENKINSseconded the appeal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and pointed out the inconsistency of the reasons advanced by the Government for these Morning Sittings. Last year the Government excused themselves for taking early Morning Sittings because of the opposition offered to the Mutiny

  405
  Bill. This year they appeared to ask for it because of the business-like way in which the House had carried through the Business. Therefore, whether they opposed or facilitated Business, the Government seemed equally determined to have Morning Sittings.
  MR. A. MILLSconsidered the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill of much more importance than the question of Parliamentary Reporting, and he trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would proceed with it. He had himself a Notice on the Paper for to-morrow evening, but would willingly sacrifice it in order to promote Public Business.
  MR. J. HOLMSintimated that immediately the House got into Committee on the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill he should move that the Chairman do report Progress, in order that he might, in his humble judgment, save the time of the House by drawing the attention of the Committee to the real state in which they were in relation to that Bill. He thought it only fair and courteous to the House and the Government to state his intentions, and if the House wished, he would at once give his reasons for taking the step he proposed. [Cries of. "No," and "Goon."] He would state his reasons when the House was in Committee.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERstated, in reply to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. New-degate), that the second reading of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill would be moved on Monday after Supply, and that it was proposed to close Supply in good time, so that the Bill might be conveniently taken and discussed afterwards. "With regard to the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences) Bill, he was not at that moment in a position to answer all the Questions that had been asked, and he would be obliged to hon. Members if they would put them down on the Paper, so that he might consult the Attorney General. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins), he must demur to the idea that Morning Sittings were merely to be regarded as punishments; and in proposing them the sole object of the Government was to promote, in the best way they could, the Business of the House. He quite agreed that it was inconvenient that sudden Notice should be given of them; and it
  406
  was only in consequence of what had occurred in regard to the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill that he proposed to take the course which he had stated. He hoped that the House would consider the precedents, and would consent to a Morning Sitting on each of the two following Tuesdays, in order that they might make a real and important effort to get through the Bill before Whitsuntide. The Bill was one which ought to become law, certainly not without due consideration, but within a limited period. He would assure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) that the Government would do the best they could to secure a House for the discussion of his Notice, the importance of which he frankly admitted.
  MAJOR NOLANwished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman could name a convenient day for the Dogs Regulation (Ireland) Act (1865) Amendment Bill, and whether it could be placed as the first Order on the Paper?
  MR. DILLWYNprotested against the commencement of Morning Sittings a month before the usual time, and gave Notice that on the Motion to adjourn until 2 o'clock to-morrow he would oppose it.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsupported the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had been very liberal and kind to hon. Members with regard to the Holidays of the House, and his liberality ought to be met in a similar spirit.
  MR. MELDONcomplained that all Government Orders were placed upon the list nearly every evening, thus causing considerable inconvenience to Members interested in any particular measure, and to the public. There was one Bill down on the Paper before them relating to Ireland, but which he did not wish to mention, and a deputation had come expressly from Ireland to watch its progress, and he did not believe the Government had the slightest intention of going on with it for the next two months. The Bill referred to by the hon. and gallant Member (Major Nolan) excited much feeling throughout Ireland, and Irish Members would find it very convenient if they knew when Irish Bills were coming on. In his opinion, the object of the Government in putting down all their Bills night after

  407
  night was the hope of their obtaining a "catch" vote.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was absolutely necessary that the Bills should be set down, inasmuch as it was impossible to say when a convenient time might arise for their discussion. He would endeavour to arrange with the Chief Secretary for Ireland that the Dogs Regulation (Ireland) Act (1865) Amendment Bill should be brought forward with all due regard to the convenience of hon. Members. He was anxious to give a general Notice as to the time when regular Morning Sittings were to begin, and with regard to others as full a Notice as he could.
  In reply to Mr. HIBBERT,
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that after the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill had passed through Committee, it would be proposed to take a Morning-Sitting in order to proceed with the Valuation of Property Bill.
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered, That the Orders of the Day subsequent to the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill be postponed until after the Notice of Motion for leave to bring in a Bill for promoting University Education in Ireland.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL.— [Bill 88.]
  (Mr. Secretary Stanley, Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. William Henry Smith, The Judge Advocate General.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 8th May.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 30 (Offences in relation to billeting).
  COLONEL MURE COLONEL MURE moved, in page 12, line 27, sub-section 4, after "non-commissioned officer," to insert "or soldier."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. J. HOLMS MR. J. HOLMS moved that the Chairman do report Progress. He did so in order to make a few observations which he thought might, perhaps, save the time of the Committee. It appeared to him that if the Committee were to consider the precise position in which they were in relation to this Bill, they might
  408
  come to the conclusion that at the point at which he had arrived they ought to delay going on with the Bill at the present time. They had already had two nights' discussion in Committee upon the Bill; and he thought that discussion, to anyone who had observed it with any care, must have shown very clearly that the Bill was not exactly that which the House was entitled to believe it would receive from the Committee which investigated the question upstairs. He should have been particularly glad to have addressed his observations to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who, he thought, would have taken a very judicial view of the position in which they were placed; but he wished particularly to draw the attention of the Government and of the Committee generally to the subject, because he would at once disclaim any Party feeling in the matter. The question was far too important for that. The subject was of such a nature that both sides of the House were equally interested in seeing a sound measure carried; and if the Committee were at all fully acquainted with the history of the Bill, he did not believe that even the Government would be inclined to venture any further in discussing the matter. It must be in the recollection of many hon. Members that last year the Mutiny Bill was very thoroughly discussed, and in that discussion it was made perfectly clear that the penalties in the Bill, and the very severe punishments it imposed, needed to be dealt with with very great care. Moreover, it was made clear that the crimes which arose out of desertion were very numerous, and that the number of prisoners who were imprisoned for crimes which were of no great importance was very excessive. Now, ail these crimes were referred to by the Secretary of State for War, who used precisely the language which was used in the House just now—namely, that this was a Mutiny Bill, and that, therefore, it was a question of time, and must be pressed on at all hazards. In that discussion, many promises were made by the Secretary of State for War, with the clear understanding that if the Committee then would allow the Bill to pass quietly, he would take care that all the questions which had been raised should be investigated with great care by the Commit-

  409
  tee. In order to make perfectly clear what those promises of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman were, he must ask the attention of the Committee, and especially of the present Secretary of State for War, to those promises which were made by his Predecessor. In relation, first, to the number of desertions, and the excessive number of men in prison, the right hon. Gentleman used these words last year—
  "With regard to the question of deserters, that was one which must he carefully considered, and the Committee would he able to investigate the different forms which desertion took. He thought that the number of men who were at present imprisoned for offences which were not of a disgraceful character was excessive."—[3 Hansard, cexxxviii. 1978.]
  Nothing could be clearer than that. In relation to punishments, he would not now trouble the Committee with quotations, because he wished to put his case as simply and shortly as possible. The question of flogging was met by several Amendments. There was one by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), and another by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), and the hon. Member for Mayo wished to resist the principle that corporal punishment should be inflicted under any circumstances whatever. Well, the Secretary of State for War then promised that if the hon. Member would not press his Amendment, the subject should be investigated with great care. One hon. Member after another rose and begged the hon. Gentleman not to press the Amendment, but to trust to this investigation by the Committee; and upon that assurance the hon. Member for Mayo withdrew his Amendment. Now, he would proceed a little further. On the question of the 22nd clause—the flogging clause—when the hon. Member for Mayo had given up his Amendment, the Secretary of State for War stated to the Committee that if they would pass the Bill in its present shape it would be with a view that there might be a thorough investigation thereafter upon the whole subject. Further on in the discussion in Committee, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said he would make another appeal to the Committee to get through the Bill as quickly as possible, and he would promise there should be a complete inquiry into its operation, and upon that assurance his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh
  410
  (Mr. M'Laren) appealed to the Mover of the Amendment not to press it. For his own part, he joined very heartily in seeking that the Amendment should not be pressed, and that they should proceed to go on with the Bill. He heartily rejoiced that the Secretary of State for War had gone so far as to make that concession, and that they had, upon the word of a Secretary of State, the certainty of investigation into all these questions. That was the clear understanding; and it was because that had not been carried out that he felt it his duty to rise now and protest, and he should continue to protest against the passing of this Bill. Now, either it was necessary, or it was not necessary, for a Committee to investigate these various subjects. If it was necessary, then the Secretary of State for War was justified in saying he would take care that the investigation should take place. If it was not necessary, upon what ground did the Secretary of State for War, on a measure of such importance, lead the House and the country to believe that he was going to have a thorough and complete investigation? Now, he had to recount what the Select Committee did. He was a Member of that Committee, and they proceeded to work. The Committee was very ably presided over by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt); but he thought the Committee was not in the least acquainted with what that Select Committee did. What did it do? They met on the 17th of May. On the 23rd of May they had the first witness; and after they had had a sitting or two, he deemed it to be his duty to enter a protest against their not taking evidence upon those questions which they were sent up to consider. He was so full of the subject—as he was now—that he was anxious that they should have competent witnesses—not official witnesses—who would give them sound information on points referred to. It appeared to him that it was not a question of re-arranging a whole lot of clauses as to punishment that was wanted. They wanted something to precede that—namely, that they should do the best they could to examine into the great sources of crime in the Army—what were the causes of crime, and how it was possible to get rid of them. He visited a military prison, and conversed

  411
  with the chaplain; and he came to the conclusion that if the Committee had wished, plenty of evidence could have been obtained. It would have been shown that many who were still in gaol might be free men, and it would be all the better if they were. But the Committee took no such evidence; they made no attempt to get evidence. What did they do? They had handed to them a draft Bill of 117 clauses, which the Chairman took, but very wisely did not acknowledge any responsibility; he ignored any responsibility in relation to that Bill. The Committee accepted it, and proceeded to work. To do what? To see how far, in effect, that Bill of 117 clauses, which was handed to them, was a boiling-down, so to speak, of about 190 Articles of War, and some 110 clauses of the Mutiny Bill; and so they proceeded to work. But they had not proceeded very far before they came to the flogging clause in that particular Bill, and he deemed it his duty to enter his protest. He entered his protest in this manner. He moved on the 21st of June—
  "That, having regard to the discussion which took place in the House in the month of March last on the corporal punishment inflicted under the authority of the Mutiny Act, it is expedient that this Committee should take evidence in respect of punishments for crimes committed while on active service in the field."
  Although that was a very reasonable proposition, it received no support, except from the hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne). Well, they proceeded with the Bill, and the Bill came down to the House. It did not come down, however, with 180 clauses, but with only 117. It had, of course, been altered, and no one could complain of that; but he ventured to say that a more imperfect Bill it would be difficult to draw. Why, oven the hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General got up to enlighten the House upon it the other night, and could not. He dealt with the 10th clause and the 4th section; but even he could not make it clear, although he belonged to the Department in whose care the Bill was placed. Why, they had a clause—the 173rd—contradicted by another clause—the 1 80th; but he (Mr. J. Holms) cared very little about that part of the question. He cared little whether the Bill was good, bad, or in-
  412
  different, in those respects. What he did care about, and what he protested against, was this—that they should go up to a Committee Boom, appointed by the House, to undertake one of the most important questions of the day, and to take evidence in relation to subjects which had been discussed fully, freely, and decidedly in the House, and that they should come downstairs without having made one single stop in regard to taking that evidence. This Bill was to be—what? Was it to be a temporary Bill? It was a Bill that was to be for the permanent government of the Army; and he, therefore, protested against their proceeding further with the measure. In his opinion, it was essentially necessary that the Committee, at this particular juncture, should consider what they were to do with the Bill. As he had said, the Committee upstairs took no evidence in relation to those matters to which he had referred. It was well that this Committee and the country should know that; because there were many outside this House who were waiting-for the Bill to become law, and to whom it was a serious matter. What was the evidence which the Committee took? A greater sham never existed in the world than that most strange Committee. He did not speak disrespectfully of the Committee itself. He spoke of the work they did, and of the work which was given them to do. They had six witnesses in the main; one witness, and that was Sir Henry Thring, who drafted the Bill. They had His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief; they had Mr. Clode, from the War Office; and they had Major-General Carey, Colonel Roche, and Mr. O'Dowd. Well, of course, they were very good witnesses for the purposes of codifying and simplifying the Bill, and they gave very good evidence; but that was not in the least the question which the Committee were sent to investigate. In comparison, it was a very small and trumpery matter. In fact, if the Committee had gone into their room without any Bill, it would have been very much better. They should have gone up there as business men, thoroughly determined that that 200-year-old Bill was hardly worth looking at, and that it was their business to deal with 1878, and not 1678. But, in place of that, they took to boiling down the

  413
  old Bill, and here they were to-night in a state which was not creditable to the House. It was not creditable to them to pursue a course of this kind, seeing that they had had promises that evidence should be taken in relation to the points to which lie had referred, in order that they might legislate in the spirit of their own day. He wished the Committee now to consider what effect this Bill would have upon the Army. It would, he thought, deal a very serious blow to recruiting, because soldiers and the class from which they were drawn knew perfectly well what was being done. He had letters on the subject, and was disposed to read some extracts from them, because it was well that the Committee should know what was the opinion outside upon the subject. In civil life in this country, happily, there was even-handed justice for all classes; but in the Army they knew that was not so. [Colonel STANLEY dissented.] He saw the Secretary of State for War shako his head at that observation; but he wished, with all due respect, to press the point, because he was anxious the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Committee should know what was thought of the Bill. It was well for the lawgivers to know what those outside considered in relation to questions of this kind. Now, one soldier wrote to him as follows:—
  "In civil life, if an employer or overseer strikes, cheats, or oppresses a labourer under his charge, and if a labourer strikes, cheats, or annoys his employer or overseer, they are liable to exactly the same punishment, and those penalties act, however noble the employer or overseer may be, and however mean the labourer. But in the Army, if a private strikes, robs, or annoys his officer, his punishment would be immeasurably greater than would be awarded to any officer who struck, cheated, or annoyed a private. In the one case, death would be the punishment possibly; a simple reprimand possibly in the other. If an officer commits any crime he is tried by his peers; if a soldier, he is tried also by officers, and they are the judge and jury."
  In reading this to the Committee, he only wished to show what was the feeling of those who had to submit to this law. He did not blame the officers, far otherwise. They had only to carry out that which was put into their hands; but he wished that the Committee would take care to put into their hands something of a wiser character, and better than had yet been the case. He wished
  414
  now to say a word on a point of great importance which had not been introduced—namely, as to the relative position of a soldier and a non-commissioned officer, for throughout this Bill they were treated alike. That he regarded as being one of the great defects of our military system. It was high time that they should raise the status, especially of the higher class of non-commissioned officers. They should lift them from their present position, and not leave them the risk of being reduced to the ranks at the mere whim, or desire, or private sentiment, of their commanding officers. He had received a letter on that subject which seemed so wise and reasonable that he would trouble the Committee with an extract. It was in relation to the reduction of non-commissioned officers to the ranks. The man said—
  "This saps the foundation of the non-commissioned officer, for no matter however well paid and clothed and lodged he may be, whilst his position depends on the breath and mere will of his commanding officer, his position is so unstable as to be worth very little, and causes him to carry with him a constant uncertainty. There is no misfortune more deeply felt than that of a sergeant who has been reduced to the ranks. After years of toil, he loses the result of all his labours; his wife and children are put out of quarters, and into inferior positions; his small world is as much changed as is that of a prosperous tradesman when he becomes a bankrupt."
  Now, that seemed to him to convey a great deal of sound common sense; and he believed that if they were to get good non-commissioned officers in the Army—and the short-service system demanded that they should got first-rate non-commissioned officers—they must consider that question. Then, if that were so, would it not be better that they should come to the conclusion that the investigation should still be proceeded with, as promised and intended last year. It would be better that they should now have such a Committee appointed. They were now just at the same period of the year as that in which the Committee of last year began its operations. Why should they not have a Committee appointed now, and begin, in real earnest, to take evidence in relation to these most serious questions, which had raised so much discussion? And when they had investigated the subject—he did not think it could be done this year, and even part of it would probably take this year and next; but he thought they should devote their time to advance the progress

  415
  of a careful and thorough investigation of the whole question, and then proceed afterwards to have a new Bill. That was perfectly possible; and he believed the House would willingly grant to the Government a continuance of the old Mutiny Bill for a sufficient period. He suggested that the Temporary Continuance Bill should be allowed to go on for this year, and then let them proceed with the investigation indicated. he had ventured to offer these remarks in no spirit of hostility to the Government, but only with a sincere desire of doing some good. He sincerely trusted the Government would re-consider the position, and remember that last year they made promises one after another so strong that it was impossible for any Government to get out of them. It was impossible for this House, with any sense of its own dignity, to accept a Bill of this kind as the Bill which it had a right to expect after the promises given and the full investigation which had been made. There might be some who would say—"Why did you not raise this question on the second reading of the Bill? Why did you wait until we had had two sittings in Committee?" His answer to that was very simple. It was the duty of every Member to do that which he thought best to obtain his ends, so long as he took a fair and honourable way of going to work. In his opinion, had he raised this question on the second reading, it would have been very unwise indeed. It was very much better, in his judgment, to wait until the House had had a taste of the Bill, and see how imperfect it was, even as it stood, apart from the investigation, because he believed he would then be more likely to get support from the House and the country. He did hope the Secretary of State for War would yet consider this question with his Colleagues; because, for his own part, whether or not he opposed it in its course through Committee, this he should do—he should oppose it as much as he could do on the third reading, because he believed it to be a measure fraught with great danger to the Army and mischief to the country.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. John Holms.)
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the course his hon. Friend had taken was certainly a very unusual one, and if it were frequently taken it would be absolutely incompatible with the conduct of any Business in the House. He must say that the idea to which his hon. Friend referred in the last sentences of his speech crossed his own mind during the whole course of that speech—namely, why in the world his hon. Friend did not take the course upon the introduction of the Bill or upon the second reading? His hon. Friend's objection was that there had not been such an investigation of the matter as would justify any Bill at all. Well, if his hon. Friend was right, he had allowed the House to waste a great deal of valuable time which might have been saved; and he justified it on the ground that he thought it was the most effectual way of punishing the House for the course which had been taken. All he could say was that if every hon. Member took that view the House would transact no Business at all. He had hoped that the course which his hon. Friend took arose from a more obvious cause, that it had not been convenient for him to be present at the first or second reading. But now there was another course which his hon. Friend might take. So far as he recollected the proceedings of the Select Committee, the only question which his hon. Friend there raised was the one to which he had now referred in his speech, when he said the Committee ought not only to have investigated the punishments of crime, but also the causes by which crime was produced. Well, that was a very large question indeed. The hon. Member said it would take one year, and two years; but if they wore to investigate the causes from which crimes arose, he did not think 20 years would suffice, because the causes that led to crime were not only multitudinous, but almost universal. Now, they were going to have a Bill for the codification of the Criminal Law of this country. Would his hon. Friend contend that they were not to codify the Criminal Law until they had investigated, cither by a Committee or in this House, all the causes which led to the commission of crime? It seemed to him that was a proposition -which was incapable of being sustained; and that was why he opposed it in the Select Committee, and the great majority of the

  417
  Committee opposed it. The House could pass no Criminal Law upon any subject whatever, if it were insisted upon as a condition to precede it that they should examine into all the causes of the offences with which they proposed to deal. For instance, what were the causes that led to murder? The causes that led to murder were love, jealousy, hate—every passion which animated the human breast; and if they were to pass no Statute for the punishment of murder until they had investigated the causes and the operation of all those passions, they would never pass any Bill at all. Therefore, when his hon. Friend proposed that they should not proceed to legislate until they had investigated the causes of crime, he, for one, thought that was not a subject which could be investigated or dealt with by that House. Then his hon. Friend had said various things that led to the belief that there was not even-handed justice between different classes. Now, he agreed with his hon. Friend that that would be the greatest of all evils, and the Committee certainly considered that question—whether they did so efficiently or not, was another thing. This much he could say—that they were constantly altering the Bill in that direction, and he believed it would be found that the measure bore traces throughout of that spirit. Many clauses wore altered for the purpose of putting officers on the same footing as men, and he did not remember that his hon. Friend proposed any clause bearing on the point. He was sorry that his hon. Friend had not attempted to amend the Bill by putting down some Amendments on the Paper; because the Committee upstairs and the present Committee would certainly consider most carefully and favourably any Amendments from the hon. Member. But to attack the Bill and the Committee in the way the hon. Member had done, he could not agree with or think to be well founded.
  MR. J. HOLMSbegged pardon for interrupting. He never attacked the Committee in the slightest degree. He only ventured to say that they came to the conclusion that they had not time to take evidence, and so proceeded at once to the work of codification.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTcould not quite agree in. the accuracy of that statement. No doubt, codification was
  418
  the main line of the Bill; but still, especially on the very point to which he had referred, the Committee did not merely codify but made considerable alterations. If his hon. Friend could have given them the advantage more often of his assistance, the Bill, no doubt, might have been made more effectual in that direction; but the Committee would also be very glad if he would put down any Amendments now which would tend to remove from the Bill any trace of want of even-handed justice. It had escaped his own examination if there was that want of even-handed justice. His hon. Friend had suggested one or two other matters to which he would not refer in detail, because they were matters with which the present Committee were perfectly well able to deal. His hon. Friend had only to put down Amendments to them, and his knowledge and ability, especially in relation to all matters connected with the Army, which everyone must recognize, would certainly secure for them a very favourable acceptance. But to propose that the consideration of the Bill should be deferred until the House had investigated the causes of crime, was a proposition which they could not accept, and one which, practically, could never be carried out. No doubt, the Committee was not what was called an evidence Committee. The task it undertook really was to examine the Bill submitted by the Government. He never regarded its duty as anything else; and he certainly would not have become a Member of that Committee, still less would he have accepted the Chairmanship, if the task set before them had been to investigate the principles of Military Law, and the causes of the crimes with which it dealt. Their real task was to investigate the Mutiny Act, and to see what Amendments could be made in it; and he could not see that evidence would have assisted them much in that task. His hon. Friend, had not even indicated the character of the evidence which he had proposed to have called with reference to the causes of crime. He spoke of chaplains of gaols; but that was the only indication he gave of the sort of evidence he wanted to take. For his own part, he was convinced that that was an inquiry which the Committee could not have carried out. In examining the Bill itself, on the other hand, the Members of the Committee

  419
  were quite as capable of judging whether its clauses did or did not secure even-banded justice as any witnesses that could have been called before them. Therefore, for his part, he hoped the Committee would continue the discussion of this important Bill, making such alterations as they might deem necessary.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTwas extremely surprised at the statement of the hon. Member (Mr. J. Holms). He would ask him and the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), who bad been cheering him, how on earth the Business of the House was to go on if, in the middle of a Committee of this kind, after a Bill had passed the first reading and the second reading, and had been partly through Committee, they were to have such Motions as this brought forward? He always listened to the hon. Member with pleasure, especially on all questions connected with the Army; but his speech was one which should have been made on the second reading. What would the Irish Members have said if an Irish Bill were in Committee, and it was proposed to stop its further progress in this way? Would they not say that it was an attempt, on the part of the Conservative Members, to prevent justice from being done to Ireland? This was a most important Bill; and no one knew better than the hon. and gallant Member for Galway that it was essential it should be passed that Session. Therefore, he hoped that they would delay no further; but that the Motion would be withdrawn, the Committee proceeded with, and any Amendments which the hon. Member (Mr. J. Holms) might wish to make could then be discussed.
  MAJOR NOLANpointed out that the argument as to Irish measures was not at all applicable, for Irish measures never were allowed to get into Committee. He had been assailed for giving a single cheer, and he therefore would explain why he gave it. The hon. Member (Mr. J. Holms) had, on various occasions, put forward exceedingly clear and straightforward views on military administration. As he understood these views, his hon. Friend wished to make our Army more like the Continental Armies, and to give the country a powerful Army instead of a weak one. He supported those views, because he believed they were in the right direction. The present Bill
  420
  tried to stop wholesale desertion and re-enlistment by severe punishments; while his hon. Friend wished to do away with those crimes, as he understood, by enlisting a superior class of men in the Army. They would only get those men to join by offering them advantages superior to those at present offered. He cheered, because he thought his hon. Friend, generally right on military matters, was especially right on the present occasion.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEquite agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. J. Holms). The Committee was, more or less, a sham. That was his opinion of it. Its time was so limited that it could not discuss very-many most important questions. That assertion the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) could not deny, for the statement was quoted from the opening paragraph of the Report of the Committee. He brought the question of Courts of Appeal at the very outset of the proceedings before the Committee, and the Chairman then said that they could not go into the matter, as important evidence would otherwise have to be taken as to whether or no there should be Courts of Appeal in the Army. He should have thought it a most important question to decide; but the Chairman decided against discussing it. He did not agree with the necessity of passing the Bill this year. It would, make no difference to the Army whether it would be discussed this year or next. He thought it very desirable that a Committee should sit again, and go thoroughly into this Bill. Another point never discussed was the subject of flogging. He was quite opposed to it, for it did not exist in any foreign Army; and why it should exist in ours he was at a loss to understand. The whole proceedings of the Committee were too hurried, for they were bound to have their Report ready by the 15th of July, and everything was pressed on to suit that date. He might remind the Committee also that the present Bill contained the same perplexing and involved legal phraseology as the old Act, although one of the objects of this consolidating measure was to simplify and amend the language of the Mutiny Acts. Surely, at the present time, when men were only enlisted for short periods of service, they should make their military Acts as simple and concise as possible. He should heartily support the Motion.
  COLONEL STANLEYthought he need add little to what had been already said by the hon. and gallant Baronet behind him (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) and his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir William Harcourt). He could not help regretting, however—though he hoped the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Holms) would understand he did it with no personal feeling whatever—that the hon. Gentleman should have brought forward this Motion without observing the ordinary courtesy of informing either the House or the Member in charge of the Bill of his intention to do so. Had the hon. Member given Notice of his intention to make a statement of a general character, he might have provided himself, better than he was armed at the present time, with arguments which might have removed his objections. In many respects the hon. Member would find that the Bill did not deserve the character which he had attributed to it. In the clause punishing desertion material differences had been made. Although desertion was still visited by severe punishments, yet, nevertheless, many amendments had been made in the law in order to mitigate its severity, and to give men who got into trouble the opportunity of redeeming their character. In regard to non-commissioned officers, the hon. Gentleman had either mistaken the matter or had not taken ordinary pains to acquaint himself with the provisions of the Bill. The hon. Member read some extracts from a letter, in which the position of a non-commissioned officer was said to depend upon the mere breath of his commander. Although that might have been the case heretofore, the hon. Member had overlooked the fact that in the Bill was a clause which distinctly, and for the first time, gave the non-commissioned officer the right to appeal to a court martial from any decision by his colonel. Again, it was by no means the case that punishments had been made more severe. The powers of courts martial had been enlarged, the power of giving cumulative sentences had been very much restricted; and throughout the Bill an endeavour had been made, while keeping the punishments sufficiently clear for the purpose they were intended to serve, to make them less severe than they had been in former Acts. With regard to the suggestion that only one part of the
  422
  Bill had been dealt with by the Select Committee, he had already more than once explained to the House the position in which he found himself on his accession to Office. A promise had been given that the old Mutiny Act should not be again presented to the House. A Committee was appointed; but it was not possible, in the time at command, to bring all the provisions relative to enlistment, &c. before the Committee. Part of the matter, therefore, was submitted to them; and he stated to the House, on the earliest opportunity afforded him, that, on full consideration, he thought he would be better carrying out the wish of the House and of Parliament by laying the remainder of the Bill before them, and by taking the discussion in Committee of the House. That course enabled the House to proceed at once with the amendment of the Bill, instead of having to defer it for another year. If there had been any refusal of discussion in Committee, or if there had been any attempt in any way to force the Bill upon the House without amendment, or if any disposition had been shown, either on one side of the House or on the other, to close the discussion, he could have understood the reasonableness of the course which the hon. Member had taken. On the contrary, however, during the two days on which the Committee had been employed on the Bill, they had proceeded in a most business-like spirit, and with a feeling of conciliation on both sides of the House, with the result that they were now making what he hoped would be a good law. The Bill was in no sense one of a Party character, and he did trust that the Government would be supported in its desire to proceed with it.
  MR. E. JENKINS, though he agreed with the remarks of his hon. Friend (Mr. J. Holms), could not quite feel that this was the proper time for making them. But his hon. Friend troubled the House very seldom; and, as they all knew, ho was actuated in all that he did by a very strong sense of duty. He hoped that this discussion, after all, might be of some use, and might facilitate the passing of this Bill, by securing from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite the offer of substantial concessions on several points. There could be no doubt that the remark of his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Nolan) had great weight. The

  423
  minds of persons desirous to enter the Army must be affected by the character of the discipline to which they would be subjected; and if it should, unfortunately, get abroad, first permeating the Army itself, and then disseminated from it amongst the people, that the rules and regulations were at all unfair, or at all tended towards injustice, the effect would be very disastrous upon those who might otherwise wish to join. He was only anxious that there should be a thorough discussion. Up to that time the discussion had certainly been conducted in a business-like manner, and he would, therefore, advise his hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion. At the same time, he would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to consider whether he could not accept some of the suggestions as to courts martial, and so enable the Committee very quickly to dispose of a number of clauses. The proceedings of courts martial should be subjected to a certain amount of legal oversight and revision, and they ought to have a proper, efficient, and able Judge Advocate General, with a competent staff. He hoped before long to hear some assurance from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that he would do something to insure that in all courts martial there should be every chance of doing every possible justice.
  COLONEL MUREmust say there was a good deal in the speech of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Holms). He must regret that it was not consistent with the work of that Committee—of which he was a Member—to make a thorough investigation of the Military Law, especially when they remembered the very ancient character of the Mutiny Act. He wished he could think that the rules and regulations of the Army had any influence on enlistment. All, however, who were conversant with it knew that that was not so. The men who at present joined the Army usually enlisted through starvation, and they were not, unfortunately, of a class whose decisions were formed by any consideration as to the character of the Mutiny Act. Being men of this character, it was necessary to have very strict discipline; and although he was entirely opposed to excessive punishments, he did not think that the existing scale, in view of the present character of the Army, could be very much relaxed.
  424
  One other thing he did wish to point out. In the Committee upstairs it was understood that their work was to be mainly consolidation; but it was also clearly understood that when the Bill got into Committee of the House, a thorough investigation and revision was to be made. He must complain of the fact that this arrangement had not been carried out. Whenever Amendments were suggested, the answer was that the proposal was an alteration of the old Act, or the old Articles. That was not the temper which he had expected from this Committee. There was not that earnest desire for improvement which he had expected from the front Bench of the Opposition—the progressive Liberal Bench. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) had shown no desire to help forward Amendments; but had constantly said, with Shylock, that it was not in the bond. They were now making a law for all time; and he was bound to say he did not congratulate himself on the progress they were making. He did not, at the same time, entirely agree with the hon. Member (Mr. J. Holms), who, apparently, was not thoroughly acquainted with the Army. Would he, for instance, as he rather indicated by the passages he quoted, make no difference between the case of a private striking an officer and an officer striking a private? Again, he complained of the reduction of non-commissioned officers for ill-conduct. But if the hon. Member had a foreman who behaved himself ill, would he refrain from dismissing him because the dismissal might be his social ruin? A non-commissioned officer was in a bettor position than the foreman, indeed, because he had a right of appeal. He hoped his hon. Friend would not divide, especially as he could gain nothing by it.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONalso hoped that course would be taken, although if anything could make him support his hon. Friend, it was the fact that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had hitherto failed to lay on the Table the alteration by which he proposed to bring this Act within the lines of the Constitution. Before going into Committee he pointed out to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Bill at present violated the principles of the Constitution in regard to the relations between the Crown, the Army, and

  425
  Parliament. On finding that it was so, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman promised to alter the clause, and on that understanding he withdrew his Amendment. As yet, however, that alteration had not been laid on the Table; and he did think it was trifling with the House to defer its production any longer.
  COLONEL STANLEYreplied, that what he undertook to do was to strike out Clause 178 when they arrived at it, and to deal with the matter by the insertion of the old clause, as it at present stood, in the Act. He regretted that clause had not yet appeared on the Paper; but as he would have other verbal Amendments to move, he deferred putting it down until they were ready also.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. J. Holms) had been a good deal abused for doing what he conceived to be his duty. In his opinion, however, the hon. Member had very fairly justified his own position; and he had certainly stood up for it like a man and a Member of Parliament—a combination much to be admired. He was sorry the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) had left the Committee; because he wished to tell him that he did not altogether approve of one of their own side administering reproofs in the manner that he had done. He was not even content with administering advice and reproof, but he went further, and suggested that his hon. Friend (Mr. J. Holms) wanted a Committee to inquire into all the causes of crime, and proceeded to enumerate, for the sake of ridicule, many indirect causes, such as love, hate, self-interest, &c. That was by no means correct. His hon. Friend wished for an inquiry into the causes of military crime—of those offences which, in the eyes of civilians, were not crimes at all, though they might be military offences. Did they not all know that great good would be done by such an inquiry? His hon. Friend, and other business men like him, might have inquired how far petty oppressions and the ignorance of the non-commissioned officers were responsible for the enormous number of military crimes, and the inquiry would have been a very proper one. The Committee upstairs did not go into these subjects, because they had not time; and that of itself, now that they had the Bill under discussion, should make them
  426
  uncommonly tender and careful how they decided, upon the Amendments now before them, and should also protect his hon. Friend from a lecture for doing what he conceived it to be his duty to do.
  GENERAL SHUTEwas not much enamoured of the Pill, for it neither simplified, so far as officers and soldiers were concerned, nor abbreviated the present law. But he was not surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) felt a little hurt at the remarks which had been made, for, as a Member of the Committee, he could testify that it was impossible that any Chairman could have shown greater tact in dealing with the Bill in the Select Committee, or greater knowledge on the subject for one who was not a military man. In the short time allowed them more, certainly, could not have been done than was accomplished. He did not altogether agree with the last speaker. The Mutiny Act was intended to ensure more exemplary and speedy punishments for breaches of discipline than could be obtained by the Civil Law; and though its enactments might appear to be severe to civilians, they were forced to be severe. The court martial system, in his opinion, had been seriously injured by the tinkering of indifferent lawyers, many of whom were utterly ignorant of the requirements of discipline, and not particularly well up even in their own profession. The Army wanted discipline, while lawyers thought only of the punishment for, and the repression of, such offences as would in Criminal Law be considered crimes. Courts martial, then, should be real Courts of Justice, unfettered by the minor quibbles of the law, which might render the conviction of unquestionably guilty offenders less certain. When he first knew the Army an innocent man would always prefer trial by a court martial, while the guilty cue liked to be sent to a Civil Court. He did hope, therefore, that in considering this Bill the Committee would look rather to the requirements of discipline, than merely to the repression of crime in the civil sense of that term.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERknew that the gallant General (General Shute) was always inclined to take a very harsh and severe view of questions of this kind; and he never remembered an occasion

  427
  when, either by chance or accident, he said anything in favour of relaxing Military Law. Once, on the trial of a political prisoner in Ireland, the hon. and gallant Gentleman had regretted that he had no power to order the prisoner a whipping at the cart's tail. He did trust, therefore, that the Committee would look with very great suspicion upon his evidence. Both the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Stanley) and the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) had entirely evaded the main justification for this Motion, which was that the Government, after a pledge of the most distinct and emphatic character that the Select Committee should thoroughly revise and reform the Military Law, had not kept their pledge. Why was that? Had the right hon. and gallant Gentleman no apologies to offer to the House for the broken promises of his Predecessors? If no explanation were offered, the Committee would be perfectly justified in a refusal to proceed with the Bill; for his hon. Friend (Mr. J. Holms) had given chapter and verso for his statements, and had shown that on many occasions Amendments were withdrawn because of those pledges. Now, it was found that the Committee which set out to improve the law had simply occupied themselves in its codification, with the result that they had actually perpetuated and stereotyped the very things against which these Amendments were protests. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) asked whether the Criminal Code Bill was to be set aside until they had ascertained the causes of crime? His reply was, that they had already repeatedly inquired into the causes of civil crime, but that they had not taken the same pains with military crimes; and for that reason had not been able to enact laws calculated to improve the condition and character of the Army. The prevention of crime ought to be as much the object of the Mutiny Act as its punishment. It ought, also, to enact the law in clear, plain, and simple language. An appeal had been made to the Government to see that this was done in the present Bill, and a promise was given. In what respect had that promise been carried out? In none whatever. In the Select Committee hon. Members who wished
  428
  to go into the matter were told that the Bill was simply intended to codify the different clauses of the old Mutiny Acts. So far from being business-like, the conduct of the Committee had been, up to the present, the very reverse; for it had simply stereotyped things against which many of them had vainly protested time after time before. They ought to inquire into the circumstances which led to the commission of offences in the Army before they proceeded to draw up a Code to punish them; and they ought to take care that the matter was fully and amply investigated, not merely by calling military testimony, but by taking impartial evidence, especially with regard to the punishments inflicted. Nothing of this sort had yet been done. His hon. Friend, he thought, had shown great discretion in affording the Committee an opportunity of examining the Bill in detail before asking them to reject it; and the protest made against his proceeding by some hon. Members, who seemed to think their only duty was to help the Government to back out of its pledges, was entirely without reason.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he earnestly hoped that the time of the House would cease to be misapplied in discussing so badly prepared a legislative measure as this Army Discipline Bill was. There were other far more important questions connected with the Army needing the urgent and do-voted attention of the Secretary of State. No one acquainted with the state of the Army could help being anxious about its condition at the present time. Any military man, who saw the five regiments which recently embarked for the Cape, must be struck by the necessity for some change in their system. His hon. Friend (Mr. J. Holms) had certainly exercised a wise discretion in not bringing forward his Motion until the Committee had had an opportunity of judging whether it was likely to pass this Bill with any satisfactory results. They had now been two days at work, yet they had made very little progress with this Bill; and he must also point out that they had not got the simplification and the clearness they had been promised in a new Mutiny Act. Why, then, should not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman take back his Bill and amend it for next year's re-considera-

  429
  tion, asking, at the same time, for an extension of the present continuing Act for a few months? When the Militia Bill was brought in, it was accompanied by an explanatory Memorandum of the changes made; but this Bill, though far more important, had been thrown, chucked, before the Committee without any such explanation. They knew, also, not merely by rumour, that the Horse Guards were very much dissatisfied with the measure; and they surely should have a full opportunity of considering its details and submitting their views on the measure. He was perfectly certain that no soldier who knew what a Mutiny Bill should be would allow this Code to pass in its present form. Let the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Stanley) look at Clause 173, as an instance of the way in which the noncommissioned officers were treated. At the present time, with their short-service system, it was of the utmost importance that they should have the very best non-commissioned officers; but so long as they lowered the rank of the non-commissioned officer, by allowing him to be degraded at the mere hasty words of the commanding officer, so long would they fail to get the class of men they wanted. There was plenty of time to pass a thoroughly satisfactory measure; but, for his own part, he would far rather have the old Mutiny Act than the present measure. In that opinion he knew many officers would concur.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORwould only trouble the House for a minute or two in reference to the particular part of this Bill in which he took special interest—punishment of soldiers by flogging. Some of his hon. Friends from Ireland—especially the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), and the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power)—when this Mutiny Act was before the House last year, were in favour of offering a very determined resistance to these clauses, word by word and line by line. They wanted to move the reduction of the lashes from 40 to 39, and from 39 to 38, and so on. He ventured, however, to advise them not to take that course, as he did not think it was the best way to meet the evil. He reminded them that the Government were pledged to give the Act a thorough overhauling in all respects, and to introduce a new Bill; and
  430
  he told them that after that had been done he did not believe the flogging clauses would be again offered to them. His hon. Friends accepted his advice, and withdrew their Amendments. Now, he asked whether it was fair of the Government to Parliament, or to the Irish Members, or fair even to himself, to allow that to be done when they had no intention of going into these matters in the Committee, and, as a matter of fact, never did go into them at all. For when he asked some of his Friends on the Committee, taking great interest in the matter, what was being done about the flogging clauses, he was told that they were not to be discussed at all. He certainly was justified in believing that the Government were pledged to go into the matter; for he found, on turning back to Hansard, that these were the words of Mr. Secretary Hardy, now Lord Cranbrook—
  "He had asked the House to pass the Bill in its present shape under the following state of things:—It was going to be referred to a Committee. … He certainly asked the Committee, as far as they possibly could, to pass the Bill in its present shape, with the view that there might be a thorough investigation hereafter into the whole subject."—[3 Hansard, ccxxxix. 46.]
  Whether the Committee that was struck gave satisfaction to anyone but themselves be did not know; but it was certainly the fact that many Gentlemen were very dissatisfied with the result of the labours of that Committee. It had simply given them a codification of the Mutiny Act and of the Articles of War. There was no reason for all this haste. They had gone on with this very confused and stupid old Mutiny Act for a great many years, and they could very well go on with it for one, two, or even three years more. But what they did want to do was not merely to pass an indifferent Bill, but to make the law as perfect as possible. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) asked what was the good of taking evidence? He replied, that there was ground for asking for evidence as to flogging. When England was the only civilized State in Europe which tortured its soldiers with the lash, evidence would surely have helped them to form an opinion whether it was still necessary to disgrace our Military Code with this punishment. It had been said that it was very inconvenient to bring

  431
  this matter forward now; but the answer to that was perfect. The hon. Member (Mr. J. Holms) was bound to come forward at the time when he thought his object of stopping the Bill was most likely to be attained. He apparently thought the Bill was a mass of confusion, and a conglomeration of impossibilities; and he probably waited till the House was convinced of its imperfections. If his hon. Friend went to a division, he should certainly support him.
  MR. J. HOLMSonly wished to say a very few words in reply. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) had suggested that he was a rare attendant at the meetings of the Select Committee. The Report showed, however—as the hon. and learned Member would have seen had he taken the trouble to turn to it—that he was present at 10 meetings out of 12, when the evidence was given. He wished, again, to remind the Committee that no answer whatever had been made to the very plain issue he laid before it. That was, that the pledges given by the Government last year, that full investigation should be made into various subjects, had not been kept. No evidence was taken before the Select Committee, except of an official character; although in the Report that Committee themselves said, for instance, that they were of opinion that the power of commanding officers should be defined in the Statute, but that they had not before them sufficient evidence to enable them to decide whether such powers should be exempted. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Renfrewshire (Colonel Mure) said that the rules and regulations had no effect on enlistment, because the class from which their recruits at present wore drawn was a class on the verge of starvation. That was precisely his contention; and until the Military Law was changed and improved, they would continue only to get men to enlist when they were driven to do so from starvation. He was invited to put down Amendments; but though he would not absolutely say that the Bill could not be made a good Bill without taking evidence and going into all these different questions, he certainly should decline the invitation, and would reserve to himself the right to take the sense of the House on
  432
  this matter when the Bill came up for the third reading. He begged to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTERasked if it would not be better to leave out the words in line 27, "being an officer or non-commissioned officer?" The words at the beginning of the clause "every person subject to military law" would include everything; while at the end of the clause the punishments were defined, "if an officer, to be cashiered … if a soldier, to suffer imprisonment." The words were mere surplusage; and as his right hon. and gallant Friend had objected, in every other case, to the insertion of the words "non-commissioned officer," because in the Definition Clause it was intended to make that included in the word "soldier," it would be bettor to leave them out.
  Amendment moved, in page 12, line 27, to leave out all the words from the beginning of the line down to before the word "wilfully."
  COLONEL STANLEYagreed that the Amendment would make the clause more in accordance with the general arrangement of the Bill.
  MAJOR NOLANwould again ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether the Committee would be permitted to discuss the prices paid for billeting? He had asked the question several times before; he could not get an answer, and he could not set up a preliminary Committee, as it required an Order from the Privy Council.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONremarked, that they were now about to discuss the offence and the punishment without having settled the law in regard to billeting. The rule hitherto had been to make the law first, and to decide the punishment afterwards.
  COLONEL STANLEYhoped that he had already given a satisfactory answer on the subject. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's desire was to discuss the prices of billets, and before the Committee came to the clauses on that subject the matter should be explained. He had been, and still was, in communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject; and before they came to the clauses he would state what course ho thought the most advisable.

  433
  Originally, he thought of placing in the Bill words giving authority to the Secretary of State for War to adjust prices from time to time; but that was thought inadvisable. Then it was suggested that the prices should be inserted in the Schedule of the annual Act, and so afford opportunity for revision. The matter was still under consideration, and he could not give any fuller answer at present.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, this seemed to Mm to be the only clause on which he could raise this question. He did not want to discuss the prices, but only to know whether, when they were reached, the Committee would be at liberty to discuss them? Surely on that point the Secretary of State for War and the Chancellor of the Exchequer could make up their minds. If the Committee could not discuss these prices and divide on them, it was very little use to talk about them; and, therefore, he simply wanted to know whether, when they got to the second Schedule, they were to find their mouths shut?
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsuggested the addition of the words, inline 35, of "or other civil officer." It was possible billets might be required for other persons besides the constable. The words were in the old Act, and it was very desirable that they should be in the Bill also.
  Amendment moved, in page 12, line 35, after "constable," to insert "or other civil officer."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Offences in relation to Impressment of Carriages.
  Clause 31 (Offences in relation to the impressment of carriages, and their attendants).
  MR. E. JENKINS MR. E. JENKINS moved, in order to put himself in Order, to leave out the 1st sub-section. This clause, at the very least, required some explanation from either the right hon. and gallant Gentleman or the Judge Advocate General, for it did not occur either in the Mutiny Act or in the Articles of War. He wished to point out, also, how very general the sub-section was. It said
  434
  whoever wilfully demanded any carriage, &c, "not actually required for the purposes authorized by this Act." It did not say required by proper authority, or under proper authority. The purposes authorized later on also seemed to be very general indeed.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he had never, either directly or indirectly, contended that nothing new was to be introduced during the process of codification. Ho had proposed these words because they seemed to him necessary for the protection of the public. He could not conceive a graver offence than wilfully taking animals, vessels, &c, which were not actually required. Of course, the court which tried the case would decide whether the things were actually required. They must deal with the general case; they could not legislate for the particular.
  MR. BULWERconsidered the clause capable of amendment, in that something ought to be said of the intent with which these things were taken. As the clause at present stood, if a man took 21 horses when only 20 were required, he would have committed an offence within the meaning of the Act.
  COLONEL STANLEYthought all those points might safely be left to the court martial which tried the case.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. E. JENKINSwished to call attention to the words used a little further on in the clause—
  "Constrains any carriage … to travel against the will of the person in charge thereof beyond the proper distance."
  Those words were very vague. In the original Act the words were "the distance specified by the justices' warrant." It would be, of course, proper to word the clause in its present way; but ho thought it might be amended, so that it might read, "beyond the distance specified," or "authorized under this Act."
  COLONEL STANLEYhad some doubts whether it would be wise to limit the Act in that way, or to make reference to any rules which might be created in pursuance of the Act. It was rather a small matter to put into an Act of Parliament; but, at the same time, he quite agreed with the principle the hon. Member was upholding; and he would either consider the matter and deal with it on

  435
  the Report, or insert the words now, reserving power to himself to alter them on the Report.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONremarked, that former Acts of Parliament limited the distance to 25 miles. It would surely be wise to insert that provision again.
  MR. E. JENKINSonly wished to call attention to the vagueness of the words. He would be quite satisfied if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would deal with the matter on the Report.
  COLONEL STANLEYreplied to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon), that he would not like to commit himself to an undertaking that no vessel should be taken more than 25 miles.
  MR. A. H. BROWNpointed out that the clause provided that the road was to be between such places as were specified in the Act, and the distance between such places was carefully guarded by another part of the Bill.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURobserved, that the clause provided for the punishment of officers and soldiers, but not non-commissioned officers. The last words wore—
  "And if a soldier, to suffer imprisonment, or such loss punishment as is in this Act mentioned."
  Had they yet come to a clear understanding as to whether non-commissioned officer was included under the word "soldier?" The Definition Clause 173 did declare soldier to cover noncommissioned officer; but Clause 180 distinctly defined soldier to exclude both officer and non-commissioned officer.
  COLONEL STANLEYwould venture to repeat, what he had more than once said before, that when they came to the Definition Clause he would bring up words which should make this point clearer. He was not quite sure whether, as a matter of convenience in drafting, it was better to put in the words "non-commissioned officer" wherever wanted, or to include it under the term "soldier." When they came to the Definition Clause he would bring up words to settle the matter. At present, the term "soldier" included non-commissioned officer, except when otherwise stated.
  Clause agreed to.
  Offences in relation to Enlistment.
  Clause 32 (Enlistment of soldier or sailor discharged with ignominy or disgrace).
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEthought the clause was carried too far. If a man were dismissed as objectionable from the Navy, they would suppose that would unfit him to serve in the Land Forces. But, some time ago, a man deserted from the Marines, and enlisted in the 32nd. He rose to the rank of non-commissioned officer by exemplary good conduct, and afterwards, on his trial for desertion, it came out that he deserted because he found his life unbearable from seasickness. Therefore, if a man were turned out of the Navy because he was "objectionable"—which, however, might really mean that he was a sufferer from sea-sickness—that was no reason why he should be tried and punished very severely for enlisting in another regiment. The Admiralty ought to have power to transfer a man from the Marines to the Land Forces. He moved, in page 14, line 20, to leave out "or as objectionable."
  MR. W. H. SMITHexplained, that the word "objectionable" was perfectly well understood in the Navy. It did not apply at all to those who were, unfortunately, unable to live comfortably at sea. A man was tried, for instance, for drunkenness, time after time, and at last he would be dismissed from the Navy as objectionable. Of course, it would be very undesirable to enlist such a person in the Army.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTconsidered that the word "disgrace" alone would be sufficient. He was impressed with the view taken by the hon. and gallant Member (Major O'Beirne), that a man should not be punished for enlisting, although he had been dismissed from the Navy "as objectionable," because this term did not necessarily imply anything disgraceful.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONinquired of the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether the word "objectionable" was used in the discharges of the men dismissed from the Navy? He regarded the word as being too vague.
  COLONEL MUREsaid, a man could not be dismissed from the Navy unless there were very strong objections to his conduct; he could not, therefore, believe that the

  437
  hon. and gallant Member (Sir Alexander Gordon) would like persons of that character to enter the Army. The clause contemplated cases of a very different kind to those in which the Royal Prerogative was exercised, in the dismissal of officers for infirmity of temper and other disqualifications.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLcontended that if the clause was intended to relate to persons who, by the Naval Discipline Act, might be dismissed either "with disgrace" or "as objectionable persons," the words "as objectionable" should remain in the clause.
  MR. E. JENKINSfound that there were words in the Mutiny Act which might be taken to include this offence; but the clause was, in his opinion, an exceptionally severe one. It would be seen that the words—"Or from any portion of the Auxiliary Forces, when subject to Military Law," would apply to Volunteers, who he did not think should be prevented from entering the Army. His objection was to the principle and spirit of the clause; because, as the Mutiny Act provided that a record should be kept of every discharge from Her Majesty's Service, the officers at head-quarters ought to be in a position to detect cases of re-enlistment. They had already passed a clause which rendered a man liable to imprisonment for making a false statement at the time of enlistment; and it would seem to be very harsh that a court martial should try him for the offence of enlisting again, no considered the clause unnecessary, and thought that, before the Report, the matter should receive the attention of the Secretary of State for War.
  COLONEL STANLEYregretted the absence of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Holms), who, taking the strong view which he did with regard to desertion from the Army, would certainly have supported this clause, even if he objected to other parts of the Bill. He (Colonel Stanley) could not but admit that the clause was more stringent in its effect than the law hitherto existing; but its object was to prevent the re-enlistment of men who could not be tried and punished under the Fraudulent Enlistment Act; men who were discharged from the Army under circumstances which rendered them no longer fit for service. With regard to the record of
  438
  enlistments referred to by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins), he granted that such a register might be kept of soldiers who did not enlist abroad; but there was no possibility of doing so in the case of men who enlisted out of the country, which would render such an arrangement inoperative. The clause under consideration only applied to men who were thoroughly bad—who had been discharged with ignominy from the Regular Army or Auxiliary Forces, or from the depôt, or other analogous Services, or who had been dismissed from the Navy. Such men, who re-enlisted by deceit, came back into the Army only to swell the record of crimes in different regiments. He trusted that the Committee would allow the clause to pass.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEcomplained that he had not received an answer to his question as to whether Marines were ever dismissed from the Service because they suffered from sea sickness?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, in his reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, he had distinctly stated that such was not the case.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTconsidered that they should very carefully consider the effect of the clause, which struck him as being too severe. Everyone agreed that it was desirable to prevent the enlistment of bad men in the Army; but he could conceive that the term "objectionable" might be applied to conduct that required no punishment at all. It must be borne in mind that there were points to be considered. A man might, under the Naval Discipline Act, be legally convicted and dismissed from the Service with disgrace. In another case, he might be dismissed as "objectionable." Now, it was not exactly known what this word meant; and it would, therefore, be a serious thing to add it to a penal Statute. He could conceive the case of a troublesome, refractory boy, of not more than 12 or 14 years of age, who perhaps seven years after he had been dismissed from the Navy as objectionable might enlist in the Army. This boy might have entirely changed and become a very well-conducted man; but, all of a sudden, he would find himself liable to penal servitude. He did not think that this provision should be introduced into the Bill; and considered that the best way to meet the case would be to take from

  439
  every man a declaration that he had not I before served in the Army or Navy, and punish him if he made a false declaration, which would be a definite offence. For the reasons stated, he suggested that the clause should be postponed and re-considered.
  COLONEL NORTHsuggested that the best way to deal with the case of desertions from the Army was by a return to the system of marking, which in former days was the terror of deserters. There was no cruelty whatever in the act of marking a man; but the system had been done away with not by order of the House of Commons, but by the Act of Lord Card well, then Secretary of State for War, acting on the recommendation of a Royal Commission, which sat to consider the subject. The object of marking was the protection of the country from a system of fraud practised by men who enlisted first in the Army, then in the Militia, and so on, going from one regiment to the other; and to this effect was the answer given by Mr. Cardwell, when Secretary of State for War, who, when his opinion was asked as to whether marking ought to be regarded as a system of punishment, replied that—
  "He did not think it ought. It was not for the purpose of punishment, but for the prevention of fraud. So that the second infliction of it was wrong, and ho felt no doubt that His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief would be of the same opinion."
  He (Colonel Mure) entirely agreed that there was no necessity for the second marking. Again, the Royal Commission which sat to consider the subject had said that the
  "Use of the term 'branding' had led to the erroneous impression that the marking was done in a cruel manner."
  And the Report went on to say that—
  "The real object of the marking is not the punishment of the offender, but the protection of the public, who are frequently defrauded of bounty on the re-enlistment of discharged men who have brought discredit on the regiment to which they belonged, and are no longer likely to be useful to the Public Service."
  They also stated in their Report—
  "It is the system of tempting recruits by bounties, without any previous inquiry into their character, which is the chief cause of fraudulent enlistment; and if, as we have reason to hope, measures can be taken to reform
  440
  this system, all motive for continuing a practice, which nothing but necessity can justify, will cease to exist."
  He considered that at no previous period was more trouble taken than at the present moment to inquire into the previous character of recruits for the Army, notwithstanding desertion was on the increase, and he quoted the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting for January, 1878, to show that unless there was some efficient safeguard of the public purse, the evil of desertion was likely to continue, to the great detriment of the Service. It would be seen, from the Return annexed to the Report, that the number of desertions had increased this year to 2,621, as compared with 2,337 in the year previous. He would remind the Committee that in the year 1871, when marking was abolished, the desertions increased to 1,382, and that since then they had risen to 2,690 for 1872, 2,531 for the year 1873, while for the year 1878 there were no less than 2,560 desertions. In short, in 1870, when marking was the rule, the number of deserters was 3,171; in 1878, 5,416. Then there was the crime of making away with the kits, and the number of these offences had risen from 1,135 in 1871 to 2,772 in 1878. The men who committed this fraud upon the public were described by Sir Henry Thring before the Committee as—
  "A set of loafing vagabonds in the Army, the most troublesome, I believe, of all military offenders, men constantly going from one regiment to another. They desert from one regiment and enlist in another without giving notice that they belong to the Army, and they thereupon got a free kit and a number of advantages; and so they go on leading a sort of vagabond life."
  He wished, also, to point out that besides the cost of the kits of which the public were defrauded—the Secretary of State for War had referred to a case in which a man had enlisted in 13 different regiments, and had, consequently, received 13 new kits—the country had to pay for the enormous expense of taking and punishing the men who were guilty of this crime. His object in suggesting a return to the system of marking was no other than the protection of the ratepayers of the country. He, therefore, hoped that either that system, or some efficient method, would be adopted in future; for, besides the enormous ex-

  441
  pense of recapturing deserters, until this was done our endeavours to get respectable men to join the Army would be fruitless.
  COLONEL STANLEY, desiring to save trouble to the Committee, was willing to leave out the words objected to; but in order to render the clause more clear, he would ask the Committee to assent to the insertion, in line 21, after the word "forces," of the words "without declaring the circumstances of his discharge."
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKsaid, there could be no doubt that desertion and re-enlistment was one of the greatest evils existing in the Army, and that the means hitherto devised had been insufficient for the purpose of checking it.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNErose to Order. The word "desertion" was not mentioned in the clause under consideration.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that a more suitable opportunity of raising this question would occur when Clause 34 was reached. He would point out to the Committee that the clause now before them was directed against improper persons entering the Army, who were referred to as persons previously discharged from the Army. He could scarcely, therefore, see the immediate relevancy of the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock), which, as he had already said, would be more suitably applied to Clause 34.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKthought that the Committee would see that his remarks were properly made at that stage of the Bill, when they were dealing with the offence of entering the Army again after discharge, with a view to its prevention. This matter which had, to a great extent, already occupied the attention of the Committee, was one of such serious importance that he ventured to draw the attention of the Committee to the evidence given by the Commander-in-Chief before the Royal Commission. The questions were put by himself (Sir Henry Havelock); but, before referring to them, he wished to point out that from the circumstance that the punishment of the crime of desertion in the face of the enemy was in our Service death, there had grown up a popular feeling in favour of the de-sorter. But that crime was not included in the present use of the word "deser-
  442
  tion," which simply implied a fraudulent breach of contract entered into with the Service; an act, in itself, essentially and notoriously disgraceful. He was, therefore, sure that when this was clearly understood by the public there would not remain a shadow of sympathy for a man who had committed this crime, who would thenceforward be regarded as a thoroughly disgraceful and fraudulent person. Proceeding to another part of the question—the system of branding—it was supposed by many persons who knew nothing about the matter that officers were in the habit of binding a man hand-and-foot, throwing him upon his face, and branding him with a hot iron. But the truth was, the marking was done by the much more simple and painless process of tattooing, generally on the left breasts—the pain in that case being no more than would be felt on pricking a finger with a pin. When the House deprived itself of that means of checking fraudulent enlistment, the public purse by that act suffered to the extent of £320,000 a-year, and would continue to do so until a remedy was discovered. But to return to the opinion of His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, who was asked the Question—
  "Without in any degree assenting to a return to the system of marking which is now obsolete, is it your opinion that such marking was effective?"
  His Royal Highness replied—
  "I think it would he a very good plan; I see no reason why it should not he adopted."
  And, again, he said, in reply to another Question—
  "I do not think there would he any hardship in this; it would draw the attention of the medical officer to the fact."
  Now, the remedy for the evil in question was that it should be understood that the House was in favour of a system of marking by vaccination, which would for the future indicate that a man, presenting himself with such mark upon him, had been a soldier, and draw attention to the circumstances in which he was discharged. This would have the effect of saving the country the large sum of £320,000 a-year. But the advantage was not to be measured entirely by its pecuniary result; for anything which tended to check desertion, and

  443
  re-enlistment in the Army would be entirely in favour of the good soldier—the man who endeavoured to do his duty, and who was now the greatest sufferer by the fact that this fraudulent re-enlistment escaped notice. He thought the Committee was much indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North) for having drawn attention to the subject, and trusted that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would devise some efficient means of checking the evil.
  COLONEL ARBUTHNOTthought it well, as the discussion had turned upon the means by which the offence of fraudulent desertion and enlistment in the Army could be prevented, to point out that those who were instrumental in bringing in the soldiers guilty of that offence, might, in his opinion, be very properly called upon to exercise greater circumspection in the men whom they selected. He had no doubt that in many cases the recruiting sergeants were very well aware that the men enlisted by them had been soldiers before; and he (Colonel Arbuthnot) had himself, on more than one occasion, refused to enlist men who had been brought up by the sergeant for enlistment, because it was evident to anyone that the men knew something of military drill. One good step, he thought, in the right direction would be that a little care should be exercised in the granting of sums of money for enlistments. He quite held with the granting of money to those who discovered deserters; but considered it undesirable that pecuniary rewards should be given to anybody in connection with the enlistment of a soldier, until that soldier had been for some time under examination; and he had himself known of cases in which money so granted had been taken back again.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was departing from the subject before the Committee in referring to the question of bounties.
  COLONEL ARBUTHNOTwas simply showing how these improper enlistments could best be prevented. But he would pass to another point. The hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North) had read from a Report in which it was said that by the system of bounties, without due inquiry as to the ante-
  444
  cedents of soldiers, desertion was very much encouraged. He (Colonel Arbuthnot) did not see why a man, on offering himself for enlistment, should not be obliged to bring a character of some sort, or furnish a reference, in exactly the same way as demanded from servants engaged by private individuals. There would be a great advantage in this; because, if reference was given to persons who had known the recruit from his early youth, a stop would be put to the practice of children enlisting as men. It would, by this means, be very easy to discover whether the person presenting himself was of the age which he professed to be, or whether, as was often the case, he was three or four years younger. He ventured to think that the civil magistrates might do a great deal in the way of assisting to stop this practice; but he was aware that the various benches of magistrates took very different views concerning the gravity of the crime, and, in some cases, were inclined to act in an unduly lenient manner, from an unaccountable feeling of opposition to the military authorities. He remembered a case in which, finding that a man taken before them had not received his proper punishment, he had written, pointing out the gravity of the offence, and suggesting that he should have received a proper punishment. A rather sharp letter was received in reply, telling him, in effect, that he, as a civil magistrate, understood the case best. He (Colonel Arbuthnot) wrote an apologetic reply, as magistrate of Quarter Sessions in another county, in answer to which he received a very different letter, and the next two men whom he sent up received considerably more punishment than had been formerly awarded. With regard to the making away with kits, he was not quite sure whether the Bill dealt with the point so far as concerned the receivers, who were as much to blame as those who sold the articles. If that was not the case, he thought some provision should be introduced to meet the case of receivers.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANconceived that it would be departing from the proper subject before the Committee to continue the discussion upon fraudulent re-enlistment, concerning which a great deal would have to be said. The clause appeared to him to be misplaced. It dealt with an offence in relation to

  445
  enlistment; but it was enlistment from civil life, and quite distinct from fraudulent enlistment. It appeared to him that the clause, which related to the offence of enlisting a recruit by means of false declarations, ought to be a clause under the general heading of fraudulent enlistments, and that the offence provided for by Clause 34, which dealt with enlistment in the active sense of engaging a man in the Service, might be brought under the head of miscellaneous offences elsewhere in the Bill. Unless this was done, he foresaw that considerable confusion would arise with regard to these parts of the Bill. They were dealing with the case of men who enlisted after being discharged from various branches of the Service with ignominy; and ho submitted that the question of the re-enlistment of deserters was not before the Committee.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that to raise the question of re-enlistment by a man still on the Books of the Army at that part of the Bill would be foreign to the clause before the Committee. There was no doubt that the tendency of the discussion had been to exceed the limits of the clause, and he again pointed that out to the Committee.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, there could be no doubt that the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Sir Henry Havelock) was technically right in setting this discussion on foot; because it was essential that at some point in the Bill the Committee should discuss this very serious question relating to desertion and the sale of kits. That practice had increased, especially of late years; no less than 2,800 kits having been sold, and 5,416 having deserted during last year. Even hon. Members opposed to the marking of soldiers had suggested that something should be done; and it was to that point he wished to call the attention of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. The Bill did not in any way provide for the recognition of deserters, who would, therefore, escape detection, unless something happened to turn up to show that they had been in some other regiment. Something, therefore, was required by which a deserter could be recognized and prevented from passing himself off as not having been in the Army at all. It mattered very little how they were marked; but they must be
  446
  marked in some way. He, therefore, trusted the Secretary of State for War would seriously consider the question, which was one of deep importance not only to the Army itself but to the general public.
  COLONEL MUREthought the discussion then going on was not absolutely regular. It appeared to him that the Committee, not only upstairs but in the House, had been paralyzed in its examination of Military Law. The Committee upstairs were told that they were to receive evidence upon the subject of desertion, but were not to discuss the question. The Committee of the House had passed a Desertion Clause, and yet hon. Members were agreed in desiring that the discussion which had been raised should continue, even though it were irregular. He (Colonel Mure) could not understand how hon. Members could thus proceed, while the great evil of desertion was corroding and eating into the Army. He asked, what it was thought would be the feeling in the Army if it were known that the House was discussing a new Code of Military Law, and that it had passed a clause dealing with desertion without saying one word upon it? It would be felt very deeply; because it was a well-known fact that the best soldiers in the Army complained of the disgrace brought upon them by desertions. The fact was, that the question of desertion had never been seriously taken up by the military authorities. The only thing that had been done seriously was to withdraw from the Army the only protection it had—namely, the marking of deserters, a change which rendered their detection thenceforward almost an impossibility. He believed that a very considerable number of hon. Members would hesitate in going back to a system of marking; there was something about the branding a man in early life repugnant to the feelings, especially in the case of very young men. He (Colonel Mure) would in no way submit to the marking of young men with the letter D, even admitting that they were guilty of the crime of desertion.
  MR. E. JENKINSsaid, the question before the Committee being one which had reference to the enlistment of men discharged from the Service with ignominy, he could not see the relevancy of the remarks of the hon. and gallant

  447
  Gentleman (Colonel Mure), who appeared to be raising a wholly different question.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, it did not appear to him that that was the most convenient place for the observations of the hon. and gallant Member to be made, as they did not strictly relate to the subject-matter of the clause.
  COLONEL MUREobserved, that the subject was most important; and although, according to the ruling of the Chair, it could not then be brought forward, he hoped that it would be fully discussed on Report.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERsuggested that not only every soldier, but that every officer entering into a regiment should receive a mark. Every second lieutenant on joining, as well as every private, should be marked with the name of his regiment. A great misconception had arisen from the use of the word "branding;" but it was quite unnecessary to use that term. They had heard from the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrewshire (Colonel Mure) that it was absolutely necessary, on the first conviction for desertion, to mark with the letter D; but the court had power to abstain from so doing, if they thought there was sufficient reason. He would not at that point enter into the question of the advisability of using the letter D; but would only say that it was quite distinct from the use of a regimental mark. To the use of the letter D he did not think the House would ever again consent; but he did think it very necessary that every soldier should be marked with the name of his regiment.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURurged the Secretary of State for War to take into consideration the suggestions that had been so admirably urged by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North). It would be well for a careful inquiry to be made into these matters.
  MR. E. JENKINSwas sorry that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was not at that moment in the House; but he was glad to see the Judge Advocate General in his place, as he would be able to reply to the observations which he had to make with regard to this clause. The more he considered this clause the less he liked it; and he thought the remarks of the hon. and learned Member
  448
  for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) ought by that time to have had some weight, because the hon. and learned Member agreed in supporting this Bill, and was the Chairman of the Committee upon whose recommendations this Bill had been drawn. He wanted to point out to the Committee that this clause affected not every person subject to the Military Law, as the 13th did, but every person having become subject to Military Law. The object was that the military authorities might follow into civil life a man who had been discharged with ignominy; upon his release and entrance into civil life it was sought still to bring him under the provisions of the Act, and to subject him to a military court martial. Surely, the Bill was harsh enough as it stood, without the introduction of such extra punishment as the subjecting a man who had re-entered civil life to a court martial and a sentence of penal servitude. It seemed to him that this clause was perfectly gratuitous; for it provided severe and unnecessary punishment in the case of fraudulent enlistment, which offence was already provided for by another clause. He would take the sense of the Committee with regard to the maintenance of this clause; for the more he considered it the more he thought it was unnecessary, and unduly severe. It was merely an attempt, by imposing penal servitude, to endeavour to dissuade persons from committing crime. Because the organization of the Army was imperfect, and because the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, as he had admitted, found difficulties in registering the name of every person who had been dismissed the Service with ignominy, undue penalties of this sort were to be imposed. It was simply an attempt to prevent, by highly penal legislation, an offence which arose from the want of organization of the Army. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary must see that the clause was too severe; it was a clause against the general policy of legislation, and, indeed, it was admitted to be so. There was nothing in the present Mutiny Act or the Articles of War even remotely akin to it; and he would ask whether, in order to meet the difficulty of persons re-enlisting who had been discharged with ignominy, it was right to introduce a clause of such severity as this into an Act of Parlia-

  449
  ment? He could not think that this was justifiable; and he should deem it his duty to take the sense of the Committee upon the maintenance of this
  Lord ELCHOagreed that the questions of desertion and enlistment were very important, and, in his opinion, should not be debated casually, but should be brought forward, as it was proposed to do, on Report. But whether right or wrong, as it at present existed, the enlistment question was most important, for it was at the root of the whole military system. For that reason ho trusted that it would have a full and careful discussion. Judging from the reports from the different regiments, there was an absolute necessity that the Government should bring forward some proposition on this subject. With regard to the question of desertion, ho should not have thought it necessary to make any remarks, but for some absurd statements which had been made. No doubt, the present prevalence of desertion in the Army was a scandal and a disgrace. In his opinion, there must be something very wrong in our military system which produced that state of desertion. His right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was at the head of a body not unlike the Army—he meant the body of the police, he heard no question raised as to desertion from the police, or as to the necessity of branding the police; and ho could not but think that if they tried, by some means or other, they could get men into the Army of the character that there were in the police, and then there would be no question about branding. He was entirely opposed to any branding, and had voted against it on previous occasions. There was something to him absolutely repulsive in having to bolster up their military system by branding men like a herd of cattle; and, although they had been told by his hon. and gallant Friend behind him that they should not look upon branding as a disgrace, but that it should be turned into an element of honour by a Crown being affixed on some part of the person—he did not say back or front—of every man that enlisted, whether officer or private, yet that did not, in his opinion, shake his abhorrence of the system. He had no intention of enlisting as a private, nor was it ever likely that ho should ever have a commission as a second lieutenant.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERobserved, that he had only suggested that the number of the regiment should be marked on each man.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's proposal was that every man should have a number as a sort of convict badge. Now, although ho was not likely to go into the Army, he might possibly have a son who would be a second lieutenant; and he should object not only to branding deserters, but still more so should he object, if their system was so bad that they had to brand both officers and privates. He objected to branding with the Crown, or anything else, for the purpose of catching deserters, men who could not be at present apprehended because of the faults of the system; and, à fortiori, he should object to any son of his being branded because he entered the Army. To say that to be thus marked with a Crown was an honour! A strange kind of honour founded in dishonour. For his part, he should raise his voice most emphatically against such a system. The matter ought to be dealt with in a very different way; and the subject was a larger one than could be discussed at that time, when the Bill ought to be proceeded with with all reasonable speed. When the subject was brought on he trusted that it would be discussed in a full House. If the question were dealt with in the way it had been suggested—namely, as a question of vaccination—he thought that some hon. Members would certainly raise very great objections to that.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONunderstood the Secretary of State for War to have said that he would withdraw this clause.
  COLONEL STANLEYobserved, that he had not stated that, but had only said that ho had no objection to leave out the words to which the hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne) objected, and to put in certain other words. He might observe that the proposal for branding did not emanate from him; but the provisions of the clause were necessary to meet the case of confirmed bad characters, and enable the authorities to deal with them.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONnoticed that Clause 32 was headed "Offences in relation to enlistment," and another clause on page 51 was headed "Offences as to enlistment." He could see no

  451
  difference between these two; and it seemed to him unnecessary to deal with the offences in two places. With regard to the suggestions that had been made, by more than one hon. Member, with regard to branding—and it was nothing else—for officers and soldiers, he was glad to hear his right hon. and gallant Friend state that the proposal did not come from him; but he must ask the Committee to remember that that proposal had come from the Predecessor of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. When he proposed such a system, he (Sir Alexander Gordon) took the liberty of suggesting that he had better drop the question, inasmuch as it was a proposal that would not be acceptable to the House or to the country, and that, in effect, it was to put a mark on every man in the Army because he could not be trusted. The only reason for the proposal was that they could not trust their soldiers; and he hoped that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman might be induced to change his present determination.
  MR. MUNTZdid not remember its being proposed to brand every officer and soldier in the Army. There was some discussion as to branding deserters, and some hon. Member on that side of the House wisely suggested tattooing instead. He thought, however, that if they were to brand or tattoo every officer and soldier in the Army, they would do away with all self-respect, and he certainly could not agree to such a proposal. With respect to the provisions of this clause, everyone guilty of the offence of re-enlistment was to suffer penal servitude. That seemed to him a far more severe punishment than ought to be inflicted for any such offence; imprisonment with hard labour was the worst punishment that he considered should be inflicted. In the ease of felony, and other serious crimes, penal servitude was properly inflicted; but it was too severe a punishment to award to every man enlisting again who had been discharged with ignominy.
  COLONEL STANLEYexplained that the punishment was to meet the case of men who had been discharged as utterly incorrigible, and who had, in all probability, passed the best part of their lives in prison, and who were in every way a nuisance to the regiment in which they had enlisted. Those were the men
  452
  whose case was intended to be met by this clause—if he might use so strong a word, the case of the men who were the curse of the Army. He trusted the Committee would agree with him as to the necessity for this provision, and that they would consent to leave the words "penal servitude" in the clause. He did not, by any means, say that the punishment should always be inflicted; but it was necessary to have a stronger deterrent upon men who had passed five or six years in prison and enlisted over and over again, and who brought discredit on every regiment into which they came. He did not think that these men were too hardly dealt with if they suffered somewhat severely under this clause. The clause only applied, as the Committee would see, to men who had been discharged with ignominy, and as incorrigible and worthless.
  MR. E. JENKINSobserved, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to forget that the clause applied not only to the Regular Forces, but to the Auxiliary Forces. Perhaps he would inform the Committee how it was possible for a man to be discharged with ignominy from the Volunteers? He stated that the clause was intended to apply to persons who had been dismissed as incorrigible; but the clause also applied to Volunteers. Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would state whether that was correct or not? The clause seemed to him to be wider than was supposed.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKsaid, that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) forgot that the Auxiliary Forces included the Militia. He did not say that this clause applied to the Militia generally, yet the men who continually committed this offence, when they found that their game was blown in the Line, after about 14 or 15 offences of fraudulent re-enlistment in the Regulars, turned their attention to the Militia. The clause was, doubtless, intended to meet their case. He did not think that the punishment of penal servitude was at all too great for such men. In a case that had occurred some years ago, a man, who had formerly held the rank of corporal, was dismissed, and he re-enlisted no less than 10 times in successive regiments. Such a case as that, in his opinion, showed the necessity of the clause,
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, that the hon. and gallant Member was mistaken in thinking that tins clause applied to the Militia as now constituted. It would only apply to them when embodied for a long period.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONobserved, that if the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) referred to Hansard, he would see that a statement was made by the Secretary of State for War, in introducing the Army Estimates into that House in 1876, to the effect he had stated. The noble Lord who then occupied the position of Secretary of State for War suggested marking, with the view of checking desertion; but, at the time, he (Sir Alexander Gordon) expressed a doubt of the propriety of the suggestion. No doubt, the noble Lord thought better of the point, for nothing more was heard about it.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERremarked that the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire was not quite correct in his facts. Some hon. Member had suggested universal marking, and Lord Cranbrook had replied that, as Minister for War, he should not object to being marked himself.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, that desertion had often to be punished at the present time. According to the Report of Colonel Du Cane, the War Office authorities were not in the habit of giving penal servitude for this crime. Nineteen hundred men were tried for desertion last year, and very few of them were punished with penal servitude; in over 1,000 cases the maximum penalty that was given was imprisonment for periods under 12 months; in many cases 60 and 20 days only were given. From these facts, he argued that there was a very great jumble in this clause, and that the punishment of penal servitude ought to be omitted from it. It seemed to him to be a heavy penalty to give a man penal servitude for this offence. He thought the whole question turned upon the policy of retaining the present system of discharging with ignominy. His own opinion was against that system. It was within his knowledge that a great number of the men who were discharged with ignominy schemed to be so. They were encouraged to be reckless, because the inducement was held out to them that they could be discharged from the Service in no other way than
  454
  by incurring the punishment of discharge with ignominy; whereas a man who had committed no crime was not able to leave the Service, and was thus in a worse position than the man who earned his discharge with ignominy. He must say he very much doubted whether, excepting in very rare cases, it was wise to discharge men with ignominy. No doubt, the system got rid of men of very bad character; but the example that was created by their discharge encouraged men who desired to leave the Service to get discharged from the regiment in the same way, as, under the present system, they could not leave in any other way. The remedy seemed to him to be not to retain this proposition of giving penal servitude, but, as he had always contended in that House, to effect a change in the entire system of the Army. He thought it a great mistake to keep men in the Service against their will. He believed that the proper remedy for this offence was not to punish with undue severity, but to allow men who desired it to have their discharge, and go into the Reserve in a much larger proportion than was now permitted. The system might be altered, so as to allow them to rejoin when the regiment was going on active service; but the Army could not be put into a proper state until men were allowed, much more frequently than at present, to enter the Reserves. No doubt, the answer to his proposition would be that only recruits would be left in the ranks; but that could readily be met by increasing the inducements to soldiers to remain in the Army. He thought that if the pay of soldiers was increased more men would remain in the ranks, and the number of the recruits would be better. If these matters were attended to, not only would a sufficient number of recruits be obtained, but they would be drawn from a better class of men; and as desertion would not exist, there would not be the same reason as now to fix the identity of the men. At the present moment, and for some time, men had been enlisted without any character whatever, and that was one reason why desertions were so frequent, for they thus continually recruited a vast number of bad characters. Sergeants, who were accustomed to the matter, would frequently be able to tell at once that men had been in the Army

  455
  before. For all these matters he believed the proper remedy would be to pick the men, which could be done if the inducements of the Service were increased. But instead of seeking for a remedy for the present system by improving the position of the soldier, and by offering him increased inducements to remain in the Service, the tendency, on the other hand, was to award severe punishments. He did not believe that that was a right policy. If a man were discharged with ignominy, and was unable to gain his living in an honest way, his only resource was to endeavour to enlist; and so long as men were taken without a character, or any sort of reference, that would continue to be the case. If some sort of reference were required, a great deal of fraudulent enlistment would be stopped; but if it could not be stopped by this means, he thought it was a mistake to impose the penalty of penal servitude for the offence. In very few cases up to the present time had penal servitude been awarded; and the Secretary of State for War had admitted that men who committed the offence of fraudulent enlistment could be tried by another law. A recruit was bound to swear, under the present Mutiny Act, that he had never served Her Majesty before, either in Her Land or Sea Forces; and a man falsely taking that oath could be prosecuted for perjury. Both from the public Returns and from his own experience, he knew that it had not been the custom to give penal servitude for this offence, and he did not think there was any object gained in increasing the penalty. If penal servitude were awarded for this particular offence, there would be a great deal of public opinion aroused out-of-doors, and he did not think that that was desirable. He would suggest to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that he should consent to have the word "imprisonment" substituted for penal servitude in the clause, and two years' imprisonment as the maximum amount that could be given. It seemed to him that that was fully an adequate punishment. What a man really did by this offence was to cheat the country out of about £26 worth of money. No doubt, that was a great inconvenience to the country when multiplied by a large number. The prevalence of the offence
  456
  was, however, due, in his opinion, to the very faulty system of selecting recruits, and a man was punished partly for his own offence and partly for the defects of the system. Although the penalty was partly for a man's own crime, yet, in a great measure, it was to make up for the bad administration of the Army. He should be happy to support any hon. Member who would move to leave out from the clause the words "punishment of penal servitude."
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEthought that penal servitude ought to be retained, not only because it was necessary, by means of it, to deter men from fraudulently enlisting, but because their offence cost the country an enormous sum of money. The country was put to an enormous expense every year for the purpose of catching deserters; and it was sometimes said that one half of the Army was employed in trying to catch the other which had run away. Each deserter cost the country £35 for the expense of catching him, bringing him back to his regiment, and trying him by court martial.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTobserved, that his own experience of these men was that no punishment was too severe for them.
  Amendment (Major O'Beirne) agreed to.
  MR. HOPWOOD MR. HOPWOOD moved to leave out "penal servitude" from the clause. He did not wish to make many observations, and would content himself with saying that there was no notion which was shown by experience to be so unfounded as that by severe punishment any sort of crime could be repressed. His great objection was to putting large powers in the hands of any court which might be used to an excessive extent, unless such powers were limited, and in some way proportioned to the offence which they were intended to prevent. For these reasons, he begged to move the omission of the words.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 14, line 22, to leave out the words "penal servitude," in order to insert the words "imprisonment only."—(Mr. Hopwood.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'penal servitude' stand part of the Clause."
  COLONEL NORTHopposed the Amendment, on the ground that men had

  457
  usually undergone every other punishment before they were sentenced to penal servitude.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, there was one case very well known, for it got into all the papers. A man—the case belonged to the Artillery—carried off some article from a shop. In fact, he wanted to be discharged; but the magistrate refused to convict him, as his object was extremely clear. He took the article in the sight of several persons. That was only one case out of many. Under this clause, a man might have a very good character, and yet be sent to penal servitude. He really did not see why they should impose so excessive a penalty as this, if they did not moan to enforce it. Ho did not think they would deter men from re-enlisting by this penalty.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, the Committee was under a misapprehension as to the purport of this clause. It was supposed that this clause was to meet cases of repeated acts of desertion. It had nothing to do with that. It simply referred to the case of a man discharged from the Navy enlisting in the Army. It only met that case; and there was no law by which they could transport a man if he committed that offence. He believed three months' imprisonment was the most he could got. The House now proposed to increase that to penal servitude, and he should propose to insert imprisonment instead of penal servitude. He believed the discussion had been conducted under a wholly erroneous impression. It was not a case of repeated desertions that they were dealing with.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, five years' penal servitude was a severe punishment, and ought to be given only under exceptional circumstances; and if it was proposed to leave out the words "penal servitude," and substitute "two years' imprisonment with hard labour," he should have pleasure in voting for it.
  MR. BULWERhoped the Committee would be careful what it was about in regard to this Amendment, which he trusted would not be carried. At the same time, he would point out that two years' imprisonment with hard labour was a punishment the severity of which was not sufficiently realized.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, he would rather limit the punishment to imprisonment only, and he had moved an Amend-
  458
  ment to that effect. Imprisonment must be confined to two years; whereas penal servitude might be given for life.
  MR. E. JENKINSsaid, they had discussed this subject for a long time, but there was no sign of any concession from the front Bench. He wished to point out that this was an attempt to make the law more severe. That was clear. Suppose they were to adopt the Amendment, if his hon. and learned Friend looked to the next clause, he would find that any person making a false statement was liable to a very severe punishment. He wanted to know what was the object of bringing in this clause at all? It was said that it was to prevent persons discharged with ignominy re-enlisting in Her Majesty's Service. He could conceive the case of persons re-enlisting who might really become serviceable soldiers, and ho could not see why this exceptional punishment should he introduced aimed at these persons. There was a want of organization in the Army itself, because a record was not kept, not only of those enlisted, but of those discharged with ignominy. It was said there was a difficulty, because in the Colonies and on foreign service these discharges occurred, and no record could be kept at home. That was no answer. A record could be kept, and ought to be sent home and registered; and he maintained that this was entirely an unnecessary clause. It seemed to him that it was an attempt to introduce a drastic remedy.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 93; Noes 35: Majority 58.—(Div. List, No. 94.)
  MR. E. JENKINSsaid, he must repeat that he felt it his duty to protest against this clause. He was very sorry to say it; but it seemed to him that the front Bench on that (the Liberal) side appeared to have entered into the Lobby with the Ministers for the purpose of enforcing this clause. He said the front Bench; but he should rather say the remnants—the relics—of the front Bench had joined Ministers to force on the Committee this monstrous clause. It was an infamous clause, and he protested against it. He asked the Committee to consider what this clause really was. He referred them to Clause 13, Clause

  459
  95, and Clause 33; and he asked what could be the necessity of accumulating penalties? It seemed that the object was to subject a man to penal servitude, because, having been discharged with ignominy from the Service, he had once more enlisted; but the truth was, the object of this clause was to make up for the deficiency of the organization and administration of the Army; and he certainly should divide the Committee once more against the clause.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the hon. Member had denounced everybody who differed from him in that House. As to what was said about the front Bench, his reply was this—that as the front Bench did not expect the hon. Member to follow them, the hon. Member should not expect the front Bench to follow him on this or other occasions. These things should be reciprocral, and he did not see how the hon. Member was entitled to expect the front Bench on this occasion to obey his behests. The hon. Member spoke of this clause as "infamous," after it had received the sanction of a considerable majority. This showed a temper which the hon. Member was too apt to display, though ready to disclaim on all occasions.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that, of course, any appeal made by the hon. and learned Member would receive weight; but it was his duty to observe that they had been debating a great many matters not referred to or included in the clause at all. During the absence of the hon. and learned Member, the Chairman had to interfere on more than one occasion in order to restrict the latitude which hon. Members had given themselves in discussing matters which had no reference to the clause. Now, they had just arrived at the discussion of the clause; and if ho had sufficient authority, or perhaps audacity, he would venture to correct the hon. and learned Gentleman, and tell him that they had not been debating it three hours and a-half. It was only quite recently they had taken the matter up in earnest; the Committee had refused to limit the words "penal servitude;" and it appeared to him that if the words were not limited—if the word "imprisonment" were not inserted—they ought to limit the term of penal servitude which it was within the power of the courts martial to inflict. He therefore moved as an
  460
  Amendment, to insert, after "penal servitude," "not exceeding five years."
  THE CHAIRMANruled the Amendment out of Order.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, 2,000 were discharged with ignominy every year for misconduct, and very possibly 100 of these might re-enlist; and if this clause was enforced they would give a great number of men a very heavy punishment. Of the 2,000, only 375 were discharged for "good conduct"—that was, discharged free. He believed they were entirely on the wrong road on this question. There was something rotten in the whole system; it was bad administration. It was not the fault of the present Secretary of State for War. What he had done was in the right direction; but there was bad administration.
  COLONEL STANLEYneither denied nor accepted the figures given by the hon. and gallant Member.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, they were from the public Returns.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, it did not follow that the word "misconduct" would include misconduct with ignominy. It was sought to draw a contrast between the discharges which took place for disgraceful conduct and other discharges; but it would be found, when the Committee came to proceed farther on in their labours, that there was a clause allowing men to go to the Reserve, affording facilities for leaving the Service.
  MR. E. JENKINSsaid, before the hon. and learned Member for Oxford left the Committee he must say a word or two with reference to the remarks he had thrown out. He certainly felt it to be his duty to refer to the fact that the front Bench on most important occasions was a vast hiatus. The hon. and learned Gentleman said there must be reciprocity, and that if he was expected to lead others must at least follow.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I beg pardon. I said the opposite.
  MR. E. JENKINS: That if we expected him to lead, at least there must be some reciprocity, and we must follow those who lead. That would be true, if there was anything or anybody to lead.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The hon. Member must have misunderstood me. I did not expect anything.
  MR. E. JENKINS: Exactly. The hon. and learned Member is right. He

  461
  ought not to expect anything, because there is no attempt at Leadership in any manner or form. And I did not venture to suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman was going to lead. That has not been his position heretofore, and the time is far distant, I suppose, when he will be in the position of Leader. The hon. and learned Gentleman——
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: I rise to Order, Mr. Raikes. I want to know whether the observations of the hon. Gentleman are in connection with the Business before the Committee?
  THE CHAIRMAN: No, they are not. The hon. Member's remarks have no reference to the matter before the Committee. At the same time, I must say that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to some latitude in replying to some remarks which have been made.
  MR. E. JENKINS: I was only going to point out, as the question has been raised by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, that if we are to follow we must have someone to lead us. I think we ought to have Leaders occasionally present to show us what our duties are on the question of the day. The hon. and learned Member is a curled darling of the salons. He strolls down from Olympus with his hands in his pockets. A question comes up. He rises—
  "Like some tall cliff that rears its awful form,
  Smiles from the vale, and midway leaves the storm!"
  He—
  "Assumes the God,
  Affects to nod,
  And seems to shake the spheres!"
  We thirsty souls below the Gangway listen with reverence. He shakes his ambrosial curls and scatters on us a few drops of Olympian dew. We fancy he is Jove; but, in truth, we find he is only Ganymede; and yet he blames us if we do not happen to agree with him. I protest against this. I do not propose to be deterred from doing my duty by any remarks coming from the hon. and learned Member. Coming back to the question before us, I say that this is a drastic clause, and I feel it is a monstrous thing that such a clause as this should be allowed to remain in the Bill; but it seems that the Bill has been arranged or "squared" by the two front Benches, and that it is utterly useless for anyone else to say anything. I will not now divide the Committee, because I know it
  462
  would not be of the slightest use; but I felt it my duty to make these few remarks. I must, however, point out that the clause makes the law more stringent than it is in the old Mutiny Act, Section 48. There a person must be charged with having wilfully made a false statement in answer to any question directed to be put to him by the proper authorities. This clause, which simply says "to have made a false statement," gave too wide a latitude, and it ought to be restricted within the words of the old Act. I will propose to insert the word "wilfully."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. E. JENKINSsaid, then they ought to follow the line of the Act, and insert the words "district or garrison."
  Amendment moved, in page 14, line 32, after "by," to insert "district or garrison."—(Mr. E. Jenkins.)
  COLONEL STANLEYdid not see the necessity of inserting these words, as the words court martial would include them all.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTobserved, that it would be inappropriate to adopt them, because that would be the old classification accorded to punishment. They put the words "district or garrison" in the old Act, in order to show the magnitude of the punishment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 33 (False answers or declarations on enlistment) agreed to.
  Clause 34 (General offences in relation to enlistment).
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked why different punishments were inflicted on the officer or non-commissioned officer who knowingly enlisted a man dismissed with disgrace from the Army, and that to which they subjected the man himself? The man was punished with penal servitude, while the others escaped with simple imprisonment. Yet, surely, the offence was greater in the officer or non-commissioned officer, and they ought to be punished at least as heavily as the man, who, perhaps, was induced to commit the offence by starvation, or, on the other hand, might be influenced by a genuine desire to reform his character. They had heard a good deal about one

  463
  law for the rich and another for the poor; but it did appear to him that this was an instance in which the poor man was severely punished, while the rich man got off easily.
  COLONEL STANLEYexplained that penal servitude was inserted to meet the case of men of persistent bad character, for whom imprisonment had no terror.
  MAJOR NOLANhoped the Government would withdraw the clause. He thought they did wrong in proposing such a clause as Clause 32, and even now he hoped they would withdraw that also on the Report. It was much better to be right and a little inconsistent than to be wrong merely for the sake of consistency and of making the Bill a symmetrical Bill. He was afraid that desire for symmetry had gone too far.
  MR. GOLDNEYadded that a man might not exercise his reasoning powers enough in answering, and even this might subject him to this punishment.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONthought that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was a little in error, for Clause 32 was not framed to meet the case of desertion. It would apply to the single case of a man who had been dismissed from the Army. He offered himself to the sergeant, who know he had been dismissed. He washable to penal servitude, while the non-commissioned officer would only suffer imprisonment. He should like to move to leave out the words; but as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would not accept them it was of no use.
  MR. E. JENKINSasked if there was any objection to leave out the words "has reasonable cause to believe?" Supposing a man were brought before the court, how would it be proved that he "had reasonable cause to believe?"
  THE CHAIRMAN: That cannot now be done. An Amendment has been made later in the clause, and it is not competent for the hon. Member to go back.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, to make the clause tally with the Amendment of the previous clause, the words "or as objectionable" must be omitted.
  Amendment moved, in page 15, line 3, after "disgrace," to leave out "or as objectionable."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Miscellaneous Military Offences.
  Clause 35 (Traitorous words) agreed to.
  Clause 36 (Injurious disclosures).
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURcalled attention to an important change which had been made in the clause, consisting of an addition which seemed to him to be a most dangerous one. A military person, according to the clause, in the course of a most harmless conversation on ordinary military questions which usually occupied the thoughts of officers and men in a campaign, as to the state and condition of the Army in regard to men and stores, might be accused of having produced, "or incurred the risk of producing," effects injurious to Her Majesty's Service Frankly, that seemed to him a terrible opening for many a courts martial. He had served in a country where treachery was common, and where the contents of the magazines was most important, and naturally subject-matters for common talk at messes or private parties, yet he had never known it necessary to put in force the first part of the clause. But, certainly, it was a new thing that officers, for merely speaking to one another about the contents of the magazines or stores, should be charged with "incurring the risk of producing" injurious effects. This creation of new offences was very objectionable, and he would move the omission of the words.
  Amendment moved, in page 15, line 25, after "produced," to omit "or incurred the risk of producing."—(General Sir George Balfour.)
  COLONEL STANLEY, unless the Committee generally wished the words to be omitted, would prefer to retain them, because it seemed to him that the offence lay in the indiscretion, or in the wilful intention, rather than in the actual act. From a moral point of view, the offences were much the same. It was quite true that under the former Act greater latitude was given to a court martial; but, still, he should hesitate to withdraw the words.
  MAJOR NOLANobserved, that the words in the old Act were "either verbally or in writing," leaving out the hypothetical case altogether. He remembered that very Article of War was discussed while he was at the Staff

  465
  College, that an officer's letters and correspondence would come under it, except that it would be very difficult before a court martial to prove any injury. But if this clause were adopted as it stood, every single officer's letter written homo, containing merely a statement where he was stationed or whore his regiment was ordered to, would render him liable to a court martial. That was a rule which no country in the world had as yet introduced into its military law. It was, in fact, punishing a man for an hypothetical case. It would be very hard on officers, and might be twisted into a regular means of keeping the war correspondents in the power of the General. He did not suppose a newspaper correspondent, as a civilian, would come under the operation of this clause; or, if he did, that he would be in much danger, for the common sense of the country at home would protect him; and, still, a hasty General might use this power. It was a very serious proposal to introduce.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKcould not agree that an offence of this kind should be actually committed before it was punished. That was the very thing they wanted to do. Their aim was that all persons with an Army in the field should feel the imperative necessity which lay upon them of, under no circumstances, making disclosures which might be injurious. Hon. Members forgot also that the court martial had discretion, and certainly would not allow the clause to be strained. The danger suggested was quite chimerical; and, for his part, he thought the caution and reticence imposed on every person by the clause was very wise and necessary.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, the clause dealt with the case where a disclosure was made which would incur the risk of producing injurious effects. An ordinary letter could not come under that clause.
  MR. HOPWOODobjected that the clause was new; and therefore a stronger case was required to justify the addition of it to the Bill than if it were a part of the old Act. Experience had shown that the clause, as taken from the old Act, was sufficient; and why, then, should these words be imported into it, which were so little susceptible of any definite legal meaning? But the objection was important on other grounds. They
  466
  knew already that certain commanding officers objected to newspaper correspondents, and that, in some instances, they had appointed members of their own staff for the purpose. It must be true that that was so, or they could hardly have received the intelligence which had been published in some of the newspapers, from places where no civilian correspondent was allowed. But such an officer might inadvertently put something in his letter which might "incur the risk of producing injurious effects," although it by no means came within the positive words of the old clause. Again, there was nothing to designate wilful conduct in the clause, and a man, quite inadvertently, might do something which rendered him liable to this penalty. He did not think a case was made out for the alteration. The Army had done without it for a number of years, and he trusted it would not be pressed.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTadmitted that the presumption was against the clause. But suppose a man did reveal a movement of the Forces which, if it reached its destination, would produce most injurious and destructive effects, and would ruin and destroy the whole of the Army, and his communication was intercepted before it reached its destination—should not that man be punished? Apparently not, according to the present law. It seemed to him that these words ought to be put in to meet that case. They could not protect themselves sufficiently by enacting that the man should be punished when the actual mischief was done.
  MR. HOPWOODwas quite ready to admit the force of the illustration of his hon. and learned Friend; but, at the same time, he must point out that these words were so vague that they would include an entirely innocent act, which, though it had not, in fact, produced any mischief, might be prosecuted as having incurred the risk of doing so. He submitted that if the changes were to be made some more distinct words should be inserted.
  MR. E. JENKINSwished to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that these words were really directed against newspaper correspondents. Under Clause 167, sub-section 8—
  "All persons not otherwise subject to military law, who are followers of or accompany Her Majesty's troops, or any portion thereof,

  467
  when employed on active service beyond the Bead,"
  were made subject to military law, and were, therefore, subject to this clause. [Admiral Sir WILLIAM EDMONSTONE: Hear, hear.] He was glad to hear the chronic cheer of the hon. and gallant Admiral; but he must remind him that this clause affected newspaper correspondents also. If it was not the intention of the Government that it should do so, it was the fault of the draftsman of the Bill, who certainly almost deserved hanging, for every single alteration in the Bill was made with the object of increasing the punishment. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: No, no.] He ought, of course, to withdraw that remark, if that was the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford. Still, he must point out that this clause differed from the clause in the Articles of War. The matter was left in the discretion of the court, but not in such a manner as to allow them to deal with the actual effects injurious to Her Majesty's Service alone. It was left to the military authorities, whose powers were really enlarged by other words which, extending the operation of this penal clause, he strongly objected to. The words were "or incurred the risk of producing," and might include a letter written by a man to his wife, and which she might foolishly publish in the newspapers. If the object of these words was to render the clause more severe than the Article of War, some good reason should be given for it. MAJOR NOLAN thought the case proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) was provided for by the 5th clause of the Bill. If the Committee wished to go any further into that subject, he was prepared to move the insertion of the words "or intentionally calculated," which would meet the case of a man who meant to give information; but it rested with the Government to say why they meant to punish a man whether he intended to do so or not, and to give a very strong reason for the proposed alteration. He (Major Nolan) believed that the clause was directed against special correspondents; and if that were so, it would, in his opinion, be much better for the Government to state the fact. The Committee was aware that there were certain arguments in favour of a control being exercised over newspaper correspondents;
  468
  but he thought that either fresh words should be inserted, or that the words "or incurred the risk of producing" should be left out.
  MR. A. H. BROWNpointed out that this clause, although it included military correspondents in the words "every person subject to military law," and laid down the punishment to be awarded to officers and soldiers, did not provide, in any way, for punishment of a civilian, who, by writing to a newspaper, for instance, might produce an effect injurious to Her Majesty's Service. The clause, therefore, so far as newspaper correspondents were concerned, who were not subject to military law, was practically inoperative. He was certainly of opinion that, under this clause, no civilian who happened to be with the Army in the field could be punished for making any disclosure which would be injurious to Her Majesty's Service.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLreferred the hon. Member (Mr. A. H. Brown) to Clause 167, which included, as subject to military law, "all persons who are followers of or accompany Her Majesty's troops," &c.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONpointed out that if it was the intention to try newspaper correspondents by court martial, the Act did not make that provision. It was clearly a defect in the Bill to create an offence, as had very truly been pointed out, and then to omit all mention of the means of punishing those persons who committed it.
  MR. MELDONthought the Committee ought not to be satisfied until they were clearly informed whether the clause was intended to meet the case of newspaper correspondents, or of officers' wives who might publish a letter from their husbands in the newspapers. This clause being penal, and creating a new offence heretofore unknown to the law, it lay upon the Government, clearly, to show some necessity, and produce evidence that the law, as hitherto existing, had not worked well. The argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) had seemed to him at first sight to have a good deal of force in it. The case had been assumed by the hon. and learned Gentleman of a person writing a letter knowing that it would have a mischievous effect; and it was asked, why should that person not be punished?

  469
  The answer was, this was not the intention of the clause. The offence intended to be met was that of a person who never had any intention to write what would result mischievously towards Her Majesty's Forces. Therefore, there was no analogy between the cases of a person who committed a criminal act, and who should be punished under a clause for "giving information intentionally," and the case which was contemplated by the clause of a person unintentionally disclosing information which might produce effects injurious to Her Majesty's Service. It had not been shown that the existing law worked badly; and he did not think that it would be sufficiently safe for the Committee to proceed to the creation of a new offence upon mere surmise.
  COLONEL STANLEYhoped the Committee would not assent to the doctrine that wrong-doing was not wrong-doing unless ill come of it. In this case, the court martial was called upon oath to decide that an offence had been committed in regard, to the
  "Disclosure of the numbers or position of any Forces, or any magazines or stores thereof, or any preparations for, or orders relating to, operations or movements of any Forces, at such time and in such manner as in the opinion of the Court to have produced, or incurred, the risk of producing effects injurious to Her Majesty's Service.
  He could see no other way than this by which the Service could be safeguarded. He would point out to the Committee that the whole circumstances of war had been so changed by the telegraph at the present day that information was forwarded from one point of the world to another with such rapidity that a person might very well produce effects injurious to the Service without intending to do so altogether. He hoped the Committee would not lose sight of the whole scope of the clause, which involved the honour and safety of the country in time of war. He did not think they were doing too much in demanding that persons should weigh well their words, and consider, before they published them, whether they would be likely injuriously to affect the Public Service.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, the argument used by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not apply to the present ease; because, if a man placed an obstruction upon a railway, he did so
  470
  with intent; but the object of the present clause was to get at persons who did not intend to produce the consequences desired to be guarded against. He was prepared to admit that cases of the kind contemplated should be provided against; but the manner of doing so required very careful consideration. The object should be to strike at those who intentionally offended, not at those who, though they offended, did so without intent. During the present Session attention had been called to the case of a correspondent who sent home a report of the proceedings of one of the Generals engaged in the Afghan War, and hon. Members all knew what was alleged to be the consequences of that report. Unless the clause was modified, when the Bill became law, hon. Members would find on taking up the newspapers that no reliance could be placed on the reports of correspondents, because it would be felt that they were awed by the commanding officer from giving any description of tactics, or, indeed, anything of real interest relating to the Army in time of war. This was an extraordinary position in which to place the country at home. But the better way was to say nothing about the necessity of providing against the case at all; for it was well known that everyone admitted to the camp was, of course, more or less under military discipline. He did not go the length of saying that because a man was a newspaper correspondent he should have the right of doing and saying whatever he pleased, quite independently of the Military Code. He could not suppose that any General, having regard to the success of the Forces under his command, would admit correspondents into his camp without placing them under some regulations and some restrictions; but he said that the way in which it was intended to deal with offences of the kind referred to would be injurious to the interests of the country, and would deprive people at home of any reliable or authentic information of what was going on.
  MR. BULWERthought, on reading the clause, that it would not meet the views of hon. Members opposite; but he did not think, even if the wording was altered, that the clause should be restricted in any way, so as to fall short of the intention of Gentlemen on his

  471
  side of the House. He would suggest that the substitution of the following words would meet the view of the Committee:—
  "And thereby, in the opinion of the court, produces, or attempts to produce, effects injurious to Her Majesty's Service."
  No one would desire that a person should be punished for having produced injurious effects, perhaps, with the most innocent intention possible.
  MR. PARNELLdid not think the clause, oven if altered, would be satisfactory, so far as regarded newspaper correspondents. It must not be forgotten that the clause was an adaptation of an old Article of War, which had been altered and made more stringent; and at last it had been made to include in its provisions men for whom it was originally in no way intended. He thought that if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman really wished to deal with the case of newspaper correspondents, he should introduce a seperate clause for that purpose. Whatever clause it might be necessary to pass with regard to the control of newspaper correspondents, and preventing them making important disclosures, they should be treated as a special class, and be controlled by a special clause; for by subjecting them to the same operation of the same clauses as those which applied to soldiers, they placed them in a position in which no newspaper correspondent ought to be placed. By all means, exact sufficient guarantees that military operations should not be injuriously affected by the articles of newspaper correspondents; but not by the application of the present clause.
  MR. E. JENKINSthought that the clause could not have received sufficient consideration from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. The question appeared to him to be whether, by the passing of this clause, the object in view, which was to prevent newspaper correspondents from satisfying prurient curiosity, would be attained. He thought not; for it would be remembered that during the Russo-Turkish War, the Czar ordered that no newspaper correspondents should go to the front, with this result—that even he found that it was absolutely necessary to yield to public opinion, and let them accompany the Army. In that case, it was perfectly certain that information came from the
  472
  Turkish Army which was read in the Russian Army, and vice versâ. He thought the best regulation for correspondents of the Press was to put them on their honour. But if the clause, as at present, remained in the Bill, he put it to the Committee whether such men as Archibald Forbes would enter a camp, and whether he would not telegraph home all the information he wanted to send without placing himself under the operation of the Act? The points raised seemed to him to be of such importance that, in view of the discussion which was coming later on, he would move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Edward Jenkins.)
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the issue was a comparatively small one, and he trusted that the Committee would come to a decision upon the words—whether they were to stand part of the Bill or not.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURpointed out that the Duke of Wellington was placed in the same difficulties with regard to correspondence from Spain—not only subordinate officers, but officers of very high rank were known to have expressed their opinions about the Army and its stores in a manner far from satisfactory either to the Duke or to the nation; but instead of trying to punish the writers he appealed to their good sense, and pointed to the fact that much of the information obtained by Napoleon was got from letters sent home from the Army. The disordered state of the Crimean Army and its dangerous condition were all pointed out in private letters, and thereby saved from the impending destruction. As it was now 11 o'clock, he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree to report Progress, according to the arrangement made earlier in the evening.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I said I would report Progress; but, of course, I could not fix the time to a few minutes; that would depend upon the progress made. We do not propose to go beyond this clause, which, I understand, has been under discussion for a considerable time; but I think it is only fair and reasonable that the present clause should be finished.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsubmitted that the arguments put forward against this important clause had not been answered. He supported the Motion to report Progress.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKsuggested the insertion of the word "wilfully," before "discloses."
  SIR HENRY JAMESthought, as the point raised was obviously a difficult as well as a delicate one, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would do well to re-consider the clause and bring it up on Report.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 146: Majority 108.—(Div. List, No. 95.)
  On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, the clause had attracted much attention during the Division, and several hon. Members, who had just entered the House, had expressed their wish to state their opinions upon the subject. He therefore hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to keep his engagement with the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don), would support the Motion which he then made that the Chairman do now leave the Chair.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. O'Connor Power.)
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, there was really some difficulty with regard to the wording of the clause; and as at about that hour it had been agreed that another measure of considerable importance should be introduced, he did not think the Government would gain much by going on with the clause. If some time were spent in considering how the Government could amend or deal with the clause the time would not be wasted.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, if the clause were agreed to he would assent to the omission of the words in question, on the understanding that words of a similar meaning should be introduced on Report.
  MR. HOPWOODcould not assent to such a bargain as that.
  COLONEL STANLEYreplied, that in that case he could not agree to the omission of the words,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think hon. Members opposite must have seen that there is every desire, on the part of the Government, to afford them facilities for expressing their views upon this Bill; and, therefore, I think the proposal of my right hon. and gallant Friend is very fair and reasonable. It was understood, at the beginning of the evening, that we should endeavour to report Progress about this time, in order to allow the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) to bring forward his measure, and it was right that such understanding should be acted upon. I hope we shall be allowed to finish this clause; but the difficulty raised is one which appears to render further consideration desirable; and what my right hon. and gallant Friend proposes is that the words objected to should be omitted for the present, and that he should consider the Amendment to be brought up on Report.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERconfessed himself ashamed to enter into any such bargain. He was, however, willing to withdraw his Motion that the Chairman leave the Chair.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, that why he had objected to the proposal as it was at first made was because, if the Committee assented to its terms, it must be taken to agree to the clause in substance, in which case all the arguments of the evening would have been wasted. He had deemed it right to state that he, for one, could not be bound in that manner.
  MAJOR O'GORMANwished to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not in any way fulfilled his promise to the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don); but with regard to the main subject he also desired to say a few words. He begged leave to point out that it must be all the same to an Army whether it was cut to pieces in consequence of news published to the world by guilty hands, or whether it was destroyed through information derived from innocent parties. Therefore, he maintained that both those people who were really culpable, and those who might not seem to be culpable, should receive precisely the same punishment; and that all information as to proceedings of the Army in the field, which might be made use of by the enemy, should be utterly

  475
  repressed by law issuing from the House of Commons.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

MOTION.
  UNIVERSITY EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    THE O'CONOR DON, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill upon University Education, Ireland, said, his first duty was to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for affording him an opportunity of mating the Motion he was about to make at an earlier hour than he himself could command. He felt that in making this Motion, and in asking leave to introduce a Bill dealing with University Education in Ireland, he was undertaking a great responsibility. The question was one which had baffled the greatest statesmen, and had tried the strength of the strongest Governments; and at first sight it might seem extreme folly for any private Member to attempt to deal with it. Yet, perhaps, in this, the apparent weakness of the instrument, consisted its real strength; and although he and those who were associated with him had no strong Party at their back, yet, on the other hand, they had no prejudices to conciliate or to fear, and if they were wanting in the strength possessed by a strong Government, they were freed from the anxiety lest their action in the matter should break up their majority and destroy their strength. In addition to that, they possessed the no small advantage that the Bill they introduced was of no Party character, and that its success or failure could not in any way affect Parties in the House; and, consequently, all temptations to raise difficulties, in order to accomplish Party triumphs, were taken away. It was, fortunately, not necessary for him to enter at any length into a consideration of the urgency of the question. The want of legislation had long been admitted, and had been recognized by almost every Government that had come
    476
    into power during the last 20 years; and the numerous attempts which had been made to settle it, whilst they proved the inherent difficulties connected with the question, established equally incontestably the necessity for legislation. The position of affairs which, six years ago, had been declared to be scandalously bad, continued to be as scandalous to the present day; and if any change at all had taken place, that change tended rather to increase and intensify the inequalities than to remove them. Fortunately, also, it was not necessary for him to argue that a settlement was demanded by all sections of the Catholic community in Ireland; and although he remembered the time when it used to be asserted that no grievance existed on this subject except a clerical grievance, that assertion would no longer be made. Two very remarkable documents had been lately laid on the Table of the House, one emanating from the Catholic community in Ireland, and bearing 1,100 names that no one could deny represented the wealth, respectability, and intelligence of Catholic Ireland; the other coming from the other side of the Atlantic, and attesting the results which had arisen there in the Dominions of Her Majesty from an honest and successful attempt to meet demands similar to those which now came, and for years had come, from Catholic Ireland. These two documents took away all necessity for entering on any elaborate arguments to prove that the demand for a change existed, or that an honest endeavour to meet it would be unsuccessful. He had said that if the state of things had at all altered since 1873, the alteration had been in the direction of increasing rather than diminishing the necessity of dealing with the subject. Last Session an Act had been passed which could not be left to stand alone. Last Session the Government introduced a measure, and successfully carried it, which would immensely increase the demand for University Education, and would intensify the injustice which arose out of the present state of things. He was happy to say that the Irish Intermediate Education Act had turned out a great success. Already the Board had received a large number of applications from candidates for examination, and of these a considerable number were students in

    477
    the senior grade, who would be turned out on the world next summer ready for entering on a University career, and aided impartially by the State in bringing them up to this point. But under what conditions would they be then left? Some of them would be able to take advantage of existing University institutions; others, holding conscientious convictions which would prevent their adopting that course, would have to stand back, would have to terminate their educational career, and give up all the advantages which their more fortunate and more favoured rivals could enjoy. He asked in what state would these young men find themselves, or what would be their feelings? Hitherto their conscientious convictions had not interfered in any way with their progress or their success; and whether they attended a Protestant school, or a Catholic school, or a purely secular school, all the advantages of the Intermediate Education Act were thrown open to them, and the institutions which successfully instructed them were treated equally impartially by the State. In a couple of months the first fruits of the Intermediate Education Act would be reaped, the necessity for further facilities being given for the attainment of the advantages of University Education would be made more painfully evident, and the inequalities at present existing more clearly demonstrated. They had all hoped, before the commencement of the present Session, that the Government would deal with the question. Everything pointed in this direction. The success of the Bill of last year; the promises with which it had been introduced; the remarkable statements of the Lord Chancellor in "another place;" the admission which he there made that the Bill he was introducing represented merely the walls of the edifice, and that the roof, in the shape of a University Bill, would have to be put on hereafter—led all to believe that the edifice, so successfully built up to the roof, would not be left long uncovered, especially when it was to be inhabited immediately, and when, within the year, the want of the roof would be made manifest to many of those who had entered it. In addition to that, there were various other indications that the subject was one that was to be dealt with. Mysteriously suspicious articles began to
    478
    appear in some of the public journals. Journals known to be in the confidence of the Ministry began to develop a remarkable interest in the question. Admissions began to be made which went so far in recognizing the justice of previous demands as almost to startle such an old upholder of these demands as himself, and everyone became convinced that the Government had really determined to grapple with the question. In addition to this, rumours were circulated that negotiations—or, if that word were objected to, he would say informal communications—were opened between certain Representatives of the Government and others who represented certain Catholic views on the question; and although these rumours might not have been fully justified, or the articles in the journals might have been strained beyond their legitimate significance, yet he thought he would not be altogether wrong in saying that the belief that the Cabinet did intend to deal with the question was not altogether unfounded. However, shortly before the Session opened, the aspect of affairs completely changed. The journals seemed to receive new inspirations. What was believed just and expedient and possible a few months before became fraught with difficulties and dangers, and the existence of the injustice, or the necessity for removing it, became matters of apparently much less censequence. It was under these circumstances that the Session opened. The total absence of all reference to this important subject in the enumeration of the Government proposals induced his hon. Friend the Member for Tralee (the O'Donoghue) to press the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the point, and then it was authoritatively announced that the Government would not deal with it. Under these circumstances, what was to be done? The subject could not be allowed to drop without at least a protest, or an attempt at a settlement. Immediately the man who had most right to speak, whose authority in regard to it was most universally respected, and whose loss was so generally deplored in the House—he meant his hon., learned, and lamented Friend the late Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt)—gave Notice of two Motions—the one a Resolution, the other a Bill. Shortly after, he was struck down with that illness which since had proved so

    479
    fatal; and it became evident that even if the recovery which was then so much looked forward to took place, yet for a long time he would not be able to take his place in the House, or to follow up his Motions. After waiting a little to see whether his hon. and learned Friend was likely soon to rally, he (the O'Conor Don) was pressed to take the Motion up, as delay could no longer be permitted. At length, he consented to do so. In doing so, he was quite alive to the difficulties of the position—difficulties immensely aggravated by the unfortunate illness of his hon. and learned Friend. There was no man more capable of dealing with this subject than he was; no man who took a greater interest in it; no man who more thoroughly understood it in all its bearings. A distinguished University student—a man whose whole career, as a student, as a Professor, as a member of the Governing Body of a University, marked him out for peculiar fitness in devising University legislation; his withdrawal by illness was about as great a blow as the withdrawal of the Government itself; and he felt, and he was sure almost all other hon. Members felt, that if the difficulty of the situation was great before, it became doubly great when they were all deprived of the wise counsels and experienced advice of the great Irishman who had lately been taken from them. They were, however, fortunate in one respect. Before his hon. and learned Friend was struck down with that illness which, during the last few months, prevented his giving any attention to public affairs, he had committed to paper some views as to the way in which this question ought to be approached. To a certain extent, they had the benefit of his opinion; and he was sure he was not weakening his case for the Bill when he stated that those who drew it up had been materially aided by the suggestions of Mr. Butt, and that, to a very great extent, and so far as those opinions were known, his hon. and learned Friend's views and opinions were followed in the drafting of the Bill. The first question which those interested in the matter had to consider was, whether they would proceed by Resolution or by Bill. Many arguments might be adduced in favour of the former course; but, as he did not wish unnecessarily to occupy the attention of the House, he
    480
    would not touch on them. Eventually, they decided to proceed by a Bill, and they came to that determination mainly for two reasons—first, because they really meant business, because they really desired to have the question settled, and because they believed it could be settled. Secondly, because they did not want that it should be any longer said that their strength consisted in objecting, and that they did not know what they wanted, or how to form a scheme to carry out what they wanted. If they desired merely a discussion, if they wished merely to put on record a further protest, a Resolution would evidently be the best course to adopt. It was obvious, he thought, that if they had no chance of carrying a measure, placing their views in the definite shape of a Bill would be a very hazardous experiment; and, therefore, in adopting that course, they gave an earnest of the sincerity of their wish to settle the question, and an earnest of the sincerity of their belief that it could be settled this Session. In framing the Bill the same object was kept in view, and they had made its provisions as moderate and reasonable as they possibly could, seeking for nothing but what the absolute necessities of the case demanded. He wished to say, in the outset, that tins Bill was not his Bill, in the sense of being his own personal proposal; it was not the Bill exclusively of the community to which he belonged; it was a measure arrived at by communications with Friends on both sides of the House, holding the most opposite political views. It was essentially a compromise, arrived at after mutual concession, and must not be taken in any sense as embodying the separate views of the Roman Catholics, or containing all that they believed they were justly entitled to. In speaking of his action in the matter, he had used the plural number, and he had done so advisedly; and when he mentioned, as he would shortly do, the names of the hon. Members who were joined with him in its introduction, he thought the House would be of opinion that he had rightly used the plural number, and that the Bill was deserving of every attention that could be given to it. In attempting to deal with the question in the shape of a Bill, naturally, the first point they had to consider was, whether they would at all touch

    481
    existing institutions, whether they would endeavour to open and enlarge their spheres, to re-cast their constitutions, and make them embrace other and newer bodies within their fold. He himself entertained a very strong feeling in favour of that course. Theoretically, the arguments in favour of it wore irresistible. They had been urged, he need not say most eloquently, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich in 1873; and he was bound to say-that, if practicable, the establishment of one great National University for Ireland was the solution that would most please him. But they had to look to what was practicable; and, certainly, in the hands of private Members, a Bill for destroying the University of Dublin and the Queen's University, re-casting their constitutions, and building out of them a new institution, would be, to say the least of it, impracticable. What the late Government and the right hon. Gentleman had failed to bring about they might be forgiven for declining to attempt. But if they could not deal with the two existing Universities, might they not deal with one or other of them? Might they not take the older and grander of these two institutions, and try to mould it so as to meet the requirements of the country? His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Butt) had tried to do this, and he, too, had failed. He (the O'Conor Don) had the honour of being associated with him in that attempt, and he could not but admit its absolute failure. There then remained the other alternative, of taking the Queen's University and re-modelling it—abolishing it, in the first instance, and re-constituting it on another basis; and as this proposal had formed the subject of much discussion, he would be obliged to consider it at more length. He admitted that there were many arguments to recommend it, and if the subject were to be dealt with by a Government, he thought that probably that was the line of settlement they ought to look to. But, as private Members, they felt enormous difficulties in their way, if they attempted completely to upset and transform any existing institution, no matter how weak it might apparently be. The moment any existing institution was touched, that moment a whole host of little private interests came into play, and opposition was created which no private Member could
    482
    hope to cope with. Besides that, he wished hon. Gentlemen, who believed that the abolition of the Queen's University was the proper course to adopt, to remember some of the difficulties they would have to encounter. They could not, of course, propose to destroy the Queen's Colleges, and absolutely to disendow them; and if they continued endowed, as they now were, how could equality be established between them and unendowed Collegiate institutions? Or, even if this difficulty could be got over, there remained the important question of the government of the new University. What were they to do with the existing Senate, or Governing Body of the Queen's University? Were they to abolish it, and if they were, were they to abolish the principles on which it was constituted? They should remember that one of the principles of its constitution was election; that it had amongst its members gentlemen elected by the graduates of the University; and if they abolished the existing Body and its elected members, would they also abolish the principle of election? Could they take away from the graduates the rights which, under Royal Charter, they possessed; or was it desirable, even if they could do so, to destroy the principle of representation? On the other hand, if it were not destroyed, how could equality be established? For years and many generations of students the inequality would exist, not merely as to pecuniary matters, for that inequality might possibly be redressed; but as to representation on the Governing Body, and for many generations the students of the Queen's Colleges would have absolute control over the whole elective representation on the Governing Body of the University. The truth of the matter was, there were inherent difficulties in the way of amalgamating old and new institutions, and, small as had been the success of the Queen's Colleges, yet, with their 85 years' start, and their hundreds of fully-finished graduates, it would be a difficult task to place absolutely new institutions on terms of equality with them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich had, in 1877, most eloquently pourtrayed the disadvantage of establishing a new University. He had pictured to them the new University lagging behind its older and more

    483
    favoured rivals, lame and halting. He (the O'Conor Don) could not deny the truth and force of his picture; but would it not be merely a transformation of personages and a change of name, if they attempted to set up side by side in the same University new Colleges, unendowed and unsupported, devoid of prestige, wanting in all the advantages arising out of the influence of old students, and, having set them up, if they asked them to compete with, and to be on terms of equality with, their older and more favoured rivals? Would they not have the new Colleges lagging behind, lame and halting, and would not the injustice and the inequality, which was to be remedied, be only the more apparent by bringing into such close contact the institutions so differently treated? For these reasons, then, they had come to the conclusion that whatever Government might do, or whatever might be hereafter done, they had no course open to them but to propose the erection of a new University, and to leave all existing institutions as they were. In adopting that course, they were fortified—very strongly fortified—by the opinion of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Butt), who, before he was struck down by illness, had placed his views on this point on record, and had very clearly expressed his opinion that it would be a great mistake to attempt a settlement of the University Question on the lines of a re-construction of the Queen's University. He (the O'Conor Don) would next proceed to consider what they proposed should be the constitution and functions of this new University. It was to consist of a Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, and a certain number of senators. The total number fixed in the Bill was 24. The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, and other senators were to constitute the Senate of the University. They proposed that the first Senate should be named in a Schedule to the Bill. For obvious reasons, that Schedule would be presented to the House a blank. Of course, no gentleman could be asked to allow his name to be placed in it until the main provisions of the Bill had received the sanction of Parliament. Besides, neither he nor those who were associated with him desired to take on themselves the selection of the names; they wished to leave that in the hands of the Govern-
    484
    ment. If it were thought more expedient, they would not press to have the names given at all in the Schedule; but would leave the selection to be a subsequent act performed by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He did not believe they could leave the selection in better hands than those of the present Lord Lieutenant, than whom no man took a deeper interest in the settlement of the question, and in whom every class in Ireland that would be affected by the Bill had the greatest confidence. But if the House desired, as they had done in regard to the Intermediate Education Act, to learn the names of the Senate before the Bill was passed, it seemed to him that it would be more in accordance with precedent to enter the names in the Schedule. They proposed, in the next place, to constitute a body to be called Convocation, and they created it on the same lines as Convocation was created in the London University. In filling up vacancies on the Senate caused by deaths or resignations, they proposed to follow the precedent of the Queen's University. They proposed that one-fourth of the Body should be elected by Convocation, and that until the full number of elected members—namely, six, was reached, every alternate vacancy should be filled by the Crown and by election. After the full number was reached, they then proposed that on the resignation or death of an elected member his place should be filled by election, and that all other vacancies should be filled by the Crown or the Lord Lieutenant. To the Senate thus formed they proposed to give very ample powers. In a general way, they proposed to intrust to them the carrying out of the intention of the Act—namely, the promotion of University Education in Ireland; but, following out the precedent of the Intermediate Education Act, they proposed to indicate the particular mode in which such education should be promoted—namely, by holding examinations for Matriculation and for Degrees; by granting Exhibitions, Scholarships, and Fellowships, and other rewards, to successful students; and by granting result fees and other advantages to the Colleges producing them. They proposed that the University should be divided into four Faculties—the Faculty of Arts, the Faculty of Medicine, the Faculty of Law, and the Faculty of

    485
    Engineering. The Arts course they fixed at four years, and, including the Matriculation examination, they proposed that there should be five examinations for all students who went through the complete course. At the end of the third year they proposed that the degree of B.A. should be attainable; and for such students as went in for the Master's Degree they proposed that another examination should be held at the end of the fourth year, when the degree of M.A. would be conferred on those proving worthy of receiving it. Following, then, the precedent of the Intermediate Education Act, they proposed that for every 10 students who passed the Matriculation examination, one Exhibition should be assigned of the value of £20, to be held for the three years' course, up to the taking of the degree of B.A., provided the student continued his University course for that time; at the end of the first year's course they proposed that for every 10 students who passed, one Exhibition of the value of £30 should be assigned, said Exhibition to last during the second and third years of the course; at the end of the second year's course, they proposed that Scholarships of the value of £50 a-year for three years should be granted in the proportion of one for every 10 students, to be retained on the condition that the scholar obtained his degree of B.A. at the end of the third session, and his degree of M.A. at the end of the fourth year. In addition to these Exhibitions and Scholarships, they proposed that a certain limited number of Fellowships should be established. They suggested 20, to be held for five years, and to be given away in the following manner:—Four of them to be competed for each year at the examination for the degree of B.A.; so that in the fifth year the full number of 20 would be complete; and as the term of the holders of the first four would then terminate, there would be four vacancies to be filled up in the following year, and subsequently, in this manner, the full number of 20 would be always kept up, provided there were competent students seeking them. To the holding of these Fellowships certain conditions were to be attached. To retain his Fellowship, the Fellow should take out his degree of M.A. in the following year, and he should be resident in or attendant at, or a Tutor or Pro-
    486
    fessor in an affiliated College for the remaining four years, or by the special authority of the Senate, he should spend the remaining four years in the pursuit or promotion of science or literature, in any manner the Senate might determine. They proposed also that there should be Exhibitions in the other three Faculties. An Exhibition of £20 for every 10 students who passed in the Faculty of Law, to be held for the three years of the Law course; a similar Exhibition in the Faculty of Medicine, to be held for four years; and a similar one, in Engineering, to be held for three years; the attainment of these Exhibitions, and their retention, to be dependent on the students passing all the necessary examinations in a satisfactory manner, and with sufficient merit. These were the chief proposals they had to make with regard to rewards to the students themselves. He now approached a much more difficult branch of the subject—namely, the assistance in the way of pecuniary grants to the institutions which produced the students. They did not propose that the new University should itself be in any sense a teaching University. At the same time, they thought that it should be something more than a more Examining Board, that its functions should be more extended, and that, although not undertaking teaching itself, it should strive to promote and directly assist higher education and teaching in other and independent institutions. The real want they had most to meet was the want of good Professors in the unendowed Colleges. No solution of the University Question could be satisfactory which did not supply this want; and if they were not prepared directly to recognize or to endow distinct Colleges, which would be carried on in accordance with the religious convictions of a vast number of people, yet they must in some shape or form supply the want, and enable these independent institutions to secure the teaching power so absolutely necessary. Under the Intermediate Education Act, one means of meeting this difficulty existed. By the payment of results fees to the heads of those institutions, a means was afforded to them for providing in some way for the want; but it would be a mistake to apply this system just as it stood in the Intermediate Act to University Educa-

    487
    tion. There was one essential difference between University Education and the intermediate and primary school education. For the former, they required Professors of the very highest class—men who could not be got without paying them very well, and who, when got, should not have their time thrown away on a mere handful of students. Were they, then, to adopt the system of paying result fees to every institution in the country which sent up University students, they would probably be doing more harm than good. They would be dividing and scattering over the country the literary strength, which, to accomplish any real good, should be united, and they would be rendering the establishment of University training, or of any College which could in the true sense pretend to be a University College, impossible. The consequence would be that they would have a few scattered students from almost all the large intermediate schools; but the results fees received by any particular institution would he far too small to do any real good towards University teaching or towards securing the services of competent Professors; and whilst they would do little or no good to the institutions receiving them, they would prevent the establishment of real Colleges, in which a sufficiently large number of students would be collected to render it possible to secure the services of the best Professors, and thus injury, instead of benefit, might be the result of the experiment. For these reasons, they had come to the conclusion that the pecuniary advantages to be conferred on institutions or Colleges should be confined to a few, and that the result fees and other advantages to which he would presently allude should be restricted to a limited number of Colleges, to be selected or affiliated by the Senate. For the purpose of affiliation, they proposed to define a College in such terms as would exclude—First, all the Colleges of existing Universities; second, all institutions in receipt of result fees under the Intermediate Education Act; and, third, all institutions which had a smaller number than 20 students over the age of 18 years pursuing the course of study prescribed by the Senate for examinations under the Act. Any College complying with the latter condition, and not being an intermediate school or College in
    488
    connection with an existing University, would be eligible for affiliation by the Senate. No doubt, some objections might be raised to the proposed exclusion of the intermediate schools, and it might be said that whenever pupils distinguished themselves those who taught them ought to be rewarded; but, after much consideration, they had come to the conclusion that there would be no hardship in requiring the heads of any educational institution to determine whether they would class that institution as a school or a College; and if they selected the former and reaped the advantages derivable from if, they had no right to come under a University Bill and claim the rights of Colleges there. They proposed not to interfere in any way with the students. These might come from any school or College, or no school or College; they would be equally treated, and no difference would be made in their regard. With regard to results fees, they did not propose that any should be paid on the Matriculation examination. Until the student had passed that examination, the University training or teaching had not commenced; and, consequently, the institution whence he came was entitled to no payment. After the first session of the University course, they proposed that payments should be made on the following scale:—In the first year, for a simple pass £20, for a pass with honours £30. In second year, for a simple pass £25, and a pass with honours £35. On taking the degree of B.A., for a simple pass £30, and a pass with honours £40; and on taking the degree of M.A., for a simple pass £35, and a pass with honours £45. Besides this, they proposed that when students from any College had taken either Exhibitions, Scholarships, or Fellowships, the College should receive in each such case double the amount of results fees. They also proposed similar results fees in the professional Faculties of Law, Medicine, and Engineering. At first sight, perhaps these results fees might appear large; but when it was recollected that, according to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, every student educated in the Queen's College, Galway, cost the State £77 a-year, and every one carried on to a degree in Arts cost £231, whilst every graduate in Law cost £308, he thought the amount would appear in-

    489
    significant. At all events, he need scarcely say that the actual amounts were matters of detail. He was not absolutely bound to them; but he hoped that if Parliament were disposed to approve of the principle, it would not attempt to carry it out in a niggardly spirit. He now came to another important proposal in the Bill. Remembering that the real want they had to supply was a good and efficient teaching staff, and that it would be desirable to secure the services of the best possible Professors in secular subjects, they proposed to meet the want in another way besides the results fees. After all, the results fees pre-supposed the existence of the Professors, an assumption on which they could not safely proceed, for it was not founded on fact. University Education in Ireland could not really be promoted, unless this assumption was turned into a fact, and he thought it might be done without any departure from the principles on which alone they sought public aid. He believed there would be no departure from these principles in giving power to the Senate to pay salaries, not exceeding a certain limited amount, to a limited number of Lecturers or Professors in secular subjects, who should be bound to lecture or profess in some one of the affiliated Colleges, and who might be presented to the Senate from such College, provided that there should be only one such University Professor on any given subject of the University course in any one College, and provided also that such Professor should have at least 15 students attending his lectures. This, he was bound to say, they considered was a point of the greatest importance. It was almost essential in the commencement, in order to give new institutions a start; and as they did not object to any provision being inserted to secure that the money so given should be spent on purely secular teaching, and, if necessary, that the lectures should be open to students of all religious denominations, he trusted that this proposal might find favour with the House. These were the main provisions so far as grants in aid of University Education went. There were one or two minor provisions for permitting the Senate to give assistance towards the erection of laboratories, museums, and libraries in affiliated Colleges; but he did not think it was necessary to dwell on them in detail. The
    490
    next point they had to consider was, what would be the probable amount required for carrying out this scheme, and whence it was to come? As to its amount, he believed that, at least in the commencement, it would not be nearly as much as might at first be imagined. They believed, from calculations that had been made, that £30,000 would amply cover all expenses; but they proposed in this respect, also, to follow the precedent of the Intermediate Education Act, and to leave the amount to be estimated by the Senate, limiting it so that it should not exceed a certain sum. In fixing this limit, he felt sure the House would not desire to proceed in a niggardly spirit; and when they remembered that close on £50,000 a-year, in one shape or other, was spent on the Queen's University and Colleges, he did not think it would be unreasonable to ask that a capital sum of £1,500,000 should be set aside for the purposes, if necessary, of the new University; and he need scarcely add that that capital sum they proposed to take from the same fund which had already been marked out and selected by the Government for an almost exactly similar purpose last year. They proposed, in fact, in this Bill, exactly similar finance clauses to those in the Bill of last year, merely substituting the Senate for the Board, and increasing the limit from £1,000,000 to £1,500,000. He had now gone over all the main provisions of the Bill, and he would endeavour to close his remarks as speedily as possible. He had said in the commencement that the Bill was not his Bill. He had spoken throughout in the plural number; and when he told the House that there were associated with him in the introduction of the measure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlow County (Mr. Kavanagh), his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), the noble Lord the Member for Waterford County (Lord Charles Beresford), the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw), and the hon. Member for the County of Meath (Mr. Parnell), he thought tie had said enough to prove that the Bill possessed no Party tendencies, and that it was one which was likely to receive the support of nearly all the Irish Representatives, and certainly one deserving of the greatest attention which the House and the Government could give to it. They offered

    491
    the Bill not as a final one, or as of a large and comprehensive character. They believed it would be a step in the right direction, which, if passed, might render it more possible hereafter to deal with the question on the large scale suggested in 1873 by the late Government. He would himself desire to see an amalgamation of Universities, and the establishment of one great National University for Ireland; but, strange as it might seem, he believed that result might be facilitated rather than impeded by the establishment of a new University now. It would be very difficult, he thought, to unite together Bodies starting on terms of inequality, and to place together, under the same University, endowed and unendowed Colleges—old and new institutions—Colleges with a large number of ready-made graduates, and Colleges without such. The inequality apparent in the commencement must for generations exist, and the injustice apparent in such inequality must always offer one of the greatest obstacles to such a settlement. They presented the Bill also as a reality, as something they desired not merely to discuss, but to carry. Of course, he knew that private Members could not carry it without the assistance of the Government; but he trusted that if the House and the Government approved of the principle, they would render every facility to its becoming law. Irrespective of the urgency of removing the gross wrong inflicted on so many young men, it was desirable that the subject should be settled in some way, and not bandied back and forward between rival Parties. If this opportunity were lost, and this offer rejected, he would look with anything but pleasure to the future. Matters could not be allowed to stand as they were, and if there were not levelling up in some shape or form, an agitation for levelling down would, he feared, be commenced, the end of which it would be hard to see. In such a struggle the interests of education would be the first to suffer, and he most sincerely trusted that Her Majesty's Government would, by a wise forethought, prevent such arising; and now, when a Bill was presented, arrived at by mutual concession, and devoid of all Party character, he hoped it would not be rejected, and the opportunity be allowed to pass away fruitlessly, either through indifference
    492
    or English prejudice. Thanking the House for the attention they had given to him, he begged to move for leave to introduce the Bill.
    MR. KAVANAGHsaid, that he had no wish to enter into a discussion upon the Bill which his hon. Friend had asked leave to bring in. He had already given the House a sketch of the proposals embodied in the Bill. The question raised by that measure was one of the greatest importance; but he did not wish then to pursue the subject further than to state the reasons which had induced him to join with his hon. Friend in undertaking the Bill. For a long time it had been felt that this question should be dealt with, and dealt with in a manner which, although it might not be the most pleasing and acceptable to the heads of the different religious denominations in Ireland, yet would enable them to avail themselves of such advantages as the provisions of the Bill gave them, without sacrificing their conscientious scruples and religious convictions. He had hailed with pleasure the introduction into, and the passing through, the House last Session of the Intermediate Education Act, not so much on account of the benefits which he believed that Act would confer, as with the hope that it would prove the prelude to legislation on the part of the Government on the much greater question which had been brought under their notice that night. But the Speech from the Throne delivered at the opening of the Session, and the statements which had been made since then by Ministers, showed that that was not to be the case. It was only then that, at the suggestion of the hon. Member for Roscommon, he had consented to join with him and others in endeavouring to bring before the House, in the shape of a Bill, a proposal of a practical and reasonable character, which they hoped would obtain the support of all moderate sections of opinion, and by so doing might, perhaps, ultimately lead to a settlement of an important question that had been so long open. He frankly admitted that their chances of success might not appear to be very brilliant, and that they had not undertaken an encouraging task. Perhaps their attempt might even be designated as a foolhardy one, and they themselves might even be described as those who "rushed in where angels

    493
    feared to tread." But, however that might be, he could only say for himself that he considered the proposals brought forward for discussion were moderate and reasonable; and if their endeavours even tended directly or indirectly to facilitate the ultimate settlement of the question, he should feel sufficiently rewarded. It could not be denied that, at the present period of the Session, and looking at the state in which the Order Book was, that it would be impossible for private Members, without some assistance from Her Majesty's Government, to find the requisite opportunities for the proper discussion of this Bill. Unless they got some help to bring forward the discussion of the measure, it was utterly impossible to hope that private Members could get it through in the time at their disposal; but he did hope that if Her Majesty's Government were not opposed in principle to the measure, they would give such assistance as would enable them to have a debate upon the second reading, and then to take the opinion of the House upon the merits of this proposal. He begged to second the Motion of the hon. Member for Roscommon.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that he only rose for the purpose of supporting the appeal of the hon. Member for Carlow that the Government would give such facilities as were consistent with the pressure of Public Business to enable the House thoroughly and carefully to consider the Bill which had now been brought before it. Although the subject was a complicated and difficult one beyond measure, there could be only one opinion as to the clearness and the ability with which his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon had explained the measure; there could be but one opinion that it was an advantage to them that they should have an Irish statement of what Irishmen—who were the most interested—considered to be the proper manner for meeting this most difficult question. It was a question that had tried the strength of Governments, and had tried the strength of Parties, almost beyond their powers of endurance; and he thought that it was a very great advantage that they should have the subject brought before them by those men who were most deeply interested in it. He would not, on that occasion, give any definite opinion
    494
    concerning the Bill, except to say that it was evidently framed with a wish to be a moderate measure, and with a care for the feelings of Englishmen as well as for those of Irishmen. He did not think it would be possible to give an actual opinion on the measure until it was before them; and he merely rose for the purpose of joining in the appeal to the Government to fix a day for the consideration of the measure.
    LORD CHARLES BERESFORDsaid, that having studied the draft of the Bill most carefully, he really thought that the judgment of the House of Commons would be favourable to it. The question of University Education in Ireland touched so very many interests and raised so many important questions in detail, that it would be impossible for any private Member to expect to get a Bill on the subject through this Session; but he hoped that the earnest endeavour of the hon. Member for Roscommon to bring in his Bill would receive the sanction of the House. This was a question which required settlement, and it had more danger connected with it than any other Irish matter. The Bill which the hon. Member wished to introduce was made out on the exact lines of the Intermediate Education Act which was received last Session by the House with almost unanimous approbation. If that Bill were right, surely a Bill for higher education made out on the same lines would be right. It must be the earnest wish of all hon. Members of that House to settle a question of this class, which provoked such bitter feelings even by its very mention on the other side of the Channel; it must, therefore, be the earnest wish of everyone to see it put at rest for ever. Nobody could deny that the subject was one which required legislation almost before any other subject before the country at the present moment. In fairness and justice to a very large proportion of the people of Ireland—he meant the Roman Catholics—these claims should be fairly considered. They wished for a University giving them equal advantages with people of other denominations. The question had often been thought out, but never fairly argued on the floor of that House, fie himself would go even further than this Bill proposed to do, for he would support a Bill brought in for a Roman Catholic University. It

    495
    was true this University might become Roman Catholic one day; but he would support any Member who brought in a Bill for the purpose of founding one now, for he believed that a Roman Catholic University would come sooner or later, the same as the Roman Catholic vote came in years gone by. But, although he would support any Member who brought in such a Bill, yet he did not think that such a Bill would be of any use, for it would lead to such strong opposition that it would have no chances of passing. As he was, however, anxious for something to be done, and he thought that the Bill which the hon. Member proposed to introduce would not meet with such opposition as the Bill for a Roman Catholic University, he would support it. He did hope that the Government would see their way to support this Bill. He thought that what the hon. Member had said had been most reasonable and moderate; and he did trust that the House of Commons would see its way to give its judgment in favour of the Bill.
    MR. COURTNEYobserved, that the noble Lord had struck the note which must be heard again and again in this controversy, however much they might try to avoid it, when he spoke of the wish to have a Roman Catholic University. The question that arose in his mind, having listened to the very clear exposition of the Bill which his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon had given them, was how did this proposed scheme meet the demand which they had heard so often? He did not see how, in the shape described by the hon. Member, it would be satisfactory, nor how it would meet the demands which they had heard made, or how the present scheme differed from the existing system of University Education in Ireland so as to remove the objection now entertained to the present system. The first part of the Bill proposed to establish a Senate, which would be an Examining Body, and have power to give certain prizes to students when satisfied that their education was completed, and they had finished their three years' course. That part of the scheme, at least, did not differ in any particular from the constitution of the Queen's University. His hon. Friend expressly said that the Senate—upon the position of which the whole character of the Bill
    496
    depended—would be appointed in the same way as the present Senate of the Queen's University was appointed. So far, then, as the power to hold examinations and to give away prizes were concerned, the result would be precisely the same as the present system of the Queen's University, with this addition—that the students might enter for examination who had not gone through their course of education at the Queen's Colleges. In that respect, the scheme would be what the Queen's University was proposed to be made, as amended by the Supplemental Charter of 1866. So far, the proposal of the Bill would correspond with the amended scheme; but that scheme did not give satisfaction at the time to the people of Ireland, any more than it gave satisfaction to the Queen's University. He did not see how his hon. Friend would thus satisfy the demand which it was the solo object of this Bill to meet. There was, it was true, a different part of the scheme, which he proposed to call "affiliation" of the Colleges to this University. Upon that point, he confessed that he had great difficulty in understanding the explanation given. No existing College, according to what had been said, could be affiliated; and none of the existing institutions which received, or might receive, any grant under the Intermediate Education Act, could be admitted to be affiliated. He would ask, therefore, if there were any institution in Ireland at the present moment which could be affiliated? There might, perhaps, be one institution—namely, that upon St. Stephen's Green—which could possibly be affiliated; but he did not know of any other. Certainly more than 20 students were pursuing their course of education there; and if the rules were complied with, they might be able to go to the proposed University for examination. Not only would the prizes be given to those students, but salaries would be paid to the Professors in those affiliated Colleges. It was proposed that the lecturers should be paid for lecturing on secular subjects, and he understood it was provided that lectures so paid for should be open to students of all creeds. There was, in fact, to be a Conscience Clause, so that all students might come in and attend these lectures. Was it also intended that these students

    497
    should be allowed to be members of the affiliated Colleges, or were they to come in as outside students attending the particular lectures? If they were to be allowed to be members of the affiliated Colleges, he saw no distinction whatever between the proposal of the present constitution and the Queen's Colleges. But if they were to come in as outside students attending the lectures, there would still be, as far as he could see, little distinction. If there was no distinction, how would this scheme satisfy those aspirations which it was the professed object of the Bill to realize? The hon. Member might be able to explain the difficulties which occurred to him on a future occasion; but, at present, it seemed to him that certain elements in the problem had been passed over; and he did not see how the scheme would satisfy those demands to control not only the education, but the moral life, of the student, which were insisted upon by the Roman Catholic Hierarchy of Ireland.
    MR. FAWCETTobserved, that there was a difficulty in discussing a Bill which they had not seen. In making that remark, he was not referring to the observations of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), and he must not be understood to express any opinion upon that Bill. In the observations which he should make, he would only ask the hon. Member for Roscommon to explain certain points which were not quite clear to him in what they must admit was otherwise a very clear and able statement. It would be paying the hon. Member for Roscommon a poor compliment to judge of his Bill before seeing it; and they ought to be particularly careful on this subject, remembering what took place when the late Government, in 1873, introduced their memorable Bill, and the somewhat foolish position in which some very distinguished Members of that House placed themselves. They listened to the extremely able speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), and became quite enthusiastic; but some of those who began by blessing ended by doing exactly the reverse. He should not have uttered a single word on that occasion, had it not been for a remark of the noble Lord the Member for County Waterford (Lord Charles Beresford), who spoke with
    498
    some responsibility, as his name was upon the back of the Bill. In reference to his remarks, he wished to express a word of caution. The noble Lord said that that Bill was drawn upon the lines of the Intermediate Education Act; and, as that Act was passed by a large majority of that House, he seemed to think that the House was obliged to support beforehand a Bill on University Education drawn upon the same lines. With reference to that remark, he would make two observations. In the first place, no doubt, the Intermediate Education Act of last Session was supported by a large majority; but there was a small minority who had very strong objections to certain parts of that Bill. But that was not the point. An Irish University Bill might be drawn on the same lines as an Irish Intermediate Education Bill; but that was not the slightest reason why those who supported an Intermediate Education Bill should necessarily support an Irish University Education Bill drawn on the same lines. An Irish Intermediate Education Bill dealt with a field unoccupied—there was no system of Intermediate Education in Ireland until last Session; but with regard to Irish University Education, the thing was entirely different. The one ground was not occupied; but in the case of the other edifice they wished to erect, they would have to consider how it would influence the University institutions which were already in existence. He should not express any opinion as to what might be the effect of that measure, considered from the point of view that there were at the present moment two distinct Universities in Ireland; he would only point out to the House—and he thought the House would agree with him in this obvious remark—that it did not necessarily follow that those who were in favour of the Irish Intermediate Education Act would necessarily be in favour of an Irish University Education Bill framed, as had been stated, on the same lines. Farther than that, he would express no opinion, favourable or otherwise, with regard to the Bill; but he was sure that his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon would only consider that he was expressing the general opinion of the House when he complimented him upon the extremely candid way in which he put his proposals forward. After the

    499
    candour with which he had approached the subject, they would all feel it due to him, when the Bill was printed, to endeavour to approach the matter in the same spirit of candour; and he was only expressing the opinion of many English Liberals besides himself when he said that they had but one object in view, although they might differ somewhat as to the means of carrying it into effect—namely, the promotion of University Education in Ireland.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYthought the hon. Member for Roscommon would not ask anything better from the House or the country than that his Bill should be considered simply on its merits. He only rose for the purpose of deprecating any discussion upon the matter until the Bill was before the House. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) was certainly mistaken in his statement that there was no scheme of Intermediate Education in Ireland until the Government measure of last year. He would inform him that there were plenty of intermediate schools in Ireland, but, unfortunately, they were not devoted to the education of the people of the country, but only of one section of it; and the measure adopted by the House of Commons, and introduced by the Government, was designed to fill up the hiatus which existed in that education—and which also existed at that moment in University Education in Ireland—and which arose from the fact that they could not force persons who had conscientious scruples to receive their education in schools or Colleges in which the scheme of education and the whole government of the institution was opposed to their religious convictions. The scheme that had been brought forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Eos-common was designed, as he had observed, to fill this hiatus existing in University Education. No one denied that there was ample means for secular education in Ireland, and plenty of University Colleges; but the people did not fill them. Under that state of circumstances, the Bill now introduced shortly was this—That people who desired to have a University degree could get their education in their own Colleges; and if they brought to an examination an adequate stock of learning, they could obtain that degree—that was the real basis of the Bill of his
    500
    hon. Friend. It was the system of payment by results. The people were to be allowed to receive their education where they liked; but when they came to the test of an examination, then they were to come up to the standard before they could receive their degree. That was the whole basis of the Bill. It had been most carefully designed to avoid trenching on the religious prejudices and religious feelings of hon. Members on either side of the House; and he thought, when the Bill was considered, it would be found to be one based upon moderation and prompted by a desire for peace, and intended to insure to the people of Ireland, who so long had had reason to complain of being denied the privileges of education, which were so freely extended to the subjects of Her Majesty in other parts of the Kingdom, all the necessary means of obtaining degrees without doing a violence to their religious feelings.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Everyone must acknowledge both the importance of the question which has been brought to our notice, and also the clearness and moderation with which the hon. Member for Roscommon has explained the provisions of the Bill he desires to introduce. Everybody must feel that the House is indebted to him for the pains he has taken and the endeavour he is making to contribute to the solution of a very difficult and important problem. There is also, I think, a general feeling in this House, in which I agree, that it would be impossible for us to express any opinion upon a measure of that kind until we have had an opportunity of seeing the Bill in print, and of giving some consideration to it. As has been well observed by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), it is impossible to judge an important scheme of this kind at first sight, and it will be well that some time should be given in order that the scheme should be considered in all its bearings. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will introduce his Bill to-night; and I have no doubt the House will gladly accord him the right to do so, in order that we may shortly have it before us in a shape which will enable us to give it full consideration. It will probably be some little time before the House will have any opportunity of expressing its opinion. The hon. Member will be able, by con-

    501
    sidering the arrangements of the Order Book, and after communication with his Friends who may desire to help him, to find a day when he can bring his measure before the House, which, I have no doubt, will give it a careful and attentive consideration, and make a most candid examination of all his proposals. I think that I should be doing wrong on the present occasion, if I were to do more than express my obligation to the hon. Member for the pains he has taken in preparing his measure, and to assure him that his proposals will be received and considered by Her Majesty's Government with all the attention and care which they so well deserve.
    MR. MELDONwished to say one or two words with reference to this subject, without entering upon the discussion of the merits of the Bill. The peculiar combination of names of hon. Members introducing the Bill would show the House that they had gone a long distance in the way of effecting a compromise. But he must state that, so far as he was aware, the Bill had not yet been considered either by the ecclesiastics or by the laity of Ireland; and it was impossible upon that occasion to give any pledge that the Bill would be accepted either by the clergy or by the laity of Ireland. He said that the more emphatically, inasmuch as he had not heard the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer give any intimation whatever that the Government were prepared to meet them in the long way in which they had travelled towards a compromise. He wished it to be considered, therefore, that the clergy and laity of Ireland, so far as he knew, had not been consulted with reference to the Bill. Having said so much, he might state that, in his opinion, in the interests of University Education, and judging only from what he had heard from his hon. Friend with reference to the Bill, that it seemed to be one which would give satisfaction. He said this, not only in consequence of what had fallen from his hon. Friend, but because he knew the Bill to be introduced was one that met with the approval of the late Mr. Butt, who had many opportunities of consulting, not only with the laity, but with the ecclesiastics of Ireland. The lines upon which the Bill was founded were perfectly neutral; and he should be surprised if the Bill did not receive,
    502
    as it was intended to do, a favourable reception. He must not, however, be understood to say that the matter had been considered, or that they, in any way, pledged themselves to accept the compromise which was offered.
    THE O'CONOR DONsaid, that he would make one observation with regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), as he had no desire that the explanation he had given of the Bill should be in any way misunderstood. It was proposed by the Bill, with regard to affiliated Colleges, that power should be given to the Senate to pay the salaries of certain Professors professing purely secular subjects in the affiliated Colleges. That was the full provision of the Bill; but he stated that if that was not thought sufficiently secure, having regard to the sentiments of the people of England, he would not object to the insertion of a provision that the lectures so paid for should be open to all, irrespective of their religious beliefs. That was the statement made by him; and when his hon. Friend said that, if this were so, the Lecturers in affiliated Colleges would be in no different position from those in the Queen's Colleges, he ventured altogether to differ from him; and he thought that those who most understood what at present existed in Ireland would differ from him essentially. He could not tell how it was that the hon. Gentleman saw no difference. The hon. Gentleman referred to the College upon St. Stephen's Green as being one of those which might be affiliated with the proposed University. Well, he asked, was there no difference between that College and one of the Queen's Colleges? The lectures given by Professors in St. Stephen's Green at the present moment were open to any student who chose to attend, irrespective of the religious belief of such student; yet, surely, no one would say that this did away with all difference between that institution and a Queen's College. He thought he had said sufficient for the present in answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Liskeard. With reference to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it must be remembered that a private Member had no opportunity of bringing his Bill on as an Order of the Day except upon Wednesday. But all the Wednes-

    503
    days up to the end of the Session were occupied; and even if he could secure a Wednesday, the right hon. Gentleman might consider it unreasonable to take the Bill on an early day. Supposing he said next Wednesday, would the right right hon. Gentleman consent to it? [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Yes.] If they were not able to secure Wednesday for the second reading of the Bill, and were not able to bring it on, say, within the next three or four Wednesdays, would the right hon Gentleman hold out any hope of the Government giving up a day for its consideration? For if they were unable to secure any Wednesday within that time, there would be no chance of their getting the Bill through a second reading without the assistance of the Government. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Major Nolan), who had the first Order for next Wednesday, offered to place that at his disposal. If the Government would consent to the Bill being taken next Wednesday, he would bring it on on that day, and he hoped that it would be in the hands of hon. Members on Saturday morning.
    MAJOR NOLANremarked, that he was willing to allow his hon. Friend to take Wednesday for his Bill, on condition that the Government would come to the necessary agreement upon the subject. He would only give up next Wednesday, on condition that the Bill which was next in order would also make way for his.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the Government were in no way masters of the proceedings on Wednesdays, and it was not in their power to say whether or not the Bill would be taken that day. He did not, however, see any objection to the course which was suggested—namely, that the Bill should be put down for Wednesday, May 21st, with a view to getting it discussed then.
    MR. COURTNEYthought that to take the Bill next Wednesday would be very rapid work. They were told that the Bill was unknown to the clergy and laity of Ireland, and yet they were asked to discuss it on that day, by which time it could not possibly have been considered by those most interested in it.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that the whole proposition with regard to this Bill struck him favourably, although
    504
    he had, of course, not yet considered the details of the measure. He had listened with very great attention to the statement of his hon. Friend in moving the introduction of the Bill, and he might say that he considered it would commend itself to the people of Ireland. He did not think the objection of the hon. Member for Liskeard was an important one, and he was in favour of the Bill being taken next Wednesday.
    MR. ERRINGTONstated that he was willing to give up his Bill, which was second in the Order Book, in favour of the hon. Member for Roscommon. That seemed to be the only day on which he would have any chance of bringing it on.
    MR. PLUNKETwas bound to agree with the hon. Member for Liskeard in thinking that it would be impossible to consider the Bill in all its bearings by Wednesday, particularly remembering the great number of persons interested in the subject. The hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) had stated that the Roman Catholic clergy and laity of Ireland had not yet had an opportunity of considering it. He would point out, therefore, to the hon. Member for Roscommon that if he insisted upon bringing on his Bill upon that day, no final Resolution could be arrived at with regard to it. It was necessary to consider the Bill very fully; and he would suggest to the hon. Member that he would make the Bill much more acceptable in the long run, and much more likely to conduce to the higher education of Ireland, if he did not fix the second reading at such an early day as Wednesday next.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTobserved, that the hon. Member for Roscommon had said that he would be precluded from bringing his Bill on, except on Wednesday next, unless the Government gave him a day. As he understood his hon. Friend, he would have postponed bringing the Bill in on Wednesday if the Government would have given him a day at a later period. No doubt, Wednesday was an earlier day for the consideration of the question; but it must be taken then, unless the Government would give a day later on.
    MR. SULLIVANthought that it was undesirable that the Bill should be taken next Wednesday. It was an attempt at a compromise, and anything like a com-

    505
    promise upon a question such as this I ought not to be hurried through the House. The people of Ireland might not agree with the measure, and it would be far better to give them an opportunity of studying it closely at first. He would also point out to the hon. Member for Roscommon that there was no chance of his carrying his measure through that Session unless the Government really and earnestly gave it facilities. If they wished to do so, they could easily find him a day; and there was no reason why the second reading of the Bill should not be taken before Whitsuntide. The Bill would be distributed on Saturday, and would be in the hands of Irish Members on Monday next; but they could not communicate with their constituents and receive their replies before Tuesday or Wednesday. There was no reason for pressing on the Bill if the Government would give a day for its consideration; and he must remind the hon. Member that the Government alone could secure the passage of the Bill that Session, and without then-aid it would be hopeless for a private Member to try to carry it.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that the Bill would not be in Ireland before Monday; but, still, there was a very sound and general idea of the provisions of the measure spread throughout Ireland; and he was very much surprised that hon. Members usually so conversant with matters as the hon. and learned Members for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) and Kildare (Mr. Meldon) should be so behindhand in their knowledge upon the present occasion. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), he could assure him that the Queen's University had a very sharp and watchful staff in Dublin who would deal with the merits of the Bill; and he might feel certain that it would be canvassed by men quite capable of finding out its defects. He hoped that the hon. Member for Roscommon would push his Bill on as rapidly as possible; and he trusted that the Government would endeavour to facilitate his doing so. As sacrifices were being demanded all round, he had no hesitation, for his own part, in saying that if the Government would enable this question to be discussed, hon. Members would, in return, consent to put aside for a time some very important and engrossing
    506
    questions which they had engaged to bring forward.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill to make bettor provision for University Education in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by The O'CONOR DON, Mr. KAVANAGH, Mr. SHAW, Mr. MITCHELL HENRY, Lord CHARLES BERESFORD, and Mr. PARNELL.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 183.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  MEDICAL ACT (1858) AMENDMENT (No. 3) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 121.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow, at Two of the clock."
  MR. E. JENKINSprotested against the Bill being set down at that time. The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had likewise intended to oppose its being set down for such a time; but he was not then present. He should take the sense of the House upon the question of so interfering with the convenience of hon. Members as to set this Bill down for a Morning Sitting.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 16: Majority 23.—(Div. List, No. 96.)

  HARES (ICELAND) BILL.— [BILL 165.]
  (Mr. Richard Power, Colonel King-Harman, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Herbert, Mr. French.)
  HARES (ICELAND) BILL.— [BILL 165.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Richard Power.)
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he should like to know what this Bill was about.
    MR. RICHARD POWERsaid, that the Bill was simply to give a close time for hares in the same way that there was a close time for partridges, snipe, and other animals. It was a very short Bill, and he was really surprised that the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle should offer any objection to it. It was not a Bill directed against poor people, but it was a Bill for the people, and it was asked for by the tenant farmers of Ireland. The Bill would benefit every-

    507
    one—it would benefit the landlord, the tenant, and the hares immensely. The spring was the time when these animals were so wantonly destroyed, and during which it was proposed to protect them. Looking at the names on the back of the Bill, he was the more surprised that there should be any objection to it—some were Liberals, some Conservatives, and one was a Home Ruler; and the owner of the first name on the Bill entertained political opinions which no one entertained except himself.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  TRUSTEES RELIEF BILL— [BILL 145.]
  (Mr. Wheelhouse, Sir George Bowyer, Sir Eardley Wilmot, Mr. Isaac.)
  TRUSTEES RELIEF BILL— [BILL 145.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Beading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow, at Two of the clock."—(Mr. Wheelhouse.)
    MR. COURTNEYobjected to the Bill being taken at 2 o'clock in the morning, and this was not the first occasion on which he had had to raise a similar objection. The consequence of Bills being set down for a Morning Sitting at 2 o'clock was to compel a number of hon. Members to wait about for the possibility of the matter in which they were interested being taken. He had no objection to the Army Regulation and Discipline Bill being taken at the Morning Sitting; but he did not see that there was any reason to encroach further upon the time of private Members.
    MR. WHEELHOUSEobserved, that there was no reason why this Bill should not be taken as was proposed. It was a Bill to relieve trustees——
    MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. and learned Member that the Question before the House was, whether the second reading of the Bill should be fixed for that day at 2 o'clock.
    Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

    WATS AND MEANS.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service
    508
    of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, the sum of £6,694,816 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock;
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

    METROPOLIS (WHITECHAPEL AND LIMEHOUSE) IMPROVEMENT SCHEME AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State for the modification of a Scheme confirmed by "The Metropolis (Whitechapel and Limehouse) Improvement Scheme Confirmation Act, 1876," ordered to be brought in by Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY and Mr. Secretary CROSS.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 184.]
    House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—first Reading—West India Loans * (85).
Second Reading—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation* (73).
Committee—Habitual Drunkards (26–86).
Third Reading—Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (Castle Douglas) * [68], and passed.
Withdrawn—Cathedral Statutes [4].

FOREIGN POLICY OF HER MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: My Lords, I wish to put a Question to the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll) with respect to the inquiry he intends to make to-morrow into the results of the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government in Europe and Asia. I do not know whether the noble Duke contemplates, in the discussion which he proposes raising, to refer to the affairs of Afghanistan; but I must say that, in respect of those affairs, the lips of Her Majesty's Government are now sealed, and, indeed, we should consider any discussion on the matter as one which would be injurious to the public interest. The noble Duke, I am sure, will inform me what his purpose is in regard to that part of the subject of which he has given Notice. with respect to the latter branch of the noble Duke's subject—the result of the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government in Europe and Asia—Her Majesty's Government will be quite prepared to enter fully into any discussion that may be raised.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, we are all aware, through "the ordinary channels of information"—which, I believe, is the Parliamentary expression for the newspapers—that Her Majesty's Government are now in the course of negotiation with the new Sovereign of Afghanistan in regard, I suppose, to the new Frontier, which is to be the scientific Frontier referred to by the noble Earl (the Earl of Beaconsfield) in his celebrated speech at the Guildhall, and also with reference to our future relations with Afghanistan. I at once recognize

  381
  the fact that to enter into a discussion upon the subject of our future relations with Afghanistan might, probably, be inexpedient as regards the Public Service; and, indeed, it never was my intention to enter at all into the question of our future relations in that part of the East.

  PARLIAMENT—THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.—QUESTION.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I think it would be convenient to your Lordships' House if the noble Earl at the head of the Government could state at what time he proposes the House should rise for the Whitsuntide Recess, and how long that vacation is to last?
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: My Lords, we propose that the House should rise on Friday, the 30th of May, and meet again on Friday, the 13th of June.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR— REINFORCEMENTS.—QUESTION.
  LORD TRUROsaid, that on a former occasion the noble Viscount the Under Secretary of State for War stated that the Government awaited information in despatches before sending reinforcements and stores asked for in a telegram from the Cape. It was rumoured that difficulties were experienced in getting the reinforcements; and, under these circumstances, he wished to know, Whether there was any objection to the telegram being laid on the Table of the House?
  VISCOUNT BURY, in reply, said, that no difficulty would be experienced in getting the reinforcements if it were decided to send them. As to the telegram, with the exception of a few words of it which he had read to the House, it related to Departmental matters, and therefore could not be produced.

CATHEDRAL STATUTES BILL.—(No. 4.)
(The Lord Bishop of Carlisle.)
CATHEDRAL STATUTES BILL.—(No. 4.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the cathedral bodies of this country were divided into two classes—those of the old foundation, which consisted of the cathedrals exist-
  382
  ing previous to the time of Henry VIII., and those of the new, about 12 in number, which were, in fact, monastic bodies transformed into Deans and Chapters. There were important differences between the old and the new foundations; but, so far as the present Bill was concerned, the principal difference between the two classes was that while the old foundations possessed the power of altering and amending their statutes with the consent of the Visitor, the new foundations had no such power. Henry VIII. did, indeed, give statutes to the new cathedrals; but they were not under the Great Seal and no legal authority. Several attempts were made to put the statutes upon a proper footing; but it was not, from various causes, until the time of Queen Anne that an Act was passed to legalize them, and she died before she had exercised the power of re-modelling the statutes granted to her by that Act. The statutes of the cathedrals had become antiquated; officers were appointed who had no duties to perform; the statutes contemplated a Communion table which did not exist, regulations were made which could not possibly be carried out, and many things had become absurd by simple lapse of time. Again, there was a very strong objection to these antiquated statutes, on the ground that conscientious people did not like to swear to observe statutes which they knew they could not keep; and great difficulty was experienced when disputes arose between Bishops and Deans and Chapters, or in other cases. He himself had plenty of power in his own cathedral; but in some cases the Bishop of the diocese had very little power. The Bishop of Ely, for example, was actually not able to preach on any day in the year in his own cathedral except by permission of the Dean and Chapter. There had grown up in connection with the cathedrals a body of honorary canons, who received no emoluments; of this he did not complain, as there was no funds out of which emoluments could be granted to them; but if these canons could be placed on something like the same footing as the prebendaries of the old foundations it would raise the value and status of the office. Things could not be set right except by an Act of Parliament. His Bill gave the power of revision to the Sovereign, not for the life of Her Majesty, but for the lives of Her

  383
  Majesty and Her Successors, and it then provided the machinery of revision. The initiation of the matter was given to the Dean and Chapter, if they thought fit to make use of the machinery of the Bill. It was then proposed in the Bill that when the Dean and Chapter had drawn up a draft scheme of revision it should be laid before the Bishop. When the Dean and Chapter and the Bishop had determined how the statutes were to be revised, the scheme upon which they had agreed was to be submitted to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and, if approved by them, laid before the Queen, when it would become law in the manner in which schemes of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in new districts and the like now did. He might be asked why, when he was a Dean himself, he had not tried to do something in this manner? That he had done, for he had procured the introduction of a clause into a Bill of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners when he was himself Dean, with the approval of the then Prime Minister (Earl Russell); but there was a change of Government at the time, and it being thought that the moment was inconvenient for bringing forward the matter, at the request of the late Lord Derby the clause was dropped. Again, it might be said that this matter did not concern him as a Bishop; but, in reply, he said it did, because, by reason of the non-revision of the statutes, difficulties had arisen in connection with his own cathedral, and, as Visitor, he had been called on to deal with them. A Royal Commission ad hoc had been suggested as an alternative plan to the one provided in his Bill. He had no objection to such a Commission, but it would entail a considerable expense, and he did not know how far it would be viewed with favour by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was not wedded to the details of his own plan. On the contrary, he had, from the first, expressed his wish to see the Bill subjected to examination by a Select Committee of their Lordships' House if it were read a second time. It had been said, as an objection to what he proposed, that it would be dangerous to place the duty of revision in the hands of the Dean and Chapter; but he asked their Lordships to bear in mind that he only proposed to give to the Deans and Chapters of the new foundations the
  384
  same power as was now vested in the Deans and Chapters of the old foundations, and that those bodies had not abused their powers. He accepted the resolutions passed with reference to his plan by the Lower Houses of the Convocations of the Provinces of Canterbury and York as virtually votes in favour of the second reading of the Bill. It was true that at a meeting of Deans of the new foundations, held on April 4, a resolution was adopted declaring that to his Bill there were serious objections, both in principle and detail, and that it was desirable to offer to the measure the unanimons opposition of those assembled. He had, however, received letters from Deans and Canons who were not present at that meeting, stating that they did not sympathize in its views, and even some of those who were present at it had written to him to say that if he submitted to some modifications everybody would be with him. The Dean of Bristol had opposed the Bill in a pamphlet, and asked why, if the Bishop of Carlisle's object was to confer on Her Majesty and Her Successors the powers which the Act passed in the reign of Queen Anne only conferred on that Sovereign for her life, he had not proposed that in a Bill of a few words? His reply was that a power given to the Sovereign would never be acted on unless machinery for carrying it out was provided by the Act. The person who objected to such legislative machinery being provided was like a person who would say, "Let us have steam; but I object to machinery."
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Bishop of Carlisle.)
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, whilst fully sympathizing with the intentions of his right rev. Brother, was of opinion that the Bill would not effect the object in view. That object, moreover, was too limited in its scope, and was hardly well worthy of being made the subject of legislation. The Bill would apply to only a small number of cathedrals. His right rev. Brother had told the House that the Deans and Chapters of the older cathedrals had already the power of altering their statutes. If they had, they had scarcely ever used it, nor did he see any probability of their doing so. The statutes of the old cathedrals were ancient and very unsuited to the present time, quite

  385
  as unsuited as were the statutes of the new foundations. Why there should be legislation for the statutes of the new-foundations, while those of the old were left untouched, was what he did not exactly see. The fact that the old foundations had not used their power in respect of revision, if such power was possessed by them, showed that there was something in the cathedral bodies which made them very averse from change; and, therefore, the passing of this Bill would be simply leaving matters where they were. They wore too conservative in their instincts, and individual influence was too great in so small and select a body to hope for much spontaneous action in the direction of reform. That considerable changes were necessary and desirable he did not deny; but they would not, he thought, be brought about by the cathedral bodies themselves unless a distinct suggestion were made in that direction by the Government. Again, statutes had very little influence in the government of the cathedrals. They were governed, not by statutes, but by customs, which had all the force of law in the minds of those who administered their affairs. He was of opinion that there was a necessity for change in this matter; but that change was not likely to originate in the cathedral bodies—it must be suggested by others. It was a fatal blot in this Bill that it placed the initiative in the hands of the body which required to be reformed. The Act of Anne wont on the principle of reformation from without. It must be borne in mind, too, that some of the most marked difficulties that had arisen were in connection, not with now, but with old foundations. A difficulty so important had arisen in connection with the cathedral at York that a noble Lord had given Notice of his intention to bring it under the notice of their Lordship's House. A few years ago, it had been found necessary to introduce a special Act of Parliament to alter the relations between the body corporate of the minor canons and the body corporate of the greater canons in the cathedral of St. Paul's. The difficulties that existed before the passing of the Act had thus been removed; but there were a great many other cathedrals in which similar difficulties were continually cropping up. The Bill before their
  386
  Lordships did not notice several most important questions which should be dealt with in any legislation worthy of the name. The questions to which he referred related to the payments of the singing men, the position of the almsmen, the cathedral libraries, and the minor canons. He held that most of the evils dealt with by his right rev. Brother were imaginary. He was strongly in favour of altering the old Roman Catholic statutes; but any new legislation that was introduced should not confine itself to such alteration. A Commission had, some years ago, reported at great length on the subject before their Lordships, and some of their recommendations had been embodied in legislation, but not all. It might be the opinion of Her Majesty's Ministers that the time had not arrived to ask Parliament to appoint a Commission with legislative powers, as had been done in the case of the Universities; but as 25 years had elapsed since the appointment of the last Royal Commission in connection with cathedrals, and as great changes had taken place in that period in public opinion, it might not be undesirable to refer the matter to another Royal Commission, who could take it up where it was left by their predecessors. Some such course he believed ought to be taken, and he had no doubt that it would be, if not now, at some future time. He was, for his part, anxious that no time should be lost, as it was dangerous to put off such changes as he contemplated for an indefinite period. There could be no doubt that the cathedrals were much better understood at the present time than in the year 1841, the last occasion on which there had been legislation on the subjects under the consideration of their Lordships. The cathedrals were now, in most respects, doing their work admirably; but they were hampered by difficulties which had already been pointed out. One of these, to which lie had already alluded, was, in his opinion, almost inherent in the present constitution of cathedral bodies. he referred to the power of obstruction which existed in these bodies. he thought it would be unwise to take steps which would produce no real results, and earnestly hoped that the Government might see their way to call attention, through a Royal Commission or otherwise, to all the difficulties which

  387
  his right rev. Brother had brought before their Lordships, and to endeavour to apply some remedies, not merely in the case of the few cathedrals which he had enumerated, but in that of the whole body of cathedrals. These institutions were engaged in work which was being more and more appreciated, and the cathedrals were frequented by classes of persons who would not have thought of entering them 40 years ago. What was now wanted was that every member of these cathedral bodies, being adequately remunerated for his services, should have facilities given him for the discharge of his duties, and that the cathedrals themselves should be gradually raised in the estimation of the community to that high place which they were entitled to hold.
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, the Bill had been objected to on the ground that it dealt only with the cathedrals of the new foundation; but that objection did not appear to him to be a very strong one, as the cathedrals of the new foundation differed as much from those of the old as Ireland did from Scotland. The argument that the Bill was imperfect because it did not deal with the cathedrals of the old foundation, was very similar to that of certain gentlemen who objected to a Bill about tenant right in Ireland because it did not deal with the Law of Hypothec in Scotland. The Bill only sought to give to the new foundations the powers now possessed by the old; powers which the Chapter of Hereford had exercised as regarded their College of Vicars' Choral. He trusted their Lordships would read the Bill of the right rev. Prelate a second time, on the understanding that it should be referred to a Select Committee of their Lordships' House.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: I think, my Lords, we are all agreed that some change is necessary in the capitular bodies of cathedrals. So far as the Bill of the right rev. Prelate is concerned, I think its object is one that ought to be encouraged. But then, my Lords, it does not meet many cases which appear to me to require to be considered and dealt with. So far as my own experience is concerned, I have had, in my official position, much correspondence respecting what I regarded as a great anomaly in one of our principal cathedral bodies.
  388
  But that is a cathedral of the old foundation; and, therefore, the Bill of the right rev. Prelate would not at all offer any remedy in that case, which is, I think, one that requires attention. It is necessary, when we are considering this question, that we should not embark on one of those long investigations which sometimes absorb years, and end in proposing results quite disproportionate to the original necessity which justified any movement in the question. I should be myself favourable to the idea thrown out by the most rev. Prelate that we ought to meet the difficulties which we have to encounter rather by previous inquiry than by immediate legislation. But, in that case, if a Royal Commission were appointed to carry out the investigation, I should be glad that arrangements should be made to procure Reports from time to time from the Royal Commissioners—that they should report with respect to each cathedral, for example, and state what they might recommend should be done in each case. In that way, my Lords, I think we might come to some discreet and judicious limitation of the investigation. As I have said, I am favourable to the suggestion of the most rev. Prelate. I think that something ought to be done. There are anomalies which ought to be removed after due investigation, and I believe that the most prudent course to adopt would be the appointment of a Royal Commission. So far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, that, my Lords, is their opinion, and they are prepared to act upon it.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, that after the favourable statement just made by the noble Earl he was ready to withdraw the Bill.
  Motion and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

HABITUAL DRUNKARDS BILL.—(No. 26.)
(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
HABITUAL DRUNKARDS BILL.—(No. 26.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Preliminary.
  Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Commencement of Act).
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, the Government objected to this clause as it stood, inasmuch as it withdrew retreats conducted by philanthropic or charitable associations from the direct control of Parliament, while in seven years it would put an end to private retreats. Now, no one would go to the expense of establishing a private retreat upon such terms; and he proposed to remove the restriction, and mate the Act temporary, so that at the end of a certain time Parliament could re-consider the question, allowing such retreats as it found properly conducted to continue.
  Amendment moved—
  To leave out after "eighty" to end of clause, and add, at end, "and shall be in force until the expiration of seven years from the passing thereof, and to the end of the then next Session of Parliament."—(The Lord Steward.)
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYobjected to the alteration, on the ground that such a provision would defeat the object of the Bill by preventing people from investing capital in private retreats as a speculation.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKobserved, that public retreats would suffer equally from the proposed Amendment, inasmuch as the public would be unwilling to subscribe for the erection of an institution which was liable to be abolished in seven years.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Interpretation).
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYpointed out that in the definition of "retreats" he wished to draw as wide a distinction as possible between the institutions for habitual drunkards and lunatic asylums.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK moved an Amendment after ("person,") insert ("of sound mind,")—with the object of preventing these retreats being used as lunatic asylums.
  LORD SELBORNEsaid, that he feared the addition would give rise to fresh difficulties.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsuggested the insertion in the definition of the words ("not being amenable to any jurisdiction in lunacy.")
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY and THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKaccepted the suggestion.
  Amendment made accordingly.
  Further Amendments made.
  Then, on the Motion of the Archbishop of YORK, a further Amendment made by inserting after ("intoxicating liquor,") the words ("at times") dangerous to himself or others.
  VISCOUNT GREY DE WILTON VISCOUNT GREY DE WILTON moved an Amendment, to include habitual opium eating with habitual excess in partaking of alcoholic liquors.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsuggested that the word "narcotics" should be used instead of opium, as there was great abuse of morphia, chloral, and other narcotics, often through the bad advice of the doctors.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYreplied, that the subject was too important to be introduced without Notice, and that to adopt the suggestion might imperil the Bill.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPalso remarked that if they used the word "narcotics" they might include tobacco.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Incorporation of Schedules, with forms and rules therein); and Clause 5 (Local authority and clerk of local authority) agreed to.
  Retreats.
  Clause 6 (Establishment of retreats).
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGHobjected to the clause on the ground that it would be a convenience to have the power of using private lunatic asylums as retreats.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsupported the clause. He thought it most desirable that the widest possible distinction should be kept up between lunatic asylums and retreats.
  On Motion of the Archbishop of YORK, Amendment made at end of clause, add—
  "One, at least, of the persons to whom a licence is granted shall reside in the retreat, and be responsible for its management."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK moved to insert, after Clause 6, new clause—
  (To whom licence not to be given.)
  "No licence shall be given to any person who is licensed to keep a house for the reception of lunatics without the consent of the Commissioners in Lunacy."
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYthought it would wreck the Bill if these retreats were in the slightest degree to be mixed up with any question of the control of the Lunacy Commissioners. He would consent to the insertion of the clause if the reference to the Commissioners in Lunacy were omitted.
  Clause amended accordingly, and agreed to; and added to the Bill.
  Remaining clauses agreed to, with Amendment.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Friday the 23rd instant; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 86.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.