Sitting of 1 December 1882

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Liverpool City, v. the Right Hon. Dudley Francis Stewart Ryder, commonly called Viscount Sandon, now Earl of Harrowhy.
QUESTIONS.

  SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT— NEW CENTRAL MUSEUM, DUBLIN.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he is aware that at a public meeting of the leading citizens of Dublin, held within the past few days, the scheme adopted by the Government for the erection of the National Science and Art Museum in Dublin was condemned and protested against by men of all political parties, and whether not a single voice was raised in its favour at the meeting; whether it is a
  470
  fact that a meeting of Irish architects has unanimously condemned the site selected by the Government, and that thirty-six of the principal architects in Ireland, including both non-competitors and competitors, have united in a public declaration that, in position, area, and adaptability for the purpose, the intended site is most inconvenient and unsuitable; that a building erected thereon will be cramped, inconvenient, badly lighted, and deficient in ventilation; that, irrespective of the site in Merrion Square, there is ample room to erect a building in every respect suitable and convenient; that all the competing architects with whom the signatories to the declaration had the opportunity of consulting found the greatest difficulty in providing the required accommodation on the site, but they were restricted by the rigid instructions, and allowed no scope for their suggestions; and several architects, on receiving the instructions furnished to intending competitors, were so convinced of the force of the foregoing objections, that they did not compete; and, whether the Government, in deference to the unanimous opinion of the Irish public, will now agree to re-open the entire question, and will accept the guidance of Irish opinion in regard to the erection of this Irish Institution?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, I saw that a meeting had been called for the purpose of condemning the Government scheme, and it had done so. Various well-known persons connected with Dublin appear to have been present. I have heard nothing of the meeting of architects; but, after my previous replies, the hon. Member will not be surprised if I think the opinion of Dublin architects on this question must be received with much reserve. No practical suggestion has yet reached me for building on any other site. But the Government will very shortly be in a position to come to a final decision in the matter, when it will have all these representations before it.

  WOOLMER FOREST—RECENT FIRES.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, Whether the sum of £1,686 16 s. 8d. paid to the Commissioners of Wood sand Forests as compensation for damage caused by fires in Woolmer Forest in May 1881 (as appears by the last Re-

  471
  port of the Commissioners, page 126), was paid by the War Office; and, if so, why the owners of private property who suffered equal or greater losses from the same cause were refused any recognition of their claims to the like compensation?
  SIR AETHUR HAYTER: Sir, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I have to say that the War Office has paid the sum of £1,686 to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests as compensation for damage caused by fire on land at Woolmer Forest leased by the War Department from the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. The payment was made because, by the terms of the lease, the War Department is bound to make good all damage by fire on this land. No land is held at Woolmer of private owners, and the Secretary of State for War has no liability in respect of the adjacent lands not rented by him.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he would again call attention to the subject.

  LAW OF NATURALIZATION—ALDERMAN THOMAS CONNOLLY.
  MR. SEXTONasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is a fact that on the 6th of July 1877, Thomas Connolly, now an Alderman in the Municipal Council of Drogheda, and high sheriff during the present year of the county of the town of Drogheda, made a declaration on oath in the Court of Common Pleas for the city and county of New York, United States of America, in the following words:—
  "I, Thomas Connolly, do declare on oath that it is bonâ fide my intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce for ever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign Province, Potentate, State, or Sovereignty whatever, and particularly to the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, of whom I am a subject.
  Sworn this 6th day of July, 1877.
  Thomas Connolly.
  Nathaniel Jarvis, jr. Clerk."
  Whether, if the fact be as stated, the said Thomas Connolly was eligible to be elected and to act as an alderman in the Municipal Council of Drogheda, or to be appointed to act as high sheriff of the county of the town of Drogheda; whether his tenure of those offices is legal; and, whether all or any of the acts done by him as such alderman and
  472
  as such high sheriff are null and void in Law?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, I am not aware whether the facts are as stated in this Question or not; but any person interested in the matter can raise the question, if so advised, by proceeding at law in the ordinary way.
  MR. SEXTON: I shall now hand the right hon. and learned Gentleman an attested copy of the declaration made in the Court of Common Pleas in New York, and I shall ask a further Question on the subject at the end of Question time.
  [The hon. Member then walked across the floor of the House and placed the Paper in the hands of the Attorney General for Ireland.]
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): I appeal to you, Sir, whether this conduct is not most irregular?
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will use his own discretion in the matter as to what he will do with the Paper.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IERLAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): If I am in Order, the course I shall adopt is to return this document to the hon. Member in a sealed envelope. When I find the Mayor of the town elected to that duty, and fulfilling that office, I take it that primâ facie he is fully qualified to discharge that duty, and I really cannot undertake to inquire whether he is or not.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT—SECS. 21–22—CASE OF H. BRENNAN.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will state the circumstances which were held to justify the sentencing of Mr. Henry Brennan, of Cliffoney, county Sligo, to three weeks' imprisonment; and, by what section of the Crime Prevention Act the sentence was authorised?
  MR. TREVELYAN: At half-past 8 o'clock on the evening of the 30th ultimo, two sub-constables arrested two men for fighting in the streets of Cliffoney. Henry Brennan came up and seized one of the constables by the collar and demanded his authority for making the arrest. A large crowd assembled and stones were thrown at the

  473
  police, and had it not been for assistance coming up, the prisoners would have been rescued. The night was so dark that no one except Brennan could be identified. The charge against him was heard by two Resident Magistrates, and he was sentenced to imprisonment for the offence, under Section 8, Subsection D, as directed by Sections 21 and 22 of the Prevention of Crime Act.

  DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE— SPECIAL GRATUITY.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Commission appointed to inquire into the complaints of the Dublin Metropolitan Police has as yet formally reported; whether one of those complaints was that the Dublin Metropolitan Police had been excluded from the gratuity given to the constabulary for special services; whether the Commission has made any Report as to this complaint; and, if so, what is its purport; and, whether, having regard to the great strain now placed on the exertions and sense of duty of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, he will give prompt effect to any recommendations made by the Commission in favour of the force?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Commission appointed to inquire into the complaints of the Dublin Metropolitan Police has not yet formally reported. One of the complaints was that the Metropolitan Police had been excluded from the gratuity given to the Constabulary. The Commission made a preliminary Report in reference to this complaint, recommending that the gratuity should be granted. Immediate attention has been given to that recommendation, and the Irish Government has obtained the assent of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury to a gratuity not exceeding three months' pay being given to the men of the Dublin Metropolitan Police. Under the circumstances, the Government is prepared to advance the money out of civil contingencies—the amount to be repaid next Session out of a Vote which we shall present to the House, and which we hope will be sanctioned.

  PRISON ACTS—THE "AUSTRIAN STICK."
  MR. HOPWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department,
  474
  Whether there is in use in the prisons any instrument for the infliction of corporal punishment on criminals besides the "cat" or birch rod; and, whether one "like three canes twisted together," or otherwise resembling the "Austrian stick," has been introduced and used?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I answer both these Questions in the negative.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACTS— BIRMINGHAM SCHOOL BOARD ELECTION.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he will inquire whether placards connected with some of the candidates for the School Board at Birmingham continued to be exhibited on some of the Board Schools of that town after the declaration of the Chairman, quoted by him in this House; and, whether, in that case, he will draw the attention of the School Board to the matter, with a view to enforcing the impartiality which he desires?
  MR. MUNDELLA, in reply, said, that after the very fair statement which he had read from the Chairman of the school board last week, he did not think the House should have been troubled with this further Question. He had, however, received the following telegram from Mr. Dixon on the subject:—
  "The placards referred to do not continue to be exhibited on some of the Board Schools of Birmingham. There has not been any partiality shown, the placards of every party having been posted on one of the schools, that of the Bible party appearing the first."
  In his opinion, this statement entirely exonerated the school board of Birmingham from the charge of partiality that had been made against it.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTexplained that the reason he had put the Question was because his information was to the effect that these placards had continued to be exhibited after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman and before the election.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department,

  475
  Whether his attention has been drawn to the remarks of Mr. Justice Hawkins, at the Old Bailey, on the 28th November, on the subject of the failure of the Public Prosecutor in the preparation of prosecutions; and, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The Public Prosecutor is sometimes supposed to be a subordinate agent of the Home Office; but that is not the fact. Mr. Justice Hawkins was entitled to make his observations; but they would have been entitled to greater respect, and would have been more useful, if they had been addressed either to the Attorney General or to the Home Office, instead of generally to the public. If any facts had been stated, it would have been more easy to inquire what the grievance was. I have always been of opinion that the office of Public Prosecutor ought to be established on a far more extensive scale. In fact, I said so at the time the office was created. At present it is established upon a very narrow scale indeed, there being only one gentleman, with an assistant, to do all the public prosecutions of the country, which greatly limits his power for usefulness.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSinquired whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would put himself in communication with the Attorney General and the Treasury, in order to press the necessity of the original scheme being carried into effect?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORinquired whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would ask the Judges to confine themselves to the discharge of their official duties in the future, and not to deliver public harangues from the Bench?
  [No reply was given.]

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)— WARRANT RANK OF TRANSFERRED OFFICERS OF ROYAL MARINES.
  MR. NEWZAM NICHOLSONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the question of Warrant rank for noncommissioned officers from the Royal Marines who have been transferred to Militia regiments is yet arranged?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This Question ought to have been ad-
  476
  dressed to the Secretary of State for War, as it lies with him to determine which classes of non-commissioned officers serving with the Auxiliary Forces should receive warrant rank. I may, however, say that the conditions under which Marines serve with Militia and Volunteer Regiments are under the consideration of the two Departments.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— CLARE CASTLE PORT AND PIER.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Treasury will grant any facilities for the creation of a local Harbour Board for the management of the Port of Clare Castle, and the improvement of the navigation of the River Fergus to that point?
  MR. COURTNEY (in answering the Question)said: The suggestion in this Question has already been under consideration, and it is so at the present time. It involves the breaking up of the Shannon Trust, which would require legislation, and the distribution of its assets, liabilities, duties, and privileges between a certain number of local bodies. To this the Government have already professed themselves favourably disposed in principle; but the constitution of the local bodies presents much difficulty.
  MR. KENNYalso asked, If the Treasury will consent to grant the surplus sum, amounting to considerably over £2,000, to the credit of the Port of Clare Castle, to improving the navigation of the River Fergus to that place?
  MR. COURTNEY: I am not aware of any such balance as that named in the Question now standing to the credit of Clare Castle; but my answer to the previous Question will have shown the hon. Member that his suggestion, though, premature at present, will be duly considered at the proper time, should the course indicated in that answer prove capable of adoption.

  SPAIN—INTERNATIONAL LAW— SURRENDER OF CUBAN REFUGEES.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign

  477
  Affairs, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House any communications which may have taken place from 1869 to 1871 between Her Majesty's Consuls in Cuba and the Governor of Nassau with any of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State, relative to the acts and proclamations of the Captain General of Cuba with respect to refugees or rebels escaping from Cuba?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: We can find no trace in the archives of the Foreign Office of the communications between Her Majesty's Consuls and the Secretaries of State referred to by the right hon. Member; but as regards those from the Governor of Nassau, they would naturally be addressed to the Colonial Office. There were two Proclamations sent home by Her Majesty's Consul General, one dated March 24 and the other July 7, 1869. The second abrogates the first. The earlier of these Proclamations, which was never acted upon, is relative to the seizure upon the high seas of vessels, arms, men, and ammunition, and persons suspected of lending aid to the insurgents. Nothing is said about landing refugees. The Proclamation rather appears to apply to vessels on the high seas going to, than to vessels quitting Cuba.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the Papers referred to yesterday are ready for production?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, that the Colonial Office had not received the letter he had referred to yesterday. He, however, undertook that before the Prorogation all the Papers received on this subject up to the Prorogation should be laid upon the Table.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the authorities at Gibraltar gave to the ladies who accompanied General Maceo the option of remaining in the fortress; or whether they were expelled by the police at the same time as the General?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The Government telegraphed to Gibraltar inquiring whether the ladies referred to had or had not asked to be allowed to stay in the fortress. His impression was that they did not wish to be separated from the others; but he had got no answer to his telegram.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFstated that, in reply to a private telegram sent last night, he was informed that the ladies were now free.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—COURT VALUERS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Court Valuers attached to the Land Commission for appeal purposes will be dispensed with at the same time as those attached to the Sub-Commissions; and, if not, if he will state the reason?
  MR. BRODRICKasked if the right hon. Gentleman would state what was their tenure of office; and, whether the views expressed in the debate on Tuesday evening would be taken into consideration?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The 17 valuers appointed to be attached to the Sub-Commissions, and whose services are to be discontinued, stand on a completely different footing from the valuers previously appointed to value—(1) for appeal purposes; (2) to determine fair rents out of Court; and (3) to assist the County Court Judges. And, with regard to the valuers employed under these three heads, there is no present intention of dispensing with them. With regard to the tenure of office, I would prefer answering the Question after consultation with the Land Commissioners; but the views expressed in the debate on Tuesday night will be considered.
  MR. GIBSONasked what the right hon. Gentleman meant by the expression "present intention?" Was it intended to indicate that the employment of these gentlemen was precarious?
  MR. TREVELYANreplied, that he had used the words without intending to convey any such impression.
  MR. HEALYgave Notice that next Session he would call attention to the continuance of valuers in the Superior Courts, when a similar course was not taken in the case of the Inferior Courts, where they were more wanted.
  MR. MACARTNEYinquired as to whether it would not be necessary for the Sub-Commissioners to go over the land upon the valuers being dispensed with?
  [No reply was given.]

  MRLTA—RESIGNATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If it be the fact that the electors of two constituencies in Malta have so insulted the Legislative Council that nearly all the Members have resigned, and the Council has practically ceased to exist; whether he will, before the election of a new Council, modify the electorate, by abolishing the language test, or in some way extending the franchise; and, what steps the Colonial Office are taking under the circumstances?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The facts in the first part of the Question are, roughly speaking, correct. Some months ago the Government of Malta was desired to propose to the Council an extension of the franchise; but now that the Council has virtually dissolved itself, it is an open question whether it would be best, as suggested, to have the election of a new Council under an extended franchise, enacted by Letters Patent.

  BRAZIL—CLAIMS OF BRITISH SUBJECTS.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether British claims against Brazil are yet settled, or how long the Brazilian Government is to be allowed to evade these?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: My hon. Friend must not forget that there are counter-claims. We are trying to come to an adjustment of the British claims, which are, at the present moment, undergoing careful scrutiny for that purpose.
  MR. ANDERSONasked whether it was not the fact that those counterclaims arose in connection with the liberation of slaves and the seizure of slave ships, and were such as the Government were not entitled to sanction?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I cannot answer that Question without Notice.

  MRDAGASCAR—ADMIRAL GORE JONES'S REPORT.
  MR. GEORGE PALMERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether be will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of Admiral Gore Jones's official Report of his visit to Madagascar last year?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the Question was one for his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty to answer.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the Admiralty had not considered the matter; but he did not think there would be any objection to consulting with the Admiralty, if necessary, with a view to the Report being laid on the Table.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked, with reference to Madagascar, if it were true that a deputation from that Island would be received at the Foreign Office to-morrow; and, whether, if they had an audience of Her Majesty, they would be received with the usual ceremony?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the Question of the noble Lord was rather irregular. The deputation would be received to-morrow afternoon; but he had not heard that they had applied for an audience of Her Majesty.

  CHINA—THE CHEFOO CONVENTION.
  MR. CROPPERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the matters in debate in the Chefu Convention have been settled, as has been asserted in some of the newspapers?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: the answer to the hon. Member's Question is in the negative.

  THEATRES AND MUSIC HALLS (METROPOLIS) —PRECAUTIONS AGAINST FIRE, &c:.—CAPTAIN SHAW'S REPORT.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he has received from the Metropolitan Board of Works the Report of Captain Shaw upon the Theatres and other places of public entertainment; and, if so, whether he will lay them upon the Table of the House? He asked the Question yesterday in the absence of the Home Secretary; but the hon. Member (Mr. Hibbert), who replied to the Question, was unable to explain the motives for withholding the Report.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, that in regard to Papers of that kind it was more usual to state the reason for presenting them, rather than the reason for not doing so. He did not think there would be any advantage in laying this Report on the Table. It

  481
  directed certain things to be done, in order to remove dangers which were believed to exist. It would be very unfair to lay a Report of the dangers to which theatres were exposed on the Table, without, at the same time, explaining what had been done in order to remove them.
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, it was well known that these Reports condemned specifically certain theatres, and if it were not known which theatres——
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot debate the matter; he can only put a Question.
  MR. MACFARLANEintimated that on Monday he would ask the Home Secretary to specify the places so condemned, in order that the public might know which were safe and which unsafe.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT— MR. FITZMAURICE HUSSEY, J.P.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with regard to the inquiry that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had made into the case of Mr. Fitzmaurice Hussey, J.P., and his denial of having exacted fees from tenants in respect of the swearing of affidavits required by the Arrears Act, Whether the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, in view of such a serious charge, will rest satisfied with a mere denial by the person against whom the charge is made; or, whether he will receive and consider any affidavit which may be tendered in support of the charge against Mr. Fitzmaurice Hussey?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Lord Chancellor invariably receives and considers any properly supported charge made against a mgistrate; and if an affidavit is submitted to him in support of the charge against Mr. Fitzmaurice Hussey it will, as a matter of course, have his consideration.

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE PUBLIC MEETINGS AT ST. MULLIN'S, CO. CARLOW—RECENT INFLAMMATORY SPEECHES—MR. HEALY AND MR. DAVITT.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a Government shorthand-writer was present during the proceedings of the public meeting held on Sunday last, at St. Mullin's, county
  482
  Carlow; whether the Irish Government have been supplied with an official shorthand-writer's note of the speech delivered at the meeting in question by the honourable Member for Wexford; whether, considering that he did not know yesterday whether there was any official shorthand-writer's note of the speech in question in existence, he will now state upon what evidence he arrived at the decision communicated to the House with respect to the speech of the honourable Member for Wexford; whether it has been decided that in case a person who gives bail to be of the peace and of good behaviour, is found, during the existence of the recognisances in force, out of his usual place of abode after nightfall, his bails may be estreated; whether bails have been recently estreated in Ireland under the circumstances stated; and, whether, if bail were given by the honourable Member for Wexford and Mr. Michael Davitt, they would be held liable to have their securities estreated in case they were found absent after nightfall from their usual places of abode?
  MR. TREVELYAN: No Government shorthand writer was present at the meeting at St. Mullin's, County Carlow, on Sunday last. A constable was present who took notes; and the Government are of opinion that they are in possession of sufficient evidence taken on the spot to sustain the proceedings that have been directed. With regard to the remainder of the Question, it must depend entirely on the circumstances under which a person bound to good behaviour is found out after nightfall, whether or not a breach of the recognizance has taken place. There is no record in the Constabulary Office of any instance of bails having been estreated on the ground of a proceeding under the 11th section.
  MR. WARTONgave Notice that on Monday next he would ask the Attorney General for Ireland, what steps he intended to take to secure the good behaviour of Mr. Davitt and Mr. Healy in accordance with what had been said, by the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the 30th of November?
  MR. PARNELL: I wish to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman under what Statute the proposed proceedings are to be taken against Mr. Healy and Mr. Davitt?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): The hon. Gentleman will be informed of this when the proceedings are instituted.
  MR. PARNELL: I beg to say that, in view of the very extraordinary answer that has just been given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman to a most proper Question, I will repeat that Question on the next day upon which the House sits.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): By that time I shall probably be able to say that the proceedings have been instituted.
  MR. PARNELL: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman unable to say now under what Statute it is intended to proceed?
  THE ATTORNEY GENEEAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): I am, Sir. I have it under consideration. There are two Statutes.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT—THE "CURFEW" CLAUSE.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, amongst the "bad characters" whom the police have been directed to arrest in Dublin under the Curfew Clause, females who ply their calling in the streets for immoral purposes, and persons suspected of robbery and theft will be included?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The classes of persons who are within the scope of the section referred to are those who are abroad under circumstances giving rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal intention, and that is a question of fact in each case. Persons suspected of robbery and theft would be included legally; but, generally speaking, it may be said that the action of the police will be governed by the supplementary Proclamation which I read yesterday. The new powers will not take the place of the ordinary powers of the law, but will be supplementary to them, for the purpose of dealing with persons connected with secret societies who endanger the lives of peaceful citizens.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, whether prostitution was not a criminal offence? He wished to ask whether the offence in question was not an offence for which persons could be imprisoned; and, whe-
  484
  ther the police in many parts of the country were not directed to proceed against such persons?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): It is not per se.

  ANSTRUTHER HARBOUR—LOAN.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, To state the amount of interest actually remitted on the Loan to Anstruther Harbour, referred to in the note at page 122 of the Report of the Public Works Loan Commissioners; to state the intentions of the Treasury in regard to the arrears of interest on the Loan for Dunbar; and, what is to be done in regard to the arrears of capital on both harbours?
  MR. COURTNEY: My hon. and gallant Friend not having given any Notice of this Question, I have been unable to procure the figures with the accuracy which he would desire. Neither am I prepared to state off-hand the intentions of the Treasury on a matter which is in no way urgent, and which has not been recently before them. Perhaps he will repeat his Question on Monday.

  EGYPT—ARABI PASHA.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the following modification in the rules of procedure on the trial of Arabi Pacha has been submitted to Her Majesty's representative in Egypt, and has mot with their approval, which were as follows:—
  "Rule of Procedure agreed on by Borelli Bey, October 21st, in the name of the Egyptian Government, and on behalf of the Commission of Inquiry.
  "The defence shall be free. Counsel may call any witness they deem expedient, whether already heard or not, and examine them. The President may declare the inquiry closed if the desire to prolong uselessly the case is manifest:
  "Any of the accused may appoint foreign counsel."
  "Rules of Procedure enacted by the Commission of Inquiry on November 12th.
  "The whole case for the defence, comprising cross-examination and production of evidence, must under all circumstances be completed by the 25th December. Counsel can only examine witnesses through the President, who may stop any question he may think fit:
  "The accused can only appoint counsel after the completion of the preliminary examination.

  485
  The counsel for the defence must give up their documents to the Commission of Inquiry before it completes its labours?"
  The hon. Member said, he did not wish to press the Question if the hon. Baronet could inform them that the statements which appeared in that day's papers in regard to Arabi were correct—namely, that some arrangement had been come to whereby the charges against him would be withdrawn, except as regarded the rebellion, and that he was to be condemned to some species of banishment. He also wished to ask whether those who were concerned with Arabi would be dealt with on the same terms?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The answer to the Question on the Paper is in the negative. With reference to the further Questions put by the hon. Member, I may say that we have received no communication whatever from the Egyptian Government in the sense indicated by the Question; and, of course, we must act in anything we do on what we hear from the Egyptian Government.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: But has the hon. Baronet received no communication from Lord Dufferin?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: We have received various rumours, but, as I have said, no communication from the Egyptian Government. Of course, Lord Dufferin gives us information; but he cannot answer for the Egyptian Government.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: Will the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs say whether, if Arabi is to be released, Parliament is to be afforded any facilities for the discussion of the question of his release, for that alters the whole matter?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: That, I think, is a Question which should be directed to the Prime Minister.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT—THOMAS AND PATRICK KILLEEN.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can now state that the Messrs. Killeen, of Bally glass, county Mayo, two blind musicians, who are neither charged with nor suspected of any crime, shall not be prevented from following their occupation; whether the
  486
  Government propose to take any notice of the local resident magistrate who illegally prohibited the opening of their school; and, whether he will lay upon the Table the Correspondence which has passed between the Lord Lieutenant and the Messrs. Killeen?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have directed further inquiry to be made into this case, as I think that these men should not be prohibited from opening their school, so long as it is merely a school for dancing and is properly conducted.

  RAILWAYS—IVY BRIDGE—TURIFF TURNPIKE ROAD BRIDGE.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he has caused special inquiries to be made with regard to the fall of the Ivy Bridge on the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, on the 24th November, when seven men were killed; also of the Turiff Turnpike Road Bridge, on the Great Northern of Scotland Railway, on Monday the 27th November, when five passengers were killed and several injured; and, if the Board of Trade conduct any periodical surveying supervision over the condition of Railway bridges, carriages, and other rolling stock, similar to that exercised over passenger carrying shipping?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, the Board of Trade intended to investigate the fall of the bridge on the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, Major Marindin, at the present moment, was engaged in a similar inquiry in regard to the Turiff turnpike road bridge. With regard to the latter portion of the Question, Parliament had not imposed upon the Board of Trade the duty of conducting any periodical surveying supervision over the condition of railway bridges, carriages, and other rolling stock. If it had, it would require an army of officials, and would undoubtedly tend to lessen the responsibility of Railway Companies, and therefore, in his opinion, increase the danger. At the same time, however, although the Board of Trade had no general power of supervision, he was always ready to order an inquiry, and report if circumstances were brought to his knowledge which led him to believe that any particular structure, bridge, or part of the permanent way was likely to be a source of danger to passengers.

  EGYPT (AEMY HE-ORGANIZATION).
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to send out a British General and Officers on full pay to take command of the Egyptian Army?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Egyptian Government have applied to Her Majesty's Government for the services of some officers, and communications on the subject are now passing.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Will they still be subject to the Mutiny Act?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: That is a question for the Legal Officers, or for the War Office.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Perhaps the Judge Advocate General will answer that.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Will the same course be adopted towards these officers as was adopted towards Hobart Pasha, who was obliged to leave the British Navy?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No, Sir; I think not; but the matter is under the consideration of the Government.
  SIE WILFRID LAWSON: Can the hon. Baronet tell us in what way this differs from annexation?
  [No reply was given.]

  NAVY—THE ROYAL MARINES—H.R.H. THE DUKE OF EDINBURGH.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the rumour is true that the rank of Honorary General of Marines is to be revived in favour of a Flag Officer; whether any emolument is to be attached to the office, if created; and, whether the Admiralty have considered the Order in Council of 1837, which abolished the appropriation of this rank to officers of the Navy, and the approval of that abolition by the Royal Commission of 1840?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, it is proposed to appoint His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh to be honorary colonel of the Corps of Royal Marines. This is in no sense a revival of the former rank of honorary general, which was a paid sinecure office. The rank of honorary colonel is to be conferred on the Duke of Edinburgh, not
  488
  as a flag officer, but as a Prince of the blood; the position will be purely honorary, with no emoluments and no duties in connection with the corps; and the Board of Admiralty have reason to believe that the compliment thus conferred will be highly appreciated by the officers and men of the Royal Marines.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether, to allay the feeling of mortification amongst the officers of the Royal Marines at their not being able to sit on Courts Martial on their own officers and men, and having no status whatever whilst serving under the Naval Discipline Act, he is prepared to hold out the hope that the same rights and privileges as are accorded to them under the Military Discipline Act will be granted to this gallant corps when serving under the Naval Discipline Act; and, if not, if he will give any reason why they should not be accorded?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave yesterday to the same Question.

  IRELAND—SOARIFF DRAINAGE WORKS.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why the Scariff Drainage Works, the Bill for which passed both Houses of Parliament, have not been carried into operation; if the Board of Works applied to the local magistrates to afford the necessary securities; and, what stops the Government purpose taking, consequent upon the refusal by the magistrates to afford such securities, to have these works carried out?
  MR. COURTNEY (for Mr. TREVELYAN): This Question having been put with short Notice, I can only say that neither my right hon. Friend nor I have any knowledge of the alleged facts; but I will inquire at once into the matter, and hope to be able to give a reply on Monday. I observe, how-ever, that the Scariff Drainage Board was constituted by an Act passed in 1880, and that a loan to it of nearly £33,000 was sanctioned in the autumn of that year.

  NAVY—THE "VICTORIA AND ALBERT" YACHT.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If it is intended to

  489
  repair Her Majesty s wooden yacht "Victoria and Albert;" if so, at what cost; if not, is it intended to build a new vessel; of what material and at what probable cost; and, if at one of the dockyards, or by public tender; further, to inquire the annual cost of maintaining the four vessels now held at the disposal of Her Majesty; and, whether he considers it necessary to maintain more than two yachts in Commission, seeing that Her Majesty seldom resorts to this mode of travelling?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Victoria and Albert is under survey, and no decision has been arrived at regarding her repair. With regard to the cost of maintaining the Royal yachts, I cannot state it at present; but if my hon. Friend will move for a Return of it, it will be granted. In reply to his last Question, I have to say that, in the opinion of the Admiralty, the provision of vessels which has been sanctioned by successive Boards of Admiralty for the use of Her Majesty and the Royal Family is not excessive.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT—PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House, a Copy of the Instructions given to the police with regard to the way in which they are to execute their duties under the recent proclamation of the city of Dublin; whether persons arrested under this proclamation will be taken at once before the magistrates, and their offences adjudicated upon; whether they will be left in the cells all night; and, if so, whether clean cells will be provided for them, and this class of prisoners kept apart from the other ordinary night charges?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The instructions given to the police as to carrying out the provisions of the 11th section of the Prevention of Crime Act are confidential and cannot be laid on the Table. The duty of a constable making an arrest in this case is to take the person forthwith before the nearest available Justice, who is to inquire into the circumstances of the case, and may either discharge the person at once, or, by committal or bail, secure his appearance before a
  490
  summary Court, where the matter will be adjudicated upon. The persons so arrested will be dealt with in the ordinary way in which persons arrested in the Dublin Police District are dealt with. If they have to be detained the cells should certainly be clean; and I think it very reasonable that they should not be locked up with the other prisoners, if it can possibly be avoided.
  MR. SEXTON, in reference to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that persons arrested in this way are to be treated like any other prisoner taken into custody in the Dublin police district, wished to ask whether that meant that the Court of Summary Jurisdiction should deal with their cases the next day in conformity with the ordinary practice in Dublin; or whether they could be detained in custody for seven days?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I gather from the telegram I have received from Dublin to-day that the meaning indicated by the hon. Gentleman in the first part of his Question is correct?
  MR. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman states that prisoners will be taken before the nearest available Justice. Does that include the Lord Mayor, who is a Justice of the City of Dublin?
  [No reply was given.]

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION— COURT VALUERS.
  MR. CALLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the communications which passed between the Irish Executive and the Land Commission with respect to the appointment of Court Valuers were verbal or in writing; whether, in stating that the Court Valuers "were chosen by the Land Commission on their own responsibility, and that the Government did not interfere," he intended to convey the impression that the Land Commissioners were alike responsible for the policy of appointing, as well as the selection, of Court Valuers; and, whether he can inform the House by whom the advisability of appointing Court Valuers was first suggested, by the Irish Executive or the Land Commission?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The communications which passed between the Irish

  491
  Executive and the Land Commission with respect to the appointment of official valuers were both verbal and in writing. I did not intend to convey that the Land Commissioners, who are solely responsible for the selection of the valuers, were responsible for the policy of appointing them. The policy of any such change in the administration of the Act, in my opinion, rests with the Government, who are bound, however, to consult carefully the opinion of the Land Commissioners. It is very difficult to say from whom the first suggestion of appointing valuers came; but, in the shape in which they were ultimately appointed, the recommendation came from the Land Commission.
  MR. CALLAN: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether it is a fact that the Land Commissioners were at first opposed to the appointments; but that they were ultimately overcome by the Government?
  MR. TREVELYAN: No, Sir. That certainly is not an accurate statement of the case.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)— UNDEFENDED PRISONERS.
  MR. BIGGARasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether Messrs. Devine and Poole, committed for trial on a charge of murder in Dublin, on Wednesday, had neither counsel nor attorney to defend them before the magistrate; and, whether they are without sufficient means adequately to fee counsel for their trial before the Commission next week; and, if so, will he engage that the reasonable fees of solicitor and counsel shall be paid?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, these two persons do not appear to have been professionally represented, although Mr. Byrne, a solicitor, appeared for the other accused persons. I do not know whether or not they are without sufficient means adequately to fee counsel for their trial; but, in any case, the Attorney General for Ireland is absolutely without any authority whatever to direct payment of any fee to a prisoner's counsel or solicitor in any case; and, therefore, it is not in my power to give any engagement in the matter, unless I engage to pay the fees out of my own pocket.

  THE ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE— CEREMONY OF OPENING.
  MR. CARINGTONasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is the fact, as stated, that nine hundred tickets have been reserved for distinguished personages to witness the opening of the Now Law Courts; whether it is true that only two hundred and fifty of these tickets have been given to Members of both Houses of the Legislature; whether he will be kind enough to inform the House from what section of the community these other six hundred and fifty distinguished personages are drawn; and, upon what principle the selection was made?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I should have thought the hon. Member might have trusted me to perform this somewhat delicate and not very agreeable duty without too curious inquiry. As, however, he has questioned me about it, I will explain that I have endeavoured, as I believe the Bar would desire, to gather together the most distinguished men of all the various Professions and Bodies in the Metropolis. I find that, after accounting for the places allotted to the Bar, to the 150 Members of this House, and the 50 places to the Lords and their ladies, I have only 550 places at my disposal, and they have been allotted as follows:—To Foreign Ministers and Members of the Corps Diplomatique and their ladies, 50; to Her Majesty's Minister and ex-Ministers and their ladies, 60; to ex-Judges, Privy Councillors, and their ladies, 50; to distinguished Naval and Military officers and to the permanent Heads of the Civil Service, 160; to the Corporation of London, 80; to the Metropolitan Board, 17; to eminent men in Science, Literature, and Art, to the clergy, to distinguished engineers, architects, and actors, 150.

  STATE OF IRELAND—RECENT INFLAMMATORY SPEECHES—MR. DAVITT, MR. HEALY, MR. W. REDMOND.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Will he lay upon the Table a Copy of the Government Shorthand Writers' Notes of the speeches of Mr. Davitt, Mr. Healy, and Mr. W. Redmond, in reference to which the Government propose to take action?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I cannot undertake to do this. The evidence on which the Government will proceed will be produced in due course in the Court of Law.

  IRELAND—INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES— APPOINTMENT OF A ROYAL COMMISSION.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in accordance with the Memorial presented to him, signed by fifty-nine Members representing Irish constituencies, asking him to consent to a Motion for an humble Address to Her Majesty praying for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the industrial resources of Ireland, he will recommend the appointment of such a Commission?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, the Prime Minister was in course of communication with the Cabinet on the subject.

  WAYS AND MEANS—INLAND REVENUE —HOUSE TAX ON UNLET HOUSES.
  MR. ROUNDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is aware that there are throughout the East of England many farm-houses either unoccupied owing to the farm being unlet, or only so far occupied as to prevent them from falling into disrepair; and, whether he would be prepared to consider such cases with a view to an equitable mitigation of the incidence of the house tax on such tenements, having regard to the profitless condition into which both farms and houses in these cases have been unfortunately reduced?
  MR. COURTNEY (for Mr. GLADSTONE), in reply, said, no doubt there were such cases. He was not prepared to introduce changes into the present law, which was sufficiently wide to cover such cases; but any special case of hardship should be submitted to the District Commissioners of Taxes, who would, no doubt, take it into their consideration.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—STANDING COMMITTEES— ACCOMMODATION.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEgave Notice that on Monday he would ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, during the Recess, he would take the necessary measures to provide ample
  494
  accommodation for the two Grand Committees which are to consist of not more than 80, and not less than 60, Members each, and also proper accommodation for Members of that House attending the said Committees not being Members of the same; also sufficient accommodation for the reporters and accommodation for counsel, solicitors, witnesses, and others in attendance; and also suitable accommodation for the general public?
  MR. SHAWLEFEVREsaid, he would reply now. He had inquired into the matter, and had made arrangements by which he believed that two rooms would be available for the purpose and suitable for the Grand Committees. [Cries of "Where?"]
  In reply to Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL and Mr. RAIKES,
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that one of the two rooms of the Court of Appeal, which was given up by the House of Lords last year, would be used for the meetings of the Grand Committees, and another room would be formed by throwing a small Committee Room into a larger one.

  EGYPT (THE EXPEDITIONARY FORCE) —THE LATE REVIEW IN ST. JAMES'S PARK—THE 4TH ROYAL IRISH DRAGOONS.
  MR. CALLANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, Whether it is a fact that Colonel Shaw Hellier, in command of the 4th Royal Irish Dragoon Guards, allowed his men, on the day of the Review, to be left without any sort of refreshment from the time they left Brighton until they returned?
  SIR AETHUR HAYTER: Sir, the officers commanding corps attending the Review were instructed to make arrangements for providing their men with a meal, and the localities were specified. The Quartermaster General, on going-round by desire of His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, was informed by the officer commanding the 4th Dragoon Guards that his arrangements were made, and the contractor with whom he had contracted for a substantial meal would arrive in a few minutes. The contractor states that, owing to the stoppage of the traffic and the crowd at Westminster, he could not reach his station till after the troops had left. He has not been paid, and the

  495
  men have been credited with the special allowance granted for the meal. This was the only case of failure in supplying the troops.

  PARLIAMENT—THE PROROGATION.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I beg to ask the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India, Whether he will inform the House, in the absence of the Prime Minister, what is likely to happen in case all the Amendments on the New Rules are got through to-night—I mean, in the way of Prorogation, or anything of that kind?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: In the happy contingency referred to by the noble Lord we should propose to adjourn till to-morrow. A formal Notice to that effect is not necessary. We shall not propose in any case the House should sit to-morrow for Business; but if the Rules are disposed of to-night, the House would sit to-morrow for the purpose of being prorogued.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Is it understood that, if the House should meet to-morrow for Prorogation, no other Business will be taken at all?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The House will meet, I believe, at the usual hour—4 o'clock—and, of course, Business could be proceeded with until the time of Prorogation arrives.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT—EMPLOYMENT OF ROYAL MARINES.
  MR. PARNELL: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—although, perhaps, the Question should be addressed to the Secretary of State for War—Whether it is true that any application has been made to the Marines to volunteer for police duty in Ireland; and, if so, whether he can inform the House what class of police duties those Marines are to be employed upon; and, whether they will have the execution of the Curfew Clauses of the Prevention of Crime Act?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is true that volunteers have been called from the Marines to assist the police in Ireland; but I cannot at present give any further information on the subject. Care will be taken to guard against any mistakes which might occur from want of local knowledge or experience. There are no
  496
  people in Ireland on whom such mistakes would fall more severely than upon the Executive Government.
  MR. PARNELL: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary whether he can inform the House whether those Marines are to be employed on protection duty or as constables-in-aid of the civic force?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I must decline to give particulars, except so far as to say that arrangements will be made among the police and their new colleagues for the purpose of affording, as far as possible, assistance to the police in carrying out their duty, and that all the duty that can possibly be called protective duty shall be intrusted to the new force.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS— DEVONPORT.
  MR. STANSFELD, who had on the Paper the following Notice of Motion:—
  "Address for Copies of Correspondence between the Town Council of Devonport and the Home Secretary (Right honourable Mr. Bruce), in October 1871, concerning his (Mr. Bruce's) statements to his constituents in Renfrewshire as to the immoral condition of Devonport prior to the passing of the Contagious Diseases Acts, and the alleged moral improvements effected by those Acts; together with the Report of the Town Council on the subject adopted in February 1872, after a Committee of their body had examined the evidence on the subject produced before the Royal Commission; and, of the Report of the Devonport Town Council, adopted on the 12th day of October 1882, after a similar examination of the evidence of Inspector Anniss and Chief Constable Lynn before the late Select Committee of the House on the Contagious Diseases Acts,"
  asked the Home Secretary, Whether he could give any information on the subject?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that on inquiry he had found that none of the Papers referred to were in the Home Office.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—THE "MERLIN" LODGE OF ODDFELLOWS.
  MR. FIRTH (for Mr. CARBUTT)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will, in the interests of members of friendly societies generally, state the precise grounds upon which the Director of Public Prosecutions based his inability to further intervene on behalf of the "Merlin" Lodge of Odd fellows, Risca, Monmouth, in their proceedings against their late se-

  497
  cretary for withholding a certain balance of moneys alleged to be due to the said lodge?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, be bad been informed by the Director of Public Prosecutions that be had had a consultation on the subject with Mr. Poland, and they were of opinion that there were no sufficient materials for a prosecution.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE VACANT JUDGESHIP.
  MR. REDMONDasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he could give any information to the House as to how the vacancy which still existed on the Irish Bench would be filled up? The question was one of considerable interest to Ireland.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON), in reply, said, he was unable to satisfy the inquiry of the hon. Gentleman, as the place was not in his gift; it was not a part of his patronage.
  MR. REDMONDgave Notice that on Monday he should repeat the Question, in the hope that, in the meantime, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would seek some information on the subject.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that it was a Government question, and suggested that the Question should be put to the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

  BOUNDARY (IRELAND) COMMISSIONERS —THE REPORT.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Report of the Boundary (Ireland) Commissioners has yet been published; if not, will the Government expedite its publication; and, when can honourable Members expect to have it circulated?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Report referred to was published on the 4th of July last. The hon. Member can get a copy if be applies for it at the Office for the sale of Parliamentary Papers in the House.

  CRIME (IRELAND)—REPORTED MURDER IN COUNTY KERRY.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether there was any truth in
  498
  the telegram that had appeared to-day that another murder had been committed in County Kerry?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I think the hon. Member refers to an unhappy affair which occurred near Castleisland. I have a telegram which states that an agent was walking along a road accompanied by two policemen, when they were fired at, and one of the policemen was severely wounded in the neck. The other policeman fired at the assailant in the dark, and it is not known whether the shot took effect. The agent was not injured.

MOTION.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION (VALUERS)—RESOLUTION.
  MR. TREVELYAN MR. TREVELYAN moved—
  "That there he laid before the House, a Copy of Letter, dated the 19th day of October 1882, from the Irish Land Commissioners to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, dealing with the question of the Valuers recently attached to each Sub-Commission."
  The right hon. Gentleman explained that this was the Correspondence from which he quoted in the late debate.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had got the permission of the Land Commissioners, which he understood had previously been refused, for the presentation of this letter to the House?
  MR. TREVELYANreplied that he had not got their permission; but after the course he had taken for the purpose of explaining their conduct, he thought that permission need not be asked.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 153; Noes 14: Majority 139.—(Div. List, No. 405.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 416.]

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE.
    II. STANDING COMMITTEES.

      RESOLUTION 2 (NOMINATION BY COMMITTEE OF SELECTION).
      [THIRTY-FOURTH NIGHT.]
      Further Consideration of the New Rules of Procedure resumed.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That the said Standing Committees do consist of not less than sixty, nor more than eighty, Members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, who shall have regard to the classes of Bills committed to such Committees, to the composition of the House, and to the qualifications of the Members selected; and shall have power to add and discharge Members from time to time, provided the number of eighty be not exceeded."—(Mr. Dodson.)
      Amendment made in line 1, by inserting, after the word "That," the words "each of."—(Mr. Dodson.)
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, in rising to move, in line 1, to leave out from the words "consist of," to the end of the Question, in. order to add the words—
      "Forty Members, who shall be elected by the whole House by ballot in manner hereinafter prescribed:—1. Mr. Speaker shall prescribe a day during the sitting of the House, of which not less than one week's notice shall be given, at which the election of any Standing Committee ordered by the House shall take place. 2. The time of election shall be on the day so prescribed between the hours of four and six p.m. 3. Each Member shall have the right of voting for one Member only of such Standing Committee 4. The vote of each Member shall be given by his delivering personally to an officer appointed by the Speaker to receive the votes a paper containing his own name and the name of the person voted for. 5. The votes so given shall be cast up under the direction of Mr. Speaker, and the forty Members who have received the greatest number of votes shall be declared elected as Members of the said Standing Committee. 6. Where two or more Members shall have received an equal number of votes, Mr. Speaker, if it be necessary, shall give a casting vote to so many of such Members as shall be required to make up the number of the said Committee. 7. If less than forty Members be voted for, Mr. Speaker shall appoint another day, of which not less than three days' notice shall be given, on which the supplementary number of Members required for the said Committee shall be elected in manner aforesaid,"
      said, he did not know whether it was worth his while to move his Amendment in the absence of the Prime Minister, because he doubted whether the right hon. Gentleman's Colleagues then present on the Ministerial Bench had power to deal with it. No doubt, they had had their answers dictated to them during the morning, and they probably had not any power to deviate from them. He objected to the Grand Committees being appointed by the Committee of Selection, which, from its
      500
      constitution, was not likely to make appointments which would give satisfaction to all Parties. The Committee of Selection consisted of three Members from the Conservative, and three Members from the Liberal side of the House—namely, Sir John Mowbray, Mr. Cubitt, and Mr. Orr Ewing; and Mr. Whitbread, Sir Charles Forster, and Mr. Mitchell Henry. He believed the only Member on the Committee who would command the confidence of every independent Member of the House was the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread). For his part, he could not feel an exaggerated amount of confidence in the hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forster), whom he was glad to see in his place, because he believed he was attached by too strong ties to the Front Bench behind which he sat. The same remark he would apply to the three Conservative Members of the Committee, who were also penetrated with what he might call an exaggerated idea of the importance of the views of the right hon. Gentlemen who adorned the Front Opposition Bench, and who would be extremely unlikely to place a proper value on the views of hon. Members who sat below the Gangway on the Opposition side. Nor would he feel much confidence in the selections of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry). At present the House was without any information as to the mode in which the Committee of Selection performed their duties, and he hoped that the hon. Member for Walsall would enlighten the House on that point. If the very important duty of nominating the Standing Committees were to be intrusted to the Committee of Selection, it would be necessary very seriously to consider the position of the Committee next Session. Select Committees, when very large, did not get through their Business very well. The Railway Rates Committee, which was composed of 27 Members, was an example of that. He held that a Standing Committee of 40 Members elected by the House would be able to discharge the duties intrusted to it satisfactorily. The Liberal Party, he thought, would probably prefer to have in its own hands the nomination of its Representatives on a Standing Committee on an important subject—for example, Criminal Law—instead of leaving the matter in the hands of a Com-

      501
      mittee of Selection, which did not represent any Party. By his plan, each Party in the House would be represented proportionately. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) had said that on these Standing Committees Parties should be represented according to their strength in the House. With that he cordially agreed; but he failed to see how a Committee of Selection could satisfactorily procure that result. According to his scheme, every Party would have a right to that representation to which its numbers entitled it. For example, in a House of 400 Members, containing 200 Liberals, 150 Conservatives, and 50 Irish Members, the Liberals would have a right to have 20 Members elected by themselves on a Standing Committee, the Conservatives would have a right to have 15, and the Irish Members would have a right to have five. The different Parties could settle beforehand the Members whom they thought ought to serve on a Committee. The service of independent Members on Standing Committees ought not to be a matter settled exclusively by a Committee of Selection, for such Committees often put independent Members with special knowledge aside in order to secure the services of official or ex-official Gentlemen. Scandal had more than once been caused by the present mode of nominating Committees. For example, on the Railway Pates Committee there were seven Railway Directors nominated by the two Whips. As the formation of that Committee amounted practically to an assignment of some of the Railway Companies, these Directors were placed in the position of judges in their own case. There was another objection to the proposal to allow Grand Committees to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. Select Committees nominated by that Committee went through the clauses of a Bill, and afterwards those very clauses could be considered and revised in Committee of the Whole House. In the case of Standing Committees, however, that would not be so; and, therefore, it was very necessary that they should be nominated in such a way as would give general satisfaction to the House. If the proposal of the Government were not changed, a very serious conflict would take place next Session about the composition of the Committee of Selection. At this advanced period of the
      502
      Session he did not consider it necessary to enter upon any further explanation of the views he held on this subject; but in the interest of private and independent Members he pressed his Amendment upon the consideration of the House.
      Amendment proposed,
      In line 1, to leave out from the words "consist of," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "forty Members who shall be elected by the whole House by ballot in manner hereinafter prescribed:—

      1. Mr. Speaker shall prescribe a day during the sitting of the House of which not loss than one week's notice shall be given at which the election of any Standing Committee ordered by the House shall take place;

      2. The time of election shall be on the day so prescribed between the hours of four and six p.m.;

      3. Each Member shall have the right of voting for one Member only of such Standing Committee;

      4. The vote of each Member shall be given by his delivering personally to an officer appointed by the Speaker to receive the votes a paper containing his own name and the name of the person voted for;

      5. The votes so given shall be cast up under the direction of Mr. Speaker, and the forty Members who have received the greatest number of votes shall be declared elected as Members of the said Standing Committee;

      6. Where two or more Members shall have received an equal number of votes, Mr. Speaker, if it be necessary, shall give a casting vote to so many of such Members as shall be required to make up the number of the said Committee;

      7. If less than forty Members be voted for, Mr. Speaker shall appoint another day, of which not less than three days' notice shall be given, on which the supplementary number of Members required for the said Committee shall be elected in manner aforesaid,"—(Lord Randolph Churchill,)

      —instead thereof.
      Question proposed, "That the words 'not less than' stand part of the Question."
      MR. WHITBREADsaid, that, after the pointed way in which he had been alluded to by the noble Lord, he desired to offer a few observations, so as to clear the ground before they entered upon the discussion as to the best mode of nominating Grand Committees. The noble Lord had mixed up two subjects which were essentially different—namely, the appointment of Select Committees by the House and the appointment of Select Committees by the Committee of Selection. If Select Committees appointed by the House often contained rather a large proportion of official or

      503
      ex-official Members, the reason was that the Members interested in the questions to be referred to the Committees were generally extremely anxious to have upon those Committees the Gentlemen of the greatest experience and weight in the House. That was why the same names were so often found among the Members of Committees appointed by the House. In the case of Committees appointed by the Committee of Selection, the practice to which he had referred was not so prevalent. He congratulated the noble Lord upon the fact that he and the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had made up thir minds as to which way the wind blew. A short time back the noble Lord told the House that the Members of a Committee of Selection were not sufficiently Party men. A few moments afterwards the hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Members were nominees of the two Front Benches. It would have been as reasonable for the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that a lawyer when he took his seat upon the Bench was a nominee of the Crown. There was nothing so terrible to him about being a nominee of the Front Bench, if he had been one. But if both Front Benches were to combine to interfere with the free and independent action of the Committee of Selection, he had no doubt that the House generally would stand by its Committee. The Committee of Selection was composed of six Gentlemen chosen from different parts of the House, and Party feeling was excluded. The right hon. Baronet (Sir John Mowbray), who presided over that Committee, had been an opponent of the Liberal Party for a vast number of years; but he could pledge himself that he never saw the slightest taint of Party spirit in the discharge of the right hon. Baronet's duties. It was clear that duties of the kind confided to it could not be performed by that Committee if partizanship entered it. The noble Lord must have forgotten that when Members were appointed by the House with a distinct commission and a distinct charge, they met with a loyal determination to do their duty. The noble Lord proposed that the different sections of the House should combine to appoint their proper quota. But how were those sections to be found? How would they guard against having an undue propor-
      504
      tion of those dreadful people, the Railway Directors? They might have too many Railway Directors or lawyers, or even possibly brewers. The noble Lord said that the task of the Committee of Selection was an invidious one. He agreed in that with the noble Lord. No doubt the questions they had to deal with were very delicate, and the number of threads to be woven so great that they threatened entanglement every moment. The task was of a sort which no one would desire for himself. It brought no laurels with success, and failure would be attended with disgrace. But, though he never minimized the difficulties of the task, there were considerations on the other side. The House itself recognized the difficulties of the task, and would give a generous interpretation to what was done by the Committee. It seemed to be one of the happy fruits of Parliamentary Government in England that they could draw upon a large store of patriotism, not of a brilliant kind, but of a homely order, and not less worthy in the end.
      MR. RAIKESsaid, that his hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) had well and justly vindicated the character of the Committee of Selection, and he was sure the House would agree with all his hon. Friend had said with regard to that body. But the hon. Gentleman had not taken quite so wide a view of the question raised by the Amendment as he might have done. Because the noble Lord had come forward with an alternative plan, he opened the door to the consideration of various alternative plans which the hon. Gentleman had not referred to. For instance, Standing Committees might be proposed upon the Motion of an individual Member in the way that Select Committees on public questions were formed, or they might be constituted by comparing particular Members who took a special interest in particular questions, or represented constituencies which did, and wore, anxious to give their services in the Committees. Therefore, it was not merely a question between the proposal of the Government and the Amendment of his noble Friend; the question was, whether the House would do well to consider whether either of these proposals contained the best solution of a very difficult and perplexing question. One alter-

      505
      native he should be anxious to dismiss at once—namely, that any of these Committees should be formed on the initiative of an individual Member; which, of course, meant an arrangement between the Government and some private Member. He had had some experience, and he believed that of all the bad ways which could be conceived, the very worst was that arrived at by the Secretary to the Treasury on the one side, and the ex-Secretary to the Treasury on the other, proposing a list of Members. Of Hybrid Committees, some Members of which were appointed by the Committee of Selection and others by the House, he was bound to say that while the Committee of Selection always appeared to choose the very best Members available, these were supplemented by Gentlemen suggested on one side or the other whom it was more desirable to keep out of the Committee. Reference had been made to the Railway Committee of the year before last. He had not at that time the honour of a seat in the House; but he saw the list of that Committee with feelings of astonishment, and feared that the result of their deliberations would not be satisfactory. The composition of that Committee could barely have commended itself to the House or the country, although, thanks to the Committee of Selection, or for some other reason, the undesirable elements were neutralized, and the result was better than might have been expected. It seemed to him, if the Committee of Selection had the sole right to arrange the composition of the Grand Committees, that it would probably place nearly all the lawyers in the House on legal Committees, and would have to risk the constant absence of lawyers in practice, while the work would be done by men less eminent in their Profession. And in the same way with regard to trade, it would be found that the great merchants would usually be unable to attend. If, however, the plan were adopted of allowing Members to volunteer their services, much valuable assistance would be obtained. An hon. Member, for instance, representing a manufacturing borough, might not be himself a manufacturer; but, being necessarily in close communication with great manufacturers, he would be able to render better services to the Committee than men who were too busy to attend, or who had something else to occupy them.
      506
      These were some of the difficulties of dealing with this question. The Government proposal, though it was susceptible of much improvement, would, he hoped, succeed. At any rate, it was the most practical of the proposals before the House. It should be borne in mind that, like the rest of their scheme, it was purely experimental, and that the House did not bind itself not to reconsider the whole subject, if the arrangement was found not to work out for the best interests of the country.
      SIR CHARLES FORSTERsaid, it was not his intention to enter into a vindication of the Committee of Selection after the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread); and he was content, indeed, to leave to the judgment of the House the manner in which it performed its duties. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), however, had done him the honour to refer to him, and he desired to say a few words on the remarks he had made. The noble Lord said on Monday last that he was not a fair Representative of the advanced views of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) and his Home Rule Friends; and only that evening he said he was connected by such peculiar ties with the Treasury Bench that he should have no confidence in any decision he might come to. In reply to those remarks, he could tell the noble Lord he denied he was subject to any influence that would prevent him doing his duty. The noble Lord was a young Member of the House, and had yet to learn, perhaps, that the first duty of Members of the Committee of Selection was not to this Bench nor to that Bench. It was not to Party; it was to the House itself. The one consideration that influenced that Committee was to appoint Committees the best qualified for the work which they had to perform.
      MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that great practical difficulties were involved in the proposal of the noble Lord. A proposal that altogether failed to maintain the relative strength of Parties on the Committee was not likely to result in an equitable selection.
      COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he was bound to protest against the remark of the noble Lord that the composition of the Select Committee on Railways amounted to a public scandal. He was not a

      507
      Member of that Committee; but be did not think it right that such a statement should go forth to the country unchallenged. In his (Colonel Makins') opinion, if several Railway Directors bad not been on that Committee, and if, so to speak, the incriminated parties bad not been represented, the whole object of the Committee would have been frustrated. As this was a difficult question, perhaps it would be better to give the plan of the Government a trial than to attempt to elaborate a plan which would give all sections of the House a voice in the constitution of the Committees.
      MR. DODSONsaid, he could assure the House that the Government cordially concurred in the view which had been expressed by the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes); they recognized that this was an experiment, which they asked the House to try. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had, in a clear and interesting manner, proposed an ingenious and elaborate scheme, the merits of which he would abstain from discussing only because he gathered that the noble Lord was not inclined to press it at present. He could assure the House that the Government had proposed this particular scheme for the appointment of these Committees because the machinery was one which the House was fully acquainted with, and that the Committee of Selection were quite competent to perform the duties which would be placed upon them. He had never heard of any complaint against the Committee of Selection.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: They only selected Private Committees.
      MR. DODSON: They did very much more than that. They selected Members for the Hybrid Committees, and were not unfrequently requested to add Members on other Committees. He believed that, however much Members might be at times partizans when they were selected to act in a quasi- judicial capacity, they, like most of their countrymen, subordinated their partizanship and performed their duties well and efficiently. As, however, he gathered that it was not the desire of the noble Lord to press his Amendment, he would not detain the House any longer.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, that, when he first read the plan of the noble Lord, he
      508
      thought it a great improvement on that of the Government, and his opinion had not been altered by what he bad now heard. The condemnation by the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) of the plan pursued in the constitution of Select Committees was a healthy contribution to the formation of public opinion. Experience did not seem to dim the original freshness of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) if he supposed the House would support the Committee of Selection against the two Front Benches. The Government had been unhappy in their choice of a number in the constitution of a Grand Committee; it was too large for a Committee and toe small for a Parliament. But the noble Lord had made a happier choice, for 40 was a quorum of the House; and if that number was large enough for the transaction of the Business of the House, surely it ought to be large enough for a Committee. Then it was better that the whole House should elect a Committee than that it should be constituted by a method which would give the Government power without responsibility. It seemed to be the policy of the Government to shift from itself the responsibility for public acts. The action of the Committee of Selection could not meet with universal approval, and he would rather that the Committees should be openly nominated by the Government on their own responsibility. The nomination of Committees so important as these would be should not be placed in the hands of six Gentlemen who were practically officials. The Irish Party was unrepresented amongst these six Gentlemen; and, indeed, there was only one of them who represented an Irish constituency. He considered that the scheme of election by ballot, as proposed by the noble Lord, would be far superior to the proposal of the Government, because it would enable hon. Members to vote for the men they thought best without fear or favour.
      SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he thought that the proposal of his noble Friend had been dismissed rather summarily by the President of the Local Government Board. He submitted that in a Committee of 40 they could carry on the Business before them in a better manner—in a more conversational mode—than if it consisted of 80 or more.

      509
      He had nothing to say against the Committee of Selection, and he had a high respect for the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread)—its moving spirit; but heretofore the principal duties of the Committee of Selection had been to select the Committees which examined Private Bills, as to which there was no Party question; and although they would, no doubt, endeavour to separate themselves from any political bias, yet a political element did enter into those Grand Committees, which could not enter into Private Bill Committees. The great point, however, now to be borne in mind was that, by the creation of those Grand Committees, they were really parting with a portion of their legislative functions. Instead of hon. Members themselves discussing as heretofore, everyone for his constituency, matters of detail connected with particular classes of Bills, they were practically delegating that duty to Grand Committees, and those Grand Committees they were not to elect themselves, but their election was to be intrusted to the Committee of Selection, so that, in fact, there would be in that case a double process of delegation. Therefore, he thought it would be better if the election were made by the House instead of by the Committee of Selection, because it should be remembered that they were not only parting with their rights, but relinquishing a portion of their duties. Although the proposal of the Government was an experimental one and confined merely to the next Session, by the end of which the House would probably be able to judge how the plan worked, he must protest against the relinquishment by the House and by Members of the House of any part of their duties. It was their duty to examine Bills in their details as well as in their principles, and they appeared to be giving up an important part of that duty by delegating to a very small portion of the House the choice of those who were to exercise functions which they were sent there to discharge, and which often seriously affected the best interests of their constituents.
      MR. RYLANDSsaid, he thought that if the proposal of the Government were one of a permanent character, there might have been great force in the ingenious speech of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph
      510
      Churchill); and in supporting their scheme he desired to guard himself by doing so entirely on the ground which the Government themselves had taken. They did not pretend that it was a perfectly thought out scheme, but rather regarded it as a somewhat crude and undigested proposal which they placed on the Table, in order that the House, by experience of its working in the next Session, might be able to determine whether it should be got rid of altogether, or should be further developed. He did not disguise that the scheme of the Government in its present shape was open to serious question. The duties of the Committee of Selection had hitherto been of a very formal and limited character, as compared with those now about to be cast upon them; and unless they exercised very great caution in selecting the Grand Committees, the decisions of the Grand Committees would not command the confidence of the House, and a great deal of the time of the House would be occupied on Report. He had every respect for the Committee of Selection; but he was afraid they were imposing on them an almost impossible task, and he believed that the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) thought so himself. While he looked on the scheme of the Government, therefore, with grave doubts, he still held their objects to be most desirable; and, if they could, by the division of labour, secure greater efficiency in the House as an instrument of legislation, a very great advantage would be gained for the country.
      MR. WARTONsaid, he was persuaded that the scheme of the Government would not work satisfactorily. It was quite clear that the Government could not have contemplated the operation of the 8th Resolution. Not having heard from them that even a day's notice was to be given, he would like some assurance from the Government that an adequate notice was contemplated.
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, in reference to the question of notice, he did not think any matter was likely to escape the vigilance of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Warton). He thought, however, the matter was deserving of consideration. With regard to the plan of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), he observed that it closely

      511
      resembled one proposed by Mr. Frederic Harrison in the January number, of The Nineteenth, Century. It was a plan which had a good deal to recommend it; and in the event of the proposal of the Government proving unsuccessful, he thought the plan of the noble Lord might then come in for consideration as an alternative plan. No doubt, the Government might have to consider the question of electing Members of the Committees, for they might find that five or six Members who were considered by the House the most eligible persons for serving upon a certain Committee had received all the votes, thereby obliging the Government to suggest that hon. Members should vote for such and such a man—a species of caucusing the House which they had no desire to practise. At the same time, the plan proposed by the Government had been resorted to with advantage by the House, even when matters of great delicacy were concerned. It was clear, however, that such an Amendment as that of the noble Lord, involving a large amount of consideration, could not, at what he hoped was the supreme hour of Parliament, be accepted.
      MR. GORSTsaid, he must dissent from the view of the Home Secretary, that the hour was a supreme one, because there remained on the Paper three Resolutions and a number of Amendments. He must confess he was astonished at the great contrast between the glowing speech of the Prime Minister, who introduced the Resolution, and the miserable manner in which the discussion was being carried on by a House rapidly dwindling away. He did not often compliment the Home Secretary; but he must, on that occasion, pay him the compliment of being the only Member of the Government who had given a reason for objecting to the Amendment—though he was bound to add that that reason was a very bad one. He was surprised at the extraordinary shyness exhibited by the right hon. and learned Gentleman at the idea of the Caucus; and he might point out to him that the present scheme secured to so small a number as 10 Members a Representative upon any Committee. Of course, if any Party in the House was so small that it could not muster more than six or five or four Members, it would not be able to do so. It did not follow that, because
      512
      hon. Members were qualified to serve on Select Committees, they would necessarily be fitted to serve on these Standing Committees. He was afraid that the great and grand view entertained of these Grand Committees by the Prime Minister when he first laid this scheme before the House was no longer believed in either by himself or his followers. The Grand Committees had lost all their grandeur, and were now nothing more than large Select Committees. Indeed, the Prime Minister seemed to think that it had been a mistake to keep the House together so long for the purpose of considering this part of his proposal, and he now asked them to adopt the proposal, as a sort of experiment, exactly in the form in which it was made by the Government. He was afraid that, when they met again next Session, they would have all their work to do over again.
      COLONEL NOLANpointed out that, whereas it was absolutely necessary to have impartial Members placed on Private Committees, it would be necessary to have interested Members placed on these large Standing Committees, which would be political bodies. He was afraid that the scheme of the Government would entirely change the manner of the election of Committees, and small Parties of the House would be entirely thrown over by the Committee of Selection.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. NORWOODsaid, he begged to move an Amendment, providing that, though the Committee of Selection should be charged with the selection of the Grand Committees, they should submit their nominations to the House for adoption by Motion in the usual way. He thought it was important that the House should not lose its control over the constitution of the Committees.
      Amendment proposed,
      In line 2, to leave out the word "nominated," and insert the words "selected and submitted by Motion to the House,"—(Mr. Norwood,)
      —instead thereof.
      Question proposed, "That the word 'nominated' stand part of the Question."
      THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the Government were unable to ac-

      513
      cept the Amendment. The effect would be that they would have interminable debates on the appointments to these Committees.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that, while sympathizing with the object the hon. Member had in view, he agreed with the noble Marquess that it would be impossible to accept the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONbegged to move, in line 2, after "Members," to insert "who shall not be capable of voting unless they have been present during the whole of the discussion."
      [The Amendment, not being seconded, could not be put.]
      Amendments made, in line 5, by leaving out the words "add and;" and in line 6, by leaving out from the word "time," to the end of the Question, and by adding the words—
      "And to appoint others in substitution for those so discharged. The Committee of Selection shall also have power to add not more than fifteen Members to a Standing Committee in respect of any Bill referred to it to serve on the Committee during the consideration of such Bill,"—(The Marquess of Hartington,)
      —instead thereof.
      Amendment proposed,
      At the end of the Question, to add the words "and such Members shall be relieved from attendance on Private Bill Committees, and on Select Committees, so long as they shall continue to servo on a Standing Committee."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
      THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONthought it would be much better to leave the question to the Committee of Selection.
      MR. WHITBREADsaid, he considered that great inconvenience would arise from a hard-and-fast line of this sort.
      MR. DODSONsaid, he thought they might leave it to the Committee of Selection to arrange that the duties of Members on different Committees would not clash with each other.
      MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsuggested that words should be inserted to carry out that idea.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Main Question, as amended, put.
      (2.) Resolved, That each of the said Standing Committees do consist of not less than sixty, nor more than eighty, Members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, who shall have regard to the classes of Bills committed to such Committees, to the composition of the House, and to the qualifications of the Members selected; and shall have power to discharge Members from time to time, and to appoint others in substitution for those so discharged. The Committee of Selection shall also have power to add not more than fifteen Members to a Standing Committee in respect of any Bill referred to it to serve on the Committee during the consideration of such Bill.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE.
  II. Standing Committees.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE.
    RESOLUTION 3 (APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN).
    (3.) Resolved, That the Committee of Selection shall nominate a Chairmen's Panel to consist of not less than four nor more than six Members, of whom three shall be a quorum; and the Chairmen's Panel shall appoint from among themselves the Chairman of each Standing Committee, and may change the Chairman so appointed from time to time.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE NEW EULES OF PROCEDURE.
  II. Standing Committees.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE NEW EULES OF PROCEDURE.

    RESOLUTION 4 (COMMITMENT AND REPORT OF BILLS).
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That all Bills which shall have been Committed to one of the said Standing Committees, shall, when reported to the House, be proceeded with as if they had been reported from a Committee of the whole House."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)
    MR. GIBSONsaid, that he had an Amendment on the Paper to add to the Resolution the following words:—
    "And may be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House if the House shall so direct."
    The object of the Amendment was to prevent the 11th Resolution applying to cases under the present Resolution, and to reserve the power of re-committing to a Committee of the Whole House Bills reported from a Standing Committee. But he would not press his Amendment if he was assured that the Government would not treat the 11th Resolution as applicable to Bills reported from a Standing Committee.
    MR. DODSONsaid, he would repeat what he had before stated—namely, that beyond all doubt, according to the law of the House, a Bill might be committed and re-committed any number of times; and it was the distinct intention of the Government, and the true interpretation of the present Rule, that a Member should be at liberty to move to re-commit a Bill as often as he chose.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, in order to obviate any doubt as to the meaning of the Rule, he would move to add the following Froviso:—
    "Provided, That the provisions of the Standing Order (Consideration of a Bill, as amended), shall not apply to a Bill reported to the House by a Standing Committee."
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the Question, to add the words "Provided, That the provisions of the Standing Order (Consideration of a Bill, as amended), shall not apply to a Bill reported to the House by a Standing- Committee."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, asked if the Speaker would state whether, in his opinion, Resolution 11 would conflict in any way with this Resolution?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the law of the House on this point had been correctly laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question, as amended, put.
    (4.) Resolved, That all Bills which shall have been committed to one of the said Standing Committees, shall, when reported to the House, be proceeded with as if they had been reported from a Committee of the whole House: Provided, That the provisions of the Standing Order (Consideration of a Bill, as amended), shall not apply to a Bill reported to the House by a Standing Committee

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE.
  II. Standing Committees.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE.

    RESOLUTION 5 (DURATION OF RESOLUTIONS).
    MR. DODSON MR. DODSON moved the 5th Resolution, to the effect—
    "That the four preceding Resolutions be Standing Orders of the House until the end of the next Session of Parliament."
    The four Resolutions in question were those relating to the Standing Committees.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the four preceding Resolutions be Standing Orders of the House until the end of the next Session of Parliament."—(Mr. Dodson.)
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he hoped that the Government would give the House an opportunity of considering the operation of the Standing Committees before the end of next Session. He thought they were entitled to a pledge from the Government that there would be a bonâ fide discussion on the subject some considerable time before the end of the Session.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that, as far as he could judge, there would be no indisposition on the part of the Government to give the House an opportunity of discussing the operation of these Committees. If, as he trusted, the present experiment was successful, the Government would probably ask the House to renew the experiment, and, perhaps, extend its operation. He had no hesitation whatever in saying that such a proposal ought to be brought forward in proper time, when the House could thoroughly discuss it. If, contrary to the expectations of the Government, the experiment should prove unsuccessful, then no proposal would be made to renew the Resolutions. He thought that, under those circumstances, it might be left to some independent Member to raise the question. If the experiment were a failure, it would, in his opinion, not be necessary to discuss it, for it would be abandoned. He could assure the House that if it were proposed to renew or extend the experiment steps would be taken at such a time that the House would have a full opportunity of discussing the matter.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that, while recognizing the conciliatory tone of the remarks of the noble Marquess, he thought that the House ought to have some more clear and precise information as to the time when this matter would be discussed next Session. The noble Lord said that if the Government thought the scheme a success, they would propose to renew it for the ensuing Session, and that due Notice would be given of such proposal. But the House was in the hands of the Government as to what constituted due Notice.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that his statement was that if a

    517
    proposal for renewal were made, it should be made in good time, so that the House could discuss it.
    LORD JOHN MANNEBSsaid, that they wanted to know what was "good time." They ought to have a definite assurance from the Government that a proposal to renew the Grand Committee scheme should not be made when half the House had disappeared. He hoped the Government would insert some words in the Resolution which would commit the Government to a definite undertaking that the proposition to renew the Resolution should be discussed in good time.
    MR. WHITBREADsaid, he thought it would be reasonable if the Government were to promise that the discussion on the renewal of the Grand Committee scheme should not be commenced later than some day in July.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, that these last Resolutions had received very rapid and summary consideration. He was opposed, however, to accepting the mere statement of the intentions of the Government; and, in order to give the Government an opportunity of stating their views, he would move to omit the words "end of the next Session of Parliament," and insert the words "on the 15th of July, 1883." That would be more clear and precise.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out the words "end of the next Session of Parliament," and insert the words "fifteenth of July, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three,"—(Mr. Gibson,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the Question."
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, it did not appear to him that the Amendment moved would necessarily effect the purpose, and might be extremely inconvenient, as it might have the effect of cutting short the proceedings of the Standing Committees. All it was possible for him to say was, that he would represent to the Prime Minister and his Colleagues the conciliatory manner in which the Resolutions had been received by the House, and that it was his opinion that the view of the House was that, if it was proposed to renew the Resolutions, either in their present or any other shape, it ought to
    518
    be done when the House was in a condition to fully and adequately discuss them; and he would make every effort in his power to secure that that should take place before the end of the month of July.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he thought the matter would be met best by inserting these words in the Resolution:—"Provided that the Motion for their renewal shall not be made later than the 15th July."
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, it was quite possible that the conciliatory spirit which had prevailed that night might not exist until the end of July next; indeed, it was quite possible the present Government might not then be in Office. However, he thought it was not worth while to prolong the discussion after what had been said by the noble Marquess, and he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
    MR. GIBSONasked leave to withdraw his Amendment. He did so on account of the conciliatory spirit in which the Government had received his suggestion, and in deference to the statement of the noble Marquess, that any attempt to renew the Resolution would be made before the third week in July.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question put.
    (5.) Resolved, That the four preceding Resolutions be Standing Orders of the House until the end of the next Session of Parliament.
    Standing Orders, as amended, to be printed.

QUESTIONS.

  SPAIN—INTERNATIONAL LAW—SURRENDER OF CUBAN REFUGEES.
  SIR H DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he had received a further telegram from Gibraltar, or if he had any information as to whether the ladies who accompanied General Maceo and his companions to Gibraltar were sent out of the territory by the police, or at their own request?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, he had received a telegram, in which it was stated that Constable Solomon had deposed in evidence that the wife and sister of Maceo begged to be allow-ed to remain in Gibraltar; that Chief Inspector Blair

  519
  did not know the relationship, and did not inquire who the women were.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked if an opportunity would be afforded to-morrow for answering the Question he had put down for Monday?
  [No answer was given to the Question.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Nino o'clock till To-morrow.

Preamble
Their Lordships met this day at Eleven of the clock for the despatch of Judicial Business only.
House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock, till To-morrow, Four o'clock.