Sitting of 20 August 1883

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [August 18] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Resolution [August 18] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Contempts of Court [Stamp Duty]*.
Ordered—First Reading—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation)*.
Second Reading—Merchant Shipping (Fishing Boats) [288].
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Epidemic and other Diseases Prevention* [277], and passed.
Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Third Reading—Municipal Corporations (Borough Constables)* [296], and passed.
Third Reading—Revenue and Friendly Societies* [269], and passed.
Withdrawn—Post Office (Protection) (re-comm.)* [298]; Crown Lands (re-comm.)* [198].

QUESTIONS.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE BELFAST CONSPIRACY TRIALS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, since, on the trial of James Smith and Patrick Donohoe and others, before Mr. Justice Harrison, at Belfast, the chief witness gave different evidence as to the relative culpability of the several parties from what he did at Tullyvin, county Cavan, before the magistrates, with the result that Smith and Donohoe got sentence of fifteen months' imprisonment, while the others got twelve months', which latter has now expired, the Lord Lieutenant will now remit the remainder of sentence passed on Smith and Donohoe?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I cannot enter into any question as to the merits of the evidence, and obviously it is no no part of my duty to do so. The case has been more than once carefully considered by the Lord Lieutenant, and he sees no reason to interfere with the sentences passsed.

  BOARD OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—THE ASSISTANT TEACHER OF ROSTREVOR NATIONAL SCHOOL.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether an epidemic of measles existed in Rostrevor for the six months ending in July last, and that the number of children attending school consequently fell off very much; whether he is aware that the salary of the assistant teacher has been stopped on the ground that the average attendance fell below seventy; and, whether, seeing that the decline of numbers was of an exceptional nature, and from causes beyond the control of the assistant teacher, he will order the salary to be paid?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, that in the March quarter measles prevailed, and the Commissioners allowed for the payment of an assistant, although the attendance had fallen off. With regard to the June quarter, the Commissioners informed him that they would make special inquiries into the matter, and if the result was satisfactory payments in full would be made.

  INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—THE SHANNON.
  MR. MOLLOYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the injury caused by the late heavy rains, and the flooding of the Shannon; if it be true that the sluicegates at Meelick and Lusmagh were not raised till much injury had been done; and, if he will arrange that in future orders shall be given to raise the sluicegates at all times when the water shall have risen, or is likely to rise, above a certain defined level, such as the summer level?
  MR. COURTNEY: The recent floods have been the first since the new works on the Shannon were complete; and I am glad to say that I am informed that the works came up to the expectations formed of them. It is true that some of the sluices were, through a misapprehension, opened a few hours later than was desirable; but it is not believed that this led to any appreciable damage, and it will not occur again, as a Code of Instructions has been prepared for the persons in charge, embodying, among other things, the suggestion contained in the final paragraph of the hon. Member's Question.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether any compensation would be made to the people whose crops were destroyed?
  MR. COURTNEY: I have stated that no appreciable damage was done.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I say there was great damage done.

  CROWN LANDS ACT—THE NEW BRIGHTON FORESHORE.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in the negotiations now going on regarding foreshore at New Brighton, regard will be had to the claims to the foreshore of the owners of property abutting thereon; and, whether there is any intention to convey to the Local Board any right of sub-letting?
  MR. COURTNEY: The neighbouring owners have as yet made no claim to any right over the New Brighton foreshore, and it may be assumed that they have none. The Local Board had, under the old lease, the power of subletting, though not of assigning. It
  1332
  may be matter for consideration whether the former should be continued to them under the new lease; but as the lease was, and should be, determinable at short notice, the power of under-letting was under sufficient control.

  PRISONS (IRELAND) ACT—VISITS TO PRISONERS.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why Mr. John Q. Regan, who is undergoing six months' hard labour under the Crimes Act for writing a threatening letter, was refused permission to receive the visit of Mr. Ridington on or about the 12th instant; whether Mr. Regan was convicted on the 7th of May; whether he is not entitled by law to receive a visit; and, whether the state of Mr. Regan's health renders his further detention dangerous to his life?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, Regan was convicted on the date mentioned, and would have been entitled to receive a visit on the 8th of this month if his conduct in prison had been good; but, owing to misconduct, he lost marks, and was not entitled to receive a visit when Mr. Ridington called. The state of his health is not such as to render further detention dangerous to his health. I have in my hand a joint certificate from the two medical officers of the prison, dated the 17th instant, in which they state that they have carefully examined the prisoner and found him in good health.
  MR. HARRINGTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the result of those marks will not be that, while he is in prison, Regan cannot receive a visit?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I do not know how long a time it will be during which he will be deprived of visits.
  MR. O'KELLY: What was the conduct for which the man was deprived of visits?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I got a telegram describing his offences to be eight or nine, principally disobeying orders and idleness in performing tasks.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can explain why the Governor of the prison informed Mr. Ridington, on the 10th August, that he could not give permission for a visit to Regan, because the time entitling him to a visit had not

  1333
  expired; and why the Governor had not then given any other reason?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I cannot know all those details. I answered the Question on the Paper and stated facts.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: But I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman on this question some days ago, and he promised to make inquiry.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I did make inquiry. These facts are the result.
  MR. HEALY: No; they are not.

  SEA AND COAST FISHERIES (IRELAND) —THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. If he can give a Return of the names of the Trustees to Aid Sea and Coast Fisheries, the dates of their election, and the number of their attendances at the meetings of the Board; could he say if it be a fact that any of them are resident in England, and consequently unable to attend to their duties as Trustees, and if the other Trustees have taken any steps to appoint residents in Ireland in their room; and, can he give the date of the scheme sanctioned by the Court of Chancery for the administration of this fund, as referred to in Trustees' letter to the Chief Secretary, dated 17th November 1882, page 2, and if a Copy of that scheme is in possession of the Chief Secretary, as one of the Trustees, or, if as such, he will obtain a Copy and lay it upon the Table; also date of the appointment of the present secretary?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have no objection to forward to the hon. Member a statement giving all the information he requires, except so far as the number of attendances is concerned. That, I presume, could also be stated without difficulty if any period were fixed. All the existing Trustees reside in Ireland. I do not include in this statement those ex officio Trustees whose duties in this House require their absence from Ireland. There are at present two vacancies on the Board, and two gentlemen are up for election at the next meeting.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that, as this matter was likely to be the subject of legislation next Session, he would wish to know whether the Return could be laid on the Table before the House separated?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, it was likely the matter would be the subject of legislation next Session; and he would see whether the request of the hon. Member could be complied with.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND) —CROWN SOLICITORSHIPS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What are the respective duties and salaries of Messrs. Matthew Anderson, Samuel L. Anderson, George Bolton, Alexander Murphy, and William Lane Joynt, Crown Solicitors for the City of Dublin; whether, formerly, Mr. Matthew Anderson singly discharged the duties of Crown Solicitor for the City of Dublin at a salary of £1,500; and, whether now, the amalgamated salaries of the five solicitors amount to nearly £5,000?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Only one of the gentlemen named—Mr. Matthew Anderson—is Crown Solicitor for Dublin. His salary is £600 a-year, with £500 for expenses. He is sometimes assisted by Mr. Bolton and Mr. Murphy in his ordinary duties; but this is a matter of arrangement between themselves, and involves no charge to the public. When Mr. Anderson is specially directed to conduct an investigation at the Police Courts without counsel, he is allowed an assistant, who is paid a fixed rate per diem. Mr. Bolton and Mr. Murphy have on some recent occasions acted as such assistants. Mr. Lane Joynt is Crown and Treasury Solicitor in Ireland. His duties are chiefly of a civil character, and his connection with criminal business relates only to prosecutions in the Queen's Bench. His salary is £1,200 a-year, with £800 for expenses. The late Mr. Kemmis formerly discharged the duties now divided between Messrs. M. Anderson and Joynt, and received a salary something higher than the united salaries and allowances of his successors. The other gentlemen named hold Crown Solicitorships in other parts of the country, wholly unconnected with the Dublin appointments—namely, Mr. S. L. Anderson, Kilkenny and Waterford; Mr. Bolton, Tipperary; and Mr. Murphy, Clare and Kerry.

  VACCINATION—COMMUNICATION OF DISEASES.
  MR. HOPWOODasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether

  1335
  the Scientific Committee to whom was referred the case of Dr. Cory and his inoculation of himself with syphilis in the course of vaccination have completed their examination; whether the fact that syphilis can be and is inoculated by vaccination was not well known previously; and, if any Report has been made, will he lay it upon the Table of the House?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL (for Sir CHARLES W. DILKE): The Committee to which was referred the case of Dr. Cory have completed their examination. It is the fact that an operation professing to be vaccination can be the means of conveying syphilis; and this fact was, principally from some foreign experiences, well known before Dr. Cory's experiment. It is not the fact, in general terms, that syphilis is inoculated by vaccination. Dr. Cory's experiment had for its object a better understanding of the conditions under which any such conveyance was possible. The Report of the Committee has been made, and will appear in the annual Report of the Medical Officer of the Board, which is presented to Parliament. That Report is now in preparation.
  MR. HEALY: IS it intended to reward Dr. Cory for the sacrifices he has undergone in pursuing these examinations?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: I am not aware that it is.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—DRAINAGE, &c— CERTIFICATES.
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Local Government Board, "Whether there is any rule under which any householder, or anyone purposing to buy or hire a house, can apply to the local sanitary authority, and for a reasonable fee obtain an inspection and certificate as to the sufficiency of the drainage and other sanitary arrangements; and, if there be no such rule, if he would consider the expediency of establishing such an arrangement with all sanitary authorities?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL (for Sir CHARLES W. DILKE): There is no rule under which a person can obtain from the sanitary authority of the district, on payment of a fee, a certificate as to the sufficiency of the drainage and other sanitary arrangements of a house; and
  1336
  the Board think that, as a general rule, it would not be desirable that sanitary authorities should undertake the responsibility of granting such certificates. The sanitary authorities and their officers should be on the watch to discover sanitary defects; and there would be some reason to fear that if such certificates as suggested were granted by the authority they might subsequently be hampered in their action by the fact of the certificates having been given. A certificate might be given without the knowledge of facts which might subsequently come to light, and in the case of old houses it is not always easy to ascertain accurately the facts. These certificates might also be used, although there might be a different condition of things after the examination was made. If, however, a local authority were to propose that the Medical Officer of Health and Inspector of Nuisances should jointly give such a certificate as proposed, on payment of a reasonable fee, the Board would not object to such an arrangement, by way of experiment, provided the duties of the officers were not thereby interfered with.

  PUBLIC PROCESSIONS AND CEREMONIES—VOLUNTEER BANDS.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to a report in the "Glasgow Evening Citizen," of August 11th, which states that a procession of Orangemen of the Grand Black Chapter, which marched through that city, was accompanied by a Renfrewshire Volunteer Band; and, if the report be true, whether he approves of a force aided from the Imperial Exchequer participating prominently in partizan demonstrations offensive to a large section of the population?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER (for the Marquess of HARTINGTON): In reply to the second Question of the hon. Member for Mallow, I have to say that such a proceeding on the part of a Volunteer band would be entirely contrary to the Volunteer Regulations, which state in paragraph 479—
  "That no body of Volunteers will in any ease take part in a public procession or ceremony without the special authority of the General Officer commanding the district."
  My noble Friend at once directed a tele-

  1337
  gram to be sent to the General Officer commanding the troops in North Britain, who addressed an inquiry to the commanding officers of the corps in question; and they, with one consent, assured him, in reply, that not one of their bands attended the Orange procession in question.

  IRELAND—THE KILDARE COUNTY INFIRMARY.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, "Whether it has come to his knowledge that dissatisfaction exists throughout the county Kildare regarding the management of the county infirmary, which is principally sustained by a grant of about £1,300 from the cesspayers; whether it is a fact that at the last March Presentment Sessions the cesspayers refused by ten votes to five to renew the grant; whether Judge Harrison, to whom the governors appealed at the Naas Assizes, decided that the ratepayers were within their right in refusing the presentment; whether at the May Presentment Sessions the cesspayers were overruled by the votes of nine magistrates, four of whom were governors of the infirmary, and the presentment again imposed upon the county; and, whether the ratepayers have any representatives on the Board of Governors, or have any detailed statement of accounts submitted to them?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Secretary of the Grand Jury of Kildare informs me that no widespread dissatisfaction with regard to the management of the county infirmary in question exists. Many of the ratepayers have gone to the expense involved in keeping it up. The hon. Member must know that this is not a matter over which the Government has control, the question being purely a local one. It is true that at the Presentment Sessions previous to the Spring Assizes the presentment was rejected, and that when the matter came before the Judge, Chief Justice Morris, be decided that it was not compulsorily. At the next Presentment Sessions it was passed on a division, eight magistrates and two cesspayers voting for it, and eight cesspayers against it. With regard to the last part of the Question, I understand that it is competent for a person to become a governor on the payment of three guineas a-year, and
  1338
  that there is a statement of accounts supplied to the ratepayers every half-year. The secretary of the infirmary submits vouchers at the Sessions if called on by the ratepayers to do so.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Is it not a fact that that presentment was carried by four magistrates who are also governors of the infirmary?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am not informed on that point.
  MR. O'BRIEN: I will renew the Question then; and I will also ask whether there is any tribunal before which the management of the infirmary may be tried?

  INDIA (MADRAS)—SPECIAL POLICE TAX.
  MR. MOLLOYasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he will inquire into the truth of certain statements in the "Madras Standard," dated June last, as to the method of levying a special Police Tax which has been imposed on the inhabitants of the town of Salem, in consequence of a riot which occurred there, viz., that—
  "The Tax is fixed in accordance to the will and caprice of a revenue officer, and that the collector simply confirms the assessment;"
  and, if this be a true statement, he will take steps to relieve these people from undue taxation?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The special police tax, to which the hon. Member for Queen's County refers, is levied on the inhabitants of Salem under Madras Act III., of 1882, which corresponds with the law in other parts of India. The Act provides that—
  "The magistrate of the district, after inquiry, if necessary, shall assess the proportion in which the amount is to he paid by the inhabitants, according to his judgment of their respective means."
  The collector of Salem is responsible to the Government of Madras for the manner in which he discharges the duties imposed upon him under the Act; and the Secretary of State sees no reason to interfere.

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS (WALES)—THE BEAUMARIS GRAMMAR SCHOOL.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDasked the Vice President of the Council, If the Endowed Schools Commissioners have

  1339
  abandoned their Scheme to regulate the Beaumaris Grammar School; and, if not, when they propose to make it public?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The scheme has been submitted by the Charity Commissioners to the Education Department for consideration; but we thought it desirable that it should be suspended, with other Welsh cases, until the Bill for Intermediate Education in Wales should have been considered by the House.

  FIJI—ADMINISTRATION OF ROTUMAH.
  SIR WILLIAM M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the fact that, in the Island of Rotumah, a Resident Commissioner is the sole representative of both the Civil and Judicial authority of the Crown; that he is invested with the functions of both prosecutor and judge; is able to pass any sentence short of death; and is supreme in both Civil and Criminal eases, there being no appeal from his decisions to the Supreme Court of Fiji; and, whether the person now holding the office possesses the age and experience necessary for the exercise of these extraordinary powers?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Rotumah is a very small Island, under 10,000 acres in extent, forming part of the Colony of Fiji, but distant several hundred miles from it. As only an exceedingly slender Revenue can be raised there, it has not been found possible to maintain any judicial officer in addition to the Resident Commissioner. The facts, therefore, as stated in the Question, are substantially correct; but all sentences of imprisonment exceeding 12 months, and all fines above £50, must be reported to the Governor of Fiji, together with the notes of evidence, and are reviewed by him, with the assistance of the Chief Justice and the Attorney General. Mr. Gordon, who now fills Office of Commissioner, was Clerk to the Lands Office, and Clerk to the Executive Council in Fiji; and there is no reason to doubt that, though young, he possesses the requisite qualities for the post. There have been no complaints made from the Island.

  EAST INDIA—CRIMINAL CODE (PROCEDURE) AMENDMENT (MR. ILBERT'S) BILL—REPORTS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE (for Mr. E. STANHOPE)asked the Under Secretary of State for India, When he proposes to make his promised statement giving, in a summary form, the views of the Local Governments in India upon the Criminal Jurisdiction Bill? The right hon. Gentleman further asked whether the hon. Gentleman contemplated bringing forward the Indian Financial Statement to-night; and, if so, at what hour?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The official replies of the Local Governments have not yet reached the India Office; but I believe the following may be taken to be a correct statement of the answers, so far as they have been received:—Bengal and Assam urge withdrawal of the Bill; Madras, Bombay, Punjab, North-West Provinces, Central Provinces are against the withdrawal; Coorg, Hyderabad, and Burmah have not yet sent in their Reports. I may add that we understand that various modifications of the Bill are suggested by the Local Governments.
  MR. ONSLOW: Has any one of the Local Governments approved the Bill as it stands?
  MR. J. K CROSS: I have given the best answer I can to the Question.
  MR. ONSLOW: Can the hon. Gentleman say from what officials the Reports came of which he has just read a summary?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: I have said that the official Reports from the Local Governments have not yet been received at the India Office. The summary I gave is official as far as I can give it; but is not official as coming from the India Office.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: And as to the Indian Financial Statement to-night?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Oh, I beg pardon. That is not on the Paper.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Yes; it is No. 14.
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Well, it will not be taken to-night.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I would ask, Sir, whether the course adopted in regard to the Indian Financial Statement is not without prece-

  1341
  dent? On Thursday the House understood from the right hon. Gentleman that it was to be taken on Monday. ["Order!"] I am asking a Question. On Saturday the Prime Minister, distinctly and without qualification, said it would be the second Order for to-day. That caused a great deal of inconvenience; but now, without any Notice whatever, it is put down as the 14th Order, which means that it will not come on at all to-night.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was not aware that there was any precedent in the matter, and he was not aware of any precedent for the House sitting for 70 hours in the third week of August; but that was the state of extremity to which the House was driven by pressure of Business. He regretted very much, for the convenience of the House, that under such pressure the accident had occurred by which the Indian Financial Statement appeared on the Paper for to-day. The hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that he (Mr. Gladstone) had stated the Indian Budget would be the second Order for to-day; but, at the same time, he said everything would be subject to the paramount consideration of Supply, and when they found it would be possible to close Committee of Supply on Sunday morning, and to discuss the remaining Votes on Report, it was felt that the discussion on Report would occupy some hours, and that they could not, in consequence, be sure of presenting the Indian Financial Statement at an hour which would be suitable and convenient. They had, therefore, come to the conclusion that it would be for the convenience of the House that the Indian Financial Statement should be postponed until Wednesday, the Appropriation Bill being the first Order.
  MR. ONSLOW: I would put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether, considering the state of public affairs, it is not a farce to take the Indian Financial Statement this year at all; whether it would not be better for the Under Secretary of State for India to publish some statement in the newspapers, and let there be no Indian Financial Statement this year.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not think we are so hard driven as that, though I admit we are hard driven.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—THE MANORHAMILTON BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that Dr. Nash, J.P., a pensioner of the Manorhamilton Union, acts as an ex-officio guardian on that Board; whether, under the twenty-second section of the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth Victoria, chapter eighty-three, it is enacted that no paid officer engaged in the administration of the law for the relief of the poor, or under the Medical Charities Act, and no person receiving any fixed salary or emoluments from the poor rates in any union, shall be capable of serving as a guardian in such union; and, if so, whether the Local Government Board will continue to permit Dr. Nash to act as a guardian on a Board from which he draws a pension, and under which he was formerly an official?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The facts are as stated. It is true, I have been told, that superannuation allowances are not classed as salary or emolument. There is no question that salary would disentitle him, and what are usually regarded as emoluments, such as fees and perquisites; but the Board is advised that the law does not interfere with the retention of such office in the ease of superannuation.
  MR. HEALY: Upon whose advice and authority is that law laid down; is it upon the advice of the Attorney General for Ireland?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I gather that that is the usual rule as regards Civil Servants. The Attorney General for Ireland was not consulted.
  MR. HEALY: I beg to give Notice that, on Report of the right hon. Gentleman's salary, I will raise this Question; and call attention to the way in which the pensioner of a Board in Ireland is allowed to sit on that Board and vote other people pensions.
  MR. O'KELLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state under what law this pensioner is allowed to sit?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is not under law, but under the interpretation of law.

  HARBOURS OF REFUGE—DOVER HARBOUR.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Secretary of State for the

  1343
  Home Department, If he will lay upon the Table of the House the Papers referred to (in C. 3,726) relating to Dover, excluding the Reports of the Committees and Commissions previously laid upon the Table of the House; if specific information can be given as to the number of acres of varying depths of water within the Harbour areas, and the length of the breakwater and arms forming the proposed Dover Harbour; and, Statement of the income to be expected, and the rate of interest which that income will provide, on the capital to be invested?
  MR. HIBBERT (for Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT), in reply, said, that his right hon. and learned Friend was unable to lay on the Table the Papers referred to until they were out of the hands of the Admiralty. Application had been made for them, and he did not think there would be any difficulty in obtaining the assent of the Admiralty to their being laid on the Table. There was no statement at the Home Office as to the number of acres within the harbour areas; but he was able to inform his hon. and gallant Friend that the length of the breakwater and arms forming the proposed Dover Harbour would require 10,000 lineal feet of new work. As to the third part of the Question, he had to refer his hon. and gallant Friend to the Treasury, as there was no information in the Home Office on the subject.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—NEW POST OFFICE IN ROSCOMMON.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Postmaster General, Whether he will consider the desirability of establishing a Post Office in Clashaganny, near Tulsk, county Roscommon?
  MR. FAWCETT, in reply, said, he was at present inquiring into this subject, and it would have his best attention.

  LUNATIC ASYLUMS—THE FATAL FIRE AT SOUTHALL.
  MR. FRESHFIELDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the fatal fire which took place a few days since in a private lunatic asylum at Southall; and, if he would consider whether it should be made one of the conditions of the grant of licences to
  1344
  such establishments that all necessary means and appliances should be provided and maintained and precautions taken for the prevention of fires, and for the escape of the inmates in such establishments?
  MR. HIBBERT (for Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT)said, in reply, his right hon. and learned Friend had drawn the attention of the Lunacy Commissioners to this unfortunate occurrence at Southall. He had no power himself to lay down any conditions as to the mode in which licences ought to be granted for these houses, the number of licences being determined by the Commissioners, and in some districts by the magistrates. The Commissioners said that their attention, when visiting these asylums, had been constantly directed to the necessity of precautions against fire and the means of escape, and they had frequently urged the adoption of additional means of protection against outbreaks of that kind. A great deal had of late been done in that direction. It had not hitherto been the practice to grant licences conditionally; but in examining premises which were proposed for a licence, the Commissioners stated that they never overlooked such alterations as were necessary for giving security against fire.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—THE COLLECTOR GENERAL OF RATES, DUBLIN.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Law Officers have yet decided, with regard to the prosecution of the Collector General for Dublin; and, when he expects to announce the decision of the Lord Lieutenant with reference to the Collector's retention in office?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The case of the Collector General of Dublin has been considered by the Law Officers, who have come to the conclusion that a prosecution could not be maintained against him under the circumstances. Their opinion, which has been delayed by pressure of work, has only now reached the Government; but it will, with all the facts of the case, receive the early and careful attention of His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant. I am not able to state with precision when the result will be announced; but we will try and have it before the end of the Session.

  IRISH AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS (ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND).
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has yet obtained the information which he promised to ask for in the beginning of the "Session as to the causes of the decrease of the employment of migratory Irish agricultural labourers in the north of England and south of Scotland, and has ascertained whether there are permanent causes of decrease in the demand for a class of labour previously much appreciated; and, whether the Irish labourers are likely still to be welcomed as an aid during half the year?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The English Local Government Board and the Scotch Board of Supervision were good enough to undertake the inquiries which I asked for in this matter. The greater part of the Reports, which are extremely numerous, only reached my Office on Saturday last, and I have not yet had an opportunity to look into them. I will do so during the Recess.

  SELF-GOVERNING COLONIES—POWER OF RAISING MILITARY AND NAVAL FORCES.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is understood that the Colonies having what is called responsible Government have the power to raise military and naval forces without reference to the Government in England; whether they can order armed sea-going vessels without such reference; and, whether the Colony of Queensland has actually done so?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The Colonies having a responsible Government are expected to provide for their own internal defence. They have in some cases—as Canada and the Cape—large Military Forces, and in the case of the Australian Colonies armed ships. The Colonies can order armed sea-going ships without special reference to Her Majesty's Government in each case. The Colony of Queensland includes the Islands within GO miles of the mainland; and, with the full approval of Here Majesty's Government, are providing efficient small vessels for the defence of the Colony.
  Mr. O'KELLY: Does Queensland include New Guinea?
  MR. GLADSTONEsignified a negative.

  PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS RILL— ASSUMPTION OF THE ROYAL ARMS,
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked Mr. Solicitor General, with reference to Clause 106 of the Patents for Inventions Bill, imposing a penalty not exceeding £20 upon the unauthorized assumption of the Royal Arms, Whether engravers and designers who produce, and tradesmen who, for loyalty and ornament, display the Royal Arms on trade labels, shop fronts, paper bags, and in other ways, but without any word or words implying that they make such assumption by authority, will be free from liability?
  THE SOLICITOS GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL): I have no hesitation in saying that persons displaying the Royal Arms under the circumstances mentioned would not render themselves liable under the clause.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—INSTRUCTION OF CATHOLIC CHILDREN IN WORKHOUSES.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, On what authority he stated that there was a Catholic monitress, or any Catholic official, to instruct the Workhouse children in Donegal; if he will give the name of the Catholic monitress, and say if the person in question is a pauper, aged eleven years; whether, if this child be the "Catholic monitress," it is the fact that, on an examination in second class last year by the National School Inspector, she failed to pass; whether she teaches catechism at the suggestion of Mr. M'Farlane, L.G.B. Inspector; and, if not, by whoso instructions she does so; if there is any difficulty in his ascertaining whether the Rev. H. M'Fadden, P.P., after his resignation as chaplain, is now paying a catechist out of his own pocket to instruct pauper children in the parish church; and, whether the spiritual destitution, which prevails in the Donegal Workhouse amongst the Catholic inmates, is such as would justify him, as President of the Local Government Board, in over-riding the authority of the guardians in order to provide a remedy?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The statement as to the employment of a monitress was made on the authority of the Clerk of the Union, and is confirmed by the Chairman of the Board of Guardians. It appears that for many years it has been the custom in the workhouse school, when the schoolmistress is a Protestant, as is now the case, that a senior pupil should act as monitress to hear the Roman Catholic children repeat their Catechism and teach it to the youngest. It is true that the girl who now acts in that capacity is not a senior pupil, being in her 12th year; but she was selected in preference to an older pupil in consequence of her exceptional proficiency in the Catechism, she having been complimented by the parish priest on her superior knowledge of the subject, and given a special prize. It has been the custom for the Roman Catholic chaplain himself to act as catechist, and that duty was partly the ground upon which an application was made for an increase to the chaplain's salary in 1868—a time when the number of Roman Catholic children in the workhouse was much greater than at present. For my own part, I regret, as the Local Government Board regrets, that the Guardians do not see fit to comply with the wishes of the parish priest, and appoint a catechist; but they are exercising a discretion given to them by the law, and my position as President of the Local Government Board gives me no right to override their decision. I do not think, however, that there is such spiritual destitution among the inmates as the hon. Member apprehends. I am informed that the parish priest, though no longer officially connected with the workhouse, is most attentive to those of his flock who are inmates, and that the sick and dying have all the consolations of their religion.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, the Government was engaged this Session in passing a Bill to compel Boards of Guardians to give pensions to their officers; and could they not compel the Guardians also to provide for the religious wants of the inmates?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is one thing to introduce a Bill, and another thing to exercise powers I do not possess.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he had a telegram from the parish priest in question, saying that he gave the prize on the girl's
  1348
  recovery from fever, and not as a mark of recognition for her teaching Catechism.

  POST OFFICE—THE PARCEL POST— RURAL LETTER CARRIERS.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is the fact that no remuneration has been given to rural letter-carriers under the arrangements of the Parcels Post, though the salaries of town letter-carriers have been raised; whether, in the general instructions issued to postmasters, Rule 57 enacts that rural letter-carriers who have to walk fourteen miles or upwards are to be relieved from the walk on alternate Sundays, and a substitute paid to perform the duty; and, whether it happens that, in cases where a substitute cannot be procured, and the letter-carrier is compelled to perform the work, the remuneration allotted for a substitute is not given to him?
  MR. FAWCETT: The wages of the town letter-carriers were not, as the hon. Member seems to suppose, revised in consequence of the Parcel Post, the change of scale having been carried out more than a year ago. At the same time, the system of giving good conduct stripes was extended to the whole country, and the rural letter-carriers participated in the advantage. I explained some time since, in reply to a Question addressed to me by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), that the wages of rural letter-carriers are adjusted according to the amount of work they have to do, and the wages prevailing in the locality. With regard to the relief afforded to rural letter-carriers by providing a substitute on alternate Sundays, I believe at the present time there is not a single instance where it is not found possible to provide a substitute in the case of foot messengers, and not more than half-a-dozen in the case of mounted messengers. Under these circumstances, I do not think it will be expedient to alter the rule to which the hon. Member refers.
  MR. HARRINGTONinquired whether the duty of finding the substitute devolved upon the postmaster or the postman; or whether, if a substitute could not be found, the postman would be compelled to perform the duties?
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, it devolved upon the postmaster, and he had orders

  1349
  to report if there was not a substitute I forthcoming. The authorities then wrote back telling him to make a further search, and to offer, if necessary, a somewhat higher allowance. The result had been as he had said—that in not a single instance, he believed, throughout England, Ireland, and Scotland, had a rural post messenger been without a substitute on alternate Sundays.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he would give the right hon. Gentleman an instance.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, if the hon. Gentleman would, he would be much obliged.

  PERRANFORTH, CORNWALL—RESCUE OF A PERSON IN DANGER ON THE CLIFFS BY A COASTGUARDSMAN.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the rescue of a man from death on the cliffs near Perranforth, Cornwall, some few weeks ago, by a coastguard named Regan; whether it is the fact that the latter risked his own life, he having permitted himself to be lowered down the cliff by a rope tied round his body; and, what notice he purposes taking of the matter?
  MR. HIBBERT (for Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT), in reply, said, no particulars had reached the Homo Office; but he had applied to the Admiralty, and he found they had received information on the subject. He believed the facts stated in the Question were quite correct, except to the extent that the Coastguard was not on duty at the time. The Admiralty had referred the matter to the Royal Humane Society.

  STATE OF IRELAND—ORANGE PROCESSIONS, PORTADOWN.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that on the night of the 13th a party of Orangemen attacked the Post Office in Portadown and broke its windows; whether any of these parties have been brought to justice; whether they have also quite recently attacked and wrecked the windows of the Catholic Church and the houses of Catholic inhabitants; what effort have the local authorities made to prevent repetition of these outrages; and, whether it is true that though the Town
  1350
  Commission is exclusively Protestant, and the six local magistrates are Protestants, the resident magistrate of the district, appointed by the Government, is also a Protestant?
  MR. TREVELYAN: On the night of the 13th of August an Orange drumming party was passing through the town. When they were passing through the main street, a stone was thrown from the crowd which broke a pane of glass in the Post Office. It was dark at the time, and the police, therefore, could not identify the person who threw the stone. There was no attack on the Post Office, except this. There is no foundation whatever for the statement that Orangemen recently attacked and wrecked the windows of the Catholic church and the houses of Catholic inhabitants. The Town Commissioners and local magistrates are all Protestants of various denominations. So also is Captain Whelam, the Resident Magistrate. There is not the slightest reason to suppose that this gentleman does not possess the confidence of all religious persuasions. Last year, when the Government proposed to remove him to the County Galway, the Roman Catholic party were, I am informed, the chief movers in petitioning that he might be allowed to remain at Portadown.
  MR. HARRINGTON: Who does the right hon. Gentleman mean by the Roman Catholic party?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I do not know who these are personally.
  MR. O'BRIENasked, was it not a fact that the Orange party went openly drumming through the country, firing shots; and if this had happened in the South, would not somebody have been arrested long age?
  MR. HEALY: Wexford.
  MR. O'BRIENappealed to the Speaker whether his Question ought not to be answered?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I put it to you, Sir, that it is not the sort of Question to answer, and that I am not bound to answer?
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman will exercise his own discretion in the matter.

  INDIA—CULTIVATION OF ESPARTO GRASS.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether

  1351
  the Government at Home has recommended to the Indian Government the cultivation of esparto grass in India?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The Secretary of State has not made any recommendation on the subject of the cultivation of esparto grass in India, which has engaged the attention of the Government of India, who have been furnished with such information on the subject as is likely to be useful.

  INDIA—HERR SILBIGER AND THE MAHARAJAH OF JEYPORE.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that the Austro-Hungarian Government has addressed an elaborate remonstrance to Her Majesty's Government in regard to the case of Herr Silbiger, an Austrian subject, versus the Maharajah of Jeypore, showing that the alleged arbitration (on which Her Majesty's Government had relied in former communications on the subject with the Austro-Hungarian Government) had been a mere burlesque of justice; whether it is true that Her Majesty's Government have not attempted to meet the proofs offered by the Austro-Hungarian Government, but have simply declined to re-open the question; and, whether the Papers on the subject can be laid before Parliament?
  MR. J. K. CROSS(who answered the Question) said: It is the case that in May last the Austrian Government, through their Representative in London, requested a further consideration of Herr Silbiger's claim, enclosing certain documents in support of their application. The matter was again fully considered by the Secretary of State in Council, with the result that there appeared no ground for re-opening here a question on which the Government of India had more than once expressed a very decided view. The further Papers submitted have, however, been forwarded to that Government. An intimation to the foregoing effect has, I believe, been made to the Austrian Ambassador, who, it is right I should mention, was informed in some detail, in March, 1881, of the grounds of the decision arrived at by the Indian Government in the matter.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether, in view of the probability that the Local Government Board (Scotland) Bill may become an Act of Parliament by the end of next week, and the early appointment thereafter of the first President of the Board under the Act, when all the powers and duties relating to Scotland now vested in, or imposed upon, Her Majesty's three principal Secretaries of State, the Privy Council, and the Local Government Board for England, in connection with the important affairs regulated by the various Acts of Parliament specified in the Schedule of the Bill, will be wholly transferred from those Ministers and Departments to another Minister and to a Department yet to be constituted, he will inform the House what arrangements have been made, or will be made, for the proper conduct and regulation of such Scotch affairs (which will then no longer belong to the Home Office, to the Privy Council Office, or to the Local Government Board for England Office), until the new Department is complete and ready to transact business?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): By Clause 2 of the Bill it is proposed to enact that the Board shall be deemed to be established from and after the date of the first appointment of a President, and no apprehension is entertained that from such appointment business proposed to be assigned to the Board will not be duly transacted. Till the appointment is made, the business will be done by the Departments at present charged with it.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (FISHING BOATS) BILL.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Lord Advocate, If his attention has been directed to the Merchant Shipping (Fishing Boats) Bill; and, whether, considering its inappropriate character for Scotland, he will consider the necessity for excluding Scotland from its provisions?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): We are satisfied that the provisions of this Bill are inappropriate to the circumstances and conditions

  1353
  under which the fishing industry is carried on in Scotland, and accordingly the Bill will not be made applicable to Scotland. This determination is in accordance with the strongly-expressed desire of Scotch Members representing fishing constituencies, and with representations received from Scotch fishing communities.
  SIR JOHN HAY, in thanking his right hon. and learned Friend for his answer, asked whether, as the Bill stood on the Paper, and no Notice had been given of the intended exclusion of Scotland, the Lord Advocate would take that precaution?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Certainly.

  INDIA—THE LATE MAHARAJAH OF TANJORE.
  MR. ARTTIUR O'CONNORasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is a fact that Serbojee Rajah, of the Palace, Tanjore, was adopted by the senior Ranee and the other Ranees of the late Maharajah of Tanjore; whether the obsequial rites of the late Maharajah were performed by Serbojee Rajah, with the sanction and in the presence of Mr. Forbes, the then Resideut at Tanjore; whether, among the Hindoos, and especially the Mahrattas, the authority of the husband is necessary for legalizing an adoption by the widow; whether the High Court of Madras in May, 1865, confirming a judgment in the District Courts, admitted the status of Serbojee Rajah as the adopted son of the late Maharajah of Tanjore; whether the application by all the fifteen Ranees, dated 12th December 1855, the petitions and mahazernames from the merchants and inhabitants of Tanjore, and the memorials of Serbojee Rajah through his counsel, Mr. Kavanagh, proving the claims of Serbojee to the position and dignity of his adoptive father, the late Maharajah, have been summarily rejected by the Government; and, whether, at the present moment, Serbojee Rajah is living at Tanjore unprovided for, and totally depending upon the charity of friends?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Nearly eight years after the death of the Rajah of Tanjore and the lapse of that State to Government, the senior Ranee wished to adopt Serbojee Rajah as her heir; but Government refused to recognize
  1354
  any adoption, so far as claims to succession to State property were concerned. A nephew performed the funeral ceremonies of the late Rajah in the presence of the Resident; but it is not known who this nephew was. Nothing is known at the India Office of the judgment of the High Court in May, 1865. The various Memorials presented soon after the lapse of the State to Government were fully considered and rejected, as was also Mr. Kavanagh's recent Memorial. Serbojee's name cannot be traced in the list of Tanjore pensioners, and nothing is known at the India Office as to his pecuniary means.

  EAST INDIA—CRIMINAL CODE PROCEDURE AMENDMENT (MR. ILBERT'S) BILL—REPORT OF INDIAN JUDGES.
  MR. HOPWOOD (for Mr. AGNEW)asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the recent publication in the "Times" of the Minutes or Report by certain Judges of the Calcutta High Court on the Jurisdiction Bill was a premature and authorized publication; and, whether, seeing that the Report in question has been put before the public, he will also lay before the public the Minutes or Reports on the same subject that have been recorded by the Bombay and Madras High Courts, in order that comparison may be made with the Report of the Calcutta Judges?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Strictly speaking, it may, perhaps, be said that the publication of the Report referred to by my hon. Friend is irregular and premature; but it is really not a matter of much moment. The Reports of the High Courts of Madras and Bombay will be laid on the Table with the other Reports of the Local Governments.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—GUN LICENCES.
  MR. SYNANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Richard Radcliffe, the caretaker of Mr. Sheehy, (Coroner), Shannongrove, county Limerick, has been refused a licence to have a gun for the protection of Shannongrove House and Farm, although he (Radcliffe) produced a license to carry arms in Kerry, where he was recently a caretaker of Mr. Browne; whether the Resident Magistrate was, at the time of such refusal,

  1355
  aware that Mr. Sheehy's house was broken into at night in his absence; whether be could state how often the Resident Magistrate attended the District Sessions at Pallaskenry for the last six months; and, whether the said Resident Magistrate gave, at the same time, a licence to Patrick White, of Shannongrove, and upon what recommendation; and, whether said Patrick White is only a fisherman, and is suspected of poaching, and has been summoned for shooting a valuable dog, the property of said Mr. Sheehy, on said farm?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I answered the greater part of this Question on Friday last. I have since learnt the particulars of the case of Patrick White. He was granted a gun licence more than two years ago on the recommendation of the police and a magistrate of the district in which he resides. He is a respectable man, and not a poacher. It is true that in May last he was charged with shooting a dog belonging to Mr. Sheehy; but the charge was dismissed.
  MR. SYNANbegged leave to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the case was not dismissed. It was actually now before the magistrates.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed it is dismissed.
  MR. SYNAN: The case is reported in the newspapers as being still before the magistrates.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—CONVICTION OF MRS. FALLON.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, On what authority it can be stated that the sentence passed upon Mrs. Fallon, by a magistrate who was playing lawn tennis with her prosecutor, was legal; whether it is the fact that the 14th and 15th Victoria, c. 93, section 8, sub-section 2, declares—
  "It shall not be lawful for any justice to hear and determine any case of summary jurisdiction outside of petty sessions, except cases of drunkenness or vagrancy, or for fraud in the sale of goods, or disputes at fairs or markets; "
  if he will say whether the charge against Mrs. Fallon was trespass; if not, what it is; and, whether he will point out to the magistrate the inconvenience that might arise from justice being dealt out in the manner in question?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)in reply, said, that the section to which the hon. Gentleman referred was limited to cases of summary jurisdiction; but there was no reference whatever to the matter of the offence. The accused was charged with taking forcible possession. The case was returned for trial. He had no control over the magistrates, and no right to point out to them how they should act.
  MR. HEALYasked, when would Mrs. Fallon be tried, and where?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)replied, that if the hon. Gentleman would give Notice he would inquire, for he did not know.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he asked the Chief Secretary last week after plenty of Notice, but could get no information.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—MR. MATTHEWS, CLERK TO THE BALLYMENA BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that Mr. Matthews, clerk to the Ballymena Poor Law Union, is also clerk to the Town Commissioners, clerk to the Gas Works, clerk to the Intermediate School, clerk to the Burial Board, and collector of county cess for a barony?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, that the Question only appeared on the Paper to-day, and on Saturday he appealed to hon. Members from Ireland to give longer Notice of Questions.
  MR. BIGGAR: I shall repeat the Question to-morrow.

  MADAGASCAR—ACTION OF THE FRENCH AT TAMATAVE.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, When he will be prepared to make a statement with respect to Madagascar; and, whether he can now give the House any particulars with respect to a proclamation said to have been issued by "the Superior Commandant of Tamatave," prohibiting access to Tamatave "to all foreign sailors, soldiers, and officers?"
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, as I have intimated on a former occasion, I have no expectation of being in a position to make a statement with respect to Mada-

  1357
  gascar. As I have already mentioned, the narrative is of rather a complex character, embracing a number of different transactions and communications which have taken place between the respective authorities, and it has taken some little time, though no time has been lost, to examine them; and some little time, no doubt, may be required for communication between the two Governments on the subject, with a view to the necessary explanations. Indeed, I am not sure whether the French Government is yet in possession of full information. Some information they have received; but I am not able to state that they are in possession of full information. With respect to the Proclamation said to have been issued, I am glad to have the opportunity of mentioning that, as the right hon. Gentleman's Question implies, the Proclamation was not, as many people supposed in this country, a Proclamation limited to the officers of a particular vessel, or to the Representatives of a particular nationality. It embraced, as the right hon. Gentleman's Question says, "all foreign sailors, soldiers, and officers." But that Proclamation—although those words are correctly given—may form the subject of communications between the two Governments, and therefore I do not propose to enter into details with respect to it. I perhaps may say, as great interest is felt respecting the case of Mr. Shaw, that some information has been received about that gentleman. The French Consul at Zanzibar had been at Tamatave, and we understand, through the French Government, that Mr. Shaw himself was not actually in prison; but he was on board a French vessel, of which, of course, he had the free range. The nature of the charge has been communicated to the Government, and it amounts to this—that Mr. Shaw is accused of holding intelligence with the enemy; and likewise of directly hostile action against the French soldiers. This information, and some more, has been given in reply to the questions which were put by Lord Granville to the French Ministry here, and the information has been given by the French Government with very great courtesy, and without raising any question at all as to the title of the English Government to put questions with regard to French jurisprudence or the exclusion of French
  1358
  law. We are informed as to the nature of the charge against the prisoner—so to call him—although he is not strictly in prison—it is absolutely obligatory by the French law that communication should be made to the effect that under the French law he would be tried by a court martial. There is a power of appeal before a Court of Revision; and the French Government states that they have no doubt that there is no reason whatever for supposing that he will not have every facility for preparing his defence. This, of course, is only partial information; but it may, perhaps, tend to allay any anxiety that may be felt about Mr. Shaw. I may add that there have been very cordial communications between the French Admiral and the Governor of the Mauritius.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I suppose there is no doubt that Mr. Shaw is compulsorily detained on this French vessel?
  MR. GLADSTONE: He is under a criminal charge, and therefore we may justly suppose that he is so detained.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I think the answer that has been given by the right hon. Gentleman is very far short of what the House has a right to expect, and I shall repeat the Question to-morrow.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Then I beg to say that I shall not give any further answer. I cannot give any without a breach of public duty and without injury to the public interest. It would be distinctly injurious to the public interest, and, moreover, would be adverse to the perfectly amicable and friendly discussion of these matters between the two Governments, if I were to anticipate the communications that are to be made.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I beg to point out that I am not asking for any information as to communications that are passing between Her Majesty's Government and the French Government; but I wish to know what is the state of the facts as they are in the hands of Her Majesty's Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not complain at all of that observation, nor of the Question that stands in the name of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), and which is virtually involved in the Question of the right hon. Gentleman; but what I feel is this—and I

  1359
  am sure from his experience of public affairs that he will see there is something in it—that for me to attempt to give a particular account of what he very properly terms "the facts" would involve, as I have said, going into the details of intricate Correspondence, and that account of such intricate Correspondence could not be given in a manner satisfactory to the House unless the Papers were laid upon the Table. It would be injurious and premature to lay the Papers on the Table at the present moment; and it is upon that account, and that account alone, that I feel there is no satisfactory method of dealing with the question but as I have done until the House is in possession of the whole facts of the case. I express my regret that it is not in my power to go further than I have done on the present occasion.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: May I ask whether, supposing, after Parliament has risen, the case should reach a stage at which the facts could be disclosed, any steps will then be taken to make them public?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Before that Question is answered I should like to ask, though I shall not press it if my right hon. Friend desires me not to do so, whether he has any objection to state where the trial by court martial of Mr. Shaw is likely to be?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think we have no information on that point. There is no reference to it. With regard to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote), my answer is, without Notice and hastily, that I am aware of no objection to such proceeding. Of course, the desire of the Government will be to make known to the world at once, in order to allay any anxiety, if any anxiety exists, the result of these proceedings.
  MR. ONSLOW: I wish to ask, Sir, whether the Government intend to provide counsel for the defence of Mr. Shaw?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not aware of any reason why that should be done, and I have no reason to think it will be asked, unless the hon. Gentleman thinks it the duty of the Government to have an army of counsel all over the world for the purpose of defending British subjects who may be put under accusation. There is nothing in this case, so
  1360
  far as I know, to show reason why an exception should be made; and no application whatever has been received, nor, so far as I am aware, is there any wish for the intervention of the Government.
  MR. ONSLOW: I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that he could obtain counsel from the Mauritius with the greatest ease.
  SIR JOHN HAY: I merely wish to ask, has the French Navy power to try a prisoner of war—if that is what Mr. Shaw is—by court martial without communicating with the country whose subject he is? Or is the House to understand that he is confined on board ship as a spy?—because he must be, I suppose, in one position or the other.
  MR. GLADSTONE: There is no charge, Sir, in the communications which we have received, of Mr. Shaw being a spy. With regard to the other Question of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, it would be rash on my part to give a reply to it until I have communicated with others who are better qualified to give an opinion upon it. I can only say that nothing has occurred which has made it necessary for us to press such a point.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he would put a Question on the subject on Thursday.
  MR. HEALY: Is there any complaint with regard to the restrictions imposed upon Mr. Shaw, or in respect to his treatment?
  MR. GLADSTONE: With reference to his treatment we have received no complaint, and have heard of none to lead us to suppose that he is not well treated. Further than that I can give no information.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked, Whether the Despatches from Madagascar confirm previous intelligence on the following subjects:—That the late British Consul was ordered by Admiral Pierre to haul down his flag within twenty-four hours; that his secretary was arrested in his presence, and that the British flag was hauled down by the French; that all communication between H.M.S. "Dryad" and the shore was forbidden by the French Admiral; that the British ship "Taymouth Castle," on her arrival at Tamatave, was boarded by the French, who placed a sentry on board, and forbade the Captain to land any passengers, and only allowed him

  1361
  to land cargo on payment of the French Tariff; that Admiral Pierre made up the outgoing Mails and demanded and took the ingoing Mails; that he also demanded the Consular Despatches, and was only prevented from taking them by Commander Johnstone, of the "Dryad" sending them on board the "Taymouth Castle" and escorting her to sea through the French fleet; that Tamatave has been proclaimed a French town, and a French mayor appointed; that a large amount of British property was destroyed, and that 2,000 British subjects, rendered destitute by the bombardment, have had to be conveyed to the Mauritius; whether an English merchant and his three servants have been arrested, and are now in prison on board a French iron-clad; whether Admiral Pierre has been recalled by the French Government; and, who now represents Her Majesty at Madagascar?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; I am afraid I must regard the Question in the same light as that addressed to me by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote). There are certain points that are incorrectly assumed by the hon. Gentleman; and I could not answer without involving myself, as I explained, in intricate considerations connected with the Papers, and placing myself in the inconvenient position of giving inadequate and partial information.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Prime Minister whether the Pre-amble of the Proclamation did not run to the effect that, "considering the attempts of certain officers of Her Majesty's ship Dryad" to impede the course of justice and obstruct the authorities, and so forth, they forbade the access to Tamatave of "all foreign sailors, soldiers, and officers?" He should also ask whether the House understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the French Government had shown great courtesy in not raising any question as to the right of the British Government to inquire under what law the claim to imprison a British subject in Madagascar was made; and whether it was not only the right but the duty of any Government, British or otherwise, to make direct and positive inquiry into the imprisonment of their subjects?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not prepared to allege that it is the duty of the Government, as a matter of course, or as
  1362
  a general rule, or except under very peculiar circumstances, to make inquiry with reference to a subject who has come, or is supposed or alleged to have come, within the range of the law administered by foreign countries. I must repeat that the French Government acted with a good deal of courtesy in the matter; and I regret that the hon. Gentleman should consider it necessary to make that matter the subject of a Question. With regard to the Proclamation, I have already stated, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that there were portions of this Proclamation which entered into the subject-matter of communications between the the two Governments, and that is so.
  MR. EDWARD CLARKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say on what charge Mr. Shaw is detained?
  MR. GLADTSONE: I have given the information which we have received; at least, I gave an account of the charge that is given. He is detained "on account of alleged intelligence with the enemy, and hostile action with respect to the French soldiers."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked who now represented Her Majesty's Government in Madagascar?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAUEICE: Before Consul Pakenham died he made certain arrangements with Commander Johnstone for the safe custody of the archives and the temporary performance of the duties of the Consulate. Whether these arrangements are of a strictly binding character may be doubtful; but for the moment Commander Johnstone is performing all the duties he can perform in the matter. I have already stated that Mr. Annesley has been appointed in succession to Consul Pakenham; and Mr. Pickersgill has been appointed Vice Consul.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: May I ask whether Mr. Shaw is able to communicate with his friends?
  MR. GLADSTONE: We have received no distinct information to that effect. All I have quoted has come, not from Mr. Shaw, but from the French authorities.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked whether there was any truth in the report which had reached him, to the effect that the French authorities inspected Consul Pakenham's papers after his death, and that they were in possession

  1363
  of the French authorities before they were handed over to the Commander of the Dryad?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: That is a Question of which Notice had better be given.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I give Notice for to-morrow.
  MR. PLUNKET: May I ask the Government whether they have taken any steps, or propose to take any steps, for the purpose of communicating with Mr. Shaw; and, whether they have any information as to the time at which the court martial will be held?
  MR. GLADSTONE: We have no information as to the time when the court martial will be held. With regard to communications, I would rather take the opportunity of referring to the Papers before answering the Question.
  MR. PLUNKET: I will ask the Question to-morrow.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: Will the Government give an undertaking that Mr. Shaw shall have a fair trial?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member should ask himself this Question. I will suppose that we were within what we deemed our rights in dealing with the subject of a Foreign Power. I am not sure that it would be a good compliment to us if in the Chamber of that foreign country the Government should be required to set itself in motion to see that that gentleman had a fair trial, because it would be a distinct imputation on us that there was some ground for doubting that he would have a fair trial. If any gentleman in the position of Mr. Shaw were not to have a perfectly fair trial it would be a grave and serious cause of complaint on the part of the Government of which he was a subject.
  MR. O'KELLY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there is any danger of Mr. Shaw being tried by a packed jury?
  [No reply was given.]

  THE SUEZ CANAL COMPANY—NEGOTIATIONS.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether any negotiations are in progress with M. de Lesseps, or with the Suez Canal Company, respecting the improvement of the transit by the Canal, or the formation of a second Canal; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to make any communication to Parliament
  1364
  before concluding an arrangement with the Company for these purposes?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I have to say that there are no negotiations in progress with M. de Lesseps or with the Suez Canal Company; and, after what has occurred, we have no desire for their early resumption. [A laugh.] That is repeating what I have very explicitly stated before. We think there are intermediate measures that may be adopted with advantage. With respect to the pledge asked for by the right hon. Gentleman, I cannot give a pledge that there will be any communication before concluding any arrangement with the Company; because, considering that we have three Directors who will be liable to require and receive our instructions upon any matter relating to the management of the Company, which might, therefore, be understood to be an arrangement by Her Majesty's Government with the Company, the right hon. Gentleman will see that it might be so interpreted as to mean that the whole action of the Directors was to be paralyzed during an uncertain interval. I think he will also feel that it is very difficult, on the ground of general convenience, to give a pledge of that kind. I think, however, it may be taken for granted by Parliament, and Parliament will not be deceived in so doing, that we have anything but a disposition to unnecessarily enter upon a course of sole I action in this matter, where we think we might be committing the interests of the country or the authority of Parliament. That consideration will be carefully borne in mind. I will refer to another subject which I have myself mentioned to the House. What we hope and desire—and we believe it will be the best course with reference to a satisfactory settlement of this question—is, that there will be communications between the authorities of the Company and the trading interests of this country, and, if necessary, of other countries. We believe a comparison of views between those directly interested in these respects would probably be extremely useful, and we should be glad to see that placed in the van as a preliminary proceeding anterior, probably, to the more direct action of the Government; and we have some reason to believe that that desire is entertained by the authorities of the Company.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Is there anything proceeding in that way, I or is it only a suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is certainly beyond a suggestion of mine, or of the present Government. It has been mentioned by the authorities of the Company in their own conversation, and I under stand very favourably. I do not know that anything has been arranged; but I understand that it is and desired.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I wish to remind the Prime Minister that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War gave an assurance a few days ago that he would consult with his Colleagues as to whether instructions might not be given to the British Directors that they should make no statement which would commit this country so far as the monopoly claimed by M. de Lesseps is concerned. I should like to know if any communication of the kind has been made?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir. There has been no communication with the Directors; but the right hon. Gentleman may rest assured that they will be very cautious as to making any statement of the kind.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: What the noble Marquess distinctly said was that the Government would consider whether some instructions should not be given to them.
  MR. GLADSTONE: They have been fully warned in the matter, and the right hon. Gentleman may rest assured.

  EGYPT—THE EGYPTIAN MINISTRY.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether a Ministerial Crisis is imminent in Egypt; and, whether the Khedive has requested Riaz Pasha to form a fresh Ministry?
  MR. GLADSTONE: We have received no information to the effect stated in the Question of the hon. Member, and we have no reason whatever to suppose that it is true or probable.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—THE WESTERN BANK.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade a Question of which I have given him private Notice, and which I have been asked to put by some of the
  1366
  sufferers by the failure of the late Western Bank. They are anxious to know if he can give any information as to when the affairs of that bank are likely to be settled, as they say that all the debts belonging to them have long since been paid, and that the liquidators have many thousands of pounds in their hands belonging to the unfortunate shareholders, which they are anxious to get as quickly as possible.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman is, no doubt, aware that the Board of Trade has no control whatever over these proceedings. I have endeavoured since I received the right hon. Gentleman's letter to obtain information from private sources, but have been unable to obtain any of importance. The matter is in the hands of the liquidators, and perhaps the best course would be to communicate directly with them.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask the Prime Minister, What is the course of Business for to-day, tomorrow, and Wednesday; and, whether it is intended still to proceed with the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill? I venture to hope that that will not be the case.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The intention certainly is to take the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill to-night. The Bill having passed through the Grand Committee, we feel it our duty, so far as depends upon us, to take the judgment of the House upon it. But we shall endeavour to bring the matter to an issue with as much rapidity as possible. To-morrow we propose to begin with the Amendments of the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill, and then to submit the Medical Act Amendment Bill to the judgment of the House. On Wednesday we shall take the Indian Financial Statement. I, of course, except the stages of the Appropriation Bill.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would renew the protest he had made on a former occasion, that at this period of the year it was impossible for the House properly to consider so important a measure as the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the right hon. Gentleman, whether the Government really intended to push through the

  1367
  Medical Act Amendment Bill this Session?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It will be for the House to say whether it should be passed through. We intend to ask the opinion of the House on the subject.
  MR. BROADHURSTappealed to the hon. Members who were opposing the second reading of the Factories and "Workshops Acts Amendment Bill, whether they would withdraw that opposition in the interests of the working population who would be affected?
  MR. BUCHANANrose on a point of Order, and called the Speaker's attention to the fact that in the Papers issued this morning there appeared Notices of certain Amendments on the Medical Act Amendment Bill, which had not yet passed through the second reading. He asked whether it was in Order that such Notices should appear on the Paper?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, these Notices of Amendments had, no doubt, appeared quite inadvertently. They had now been withdrawn, and would not appear on the Paper until the Bill was read a second time.
  MR. PLUNKETdesired to know whether it was intended to proceed with the Union Officers' Superannuation (Ireland) Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes.

  STATE OF IRELAND—RUMOURED PROCLAMATION OF A MEETING AT TIPPERARY.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether there was any ground for the apprehension entertained in Tipperary that the Government meant to proclaim a meeting to be held in that county next Sunday to celebrate the anniversary of the death of Charles Kickham?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have heard nothing about any such intention, and I am in constant correspondence with the Castle in Dublin on the subject of meetings.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Resolutions [18th August] reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Resolutions be now read a second time."

  THE CHANNEL TUNNEL SCHEME.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    SIR JOHN HAY, in rising to call attention to certain passages in the Evidence given before the Joint Committee on the Channel Tunnel, which show the opinions of the highest authorities concerning the defencelessness of the Country, more especially as regards the insufficiency of the number of Iron-clad Ships and Guns, said, that great weight must be attached to the evidence given before the Committee by Lord Wolseley and Admiral Rice, the Commander-in-Chief of the Fleet at the Nore. Lord Wolseley was of opinion that an Army of 500,000 men, which was the number calculated upon to resist invasion, would require at least 1,600 guns, and 5,220 horses, and that it would take a year and a half before these could be supplied. To Admiral Rice the following Question was put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. E. W. Harcourt):—
    "Supposing that our Fleet had been beaten, what power of restoring that Fleet should we have, and in what time, from our Colonial Possessions abroad?"
    The Admiral's reply was—
    "None, I should say." "Have we at the present moment, do you consider, a sufficient number of ships available for the defence of the Channel."—"May I ask whether you mean under any conceivable circumstances?" "At the present moment?" "At the present moment, yes."—"To prevent the landing of 20,000 men?"
    The answer was—
    "That involves the question of whom we have to deal with and to meet. If we are to meet any two first-class European Powers at sea I do not think we have."
    In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) Admiral Rice said—
    "I do not know that the mercantile ships would be of much value in preventing invasion. They would be of much use in assisting us in making one." "Would they not be available in case of difficulties with other countries?"—"As cruisers, yes. In former days the three-deckers commanded the sea; now the iron-clads do, and nothing can touch them or fight them except other iron-clads." "I gather from the tenour of your evidence that you do not think it is probable that a large force, such as Sir Lintorn Simmons said, can be landed upon our coasts as long as the British Navy is in the condition that it is now?"—"I do not mean to say that, because I do not think it is quite as efficient as it might be for such contingencies; it does very well for what it has to do; but if we

    1369
    got into difficulties, I think we should find ourselves in a difficulty from not having ships enough—iron-clads."
    He had one or two further extracts to read. The following Questions were put to the noble and gallant Lord (Lord Wolseley), and the answers were instructive:—
    "Question.—You would advocate some increase to our Land Forces and to our Navy? Answer.—Certainly to our Navy: our Navy more than to our Land Forces. Question.—You are not one of those who think that our Navy is in an inefficient state; but that it is not numerous enough? Answer.—It is not numerous enough. I cannot express an opinion as regards the efficiency of the Navy; but I believe it is in a very efficient condition as far as it goes…. If you compare the condition of England now with the condition of England when the Duke of Wellington wrote that celebrated letter, you cannot compare the defensive conditions of England now with what they were then; France is much more formidable now than she was then, and comparing her Fleet now with what it was then, relatively to ours, its strength has vastly increased. Question.—What I am saying is this—that upon the whole, relatively to our past condition, the defensive forces of this country are larger than they were since the Peace of 1815, excepting at the times of actual war, or apprehension of war? Answer.—Not as you said, very much stronger; they are stronger than they were at the time that the Duke of Wellington wrote that letter; but relatively stronger considering the size of the French Army now, and of the great addition she had made to her Fleet."
    He thought that anyone who cared for the defence of the country, who knew | its weakness, would forgive him for bringing the subject before the House. They already had the acknowledgment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) that the number of iron-clads were too few. The iron-clads being built were insufficient to compete with the 19 iron-clads completed by France; and when they heard that 8,000 more workmen were employed in the French Dockyards than we employed, it was time we turned attention to this subject.
    SIR EDWARD J. REEDsaid, he had no intention of occupying more than a minute or two; but he could not refrain from expressing general concurrence with the views which the right hon. and gallant Baronet had laid down. He thought the country was much indebted to him for bringing forward this question with his knowledge, experience, and fair-mindedness, if he might be allowed to say so. He must say he heard the statement of the hon. Member for
    1370
    Hastings (Sir Thomas Brassey) as to the strength of the Navy with pain; it was the most couleur de rose statement that could be made, and imposed upon them the duty of looking very closely into the figures for the future. It appeared to him that this was a question which the House ought to take into its consideration, and devote a Select Committee to it; and next year, if he were able, he should move for a Select Committee to inquire into the strength and condition of the Navy, and other matters—namely, the expenditure upon the Effective and Non Effective Services, and to try whether they could not take some more effective measures than were held out from the Government Benches. He considered it was of the utmost importance that if the Government did not see its way to make an improvement, the House should take the matter into its own hands.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he thought it necessary again to call attention to a consideration which he had frequently presented—namely, that the Navy must continue inefficient so long as it depended upon another Department for its guns, and thereby place on the Secretary of State for War the duty and responsibility of providing and maintaining in readiness the armament and projectiles, as well as the ammunition of the Fleet. They required at least 3,000 new guns for the Navy, and if they were at war probably 4,000, and only a small portion of the armament was at present in readiness. The cost of the guns for the Navy ought to be taken on the Navy Estimates, and removed from the Estimates of the War Office. The Navy should be allowed to supply their own guns. It would require about £4,000,000 to make the Navy efficient; and that sum, if raised on loan, could be paid off in the way of Annuities in six or eight years. The Navy should also take charge of all their Reserve armament and stores, and make the military equipments on board ship be accounted for direct to the Admiralty, instead of, as at present, to the War Office.
    SIR HENRY HOLLAND, in supporting the remarks of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay) and the hon. Gentleman (Sir Edward J. Reed) with reference to the unsatisfactory condition of the Navy, said, that he was also desirous of seeing the supply of guns to the Naval and Military Ser-

    1371
    vices kept distinct. The Government ought "seriously to reconsider that question, for although he knew there was a strong feeling entertained by many officials that cheapness was really secured, after all he ventured to doubt whether such was the case. As regarded the stores, he hoped that the Government would also take into consideration the subject of having those accounts audited, to some extent, by the Comptroller and Auditor General. With regard to the suggestion by the hon. Member for Car-diff (Sir Edward J. Reed), that there should be a Select Committee to inquire into the state of the Navy, he (Sir Henry Holland) confessed that he viewed that proposal with some amount of apprehension; because it appeared to him that by the publication of the Evidence before such a Committee, foreign nations would become as well-informed as ourselves as to the real state of the case and our difficulties. Matters not at all desirable to be revealed would thus become public property. If an inquiry had to be instituted, he ventured to suggest that it should be a Royal Commission, whose proceedings would be confidential.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANtook no exception to the speeches which had been made, although he thought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay) had not chosen the most suitable way of bringing the subject before the House. They had already on three occasions that Session pretty fully discussed the condition of the Navy, and he had really nothing to add to his former statements. The right hon. and gallant Admiral had founded his remarks on the evidence given before a Committee appointed to consider the question of the Channel Tunnel. That question had excited very strong opinions on the one side and the other. Lord Wolseley, who was one of the witnesses, had, from the first, taken a decided view and uttered very strong language against the Tunnel; and it was, therefore, natural, when he was giving his evidence, that he should accentuate as much as possible the defenceless condition of the country. So, also, with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself and other witnesses before the Committee. But there were a good many persons of equal eminence who held opinions the other way; and though the right hon. and gallant Gen-
    1372
    tleman and Lord Wolseley had expressed strong opinions as to the Navy, that must not be taken as settling the question. He would not now go into the details of the matter, but would merely state that the witnesses to whom he referred thought the country had not such a Navy as would secure perfect immunity from invasion. That was not the view which those who were at present responsible for the condition of the Navy entertained; but, at the same time, he would say that such opinions would always receive due consideration. His hon. Friend (Sir Edward J. Reed) said that he would move for a Select Committee next Session to inquire into the condition of the Navy. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) entertained objections to the appointment of such a Committee, some of which had been expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland); but, without saying what would be the course which Government would adopt next Session, he did not think that the Department viewed with any hostility any measures which might be taken by the House to examine into the subject, and to see whether they had the fullest information as to the means of supplying the country with both ships and guns. The subject of the supply of guns was of great importance; but it was fully before them, and the advantages and disadvantages of the present system were well known. It was not for him nor for the Admiralty to settle whether the present system should be continued or modified; but the opinions expressed would have due weight with his Colleagues at the "War Office. Nothing had been said of a definite character to call for a more specific reply.

  ARMY—ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT— MR. LYNAL THOMAS.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. MACFARLANEbrought forward the case of the inventor, Mr. Lynal Thomas, urging that, as he would have had a legal claim under the Patents for Inventions Bill now before Parliament, his case should be referred to some Member of the House—say the hon. Member for Pembroke (Sir Edward J. Reed)—to decide whether he had not an equitable claim on the Government. Mr. Thomas had gained the verdict of a jury, and to drive him to further litiga-

    1373
    tion was to refuse him redress. At the trial the evidence of agents was suppressed, and strong remarks were made by the Judge on the unsatisfactory character of the official evidence against the claim. Let it be referred as au equitable but not as a legal claim, and Mr. Thomas would abide by the result.
    MR. BRANDdeclined to enter into a discussion of the circumstances of the case. The claim had been before the War Office many years, and complaint having been made that it had not been investigated by a Secretary of State personally, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when Secretary of State for War, went into it fully with a bias in favour of Mr. Thomas, but came to the conclusion that he had no claim against the War Office. There was no reason why the case should be re-opened, and it would be an inconvenient precedent to re-open it, because what was practically a charge of fraud was made against the War Office, and others might allege fraud for the purpose of having their cases needlessly re-opened.

  IRELAND—GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE IN NAVAL MATTERS.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. O'KELLYsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to the manner in which Ireland was treated in respect to shipbuilding. Last year, while thousands upon thousands of pounds were spent in shipbuilding, there was only the miserable sum of £812 spent in connection with the matter in Ireland. It could not be said that there were no facilities for the building of ships in Ireland, inasmuch as there were great shipbuilders in Belfast. Ireland contributed largely towards the maintenance of the Navy; and they were entitled, therefore, to a fair share of the expenditure consequent upon it. Some years ago a few orders for gunboats were given, and the fact reflected most strongly on the Government, as during their time no work of the kind had been given. He also thought that they were entitled to have a Naval Dockyard in Cork.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, so far as private yards were concerned, he agreed, if there were any shipbuilders in Ireland who were accustomed to do the sort of work which the Admiralty required, that they should
    1374
    have a fair chance with others when a ship was put out to contract; and he rather thought that had been done so far as possible. There was a Dockyard at Haulbowline, in Ireland, and if they were to treat this matter according to national wants and aspirations, then, as a Scotchman, he was bound to say that his country was still worse off; because, of all the most admirable situations for Government Establishments and Dockyards, he could not conceive anything better than the upper part of the Firth of Forth, and yet they had nothing at all. He was unable to enter into figures on the subject, as this was not a matter connected with the Vote now under consideration.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought that the reply of the Secretary to the Admiralty was most unsatisfactory. He had no personal regard for the gentlemen in Belfast, and had no personal interest in anything concerning them. But there was a firm there—Messrs. Harland and Wolff—whose reputation as shipbuilders was exceedingly good,; and who would be able to produce any ships the Government might require. They were the firm that constructed the White Star American liners, and they were competent to do some of the Government shipbuilding if they got it to do.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the Estimates under consideration had no bearing on the subject being discussed; and the discussion was, therefore, out of Order.
    MR. O'KELLY, as a protest against the injustice of which he complained, challenged a Division upon the question of the reception of the Report.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 12: Majority 87.—(Div. List, No. 306.)
    First Resolution agreed to.
    Second Resolution (£27,555, Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Dublin and London, and Subordinate Departments) read a second time.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he understood that this Vote included the salary of the Chief Secretary for Ireland; and, as that was the case, he wished to point out that the right hon. Gentleman, in his capacity as President of the Local Government

    1375
    Board in Ireland, had put a very extraordinary construction upon an Act of Parliament. The Act of Parliament he referred to laid down that no paid officer of a Board of Guardians was entitled to take part in the administration of the funds of the Union; notwithstanding which, Dr. Naish was allowed to sit as a member of the Board of Guardians of the Manorhamilton Union, because he happened to be a Justice of the Peace and connected with the landlord party. How could it be expected that hon. Members would consent to appeals of the kind that had been made, when the Government allowed a medical officer, a pensioner of the Union, to sit upon the Board and vote away the rates out of which he was paid? The Chief Secretary boasted of his kindliness and courtesy to Irish Members; and, no doubt, he was everything that a Representative of an English Government ought to be. Fine phrases and smooth words were all very well; but, coming to facts, they found that the Chief Secretary was always ready to twist and distort circumstances to the disadvantage of the popular party, and to the interest of landlordism. In short, the time had come when war ought to be declared against the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had conducted the Irish administration; and he was sorry the Chief Secretary was not present to hear him say so. They had put up for two years with his conduct of Irish affairs in that House, and they had not attacked him in the way in which his Predecessor, the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster), had been attacked by the Irish Members. [Mr. CALLAN: Because he deserved it.] They entertained some hope of a new régime when the present Chief Secretary came into Office; but they found him eager and willing to tread in the stops of his Predecessor. Having watched him for two years in that House, so far as his (Mr. Healy's) estimate of him was concerned, he believed he was as utterly ingrained with the worst traditions of Dublin Castle as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford. The right hon. Member for Bradford had a very strange state of things to deal with; he had. 1,000 men in prison on various charges; but the present Chief Secretary was in a very different position. The country was perfectly peaceful, except when an Orangeman occasionally shot a policeman at an
    1376
    eviction. They had the whole tone and temper of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford translated into a more courteous form of expression embodied in the conduct of the present Chief Secretary. There was no denying that the Chief Secretary possessed a good many arts which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford had not. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford assumed an unnecessarily uncouth and rugged aspect in answering Questions; but the present Chief Secretary was much wiser in his generation, and, so far as words were concerned, he had not attempted needlessly to exasperate the feelings of the Irish Representatives. Yet, as far as he could be, he was as great an exponent of tyranny and of landlord principle as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford. If the Chief Secretary had been in his place, he should have taken the liberty of extending his comments; but, in his absence, he would content himself by moving, as a protest, that the Vote be reduced by £4,000, the amount of the right hon. Gentleman's salary.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out "£27,555," and insert "£23,555,"—(Mr. Healy,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That '£27,555' stand part of the said Resolution."
    MR. O'KELLYsupported the proposal of his hon. Friend, and said that the Chief Secretary and the Irish Executive conducted affairs in as offensive a manner to the Irish people as was possible. He did not think a gentleman like Dr. Naish would be allowed to hold in England the position he held in Ireland.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, it seemed to him that the Government were not inclined to meet the allegations made. If Dr. Naish was able to sit on the Board of Guardians, although superannuated, he should be able to fulfil his previous duties. With reference to the comparison that had been drawn between the Chief Secretary and his Predecessor, it seemed to him that there was less excuse for the action of the present Chief Secretary, because, under the influence of the Land Act and better crops, the discontent of the people had in a great measure passed away. On Saturday the Chief Secretary was utterly unable to defend several of his actions in Ireland; and he really thought the time had come when

    1377
    he should be driven with ignominy from Office, as his Predecessor was, and ruined as a Government official.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, that the absence of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) must be owing to some misconception on his own part, as he was in the House very recently. He was sure he might say this of his right hon. Friend—that the general feeling of Members, with few exceptions, was that there never had been an official more anxious to be courteous and polite under difficult circumstances, or who discharged his official duties with greater industry and ability. With regard to the case of Dr. Naish, although he would not absolutely commit himself in the matter, it appeared to him, after the best examination that he had been able to make, that the Guardians were perfectly right in their action, and the section which had been quoted did not apply to the case at all. He did not wish at present to give any strong expression of opinion upon the subject; but he would undertake to make further investigation into the matter. Under the circumstances, it seemed to him that there was no ground whatever for the reduction of the Vote.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsupported the reduction of the Vote, on the ground that all Irish officials were paid too highly. They had been told that those gentlemen performed their duties from a feeling of patriotism. It was, however, sweetened in the one case by £20,000 a-year—[Mr. HEALY: With £400 a-year for coals.]—and in another by £4,500 a-year. These sums were drawn from the British taxpayer, who had to pay them whether he liked it or not; while if Irishmen, of their own free will, subscribed to maintain their Representatives, who did them good service, any amount of censure was poured out on those Representatives; but on the Treasury Bench were seated Gentlemen who were not ashamed to draw thousands without inquiring whether the British taxpayer was a consenting party.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 97; Noes 12: Majority 85.—(Div. List, No. 307.)
    Resolution agreed to.
    Third Resolution agreed to.
    1378
    Fourth Resolution (£85,482, Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board in Ireland, including various Grants in Aid of Local Taxation) read a second time.
    MR. HEALYdrew attention to the conduct of the Guardians of Donegal Workhouse, who refused some days ago to appoint a Catholic schoolmaster or schoolmistress to superintend the education of the Catholic pauper children. In consequence of the bigotry and intolerance thus manifested by the majority of the Board, who consisted of ex officio members, the chaplain had resigned. The children were now sent unattended from the workhouse to the Catholic chapel in the town. That was in contravention of the Regulations laid down by the Local Government Board. He would make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman—namely, that instead of driving the people into these institutions, he should do as he did in the case of Carrick-on-Suir—dissolve the Board of Guardians. He ventured to say that if a Roman Catholic Board of Guardians had behaved in a similar manner, the right hon. Gentleman would soon have found a way out of the difficulty. The judgment and heart of the Chief Secretary were always enlisted on the landlord and anti-Catholic side. As a protest against the course which had been pursued, he should move to reduce the Vote by £500, the salary of Mr. Macfarlane, the Inspector upon whose instructions the Chief Secretary acted in these matters. The Irish Party were sometimes charged with too great vehemence in discussing these matters—[Mr. WHITWORTH: Hear, hear!]—but they would continue to bring them before Parliament, in spite of the interruptions of the hon. Member for Drogheda, which was his only contribution to the debate, while he might remark that he had heard a corn crake give utterance to more melodious sounds.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out "£85,482," and insert "£84,982,"—(Mr. Healy,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That '£885,482' stand part of the said Resolution."
    MR. HARRINGTONsupported the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan. He thought it scandalous that a body like the Local Government

    1379
    Board, which in no sense represented the wishes of the Irish people, should have the power of shutting out the people in any Union from the ministrations of their clergy, to which the people were entitled in every country under the British Government. It was disgraceful that an effort should have been made to uphold the bigotry of the ex-officio Guardians in the Donegal Union, who had deprived the Catholic inmates of the workhouse of the ministrations of their clergy.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, that if he understood aright the complaint in this case, it was that the Local Government Board had not superseded the Guardians because of the withdrawal of the chaplain, or because the Board would not appoint a catechist. It did not appear, however, that there had been any complaint to the Local Government Board. If so, it had not been referred to, either in the Question to-day or in the course of this debate.
    MR. HEALY: It was so notorious I did not think it necessary.
    MR. HARRINGTON: I put a Question to the Chief Secretary a fortnight ago on the subject.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER): A Question in this House is one matter, and a complaint made to the Local Government Board is another matter. Whether there has been a complaint to the Local Government Board or not I do not know.
    MR. HEALY: Of course there was.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, that in either case the Local Government Board had no power to elect officers. If there was a valid election, no matter what the religion of the person might be, the Local Government Board could not interfere. He regretted that there should have been any difference between the chaplain and the Board of Guardians; but upon the merits of that difference he was not in a position to speak. He regretted the inconvenience consequent upon it; but that was a matter in reference to which the Local Government Board had no right to interfere.
    MR. O'KELLYremarked, that if in Unions like Carrick-on-Suir the Local Government Board could supersede Guardians, because they passed political resolutions which were not grateful to the
    1380
    Government, he thought when a Board of Guardians in Donegal did something infinitely worse—namely, insult the religious feelings of a large portion of the population of Ireland—the Government ought to feel called upon to interfere to protect the people, either by appointing paid Guardians or a sufficient number of ex officio Guardians.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, it could not be thought that a pauper child of 11 years could be competent to explain the doctrines of any religion. The utmost she could do would be to hear the children repeat their catechism by rote. He felt inclined to ask where was the hon. and rev. Member for Donegal (Mr. Kinnear) during this discussion, in which the religious rights of a portion of the constituency were concerned? He was conspicuous by his absence, as was usually the case whenever any good for Ireland was being considered, thereby giving a most subservient support to the Government. He believed that such was the disgust which the action of the Government was creating in Ireland, that, at the next Election, not a single Whig would be returned to Parliament from that country. There would be a few Tories, and the rest Parnellites, as they were called. That was something to look forward to, for the Whigs were hollow shams.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the Local Government Board could have interfered in this matter by withholding their sanction to the appointment of this child as catechist. He desired to call attention to the dietary given in workhouses, a subject which two years ago he brought under the notice of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). Under the administration of the Local Government Board in Ireland, men, women, and children were being systematically starved to death. He had not been able to "obtain a Return of the dietary from all the workhouses in Ireland; but he did obtain the scale of dietary in the Dingle Workhouse. He made an analysis of all the articles in that dietary, which he submitted to the right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair), with a request that if he found them accurate he should hand them to the right hon. Member for Bradford. It showed, he believed, that the amount of food given

    1381
    to the inmates of the Dingle Workhouse was far from reaching the minimum of what was necessary to keep in health persons without any work whatever. In the matter of accommodation there was no kind of classification in the workhouses throughout the country. There was no proper system of occupation. He declared that the Inspectors disgracefully and systematically neglected their duties.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 13: Majority 62.—(Div. List, No. 308.)
    Resolution agreed to.
    Fifth Resolution (£32,262, Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works in Ireland) read a second time.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. HEALYsaid, he did not intend to offer any opposition to this Vote; but he desired to call the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to the extraordinary state of facts that existed in connection with the 31st section of the Land Act. Last year he obtained a Return which disclosed the extraordinary fact that while the Government spent £5,000 or £6,000 on account of the salaries of the persons appointed to carry out the 31st section of the Land Act, they had done nothing for their money, not having disbursed a single shilling to the farmers of Ireland. By a later Return he found that during the last year and a-half, while the salaries and expenses of these gentlemen had cost the country £13,500 per annum, they had only advanced to the farmers, for the purchase of their holdings, the sum of £36,698. The matter, shortly, amounted to this—that it cost 10 s. to lend one sovereign to the farmers of Ireland. No doubt it would be said that a great many other applications were approved; but, unless Colonel M'Kerlie and those under him expedited themselves, the House would find next year another extraordinary disclosure of men receiving salaries while they performed no work. Again, he thought that the number of Inspectors was very large to have for the administration of £36,000. Indeed, judged by the manner in which it was stated in the
    1382
    book, there were 17½ Inspectors, as each of them was paid £300 a-year, and 17 would not divide evenly into the sum total. He supposed, therefore, that there were 17 grown Inspectors and a small boy.
    MR. COURTNEY: They did not serve the whole year; that is how it occurred.
    MR. HEALY: Indeed. Well, there might have been a note to that effect. He trusted the Board of Works would give the same attention to pruning the salaries of its Inspectors as it did to rejecting applications for loans under the Land Act on trivial pretexts. The number of applications had been 3,610, and the amount applied for £358,000; but only 655 applications, and £36,000 in amount, had been granted. He hoped Colonel M'Kerlie's successor next year would be able to show better results.
    MR. KENNYcomplained of the action of the Board of Works in relation to the Clare Castle Pier and Harbour. In 1878 the pier had been constructed at a great cost; but some time ago the work was so bad that the Pier split in two, and fell over to one side. In the same way a main drainage scheme was arranged for another portion of the County Clare; but the Drainage Board applied to the Board of Works, who had set themselves to obstruct its completion in every way. The result was that the rivers and lakes in the district had overflown enormously for the past few years, working the most awful destruction in the crops. The Drainage Board was, of course, composed of landlords; and their object was to compel the tenants to bear the entire expense of the drainage scheme. But the Board of Works had, instead of bringing pressure to bear on these landlords, aided and abetted them in every way in their design. Owing to the incompetency and jobbing of the Irish Board of Works, even the little money they did spend was squandered uselessly in imperfect works, which gave no return for the outlay.
    MR. MOLLOYcomplained of the damage which had been done to the land in the neighbourhood of Meelick and Lusmagh by the non-raising of the sluice-gates there on the occasion of floods. He hoped orders had been given to the officials to open the gates as soon as a flood commenced.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had spoken of the large expenditure incurred in carrying out the clause of the Land Act which enabled occupying tenants to obtain advances, wherewith to improve their holdings. The cost of carrying out the clause was necessarily large, and must continue so unless the Treasury were to abandon every safeguard. It must be remembered that in the case, for instance, of an advance of £50 the Treasury were to go to the expense of visiting the holding from time to time to see that the improvement was carried out, and they had to take other precautions to guard against loss. With regard to the Clare County drainage scheme he did not think the case had been fairly stated by the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny). Under the different relations between landlord and tenant established by the Land Act, was it reasonable to suppose that landowners in the County Clare, who would not be able for 15 years at least—perhaps not at all—to derive any benefit from the operation of a drainage scheme, would be very zealous to take part in and pay half the cost of these schemes? With respect to the floods of the Shannon, he had made some inquiry into the matter, and had received Reports from responsible people. It was not enough to receive Reports from irresponsible people, and upon them to attempt to set aside the statements of officers responsible for these matters. It was true that the Report of a Committee, presided over by a noble Lord opposite, had given a very bad impression as to the operation of the Board of Works; but, on the other hand, he was bound to say that the more he became acquainted with their operations, the more he was struck with the intelligence, shrewdness, sagacity, and care which distinguished the performance of their functions.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that, as this discussion had arisen, he would take the opportunity of saying a few words. He took the opportunity, as it was, perhaps, the last one of the Session, for making a few remarks with regard to two questions—the loans to tenants for improvements under the Land Act and the question of drainage. He feared very much that under the decision in the case of "Adams v. Dunseath" the occupiers would not be entitled to the benefits of
    1384
    arterial drainage, except so much as the interest on the amount contributed. He thought that the whole of the improvement, with the exception of that arising out of the arterial drainage, would go to the landlord. As regarded advances to tenants, he quite recognized the great difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) had alluded in regard to keeping a sufficient control over the works executed by the tenants without a very large expenditure for engineering supervision. It would always be difficult for a centralized Department in Dublin to administer this section of the Act without a large expense. As an instance of this, he would mention that he received the other day a letter from a solicitor in Ireland, in which it was stated that in an application which was made for a £100 loan, there had been stopped out of the first instalment of £30 or £32 the sum of £8 for a preliminary survey. Now, this survey would have to be followed by a similar inspection in the case of each further instalment as the works were completed, so that it followed that a charge of £15, or 20 per cent. would be levied on the tenant. It was necessary to take care that the works were properly executed, and that overcharges were not made; but this might be done effectively and more cheaply by the Poor Law Board borrowing the money in the first instance, and obtaining the assistance of the surveyors to the Grand Juries. This method would be cheaper, it would give less trouble to the central Department, and it would involve less risk to the State. He would ask the Government to consider these two questions—first, the working of the loan sections of the Land Act of 1881; and, secondly, the arterial drainage of Ireland and the re-organization of the Board of Works. Two Bills had been introduced on the latter question, which had been blocked, as the Secretary to the Treasury complained, by Irish Members; but did not the very fact of those Bills being opposed show that, in the opinion of the Irish Members, the Bills were inadequate, and there was not sufficient time for their discussion? And did not their abandonment by the Government show that the Government were of that opinion also? But he would suggest that between now and next Session the Government should consider the desirability of referring these ques-

    1385
    tions, which were practical questions, and questions of a non-contentious character, to a Grand Committee consisting of the Irish Members, the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, the Irish Law Officers, and the Secretary to the Treasury. He anticipated the result of such a reference would be the striking out of a scheme in reference to these important questions which would be satisfactory to Parliament and to Ireland.
    Resolution agreed to.
    Subsequent Resolutions to the Eleventh Resolution agreed to.
    Eleventh Resolution (£278,000, Charge for the Pay, Allowances, &c. of a number of Army Reserve First Class, not exceeding 31,000, and of the Army Reserve Second Class) read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he thought they might very well complain of the course Business had taken during the whole of last week; and a more scandalous proceeding—look at it as they might—could not possibly have taken place than that which hon. Members witnessed on Saturday and Sunday. A large amount of money they were asked to vote without any reasonable or fair discussion; and after Sunday came in, the whole of the Votes were taken absolutely without any discussion at all. Against that he wished to enter a strong protest. After all the time the Government had had given to them, and the new Rules that had come into operation, he ventured to say that, notwithstanding all those advantages which the Government had enjoyed, never in the memory of any man in that House had the Business been worse arranged. He could only regret—and regret deeply—that during the last three weeks of the Session they should have had what amounted to practically the whole work of the Session thrust upon them. He rose now to make a few observations on the Army Reserve Vote, and he was sorry not to see the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War in his place, as he had complained that this question had been raised over and over again. The noble Marquess
    1386
    said it had been raised three times; whereas they only had a discussion on the Army Estimates coming on, and another which was raised on going into Committee of Supply on Friday. He would go a step further, and say the noble Marquess had no reason to complain of the course taken; as in the finish of the speech he made on the 1st of June, on his (Sir Walter B. Barttelot's) Motion, he clearly placed before them a new scheme they had never had till now an opportunity of discussing; and as it had a good deal to do with the Army Reserve Vote he thought it only right and fair to make a few observations now in respect to it. The noble Marquess was then very severe on those who spoke on that (the Opposition) side of the House. He said—"You have nothing to say; you hark back on the old long Service; and you do not tell us anything." He forgot entirely the commencement of his (Sir Walter B. Barttelot's) speech, when he told him if he could wipe out the enormous roll of men who deserted in the first 12 months, and even the first 11 months, he would have done a good service. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was very anxious that at least 25 per cent of the men should be old soldiers; and he believed that by the extension of the Service, which the noble Marquess proposed to them, the 25 per cent might be obtained; but then the noble Marquess got up and said that so soon as they filled the ranks, they would not allow any more men to extend that period of their service; and, in his opinion, a more unfortunate statement could not have gone forth to the country. What did that statement amount to? It was practically this—that when they had their ranks filled up they would not allow men who were just as willing and anxious to extend their service as the others, and to make the Army their profession, to do so. They, in fact, took out of them the best years of their lives, and then turned them adrift on the country discontented, and to abuse that Army which they were so anxious to see in an efficient state. Then the noble Marquess stated that there was a deficiency in the Infantry of 8,477 men, and that the total deficiency amounted to 11,000. Further, he told them that there was a large deficiency in India, where they most wanted old soldiers, and also on their

    1387
    Stations abroad, and in the Colonies, where they were likewise much needed. And yet the noble Marquess know that, at the present time, they were enlisting hundreds and thousands of men whom it would take years to fit for Service. Then the noble Marquess made another most remarkable statement. What did he say? That it was not foreseen that a very large number of men who had enlisted in 1870 and 1871 under the old system would obtain their discharges in 1882 and the following year, and that, had this been foreseen, probably the restriction would not have been imposed. But they all knew it—and those who had had anything to do with the Army in particular knew it, and what could the noble Marquess's Predecessors have been about if he did not know—that the long-service system would come to an end in 1882 and 1883, so that positively the War Office admitted that they did not know these men would leave the Army at that time, and consequently they had failed to take steps to fill up the ranks. That, surely, was a most extraordinary statement. In the speech which he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) made on that occasion he did tell the noble Marquess that one of the reasons why they experienced so much difficulty in getting recruits was from the way in which they were treated when they first joined. He pointed out that if a little more consideration were shown to the men, and they had more food given them, it would, to some extent, enable them to cope with the difficulty. He ventured to say that if any hon. Member saw the quantity of food given to the men he would say at once the rations were not sufficient. And yet what was the answer they received? Why, that it would cost too much money. These men, in consequence of the short supply of food they had, and the hard work they had to go through, took stimulants to keep them up, and in that way they could account for much of the drunkenness that existed in the Army. The men took to drink under the circumstances he had described, and they knew only too well the consequences. Another thing to which he wished to refer was the statement of the noble Marquess that the 48 battalions at their lowest strength would each have 520 men. At the time when that statement was made he (Sir Walter B. Bart-
    1388
    telot) was not in a position to answer the noble Marquess; but he had since taken some trouble in making inquiries respecting these 520 men, and he found that hardly one of the regiments had 520 men. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) asked that they should be made 600 strong, for that was the lowest number with which they could do garrison work. Again, he had already said that when the short-service system was introduced it was believed they would require, as a consequence of it, an increase of 10,000 men. That was recommended not only by His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, but also by Lord Wolseley. The question was, how was it to be done? Well, he would venture to say that if the noble Marquess could, by improved regulations, get a better class of men in the Army for short, medium, and long service, the waste in the Army would not be so great, and then they would save to the country a clear £500,000. He believed if the noble Marquess went into the question he would find that the very large Estimates they now had need not be exceeded. Look at two Votes, the one for Warlike Stores, and the other for Buildings, and some of these buildings had been very badly done; and he ventured to say the noble Marquess could save enough out of them and other Votes to provide for the 10,000 additional men, which would be of the greatest benefit to the Service. Again, he asked the other day for a Return of soldiers' balances; and on that subject he might say he had received an enormous quantity of applications, which, if he saw them, would simply astonish the noble Marquess. He did hope he would allow a Return of the balances to be printed, and placed before the country, for it was said that out of these they made £4,000 or £5,000 a-year. Certainly, there should be no desire at the War Office to keep back one farthing of what was due to soldiers' relatives, when the soldiers themselves had died and left balances owing to them. Another point was this—they asked the men to extend their services for 21 years, and to leave in their hands their deferred pay of £36. Would they, he asked, find any Englishman who would do that? The men said—and properly said—"We have earned the £36; why are we not to have it, and to do what we please with it?"

    1389
    Certainly, this practice had prevented men from re-engaging; and he ventured to ask the noble Marquess, as far as he was able, to consider the question. "With respect to the non-commissioned officers, he would suggest that when once a man obtained the stripes he should have the option of extending his length of service, and that, should he after entering into the second period of enlistment do anything to forfeit them, he should not be required to leave the Service, but should be allowed to remain in it as a private soldier for the remainder of the period, so as to give him an opportunity of recovering his position. He trusted the noble Marquess would consider the matters he had ventured to lay before him, with a view of improving the quality of the Army and the inducements to enter it.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURobserved, that their Army in India was now 5,400 men below its Establishment, or about one-tenth short of its proper number. He knew the fatal consequences of allowing that Army to fall below its Establishment at the time of the Mutiny. On January 1st, 1857, immediately before the outbreak, their European Army in India was nearly 6,000 deficient; and he believed that had that 6,000 men been added to the enrolment, many of the great disasters in India would have been averted at that period, and a large portion of the £30,000,000 spent in quelling the Mutiny would have been saved. Some years ago, a large deficiency in the number of our European Forces in India again occurred; and he had called attention through the Press to the serious deficiency, and to the danger therefrom, and matters afterwards improved; but now, again, the Army in India had fallen below its Establishment; and every hon. Member who valued that great Empire would see that he was only doing his duty in calling attention to that grave fact. In the Horse Artillery, the Royal Artillery, and the Cavalry, as well as in the Infantry, the deficiency showed itself; and they ought to have an explanation as to the cause of its existence. Both Recruiting Commissions of 1859 and 1866 repeated that Indian service was so popular that recruits could always be obtained when the other arm of the Service failed to get men; and, there-
    1390
    fore, if India was allowed to take care of itself, he believed it would be able to find a sufficient number of men to complete the Establishment. And, seeing the large sums contributed by India for the maintenance of the Force in India, it was most objectionable to find the War Office failing the provide the recruits and drafts of men to maintain the garrison in India up to its full strength. It was also most objectionable for the War Office to receive the money of India for providing a deficit, and then not provide specially for India the separate Establishment for training recruits. Nothing could be more hurtful to recruiting than the way in which their soldiers were now employed at home. They were worked to death in useless guard and sentinel duty; and when he recommended to the noble Marquess the employment of watchmen for the discharge of such duties as were not purely military, the noble Marquess replied that he could not do so as it would cost money. There was no greater advocate of economy than himself; but he thought it a false economy to make the Service distasteful to those employed in it by working the soldiers on watch and ward duties, so certain to cause dissatisfaction, and, above all, to cause discipline to be relaxed by the pressure from day and night duties. He earnestly urged upon the noble Marquess the necessity of paying attention to the work of the Army.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERremarked, that the Army was now in a worse state than when he joined it; and he believed that if Members of the House who were not military officers had a daily statement of the regiments they would be astounded to see how few men every morning commanding officers had for duty's call. Earlier in the Session the noble Marquess said he was going back some way towards long service; but since then he had intimated that he contemplated after a time reverting to short service. For himself, he felt disappointment at that statement, because short service had been a great blow to the Army, although it was now a fait accompli. During the Recess the noble Marquess would have very seriously to consider the state of the recruiting of the Army and its efficiency, if they were to expect the Service to do in the future what it had done in the past. The mistake that had been committed was in trying to make a Re-

    1391
    serve with a voluntary system. Such an attempt could not but fail. They might in that way make a nominal Reserve; but they spread discontent among those who might enter the ranks. He believed that the Reserve men had done more to injure recruiting than anything else. The noble Marquess ought to consider the class of men who were being received now. They were taking men of 3 feet 3 inches in height provided they promised to develop into good soldiers. He would not object to that if they had a very large force indeed; but that was not the case, and while they had short service it had to be remembered that it took three years to develop a good soldier. Moreover, the food given was insufficient for growing boys, and the work and night duty they had to do was unsuitable for them. It was useless enlisting these men for foreign service. It was well known that the Army was depleted at the time of the Egyptian War, every man who could pass the doctor for foreign service being required to make the regiments up to their proper strength. This question as to the best mode of restoring the Army to its condition in days of yore was one worthy for the noble Marquess to grapple with and consider.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLalso expressed the disappointment which he felt at hearing the noble Marquess state it was not his intention to persevere with the experiment he had promised to make in the direction of reviving the system of long service, for unless that was done it would be impossible to maintain the strength of these forces in India and in the Colonies. He feared the noble Marquess had allowed someone else to overrule his own sound judgment.
    DR. FARQUHARSONdrew attention to the insufficiency of the rations supplied to the troops, and mentioned that the recruits at Caterham recently who had very hard work to do suffered so much in this respect that the men were compelled to spend from 3d. to 4d. a-day out of their pay for food. At present a soldier got practically nothing to eat between his dinner at half-past 12 and his breakfast next morning. When he was assistant-surgeon in the Guards he and his colleagues recommended, over and over again, the propriety of adding another quarter of a pound of meat daily to the rations. He was sure that to this
    1392
    shortness of food was due, not only the intemperance of the Army, but the distressing tendency of the men of the Guards to consumption.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that what he stated the other night as to the temporary character of the changes, announced by him two months ago, appeared to have been misunderstood. The whole of these changes were of a temporary character; but some of them were also of a experimental character; and if they were found to work well there was no foregone conclusion on his part to adopt them merely as temporary measures. The Government had no intention, and he did not think the country was prepared, to give up the prospect of forming a sufficient Reserve to be called out in cases of great emergency. It must be evident that if inducements were offered to men to extend their service after they had completed seven or eight years with the Colours a heavy blow would be inflicted on the Reserve, and that was the part of the recent changes which the Government did not desire permanently to maintain. The part of the changes which he understood the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) to approve was, the experimental adoption in the Guards of the system of enlisting men for 12 years—that was, three years with the Colours and nine with the Reserve, and at the same time giving a certain number of men who desired to extend their service the option of doing so. He was informed that the plan, as far as it had been tried, had proved a very successful one, and that a large number of recruits for the Guards had been found. If that experiment should continue to be successful, and it was found that a very large number of recruits came forward, and that a sufficient number of these men were willing to extend their service with the Colours, he thought it exceedingly probable that an attempt in that direction might be made with regard to the whole Army. But, of course, in the short time during which the experiment had been in operation, it was impossible to say whether or not it should be extended to the whole Army. In regard to what had been said about the short-service system, and the recommendation of Lord Wolseley that the Army should be increased by 10,000 men, he had to say that the Establishment had been very

    1393
    considerably increased. It was increased by his Predecessor by about 3,000 men, and it was increased in the present year by more than 1,000 men. No doubt the Indian and Colonial reliefs could not be efficiently carried out with the present Establishment; but the present Establishments were founded on careful actuarial calculations, and it did not follow that, because at the present time it had been found impossible adequately to supply the existing want, the Establishments would be permanently inadequate. The battalions in India and at home had not yet reached their normal state. Further experience was required before they could arrive at the conclusion that the number of Establishments so fixed was insufficient for the purposes intended. The hon. and gallant Member had urged some increase in the rations, and had said that any cost entailed thereby might easily be met by a reduction in the Vote for Warlike Stores and Buildings. It was very easy to say that; but when they were on that Vote they found it very difficult to say where any reduction in it could be made; and, indeed, the provision already made for that service was, in the opinion of hon. Members opposite, insufficient. With regard to buildings, whenever a reduction was wanted, that was always the quarter where they were made; but he did not think it was to the public advantage to reduce the barracks where the soldiers were quartered or the fortifications of the country. With regard to the suggestion as to publishing Returns, he did not think that of any practical use, for the classes most interested in these matters were not likely to inquire into Parliamentary Returns. The subject of sentinel duty was under consideration, and he had asked the authorities to look carefully into the matter and see whether it could not be reduced.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 11: Majority 89.—(Div. List, No. 309.)
    Resolution agreed to.
    Twelfth Resolution (£34,000, Miscellaneous Effective Services) read a second time.
    SIR JOHN HAYcalled attention to the undefended condition of the Clyde. Except a few guns on Dumbarton Castle there was nothing to defend Glasgow.
    1394
    He believed there had been a proposal to fortify the Lesser Cumbrae; and he should like to know whether it was intended to proceed with the necessary protection of the Estuary of the Clyde?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he did not think any provision had been made for works in that quarter. The Committee presided over by Lord Morley had inquired into the defences of our commercial harbours generally. The defences of the Clyde, he believed, occupied the attention of the Committee, and their recommendations were under the consideration of the Inspector General of Fortifications. As soon as he had completed his investigations, it would be for him to state what Her Majesty's Government proposed to do.
    Resolution agreed to.
    Thirteenth Resolution (£241,800, Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges of the War Office) read a second time.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked for some explanation why the hospital ship, so fully equipped with beds, medical stores, and comforts of every description, as well as with medical officers, was not sent from Alexandria to Ismailia to receive the sick and wounded immediately on the troops disembarking, instead of being three days at least behind, whereby the medical arrangements for the troops on shore were all deranged? Also, what measures were in progress to induce men in India whose term of Service had expired to volunteer to remain on payment of a bounty, as formerly so successfully offered?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, it was not desirable that he should go into details on the medical question, on which Lord Wolseley and some of the authorities differed, as the question would come up next Session. Up to this time the War Office had not received any information as to the number of men in India who would avail themselves of the permission to extend their term of service; and until the information was received it was impossible to say what number of men would be required for India.
    Resolution agreed to.
    Fourteenth and Fifteenth Resolutions agreed to.
    Sixteenth Resolution (£ 1,134,000, Retired Pay, Retired Full Pay, and Gratuities for Reduced and Retired Officers, including Payments awarded by the Army Purchase Commissioners) read a second time.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that he had been waiting for a long time to call attention to the case of Purchase officers and the manner in which they had been dealt with by the War Office authorities. In the case he referred to—and he would confine himself to the Purchase Colonels—the officers had been treated very badly on their compulsory retirement. He recollected very well, when Mr. Cardwell was passing his scheme through the House of Commons, that he promised that no officer should be worse off, or in a worse position, after Purchase was abolished than during the time that it existed. The senior Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) moved a Resolution to the effect that the regulation money should be paid back to every officer, and in a very full House the Motion was defeated by a very small majority. If the House had been wise and prudent, then justice would have been done to the officers, and full satisfaction given to every one of them. Twice since that time their case had been inquired into by Royal Commissions, who had made recommendations. Every time the question was raised, he had advocated justice being done to the officers by returning their regulation money. In 1878 the War Office dealt with the subject of the officers in a strange way; but that was a mere joke when contrasted with the Warrant of 1881 brought out by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. In that Royal Warrant the cases of the subalterns, the captains, the majors, and the colonels were dealt with; but he would only deal with the case of the colonels, leaving it to his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Henry Fletcher) to deal with the other officers affected by the scheme. He complained, first of all, that the Purchase Colonels under the old system on retiring did not get back their regulation money. Under the old system, when an officer became a colonel, he was allowed to remain, if he chose to do so, with his regiment until, by promotion, he became a General Officer. Then he got neither regulation nor over-regulation money; but if he chose to
    1396
    retire on half pay, he got his over-regulation money; if he sold out he got both regulation and over-regulation. But this plan, after the abolition of Purchase, was found to keep a number Of officers from getting promotion, and after a time the colonels were taken away from their regiments; and in some instances, but not in all, they were given the command of regimental districts, and they were allowed to remain colonels until they became General Officers. In 1881, the Purchase officers who had purchased their majority, and were lieutenant-colonels of regiments, came under the five years' rule; they were placed on half-pay, and had their over-regulation money returned, but their regulation money was kept; and they were told they could retire upon a pension of £420, but they must refund their over-regulation price. This was a cruel hardship. Surely, when a man was placed on half-pay compulsorily, he ought to retain the over-regulation money which had been returned to him. He would now only mention two cases to show how hardly officers had been dealt with. The first was that of Major General Rose, who, having been compulsorily retired with the rank of Major General, wrote to say that he considered that he was entitled to receive the regulation value of his commission. He was at the top of the colonels entitled to promotion; but he had been compulsorily retired, although a paid Aide-de-Camp to the Queen, and fit and willing to remain in the Service. He now claimed the £4,500 which he had sunk in his Profession; for after 40 years doing his duty to his Queen and country, he was worse off at the finish than the man who had never paid anything at all for his commission. Colonel Blackett's was a similar case, being arbitrarily retired by order in June, 1881. He also claimed £4,500, the price of his lieutenant colonelcy; but he had not received that, but was deprived of future employment. Now, these were cases of exceptional severity and injustice; and he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) considered that he had a right to demand that the cases of the Purchase Colonels should be inquired into by a thoroughly impartial Committee of that House, or of independent General Officers, so that they should be able to explain their grievances and have them rectified, and he hoped

    1397
    that the noble Marquess would see that justice was done in every case, as had been promised by Mr. Cardwell when the Purchase system was abolished.
    SIR HENRY FLETCHERheartily endorsed everything which his hon. and gallant Friend had said with regard to the colonels. He desired to call attention to the case of the Purchase Captains of the Army, who had been unfairly dealt with, and who were now in a worse position than the Purchase Colonels since 1881. By the Warrant of that year the minimum pension to a retired captain was fixed at £259, and in no case to exceed £300. In some cases there had been a temporary rank of lieutenant-colonel granted, for which the officers were very thankful. In some cases there was a substantive rank of major, which enabled the widow to obtain a larger pension. What he complained of was that officers had compulsorily to retire, and were not allowed to retire at their own request. In some cases they had to retire rather than submit to the indignity of being placed under the junior officers of their own regiments. One case he would give—namely, that of Colonel Beasely, late of the 83rd Regiment, retired on £280 a-year, after a junior had been put over him causing him to resign. Also the case of Colonel Clarke, who had to retire under less than £300 a-year. All he asked was that the Secretary of State for War would take these cases into consideration, and with a desire to do them justice. Surely it was not a very large sum—only £929 a-year—that was required to do justice in their case. It was an amount which would be reduced every year, because officers could not expect to live for ever. He thought that it was only fair that their cases should be inquired into, and justice done to the hopes and expectations of men who had long and faithfully served their Queen and country at home and abroad.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he understood the contention to be that the pecuniary prospects of these officers had been damaged by the Royal Warrant; but that was denied by the War Office. They were entitled to retired full pay of £1 a-day, or, if they preferred to remain in the Service, they were entitled to half-pay, with the additional prospect of becoming General
    1398
    Officers, and succeeding to honorary colonelcies. When the Warrant of 1881 compulsorily retired these officers at a certain age, in compensation for these pecuniary prospects they were given £420 a-year retired pay, instead of £365 a-year, to which they would have been otherwise entitled.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: They had sunk all their money.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, they had sunk their money for the prospects he had just stated. They obtained £420 a-year at once, in lieu of the £365. Although a grievance undoubtedly existed in the case of some of the colonels thus retired, in many cases the allowance granted was more than an equivalent to the loss they sustained by the issue of the Warrant. The hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex had said the officers were compelled, under certain circumstances, to refund their over-regulation money. They were only compelled to do that if they retired before they were compulsorily retired; if, in other words, they retired for their own convenience. It was impossible to make an equitable distinction between the claims of the 25 officers who would have been compulsorily retired in 1881, and the case of more than 100 other officers who voluntarily retired for exactly the same reason, although they had not reached the age at which they would have been compulsorily retired. It was asked that a Committee of the House, or else a Committee of officers of the Army, might be appointed to consider the claims of these officers. The claims in question had been already fully considered by the Department, and had been on more than one occasion discussed in the House of Commons. It appeared to him that no recommendation of a Committee could justify the Government in departing from the principle which was absolutely necessary for the protection of the Public Service. It would be impossible for the Government to accede to the proposal to appoint a Committee, because he believed it could be shown that, from a pecuniary point of view, these officers had been equitably, and even liberally dealt with.
    Resolution agreed to.
    Seventeenth and Eighteenth Resolutions agreed to.
    Nineteenth Resolution (£32,900, Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals and the In-Pensioners thereof) read a second time.
    SIR HENRY FLETCHERasked what course the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War intended to pursue with regard to the Report of the Committee on the Chelsea Hospital, who had recourse to the strong measure of recommending the annulling of certain Army pensions and the abolition of the Secretary's office in view of the duties being carried on by the Lieutenant Governor? He trusted that the second reading of the Soldiers' Pensions and Yeomanry Pay Bill would not be taken to-night, because it was very necessary there should be ample opportunity for discussing the Bill.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the object of the Bill to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had referred was to abolish the statutory powers which were now exercised by the Boards of the Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals, and to vest in the Secretary of State the power of interpreting, as he did in other cases, the meaning of Warrants. Great inconvenience had, on more than one occasion, been found to result from the exercise of the powers of the Board in this respect. There was no present intention of acting upon the recommendation that the awarding of pensions should be transferred from the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital to the War Office; and, therefore, the matter must come up for further consideration by the Secretary of State. The remaining recommendations related to matters of detail, which would have to be carefully considered, and any changes to be made would be embodied in a measure which would come before the House. Care would be taken that full compensation should be given to the holders of appointments that might be abolished.
    Resolution agreed to.
    Twentieth and Twenty-first Resolutions agreed to.
    Twenty-second Resolution (£48,000, Retired Allowances, &c. to Officers of the Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteer Forces) read a second time.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFadvocated the distribution of honorary dis-
    1400
    tinctions among Volunteers distinguished for long service.
    Resolution agreed to.
    Twenty-third and Twenty-fourth Resolutions agreed to.
    Twenty-fifth Resolution (£10,400, Expense of Martial Law, &c.) read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    CAPTAIN MAXWELL-HERONdrew attention to the Clyde Court Martial, held at Portsmouth, in December last. He stated that by the sentence of the Court an honourable and gallant officer had been dismissed from the Service, and socially in part, and financially altogether, ruined for life. He confessed that he stood there in a difficult and delicate position—difficult, because he knew how hard it was to move the House to take cognizance of such matters as courts martial, and because he felt conscious of his own inability to lay clearly and distinctly before the House the grievances of which he had to complain; and delicate, in consequence of the relationship which existed between himself and the person who suffered by the sentence of the court martial. He had no wish or intention to impugn the conduct of Lord Northbrook or the Admiralty in connection with the inquiry; but he thought that, as all men were mortal, so were they prone to error. All that he should impute to Lord Northbrook, on the present occasion, was that he had committed an error in judgment, although it was an error in judgment which had sentenced an unfortunate gentleman to a very severe punishment. The principal witnesses by whose evidence Commander Maxwell-Heron was condemned were four in number. They were Mr. Fitzgerald, gunner, who was second in command of the Clyde; Bourne, the boatswain's mate; Seabright, an able-bodied seaman; and Hadden, a ship's corporal. Fitzgerald was appointed to a very important post in the Clyde by the Admiralty, and, as second in command, he had great power. The Admiralty, in making the appointment, showed that they had great confidence in him, and, no doubt, his (Captain Maxwell-Heron's) brother had the same confi-

    1401
    dence in him; but it was for the overweening trust and confidence in Mr. Fitzgerald that the Commander of the Clyde now occupied the unfortunate position in which he was placed. In some of the charges Fitzgerald's was the main evidence; indeed, in the principal charges against this honourable and gallant officer that was so; and he (Captain Maxwell-Heron) was prepared to assert, in the most emphatic manner, in that House that that evidence was prejudiced, interested, and, in one instance, perjured. Fitzgerald was himself afterwards tried by court martial and sentenced to be dismissed the Service, with disgrace. But, although he was admitted as evidence, and although his evidence, interested as it was, and prejudiced as it must have been—because, in order to shield himself, he sought to accuse his Commander—and though his evidence, in the main, was uncorroborated, it was accepted generally by the Court, and not subjected to rigid criticism and examination by the members of the Court as it ought to have been. Such, at least, was the opinion of an able and eminent counsel before whom the case had been laid, and who, after patiently wading through the evidence, came to the conclusion that Commander Heron ought to have an appeal to another tribunal. If it was the fact that it was mainly on the evidence of this man Fitzgerald that the most serious charges were proved, then he maintained that his brother, the Commander of the Clyde, had not had justice done to him. But, besides that, the Commander of the Clyde was summoned by the Admiralty to appear as a witness on the court martial upon that fellow; but, extraordinary to relate—and he did not know why—Commander Heron was not called, and had no opportunity of refuting the disparaging evidence of the gunner. The next witness in the case was Bourne, the boatswain's mate. After the preliminary Court of Inquiry, held at Aberdeen, Bourne was imprisoned by order of the Admiralty, and kept in close confinement for more than a fortnight, and then suddenly released; and, although he had denied before the preliminary Court that he had ever kept a rough expense book at all, yet, when released, he gave diametrically opposite evidence, and came forward to swear that not only had he kept a rough ex-
    1402
    pense book, but that he had been ordered by the Commander to tear three pages out of it. Happily for Commander Heron, the court martial did not believe the evidence of Bourne, which, indeed, was contradicted by Fitzgerald. Bourne was really a self-confessed liar. He would now give a short narrative of the case, stating the facts as briefly as possible. On the 26th of September last year a letter was handed to the Commander of the Clyde through Fitzgerald from Hadden, the ship's corporal. The letter complained that certain stores had been taken out of the ship and made away with. The Commander of the Clyde called the man on the quarter-deck, and asked him what evidence he had in support of the charges he had made? The man said he would produce it, and it would be easy to produce witnesses. He was then remanded for 48 hours. As the Clyde laid alongside of the jetty it was easy for him to have gone into the town and brought up his witnesses. The Commander of the Clyde was away for two days on leave, and on his return he was told by Gunner Fitzgerald that he had placed Hadden in arrest, because instead of going to procure the witnesses necessary to substantiate his charges he had gone to the Commander's tradesmen, using his name, and had demanded the bills of the Commander. The Commander sent for Hadden, who said he should still be able to bring evidence. Endorsing the action of his second in command, Commander Heron remanded the case for 24 hours. At the end of that time the Commander again sent for the man, and asked him—"Have you any further evidence?" And his reply was that he would produce evidence when he had an impartial officer to hear it. In the end the Commander ordered Hadden to be disrated. In the meantime, Hadden wrote what was called an informal letter. It was a letter which ought to have been forwarded through the Commanding Officer; but it was sent direct to the Admiralty—or, rather, straight to the Duke of Edinburgh, who was in command of the Naval Reserves. A telegram was then received from Captain Douglas, ordering the Commander of the Clyde not to disrate Hadden. The Commander was naturally very anxious to take Hadden's position into consideration, and that he

    1403
    should withdraw the charge; but he never suggested such a thing. Subsequently, on the 16th of October, Hadden was ready to withdraw the charge. He said he would go no further with it. But this was not deemed sufficient. The Commander said he must withdraw the charge altogether. The man then withdrew the charge, and Commander Heron intimated that he had done so; but he received a letter from the Admiralty stating that there would be a Court of Inquiry held on the subject. The Court was ordered and held, and one of the members of the Court was Captain Best, who had previously been on unfriendly terms with the Commander of the Clyde. He should have thought that any man in Captain Best's position—any man actuated by the feelings of a gentleman—would have asked to be relieved from sitting on such an inquiry. However, that course of action did not suggest itself to Captain Best. Commander Heron, who had been suffering from a severe cold, which almost resulted in congestion of the lungs, had to rise from a sick bed to attend the inquiry. Bourne, the boatswain's mate, was asked the question whether he had kept a rough expense-book, and he replied that he had not; Seabright, the painter, was asked whether he had ever taken paint to the Commander's house, and he said that he had not. The result of the inquiry was that the Commander of the Clyde was placed under arrest, as were also Fitzgerald, Seabright, and two other members of the ship's company. They were kept waiting for 28 weary days, and then it was found by the Admiralty that charges had been made which must be formally investigated. He then found that against him were formulated 14 charges, some of them serious, based upon the evidence taken at the inquiry at Aberdeen. The Commander, in the meantime, was deprived of his command, and was ordered to report himself at Portsmouth, in order to be tried by court martial. Although the Admiralty had taken 28 days to formulate the charges, they only gave this unfortunate officer six clear days to get up his reply. The time was altogether insufficient, and the Admiralty refused him a copy of the Minute of charges against him. How was it possible to get up rebutting evidence in six days? Yet that was all the time allowed. There
    1404
    was not a single executive commissioned officer on the ship except the Commander himself. He stood alone; and there was evidently a conspiracy against him. If he (Captain Maxwell-Heron) believed his brother guilty of the heavier charges brought against him, he would not be standing there in that House to defend him; but it was because he did not believe him to be guilty that he had been induced to bring the case forward. Neither did he nor his (Commander Heron's) brother officers believe him to be guilty. His brother officers in the Navy testified to his high character. None of them refused to shake him by the hand and say how very sorry for him they were, and how much they sympathized with him. Commander Heron was well known; he was acquainted personally with many Members of that House, and he was known to be scrupulously careful in the discharge of his duty. Was it conceivable that he could have been guilty of such practices in order to oppress a ship's corporal and hide his own misdeeds? The second charge was a very serious one—namely, that he had constantly sent false Returns to the Admiralty. This was the charge made in the informal letter sent to the Admiral; although the practice was, no doubt, irregular, it was not uncommon. The charge was based upon documentary evidence signed by the ship's corporal, which, however, was held to be sufficient to substantiate it. Part of the documentary evidence against the Commander consisted of an account signed not by Messrs. Taylor, who purported to sign it, but by the ship's corporal in their name, without appending to the name the word "signed." The third charge was also a serious one. It was for allowing the sale of ship's stores, a high-sounding name for old ropes and yarns, which from time immemorial had been sold out of ships to be replaced by blacklead, paint, &c. He knew that it was a breach of the Admiralty Regulations; but he had it from the lips of admirals, captains, and lieutenants that the rule was more honoured in the breach than the observance. To substantiate the charge there was only the evidence of Fitzgerald as to the sales, and there was no document to prove that Commander Heron gave any authority for the sales. At the present moment the Commander denied that he

    1405
    gave any orders for the sales. Yet it was on the gunner's evidence that the charge had been found proved. There was a curious point about this charge. Fitzgerald, who asserted that leave had been given himself, denied sales that he was proved to have made in the absence of the Commander in the month of June. If the Commander had given leave for any sale, why should the gunner have denied that any took place? Surely such a point ought to have been submitted to the First Lord and to the Judge Advocate General; but he (Captain Maxwell-Heron) had himself asked if the case had been submitted, and he was told that there was no reason for doing so. The seventh charge related to the tearing out of some leaves from a book of expenses. A book was produced with three pages torn out; and if it had not been for the shrewdness of Mr. Bullen, who acted as the prisoner's friend, it would not have been discovered that these three pages did not correspond with the lined pages in the book produced. Another book was therefore produced, from which three pages had also been torn, and probably other books might have been found by the witness in the same condition. Was it possible to conceive that a man, though he might be a knave, would give an order to any man to tear three pages out of a book when he might have destroyed the book altogether? Then there was a charge that the Commander appropriated the ship's paint. Well, the house he occupied in Aberdeen cost £100 a-year, completely furnished; and yet the witness Seabright, who was employed to do the painting, said that he used 3 cwt. of paint in decorating it. It was impossible at the moment to get evidence to rebut that statement, because the venue had been changed from Aberdeen to Portsmouth. But since then the foreman of a very large firm in London had been sent down, with orders to measure the amount of paint that was used in the house. He had that man's affidavit, in which he stated that the whole of the paint used in the work done at the house, at the highest possible computation, was 110 lbs. The architect and builder of the house also stated the amount of paint used as being from 75 to 78 lbs.; and if an average were struck between those two estimates the amount would be about 95 lbs. But
    1406
    there was no order given by the Commander of the Clyde—nor did it appear on the evidence—that the ship's paint should be used; and, further, there was evidence that he said that what was wrongly used was to be replaced. Further, it was stated by Seabright that one day, when the Commander of the Clyde saw him coming from the ship with a plank, he asked him where he was going with that plank, and when the man replied, "To your house," the Commander of the Clyde said that everything he took out of the ship must be replaced, and that an account must be kept. That showed that there was no intention to defraud the Government of a single 6d. So far from desiring to take anything from the ship's stores, the Commander of the Clyde had, out of his own pocket, spent about £9 in painting on board the vessel, and he had not thought for a moment that the paint used by Seabright would be used for his house without being replaced. Then there was a charge against the Commander of having used some of the ship's coal in his own house. The only foundation for that charge was, that when he went there the house had not been used for some time, and he asked Fitzgerald to let him have a little coal to air the room in which he intended to sleep. But he never gave orders that Fitzgerald should get the coal from the ship's store; and, if he did, it was certainly intended that it should be replaced. It appeared that Fitzgerald sent three sacks of coal, although it was not proved in evidence that the coal was ever received into the house, because a witness stated that, finding nobody in the house, he threw the coal over the wall. It was a curious fact that the Commander of the Clyde was accused of having used coal that was sent from the ship to the house on the 3rd of February, whereas the chief witness said it was sent in November, or, at all events, before Christmas. That was the man who was supposed to have taken the coal. The Commander of the Clyde never knew until the day of the inquiry that even so much as three sacks of coal had been sent to the house; but he thought it was only a small quantity to air the room. The next charge had reference to a carpet, of the value of a few shillings. The explanation of that matter was, that it

    1407
    was reported to Commander Heron that the carpet had fallen overboard and been lost. He believed the story of the men who afterwards gave evidence against him, and signed a certificate presented by them, which he had since learned to be false. It had never, however, been proved, nor did it appear in evidence, that the carpet was not lost, although something was said about its having been seen in Fitzgerald's room after it was reported to have been lost. Then, again, there was a charge of taking a table and chair belonging to the ship. It was quite true that the Commander of the Clyde had a chair and table taken to his house, to have them repaired at his own expense, and to utilize them; but he had never dreamt of stealing them, and it was all along his intention to return them. To find the Commander of the Clyde guilty of an offence in that instance was a most extraordinary proceeding, because when he (Captain Maxwell-Heron) was in camp it was a common practice among the officers to take their barrack furniture into their tents. He had done so frequently, but he always returned it; and he should have been much surprised when he did so if a charge of this kind had been brought against him. He had, therefore, been much surprised at the decision of the court martial. As to the alleged sale of dance tickets to the public, the Commander of the Clyde never gave any such sanction. All he did was to allow each seaman to take three or four tickets to dispose of on his own responsibility—which was done in the Service every day at Chatham and Plymouth; and the object of the sale of the tickets was to form a charitable fund. Yet the Commander was convicted, on the evidence of Fitzgerald alone, of having authorized the sale of these tickets to the public. He had no time to go into the case more fully; but he contended that, under all the circumstances of the case, the finding of the court martial might have been referred to the revision of the Judge Advocate General. In other courts martial there had been a revision of the sentence; but there had not been the slightest suggestion, on the part of the Admiralty, that they would be willing to commute the sentence upon the Commander of the Clyde. Only very recently, in the case of two young officers
    1408
    tried by a court martial and sentenced to be dismissed the Service, there had been a commutation of the punishment. Therefore, under all the circumstances of the case, and taking into consideration the long services of the Commander of the Clyde, he hoped he might appeal to the clemency of the Government and of the Admiralty. It had been hinted to him that by bringing the case forward now the gates of mercy at the Admiralty would be for ever shut; but he appealed to the Prime Minister, who, he knew, had a kind heart and good and generous impulses, and also to Lord Northbrook, to reconsider the case. He asked for nothing more; and he only asked for that on the ground that the decision had been founded on the evidence of perjured witnesses, one of whom had since been tried by court martial and dismissed the Service with disgrace. He appealed to the mercy of the Admiralty, and also to the mercy of that House. He did not wish to take a Division on the question. Indeed, it would be foolishness "for him to do so. ["No!"] No doubt there were many Gentlemen present who were ready to support him; but, still, he thought it would be unwise to press the matter to a Division. In conclusion, he would, therefore, appeal to the mercy of the House and of the Government, in the full hope that justice might be done.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that, after the touching appeal which had been made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman on behalf of his brother, he felt sure the House would extend its indulgence to him, in consequence of the appeal which had been made to him in reference to the subject under discussion. He recognized the fact that the House was not a Court of Appeal from a court martial or a Court of Law; but when those in authority had not taken the course which the House expected, in obedience to Act of Parliament, with regard to matters tried by court martial, then he thought it quite right that the case should be brought forward as it had been by his hon. and gallant Friend, and that an opportunity should be given to lay before the House and the public circumstances which required their attention. He intervened in this case because he was one of the few naval officers who had a seat in that House, and also because Mr. Heron,

    1409
    the late Commander of the Clyde, served with him for five years. As the House would readily admit, any officer who had served under him (Sir John Hay) with credit and distinction, deserved at his hands some recognition of his merits when, unfortunately, under the circumstances which had just been detailed, he was, for the moment, under a cloud. He could only say this of the gallant officer—now no longer an officer, he was sorry to say—that he was a loss to Her Majesty's Service, and that he had served not only "with diligence, attention, and sobriety, and was always obedient to command," but also having all the creditable distinctions attached to the certificate of a naval officer. He should also like to say this. He was, as many another man had been, as a lad, poor; that was to say, he had not as large an allowance as many other men. But he was most scrupulous in money affairs; he was never in debt; and, having endorsed his bills for him, he (Sir John Hay) knew that he always kept within his allowance. It was only fair to say this of a man who was now suffering from the suggestion—if these allegations were true—of being dishonest. He knew it was not a good thing to quote Latin; but nemo repente fuit turpissimus. A man did not become dishonest all of a sudden. Mr. Heron was an officer for 32 years; and although he had not distinguished himself greatly, because he had no opportunities for distinction, he did his duty like a man, and with credit to the Service. He was always fond of active service; but for family reasons which did him honour, in order to make a home for his mother and sister, he took a Coastguard command. As soon as he could get away from that Coastguard command, he was employed in Her Majesty's ship Seagull, and sent to the Coast of Africa. He was there two years doing excellent service; and in 1878 he was withdrawn from the Coast of Africa, and sent to the Mediterranean. From thence he was sent to the Red Sea, and he served there with great advantage to the public. He (Sir John Hay) had seen a letter from a man whom they all respected, and who was familiarly known as "Chinese Gordon," who was associated with Mr. Heron at Massowah. The letter was of recent date, and it fully recognized the good service done by the
    1410
    Commander of the Clyde in the Red Sea. The Coast of the Red Sea was but a short road to a diseased liver. The gallant officer's health broke down, and he returned to this country invalided. He knew that it was intended at the time to promote him, to place him on the Retired List of Captains, and to give him an assured income for the rest of his life. But he was anxious to serve; he did not wish to eat the bread of idleness; he made interest to be retained as a Commander on active service, rather than be retired as a captain, and the result was his appointment to this wretched Clyde. There he found a complete change. Instead of having two officers under him, he suddenly found himself in charge of this hull, lying in dock, without being on board, obliged to live in a hired house, on which, by the way, he was supposed to have used the Queen's paint to the amount of £3 12 s. 6d. Who could believe it of a man like that? The gallant officer lived in this house, and he had as his second in command on board the Clyde a man of the name of Fitzgerald. This man was not a commissioned officer, but a gunner in the Navy, whom Mr. Heron was desired to trust. There were many good, excellent, and trustworthy gunners in the Navy; but this man was neither good, excellent, nor trustworthy, although he was supposed to be so. The Admiralty gave him a high character, and the Commander of the Clyde thought so highly of him that, whenever he went on leave, he left Fitzgerald in charge of the ship and of the stores, supposing him to be thoroughly trustworthy. Among the duties of the gunner was that of keeping the canteen, and attending to the dances on board the Clyde, which had been alluded to. They were dances evidently approved of by the Admiralty, because gas was led into the ship for that purpose. Commander Heron did not lay down the gas, but found it there; and it was to induce the men to come up for training, and to make the Service popular, that the dances were given under the management of the gunner, with the sanction of the Admiralty. As he bad said, the gunner kept the canteen; and although he knew it was his duty to put out the ship's lights at 11, he himself confessed that he had kept them going after 11, because he had not sold all the

    1411
    beer. With this the Commander had nothing whatever to do; he was not expected to be there to watch the proceedings of the gunner. The dances went on when he was supposed to be away, and he was in no way in charge of them. The House would, therefore, see that this gallant officer was placed in an entirely novel position. He had served with distinction on the Coast of Africa and in the Red Sea, and he had done his duty like a man. All of a sudden he was put in a novel position. He (Sir John Hay) would not say that some of these charges did not show negligence on the part of Commander Heron, and there might have been some slackness and some neglect in his conduct; but, still, negligence might be dealt with leniently, and he confessed that the severity of the sentence appalled him. If this gallant officer was to blame, it must be remembered that his health had broken down, and he had better have consented to be placed on the Retired List. But, still, he was anxious to serve, and he accepted the command. The cold climate of Aberdeen, after the heat of the Red Sea and the Coast of Africa, told upon his health, and laid him up frequently. Indeed, his health and constitution had been so impaired that he was not able to give that zealous attention to his duties which he (Sir John Hay) had no doubt he desired to do. He was not going into the question of the charges or of the Court of Inquiry; but he would pass to the court martial, and he asked the attention of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty to the remarks he had to make on that subject. He took no exception to the officers who composed the Court; there was not one of them to whom he would not be ready to submit his life and honour; but it must be remembered that five was the smallest number that could constitute a court martial. That Court ought to have been formed of seven officers, because Captain Codrington of the Excellent and Captain Gordon of the Vernon were in harbour. They were both given fictitious leave by the Admiralty; but they must have done their duty notwithstanding, because, as the old law said, if they were "within sound of gun or sight of the flag," they were bound to come to court martial, even if on leave. If Captain Heron had challenged the constitution of the Court they would have
    1412
    been bound to attend; but as the point was not brought before him he did not do so, and the court martial was composed of five officers only. He had been told that the decision of the Court was arrived at by the bare majority of three to two; but, as the House would be aware, there was no means of testing that statement, because when a court martial was closed it was impossible to know how the votes were given, and the decision must, therefore, be supposed to have been unanimous. He considered the Admiralty were to blame for making a small Court, when they could have made a large one, to try a matter of such importance. Well, this Court was formed; the House knew what was the sentence; the officer's sword was broken, and the sentence was communicated to the Admiralty. He had himself been a Lord of the Admiralty, and knew something of the procedure there in former days. He was so much trusted by his hon. Friends below him in 1874, that, although on the Retired List, he had been selected as one who should be recommended to Her Majesty to be First Sea Lord of the Admiralty, and he had, therefore, such experience as would probably lead the House to suppose that he did not speak in this case without knowledge. His hon. Friend opposite would, therefore, take his statement for what it was worth. In those days, as soon as the Report of the proceedings of a court martial arrived at the Admiralty they were examined by the Secretary to the Department—he was speaking of the Permanent Secretary to the Admiralty, who, in those days, was Mr. Romaine, and who, at the time of the Crimean War, was Judge Advocate General. He was a person on whose opinion reliance could be placed; but in addition to the scrutiny which the proceedings underwent at his hands, they were submitted to each Sea Lord in succession, beginning with the Junior Lord, each of whom made minutes on the proceedings; and if any doubt as to the proceedings of the court martial was suggested, the question was submitted to the Counsel of the Admiralty, then Mr., now Baron, Huddleston, who reported on it, and if no irregularities had been committed the. proceedings were approved. What he found fault with was that when the hon. and learned Member for Hereford (Mr. Reid), and

    1413
    the hon. and learned Member for Nottingham (Mr Arnold Morley), put Questions on this subject, the Secretary to the Admiralty told them that the Admiralty authorities refused to submit the proceedings to the Counsel of the Admiralty. He was told that the person who was doing duty in the absence of the Counsel of the Admiralty had expressed surprise that the matter had not been submitted to him. At the present moment the Admiralty had not Mr. Romaine as Permanent Secretary, but Mr. Swainson, who, although an excellent public servant, was no lawyer, and had no experience of the law. That being so, he could not, and he did not, believe that his hon. Friend could regard an opinion of his, from a legal point of view, as of any value. As a matter of fact, no legal mind had been brought to bear on the question at all; and although Members of that House had repeatedly urged that the papers should be referred to the proper Officers, whom the House paid for their services, the Admiralty had not so referred them. Well, the Admiralty thought they were the best judges of the matter; but he hoped the House would forgive him if he read the opinion of an eminent Queen's Counsel, to whom the papers had been submitted. This gentleman, Mr. Kekewich, was perfectly impartial, and know nothing of the case beyond that which was disclosed in the papers laid before him. He said—
    "I think that the character and position of the witnesses are matters of the first importance in such a case as this, and that the Court did not pay sufficient attention to them. Even if there were no disposition on the part of the other witnesses to make the most of what they had to say against the accused (which cannot, I think, he lightly assumed), there were two, and those the most important of all, whose evidence ought to have been received with suspicion, and to have been submitted to the strictest criticism. The witness Hadden had a distinct grievance against Commodore Heron. Not only had his charges against others been rejected, but he himself had been made the subject of punishment which must have been bitterly felt. He really occupied the position of prosecutor in a case in which he was personally interested, and his evidence ought to have been treated on this footing. I find no trace of this having been done. The evidence of the witness Fitzgerald deserved to be treated still more strictly. He obviously was the person against whom Hadden's charges were originally made. He was the officer on whom Commander Heron had relied. He was directly implicated in many of the charges made against Commander Heron in such a manner that it was his interest to shield
    1414
    himself by attacking his superior officer, and he gave his evidence under the influence of a caution (with which no fault can be found) not to criminate himself. It is too much to say that such a witness ought not to be believed, for that would amount to saying that he ought not to be called; but, in my opinion, he ought to have been examined most carefully. Leading questions ought to have been avoided, his evidence ought to have been severely tested in every possible way, and no credence ought to have been given to him except where corroborated by the clear evidence of other witnesses or the undoubted facts of the case. My conclusion, from a careful perusal of the notes of evidence, is that this was not done, and that the verdict of the Court must, as regards many of the charges, be the result of treating Fitzgerald as a witness worthy of independent credit. For these reasons I think that Commander Heron may fairly say that justice has not been done to him, and that the charges and evidence against him ought to be submitted to another tribunal."
    He thought it right to read the opinion of Mr. Kekewich to the House, and there were many Gentlemen of the long-robe present who would know what weight ought to be attached to those words. For his own part, he was thoroughly satisfied Mr. Kekewich was a person completely impartial in this matter, and who ought to be relied upon. Hero was a man without a flaw in his career, who had served his Queen and country faithfully for 32 years, turned into the streets—for what? For one offence—for £3 12.s. 6d. which he was supposed to have stolen. Was it possible to believe that this gallant officer had been guilty of such an act? Why, the thing was incredible. As a matter of fact, this officer was away on leave; he went to Paris on his marriage tour, and during his absence this man Fitzgerald was in charge of the ship. Many of the things complained of were done in his absence. Amongst the various charges against Commander Heron it was said that he had used the ship's paint for painting a conservatory. There was a bill produced for a small glass house which he had built to welcome his bride, and which cost £30. Now, was it to be supposed that after paying £30 for putting up a greenhouse he would not have paid £3 to have it painted? Although the contrary had been assumed, it was difficult to believe that he could have been capable of such incredible folly or such incredible wickedness. The court martial having sat, the officer was dismissed the Service, and his prospects were ruined. The next day to that on

    1415
    which the court martial decided, what happened? A court martial sat upon the witness Fitzgerald, and others whose names were mentioned, and Fitzgerald was proved to have been himself far more guilty of the things with which he had charged his Commander, and he was sent to penal servitude, or otherwise severely punished. Would any Gentleman in that House say that the evidence of that man was not tainted? Of course, it was the business of Fitzgerald and the others to defend themselves as best they could, and they defended themselves by perjuries. Notwithstanding that, there was to be no fresh trial and no revision of the action of the Admiralty. The fact was, the Admiralty wanted a scapegoat. This plan of putting Commanders on board ships without any intermediate officer had been proposed and rejected in his time, because it was seen that anyone with the rank of Commander could not properly maintain the dignity of his position without there being someone between himself and the men. The Clyde was not the only ship in which bad results had followed the adoption of this system. This officer had been made a scapegoat; the Admiralty was determined to punish someone, and Commander Heron had accordingly been turned out of the Service—in doing which he believed a gross injustice had been done, a gallant heart had been broken, and the country had lost a good officer. In conclusion, he would allude, without mentioning names, to a circumstance which his hon. and gallant Friend had mentioned in connection with another court martial. Two officers came down at night to a place where the captain's gig was lying; they used language too bad to be repeated; they gave a false address, but were found out, and they were broken, very properly, because a worse example could not have been set to the men. But they had friends in high places, and they were now serving in the Navy. Commander Heron had no such friends, and he was turned out of the Service. He would detain the House no longer than to express an earnest hope that a fresh inquiry might be held in the case of Commander Heron.
    COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he desired to say a few words in support of the appeal just made by his right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay).
    1416
    The first thing that struck him on reading the proceedings of the court martial was the very difficult position in which the Commander of the Clyde was placed by having no commissioned officers with him with whom he could consult. He was, consequently, in the power of the man Fitzgerald, who was practically first lieutenant of the ship. This case could not have occurred in the Army, because an officer in an analogous position to that of the Commander of the Clyde would certainly have had an acting adjutant to advise with; and, therefore, he said it was the duty of the Admiralty to put an end to the system of placing superior officers at the mercy of men of inferior rank. He repeated that Commander Heron was placed completely in the power of this dishonest scoundrel, Fitzgerald. All the correspondence passed through the hands of this man, and amongst it was a letter containing an accusation that the ship's stores had been made away with—a very improper practice, because after reading the charges it gave him not only an opportunity of devising an excuse for himself, but of concocting charges against his officer. Again, there seemed to be a system of making charges direct to the Duke of Edinburgh, without going through the hands of the commanding officer. That was a thing that ought not to be supported for one moment; and he maintained that, in justice to the officers of the Navy, it ought to be at once put an end to. With reference to the Court of Inquiry, he said that the conduct of Commander Best, who was a personal enemy of Commander Heron, in sitting as a member of the Court, was most disgraceful, and he would say also that the proceedings were not worth twopence in consequence. Commander Best had the strongest feeling against the Commander of the Clyde, and was not on speaking terms with him. The fact that 14 charges were formulated against that unfortunate officer was in itself sufficient to show the weakness of the case; because, if it were a strong case, one charge deliberately proved would have been conclusive. Some of these things were of a most trumpery description possible. There was a charge of fraud and ordering the destruction of the account-book of stores. The Admiralty knew they had very little chance of obtaining a conviction on

    1417
    these charges. If they had obtained such a conviction, no one would have said the sentence was too heavy; but they knew they had very little chance of making good these charges, consequently they added the charge relating to the old carpet. The Commander of the ship was supposed to go into Gunner Fitzgerald's cabin to look after this carpet; and if that charge failed, the prosecution had another relating to the stuffing of an old arm-chair. These charges entirely broke down, Commander Heron being honourably acquitted. The prosecution ought then to have said—"Having failed to prove these serious charges, we will at once withdraw all the minor charges, especially as we find that the whole of the evidence was tainted from beginning to end." He did not maintain that tainted evidence was worthless; but it was necessary that it should be corroborated. It was not corroborated; and, under the circumstances, he would appeal to his hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) not to stick to the red-tape and stereotyped answer—"We must do this, and we cannot do that; we cannot upset the decision of the court martial." He would ask his hon. Friend to say to Lord Northbrook that he believed a primâ facic case had been made out for a new inquiry, and he hoped he would give an officer who had served with honour and distinction an opportunity of proving that he had not discredited an honourable and a noble Profession.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he desired to approach the subject with as little heat as possible after the somewhat excited speeches which had just been made; and he would ask the House to remember that it could not constitute itself a Court of Review to look into the evidence which had been brought before a formal court martial, when the witnesses came forward of themselves, and when their mode of giving evidence, as well as the matter of their evidence, was within the cognizance of the Court. Of course, it was open to any Member of the House to bring the subject of a sentence such as this under debate; and he must at once admit that he could not only perfectly understand, but could, to a large extent, sympathize with, the motives which had induced the hon. and gallant
    1418
    Member (Captain Maxwell-Heron) to bring this matter before the House, and he would add that the manner in which he had done so, and the tone of his speech, left nothing that could be desired. He (Mr. Campbell Bannerman) trusted he should not say a word in his observations calculated to hurt the feelings of either the hon. and gallant Member or his unfortunate brother who had fallen into these difficulties. He must distinctly state, at the outset, that he was not prepared to go into the merits of the case as disclosed in the evidence taken before the court martial—he was not going into the question whether this charge or that charge was proved, but would begin by saying that this House had not the material before it on which to form a judgment. The hon. and gallant Member had made a statement in defence of Commander Heron; and he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had been astonished, when the hon. and gallant Member declared that it was not his intention to divide the House, to hear loud cries from more parts of the House than one calling for a Division. Those who had joined in those exclamations had declared by that act that they were prepared to pronounce an opinion on this subject. ["No, no!"] Yes; that was his view—pre pared to pronounce an opinion having only heard one side of the case. Hon. Members would not hear the other side from him, because it was not in his power, nor was it his duty, to form the House into a Court of Review on the case. What he could do, however, and what he had much pleasure in doing, was to explain to the House the conduct of the Admiralty in the matter, and the way in which the proceedings connected with the case had been conducted. To begin with, a good deal had been said as to the position in which Commander Heron found himself on board the Clyde, having no lieutenant or other officer, but only a gunner, as his subordinate. No doubt, that was the position of Commander Heron; but it was a position common enough in the Navy. The hon. and gallant Gentleman near him had commanded a gunboat, and must be aware——
    SIR JOHN HAY: As a Commander?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: He did not say that. He said officers of the Navy had often found themselves in that position.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Yes, as lieutenants.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, continuing, said, that there were other ships like the Clyde in which the officers occupied the same position as Commander Heron had occupied. What happened first was this. The ship's corporal, Hadden, whose duty it was to see that no stores improperly left the ship, reported by letter to Commander Heron that certain irregularities were going on—that Government stores were being improperly sold from the ship. One of the principal charges against Commander Heron was that this man was treated harshly and in an oppressive manner, and that he (Commander Heron) had failed to make inquiries into the charges made on being directed to do so by the Admiralty. It was complained that Hadden had committed a great error by addressing a letter on the matter, not to his superior officer, but to the Admiral Superintending the. Reserves. There was certainly no Article in the Queen's Regulations which laid down that a seaman should do this; but there was an Article which laid down that an officer should do so; and he would ask the House whether they thought that a facility should be allowed to an officer and denied to a seaman? There was an Article in the Queen's Regulations—Article 634—which distinctly said that if an officer preferred a complaint, and his complaint was not attended to by the officer immediately in command over him, he was then to send the complaint to the officer next higher in command; and if the complaint was again neglected, he was ultimately to represent the case to the Secretary to the Admiralty. They were told it was a wrong thing for Hadden to take that course, he being only a seaman. So far from thinking that a seaman ought not to have the same privileges as an officer, the Admiralty were precisely of an opposite opinion; and it was their intention, and had been for some time, to amend the Regulations in that sense, and he believed the House would entirely agree with the propriety of that course. So much for Hadden.
    CAPTAIN AYLMER: Was the complaint previously sent to Commander Heron?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Certainly.
    CAPTAIN AYLMER: The same complaint?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, it was not identically the same, but a very similar one; it was substantially the same. If he were dealing with the whole case, he would deal with this point fully; but he was anxious not to go into details more than was necessary. If he must, however, give the history of Hadden's interference, it was simply this. Hadden, who, in his capacity of ship's corporal, was one of the ship's police, reported by letter to Commander Heron that Government stores were being improperly sold from the ship. Commander Heron told him he had given permission to Mr. Fitzgerald, the gunner, to sell some old yarns not sufficiently good for swabs, and appointed the following Friday—29th September—to hear Hadden and his witnesses. Hadden then went on shore, and obtained from two tradesmen in Aberdeen documentary evidence of certain Government rope and glass having been purchased by them from the Clyde. On the 27th September, Hadden was put under arrest by Mr. Fitzgerald. On the 29th September, he was brought before Commander Heron, who informed him that he had been put under arrest by his orders. On requesting that his civilian witnesses might be sent for, Commander Heron refused, and also refused Hadden's request that his case might be referred to the district captain. On the 30th of September, Hadden was sent for by Commander Heron, who told him that he had not proved his case, and that he should be disrated to able seaman, and have his badges taken away. Commander Heron, at the same time, directed him to be still kept as a prisoner. On this, Hadden wrote to His Royal Highness the Admiral Superintendent of Naval Reserves. Hadden was kept as a close prisoner from the 27th of September to the 3rd of October, and as a prisoner at large up to the 18th of October, when the Court of Inquiry assembled. On receipt of Hadden's letter, the Admiral Superintendent of Naval Reserves called on Commander Maxwell-Heron to report; and he answered that he had already investigated the case, and found Hadden's charges "utterly untrue," and that, moreover, he had been "insubordinate" when before him, and that he had failed.

    1421
    to produce any evidence to prove his statements. Commander Heron had, therefore, sentenced him to be disrated and to lose his badges—
    "As he had not brought forward the least proof in support of his accusation."
    Commander Heron further reported that Hadden had
    "Humbly apologized and retracted, acknowledging himself to be entirely in the wrong."
    It seemed an extraordinary thing that this subordinate officer should bring forward these serious charges against a superior officer, and then meekly withdraw them—so extraordinary, that the captain of the Coastguard district ship was ordered by the Admiralty to inquire into the whole thing, with the result that he found most favourably for Hadden, and commended his conduct. He found that not only were Hadden's statements entirely true, but that a great deal more than he had reported had been going on. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) appealed to the House whether Hadden's conduct had not been proper—whether it was not far from being a disorderly proceeding; whether this case did not show how useful it was that a man should have the power of complaining to a higher officer if his immediately superior officer took no notice of his complaint? The next charge which the hon. and gallant Member made was with reference to the Court of Inquiry. The hon. and gallant Member said that Captain Best was a personal enemy of Commander Heron. Of that the Board of Admiralty had no knowledge, and Captain Best, who was serving in the Coastguard at Aberdeen, was the most likely person to join with Captain Cator from Queensferry, the prosecuting officer, in making the inquiry. The Admiralty had no knowledge of any personal enmity such as was described; and the House, therefore, took the fact solely on the authority of the hon. and gallant Member, and on that evidence was ready to cheer the statement and condemn Captain Best for sitting on the Court of Inquiry. They had not yet heard Captain Best's reply—let them wait until they did before condemning that officer. Then the hon. and gallant Member complained that he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had refused to communicate the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry to his brother.
    1422
    But that was never done—he believed he might say absolutely never. A Court of Inquiry conducted a confidential investigation for the purpose of advising the Admiralty as to the case, and whether it was possible or desirable to bring an accused person before a court martial, and its proceedings could not with propriety be made public. Commander Heron was himself present during the whole of the proceedings in the Court of Inquiry—though, no doubt, it was alleged he was ill. Still, he was present all the time, and in the circumstantial letter he obtained a full account of all the circumstances which it was proposed to prove against him. Then the hon. and gallant Member said that little time was given to his brother for the preparation of his defence before the court martial was appointed. Well, it did not appear to him (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) to be a short time; but, at any rate, Commander Heron made no protest. He had the advantage of the advice of the eminent counsel already alluded to; but neither by himself nor by the advice of his counsel did he enter a protest. If he had said to the court martial that he had not had time to prepare his defence, no doubt the Court would have granted him time; but no such complaint was raised at all until it was raised in that House. Before the court martial, as he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had said, Commander Heron was assisted by a counsel well qualified to perform the duty. Several times this gentleman changed the course of the inquiry by objecting, for instance, to a certain line of examination; the objection was listened to, and that line of examination was immediately departed from. The Court showed throughout the proceedings the greatest deference to the counsel acting on behalf of Commander Heron. Then the hon. and gallant Member said the Court was a small one.
    CAPTAIN MAXWELL-HERON: As small as possible.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the Court was composed of five members. He did not know that there was any great advantage in having a large Court—for his own part, he would rather have a Court of good quality, such as was appointed, than a Court of great number. The prisoner could, under Regulation, have been tried—

    1423
    being below the rank of captain—by a Court composed of one captain, as President, two commanders, and two lieutenants; but, as a matter of fact, he was tried by one Flag officer, Rear Admiral Dowell, and four post captains—namely Captains Rowley, Colomb, Markham, and Fellowes. He (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) would undertake to say that, so far from its being a court martial to be complained of on the score of weakness, it was about as strong a Court as could have been nominated. His right hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir John Hay) had said there were two captains at Portsmouth who ought to have been present.
    SIR JOHN HAY: Who ought, by law, to have been present.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the right hon. and gallant Member knew perfectly well that it was a common thing in cases like this, where the court martial was fully constituted for all purposes, to give nominal leave to officers whom it was desirable, on account of the other duties they had to perform, to exempt from service on the Court.
    SIR JOHN HAY: I must repudiate all knowledge of such a thing.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in his observations on this subject, said he attributed no blame to the Admiralty; but the Admiralty would be very much to blame if, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests, they had acted against the law in keeping two captains from serving on the court martial.
    SIR JOHN HAY: I say distinctly that it was against the law not to put these captains on the Court.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is not against the law to grant a captain leave of absence, and captains to whom leave of absence has been granted are, of course, exempted from serving on a court martial.
    SIR JOHN HAY: If the hon. Member will turn to the Naval Discipline Act, he will find that officers up to nine in number are bound to be on the Court if they are within hearing of the gunfire of the Flag-ship.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: But I say that is not the practice when you have a Court composed of five officers of such high standing as those I
    1424
    have enumerated. Having such a strong Court, it was not necessary to take away from their responsible duties the captains commanding the Excellent and the Vernon.
    An hon. MEMBER: The Court was packed.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Admiralty found that they had at hand an Admiral and four captains. These two other post captains might, surely, be left to the discharge of their duties, instead of being taken away to take part in a court martial which was likely to last some days. That was the principle upon which the Court was appointed. There was no doubt that the necessity of the attendance of some officers on court martials had been dispensed with hitherto by giving nominal leave of absence; but it was the intention of the Government—and this was one of the points on which legislation during the present Session had been proposed—to enable this to be done in a more direct way. It was obviously a reasonable and proper arrangement to make. Then as to the evidence given before the court martial. They were told that a great part of the evidence given before the court martial was evidence of a tainted character; and he believed that the contention that was set up—not that night, certainly, but he had heard it set up—was that tainted evidence, such as that of Gunner Fitzgerald, ought to have been rejected. That contention had not been urged that night. Of course, the evidence of Fitzgerald was tainted, and was evidence which it was necessary to take with great caution, and which should not be acted upon unless corroborated. But the Court had acted in that spirit, and in every instance where Commander Heron was found guilty there was independent evidence besides that of Fitzgerald; and he had no doubt the Court had acted as anyone would, knowing all the circumstances, giving to the accused the advantage of the doubt which attached to the evidence of a man in Fitzgerald's position. Well, having gone into the case with the witnesses present, and with a much more full knowledge. of the circumstances than could be possessed by anyone here, the court martial had found their verdict. It was not conceivable that these five gal-

    1425
    lant officers could have had any desire to press hardly upon Commander Heron. It was inconceivable, knowing Commander Heron's previous character, which had been alluded to by that gentleman's right hon. and gallant Relative on the other side of the House (Sir John Hay), and knowing that his conviction would not redound to the credit of Her Majesty's Service, and seeing that they had every inducement to take a lenient view of the case, that the court martial would have been unduly severe on Commander Heron. Nay, he was not sure that it would not be right to say that the court martial did take a lenient view of the case, when they sentenced him to be dismissed from the Service, but did not dismiss him with disgrace. If he had been found guilty of fraud, if he had been found guilty of applying to his own use the proceeds of these stores, the right sentence would have been dismissal with disgrace, for, as an officer in Her Majesty's Service, he would have deserved it under such circumstances. Gunner Fitzgerald was sentenced to be dismissed with disgrace, because the graver charge was proved in his case. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes; there was a distinction drawn in his case, because it was proved he had had a personal interest in the irregularities which occurred. That was proved beyond doubt; but there was a doubt so far as Commander Heron was concerned.
    SIR JOHN HAY: He was acquitted of these two charges.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Who?
    SIR JOHN HAY: Commander Heron.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Of the charges of fraud?
    SIR JOHN HAY: Yes.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Quite so. There was a doubt in the matter, and the Court gave Commander Heron the benefit of the doubt. How, otherwise, was it that they did not dismiss him with disgrace as well as Fitzgerald?
    SIR JOHN HAY: He was acquitted of these charges.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There were 14 charges, and the following were amongst the most serious of the number, all of which the court martial found proved:—Neglecting to inquire into the fraudulent sales reported to him
    1426
    by the ship's corporal, Hadden; oppressive treatment and punishment of Had den; making false reports when called on for explanations——
    CAPTAIN MAXWELL-HERON: The warrant was never signed.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANcontinuing, said, that Commander Heron was also found guilty of authorizing the sale of Government stores, and not accounting for the proceeds; using large quantities of Government stores for the painting and fitting of his private residence and greenhouse—and this was the sort of charge which he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) maintained had a fraudulent flavour about it, to say the least.
    SIR JOHN HAY: On whose evidence was this proved?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the following charges were also proved:—Paying extravagant prices for "firewood," so called, but really plank for the carpenter's use; neglect in signing false reports of condemnation of boats and furniture, which it was his duty to verify; knowingly signing a false report of condemnation of certain furniture, which was afterwards repaired by an upholsterer in Aberdeen, and taken to Commander Heron's private house; permitting dances on board the Clyde, to which admission was given to the public on payment. All these charges were found proved, and although they were not charges of direct fraud, they amounted to much more than "extreme negligence" and impropriety of conduct in the discharge of duties. If the Court had been satisfied that there was a fraudulent intent in the matter, Commander Heron would have been dismissed with disgrace.
    SIR JOHN HAY: Read the charges on which he was acquitted.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No; I am not going to read them.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must call the attention of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay) to the fact that it is impossible for a Member in possession of the House to discharge his duty to the House if interrupted in this way.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that all these charges to which he had referred were found proved, and, to his mind, they amounted to much more than negligence. Then, the right

    1427
    hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir John Hay) had introduced another matter altogether; but before he dealt with that he would refer to the question as to what the Admiralty were to do after the court martial had given its sentence. The practice at the Admiralty had been, so far as he could learn, for many years back, that the proceedings of no court martial were submitted to the Admiralty Counsel unless a legal doubt or difficulty existed in the matter. It was never submitted with regard to the evidence on the merits of the case. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that when he was at the Admiralty this was done in a certain way, which he described. Well, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was at the Admiralty a great many years ago, and he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) could not find his impression corroborated by those now at the Admiralty, and who were then in Office. But it was easily conceivable that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who seemed to have an acute recollection of these matters, should remember some cases which had been revised by, or submitted to, the Counsel to the Admiralty. The House must know that the Admiralty Counsel was not like the Judge Advocate General, to whom all general and district courts martial in the Army were referred. The Admiralty Counsel received a small retaining fee, and was paid for the work which was given him to do.
    SIR JOHN HAY: How much is he paid?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he thought the sum was £100 a-year. It was practically a nominal payment, special payment being made for the work performed. He was not like the Judge Advocate General, to whom each court martial was submitted as a matter of course, and who then submitted it to the Queen. There was no such Officer as the Judge Advocate General at the Admiralty, and never had been; and so far from refusing to submit this case to the Counsel of the Admiralty, so far from departing from the general practice, it would have been quite contrary to the ordinary practice if it had been submitted, unless there had been some point of law to submit. Where was the point of law in this case? All the questions which had been put before the House that night had been
    1428
    questions as to the nature of the case and as to the value of the evidence, and these were matters which a court martial was perfectly capable of trying. He might add that the sentence pronounced was, of course, submitted to his Colleagues at the Admiralty—to Sir Cooper Key, Lord John Hay, Sir Frederick Richards, and Lord Northbrook—who made themselves acquainted with the evidence, and they unanimously concurred in the sentence. He would ask the House whether they thought the five officers of distinction and position whose names, he ventured to say, would carry as great weight in the Navy as any other five names that could be chosen, who composed the court martial—namely, Admiral Dowell, and Captains Fellowes, Rowley, Mark-ham, and Colomb—they, in the first place, and his naval Colleagues in the second place—would have come to the melancholy conclusion at which they had arrived unless they had felt themselves obliged to do so?
    COLONEL ALEXANDER: They were not unanimous.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he knew the House was asked, on the ex parte statement of his hon. and gallant Friend, and on the advice of the two hon. and gallant Members opposite, to express an opinion contrary to that formed by the capable and experienced officers who had been named.
    COLONEL ALEXANDER: The Court was not unanimous.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: How does the hon. and gallant Member know that? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay) said he had been told it was not.
    SIR JOHN HAY: I said it was matter of rumour.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: He said he was told. Who told him? Were they to go on mere rumour in matters of this kind? Every man who sat on a naval court martial knew that he was bound under oath not to disclose how the verdict was brought about. How did the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who said he knew that the Court was not unanimous, come by that knowledge?
    SIR JOHN HAY: I never said I knew it.
    COLONEL ALEXANDER: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman never said

    1429
    he knew it. These things always get about.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: He used it as an argument—he said there were only three to two in favour of the verdict; that he had been told so.
    SIR JOHN HAY: I really must correct the hon. Gentleman. I made use of the expression—"It might have been three to two."
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's pardon. What he said was—"I am told there were three to two."
    Several hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Quite so; the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said he was told that. He called on the House to observe that every officer in a court martial was bound not to disclose how the verdict was arrived at; therefore, he would call on them to put away from their minds any consideration of that kind. He, himself, did not know how the verdict was arrived at—no one ought to know; and he maintained it was a matter which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should not have mentioned to the House if it was a mere rumour. If he knew it to be true, he ought not to have known it; if he did not know it to be true, he ought not to have stated it. Although a mere rumour, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had used it to prejudice the opinion of the House in a certain direction. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had further alluded to another court martial which had recently taken place, a court martial held on two young sub-lieutenants. That case, he believed, was this. At night, when a captain was going on board his ship, those two young officers were in another boat at the landing-place; some chaff had taken place between their waterman and the crew, and when the captain appeared he was not recognized, and some most disrespectful words were applied to him. Afterwards, also, those young officers behaved very badly, one of them exclaiming that he thanked God that he was not in the Navy, and then representing themselves as belonging to a ship to which they did not belong. That was the foolish and most culpable and blameworthy lark that was indulged in, and it was most improper and prejudicial to discipline. They were
    1430
    tried by court martial, and were sentenced to be dismissed the Service, and why? Because, under the law as it now stood, if any officer was proved to have been guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer he must be dismissed the Service, and the Court could give no intermediate or milder sentence—it must either acquit or dismiss from the Service. But in some cases, under such circumstances, the Admiralty used its discretion to mitigate the sentence; and, accordingly, they did mitigate the sentence upon these young officers. One of them, who had been in trouble before, lost a year and a-half's seniority, and the other lost one year's seniority; and he ventured to think that was the proper course. It was a severe and an adequate sentence; but what did the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay) say? He hinted—though he did not say so in so many words—that the sentence on one of the officers was mitigated because his brother was an Equerry to the Prince of Wales. Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, having made that insinuation, get up and say that he believed that Lord Northbrook and his Colleagues mitigated the sentence upon this young officer because his brother was an Equerry to the Prince of Wales? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had represented that because Commander Heron had no friends he was hardly treated, and that those who had powerful friends were let off. He hoped he had shown that there was no foundation for such an unworthy insinuation. As to Commander Heron—for whom he could only express the sincerest sympathy and regret at his unfortunate position—when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of his having no friends, was it not an advantage to have a brother and a cousin in the House of Commons? If he had not had a brother and a cousin in the House of Commons, his case would probably not have been brought before the House. He thought the House ought to be all the more careful not to constitute themselves a Court of Appeal, and not to interfere in such a case as this, because it might be said that there was no chance for others who were not lucky enough to have a brother so devoted as the hon. and gallant Member who had brought this matter forward, and a near

    1431
    relative so ready as the right hon. and gallant Admiral to take it up. He had now said what he thought it right to say without going into the merits of the case, because it would be most distasteful and undesirable to do so; and he trusted he had shown that the Admiralty had displayed no disposition to treat this unfortunate officer with injustice.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he had considered it his duty, for certain reasons which he would not trouble the House with, to examine into the facts of this case, and he had consulted a well-known Member of that House as to the facts relating to this particular court martial. Into those facts which bore on the legal aspects of the case he would not pretend to enter; but he thought he was right in saying that the gallant officer whose conduct was impugned had just about the time when this matter was brought before the court martial entered into the solemn engagement of matrimony, and at that time he committed himself to certain orders which were objectionable and, no doubt, unwise with regard to the furnishing of his house; and he was told, on the best authority, that the individual who was ultimately found to have been irregular in his balances as to stores, painted the stairs of this officer's house with green, the floor with white, the top floor with red, and other parts of the house with blue. This officer might have been loose in dealing with what was national property to the extent of £10 or £12; but that was not a thing that could have been expected to result in depriving one who had served in Her Majesty's Navy for 30 years with the greatest possible zeal and diligence of his position in the Navy, and his dismissal from the Service. No sensible person would divide the House, or ask the House to determine whether Commander Heron was a culprit in this matter or not; but he thought it was very undesirable that there should have been anything like this severe judgment upon what seemed to have been but a paltry affair. What really happened was, that every Government desired to find a victim. If they could find anybody going wrong, and their view could be maintained by a court martial, of course both sides desired to effect that result. On the whole, he could not help thinking that, looking at the facts of the case, an un-
    1432
    fortunate time had been taken by the Government in this matter; and if a Division was taken, he hoped they would consider the very great services Commander Heron had rendered in the past, and would come to the conclusion that anything more paltry or more unreal than the grounds upon which this sentence had been passed could not be conceived, and that the sentence would be revised by the Admiralty.
    MR. BULWERsaid, he understood that the sole object of this discussion was to obtain some further inquiry into this matter; and he agreed with the observation of the Secretary to the Admiralty, that this House ought not to be made a Court of Appeal from any court martial in the Army or the Navy, or any Court sitting in Westminster Hall. That, however, was not what was asked. The House was not asked to sit as a Court of Appeal upon this question, and on that ground the Secretary to the Admiralty had declined to go into the facts of the case, or to discuss its merits. He, himself, had always been amazed at the fact that in a civilized country like this such a system of procedure could prevail as that existing in the Army and Navy in court martials. He remembered being particularly struck by one which would be fresh in the memory of several hon. Members, in which the Home Secretary was a distinguished Counsel—namely, the Crawley Court Martial at Aldershot. If any tribunal could render it difficult to arrive at the truth it would be a court martial as now conducted. Imagine anyone engaged in cross-examining a witness having to write down his questions on a piece of paper to be handed to the Judge for him to put them to the witness. Anything more ridiculous than such a system as that for eliciting the truth it was impossible to conceive; and he made this remark because it was extremely probable that, in a case where there was evidence, as the Secretary to the Admiralty had admitted in this case, which was not worthy of credit, such evidence had not been properly sifted by such a process. All that the House was asked to do was to express an opinion, upon the facts as presented to the House, whether there were sufficient grounds for further inquiry Speaking only from what had been stated in the House, he understood that several charges were made against

    1433
    this gallant officer, and upon the most serious of them he had been acquitted. The tribunal had decided upon comparatively trivial charges, and upon them his prospects of a long and prosperous career were ruined. Considering the whole matter, be did think that sufficient grounds had been shown to justify the House in recommending the Government to give this case further inquiry. It was true that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay) had said he had reason to believe that the judgment of the court martial was not unanimous, although he could not know that as a fact; if that was so, that rendered the decision of this court martial less satisfactory than it would otherwise have been. He did not impugn the decision of that tribunal; but he should certainly support the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite if he went to a Division.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he thought the House must have heard some of the remarks of the Secretary to the Admiralty with considerable surprise, and must have regretted that he had not come to a decision which would have been more agreeable to the sense of the House. He had spoken of three changes which would have to be made on account of this court martial.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that was not so. He had stated that the changes were in contemplation before the court martial took place.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he did not think any court martial had ever given a decision more cruelly unjust in its severity than this. It was purely upon trivial charges; and Commander Heron, whom he did not know, would never have been tried upon them by the Horse Guards or the Admiralty. He was entirely acquitted of the more serious of the charges; and when the hon. Member spoke of the leniency of the Court, he quite forgot that Commander Heron was entirely acquitted of fraudulent or dishonourable charges. With regard to the ship's corporal having forwarded his letter direct to the Duke of Edinburgh, the Secretary to the Admiralty was wrong in saying that the corporal demanded that the Commander should forward the letter to the Duke of Edinburgh, and said that if the Commander did not do so he should forward it himself. The corporal did not do that, but
    1434
    forwarded it to the Admiral—the Duke of Edinburgh—against every regulation known in such a case. As the hon. Gentleman had said, the sense of the House had been fully shown by the cheer which was given when his right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) spoke of a revision of the sentence by the Admiralty. The House itself was utterly unfit to arrive at a judicial decision upon the case, and if the matter were taken to a Division he should walk out of the House, because he felt that it would be improper to give a decision in a case of this kind upon an ex parte statement. The sentiments of the House had, however, been fully expressed by its cheers, and it was quite evident that there was a general feeling that the case ought to be revised. They were entitled to ask for a revision and reconsideration. His right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) had been taken to task by the Secretary to the Admiralty because he had mentioned the case of two other officers in which, only the other day, the sentence of a court martial had been revised. That case was only brought forward by his right hon. and gallant Friend to show that the Admiralty did possess the power of revising the sentence of a court martial, and that in a case of necessity they were not backward in exercising it. But in the case of the two young officers in question, the loss to the Service would not have been very great, seeing that they had only just entered the Navy; whereas, in the case of Commander Heron, they had an officer who had served with credit and distinction for 32 years, whose loss was a real loss to the Service, and whose prospects had been ruined for life. He was told that the decision of the Court itself was only arrived at by three against two. He knew that officers sitting upon a court martial took an oath not to divulge the secrets of the Court; but, nevertheless, the fact of the want of unanimity had leaked out. Then, if the decision was wrong, and the Court had not been unanimous in finding it, why hesitate about granting a revision? How did the Secretary to the Admiralty know that the whole of the members of the Court were of one mind?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he had never stated that they were. He had distinctly said that he knew nothing about it.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he had understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the whole of the five officers who composed the Court were unanimous; whereas two of them dissented from the finding of the other three. Three were for the conviction and sentence and two against, and that fact afforded another strong reason why the decision of the Court should be revised by the Admiralty, and why the House, at that late period of the Session, should not be called upon to consider and pronounce a judgment upon the case. The evidence was most peculiar and most pointed. The man upon whose evidence Commander Heron was found guilty was tainted, and the witness himself was subsequently found guilty by a court martial and dismissed the Service with disgrace. That fact alone ought to have aroused the suspicion of the Admiralty; and although the Secretary to the Admiralty told the House that the five officers who sat upon the court martial did get evidence to corroborate the testimony of Gunner Fitzgerald, anyone who had read that evidence through would see that the man was not properly corroborated in any one of the charges except by men equally tainted with himself, and men who were also under arrest. He thought that what the hon. Member asked for was only a reasonable thing. At the same time, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not go to a Division, and that the debate would be allowed to cease. He trusted yet to have an assurance from some Member of the Government that the Admiralty would reconsider the case, and extend to an old, an honourable, and a gallant officer the same clemency which had been extended to the two young officers whose case had been mentioned.
    MR. WILLIS(who rose amid loud calls for a Division) said, he would not detain the House for more than a few minutes; but he thought that there was an act of justice which the Admiralty ought to do in the case. It was their duty to lay all the facts of the case before the Counsel of the Admiralty. The question raised in the case was entirely one of law, as far as he was able to understand it—namely—and he was speaking in the hearing of the Law Officers of the Crown—whether there had been such evidence as justified the Court in coming to a conclusion adverse to Com-
    1436
    mander Heron? The evidence of Fitzgerald was practically the evidence of an accomplice, and it was laid down as a rule of law, invariably acted upon by Her Majesty's Judges, never to leave a case to a jury on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice. The question to which the Law Officers of the Government and the Counsel of the Admiralty ought to address themselves was whether, on a careful examination of the evidence, there was such corroboration as justified the Court in arriving at the conclusion that the charges preferred against Commander Heron were proved? He (Mr. Willis) had listened carefully to the statements which had been made in regard to the facts of the case, and also to the arguments of the hon. Gentleman who represented the Admiralty, and all he could say was that there were the gravest reasons for being dissatisfied with the conclusions to which the Court had arrived. If anyone on the Treasury Bench would assure the House that the facts of the case would be laid before the Counsel of the Admiralty, in order to see whether the evidence was such as to justify the five naval officers who composed the court martial in coming to the conclusion that Commander Heron was guilty of the charge made against him, he (Mr. Willis), and he believed the House, would be satisfied with that assurance. But unless that course was taken there would be great dissatisfaction, because, as far as his opinion went, the evidence submitted to the five naval officers was anything but conclusive. If, however, on considering the whole of the facts, the Counsel of the Admiralty should be of opinion that the evidence was such as to justify the court martial in reasonably coming to the conclusion that Commander Heron was guilty, he (Mr. Willis) should then be content with the decision; but unless such an opinion was expressed by the Counsel of the Admiralty, he should continue to entertain the feeling that there were grave reasons for doubting the fairness and justice of the conviction and sentence. He was sorry to have been compelled to obtrude upon the House at so late an hour; but, in his judgment, the matter was one of much greater importance than many questions upon the discussion of which the House spent considerable time; and he would rather be guilty of participating in the

    1437
    warmth which had been manifested that evening in endeavouring to protect the character of a man who had rendered long and good service to the country than in displaying the indifference which had been exhibited by the Admiralty in the course of the debate.
    MR. DALYsaid, he had listened attentively, and with much interest, to the history of this case, and he thought there was a good deal in the point which had been raised by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay), that the court martial which sat for the purpose of trying Commander Heron was not properly constituted. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who was naturally possessed of considerable experience in connection with naval matters, laid it down as a dictum that any naval officer capable of sitting upon a court martial who was within sound of the gun which summoned the Court, or within sight of the flag, was bound to serve. If that were so, there were two naval officers who ought to have served upon the Court, but who, nevertheless, did not serve, and, consequently, the Court was not properly constituted. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty said that if Commander Heron had not been fortunate enough to have a brother in the House of Commons willing and able to take up his case the present debate would never have been introduced. That had nothing to do with the matter, which was simply one of justice to an old and gallant officer. He (Mr. Daly) was neither a brother, nor a sister, nor a cousin, nor an aunt of Commander Heron; but he knew that he had listened to the whole of the narrative of the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Captain Maxwell-Heron) with the greatest possible interest; and he felt, from the facts which had been placed before him, that the question was essentially one which should go through the formula pointed out by the right hon. and gallant Member for Wigtown (Sir John Hay)—namely, that, taking into consideration the nature of the evidence and the gravity of the charges with which this gallant officer of 32 years' service had been found guilty, it was essentially a case which ought to be laid before the Counsel of the Admiralty. He had heard with great regret one of the reasons adduced by the Secretary to the Admiralty as a reason why that
    1438
    course should not be observed—namely, that the Counsel of the Admiralty had only a very small annual retainer—some £120 a-year, he believed. He was satisfied that in so grave a case as this, neither the House nor the country would grudge whatever amount of fees Counsel might require for going carefully through the whole of the evidence; because, although, no doubt, the issue to the Admiralty was a very small one, to this gallant officer, who had served his country creditably, faithfully, and with distinction for 32 years, who had received four medals and clasps, it simply meant a blasted reputation and ruin for life. It was the duty of the Government, therefore, to lose no opportunity of reconsidering the evidence by which Commander Heron had been convicted, and of ascertaining whether the court martial by which he was tried was justified in finding him guilty of the charges brought against him.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, he was anxious that the debate should not be unnecessary prolonged; but he did appeal to the Prime Minister to respond to the wish which had been almost unanimously expressed on both sides of the House, by intimating that the evidence would be laid before the Legal Authorities of the Board of Admiralty for reconsideration. He made this appeal to his right hon. Friend on two grounds—first, that this unfortunate officer, Commander Heron, was not permitted to live on board of the Clyde, but was compelled to reside on shore, and was therefore bound to place a considerable amount of confidence in the second officer, Gunner Fitzgerald; and, secondly, that when these charges were preferred by the ship's corporal, there was every inducement on the part of Gunner Fitzgerald to endeavour to screen himself by throwing the blame upon Commander Heron. He sincerely hoped that the Government would give a promise that the matter should be referred to the Counsel of the Admiralty, and that the House might then proceed to the consideration of some other Business.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am bound to admit that I labour under the disadvantage of not having heard the whole of the debate, and the few remarks which I have to make are founded upon that part of it which I have heard. There is, however, one ground which

    1439
    has been taken by more than one hon. Member, and that is that the charges were only trivial. Now, I think we must endeavour to look at all the matters involved in the case in as dry and as strict a light as possible. The principal ground for asking the Government to order a reconsideration, or, at any rate, one of the principal grounds, is that the charges on which this officer has been convicted were charges that were not of a serious character. That appears to me to be altogether an error. I certainly cannot agree that the charges are not serious. I think, on the contrary, that if I were to read a few of the charges I could show that that is not the ground on which we should be asked to interfere with the finding of the court martial, and I did not understand my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Willis) to put the case on that ground. It will hardly, I think, be disputed that such charges as these are not most grave and serious:—Making false reports; improperly authorizing the sale of the ship's stores, and not accounting for the proceeds; using a large quantity of Government stores for painting and fitting up a private residence and garden-house; condemning certain furniture which was afterwards repaired by an upholsterer at Aberdeen and taken to a private house; and knowingly signing false reports. No one can say that charges of that kind are not very serious charges indeed. But this is, no doubt, a peculiar case, and I hope the House will approach the consideration of it with an adequate impression of the extreme gravity of the subject-matter. The rights of an individual are most sacred. The feelings of the House are naturally and laudably enlisted with a great amount of sensitiveness and a great deal of jealousy on behalf of those rights. It is intolerable to have to remind anyone that justice should be done; and most of all is it intolerable in a case where the individual concerned is one who for many years has served his country. On the other hand, it would be impossible, even for the sake of the discipline of the Services of the country, to pass over grave charges of this nature if clearly proved. The matter is, therefore, one of the gravest consequence, and the House should weigh well in all cases of this kind the grounds upon which a judicial
    1440
    decision has been arrived at, and should avoid dealing conclusively with it until the whole subject has been satisfactorily considered. I was sorry to hear the procedure of a court martial spoken of, with a view of influencing the decision of the House in a case of this kind, as if it was throughout very defective. It may be so; I do not pretend to be a judge; but the defectiveness of that mode of procedure, surely, is a matter which ought to form the subject of a Motion for amending it, and not a matter for discussion on an occasion like this. I have such a deep conviction of the nice sense of honour, and the peculiar sensitiveness felt by the members of Courts of this description, that I think we should forbear from extending the disadvantages under which courts martial are held by declaring that they are defective in their constitution, differing, as they naturally do, from the circumstances under which the ordinary tribunals of the land are held. I come now to the main point before the House. Serious charges against the Commander of the Clyde were found by a court martial to be proved; but a consideration has been urged which appears to me to have great weight, and after the manner in which it has been pressed upon the House, it is not possible for us to pass it by without giving to it that attention which it deserves. That point is that the charges were sustained mainly by the evidence of a tainted witness, whose character was such that it was necessary subsequently to try the witness himself, with the result of securing his conviction and dismissal from the Service. It is asserted that the Admiralty acted upon the conviction obtained upon the evidence of this tainted character without requiring such corroboration as would have been necessary in an ordinary trial where the chief evidence was that of an informer of the worst character. It is said that in a parallel case in an ordinary trial the Court would have required a certain amount of corroboration of the evidence of the principal witness. It is impossible for the House to judge upon what evidence the Court came to its conclusion; but, no doubt, the Court thought there was sufficient corroboration, and accepted the evidence of the principal witness, although he may have been a man of tainted character, as good evidence. At the same time, the question

    1441
    is so difficult to decide, and the points of law involved so extremely nice, that it is doubtful whether professional assistance ought not to be called in. Under these circumstances, we think—and I believe my noble Friend (the Earl of Northbrook) will join us in doing what we think right—that some further satisfaction should be given. It is evident that a question of this kind ought not to be touched or decided except by the highest and best authorities. The learned counsel to the Admiralty is, I understand, not at his post, and will not be there for a considerable number of weeks; but my hon. and learned Friends the Attorney General and Solicitor General have had the advantage of hearing this debate, and we shall engage, on the part of the Admiralty, that their assistance shall he called in for the purpose of aiding the judgment of the First Lord, because, after all, it is with the Admiralty that the responsibility must lie. I trust, therefore, the House will be disposed to think that in making this proposal we have gone as far as it is possible for us to go in the direction indicated by hon. Members.
    SIR. R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had listened to the words which had fallen from the Prime Minister with great satisfaction. The Attorney General and the Solicitor General had had an opportunity of hearing the debate from beginning to end; and his opinion was that, in the absence of the learned counsel to the Admiralty, no bettor plan could be devised than that of leaving the question in the hands of the Law Officers of the Crown. But, although he considered the suggestion of the Prime Minister satisfactory in the present instance, he would ask whether he was to understand that the House of Commons was not a Court of Appeal in such Cases?
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, with the permission of the House, he would add a few words to what had been said in the course of the debate He might say of the statement of the Prime Minister that it was listened to with a sense of very great relief by everyone in the House; and he could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman who brought the case forward that, so far as be could gather from his hon. Friends, had the question gone to a Division he would have had their united support. Although
    1442
    the case was one in which his feelings were deeply aroused, the hon. and gallant Gentleman had given an example of moderation which others would do well to imitate; and he would add that the demeanour of the House in listening to his remarks. and the way in which they were received, contrasted very favourably with the manner in which grievances on other occasions were listened to and discussed. One of the points most strongly urged by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and by those who followed him, was the great danger of trusting to the tainted evidence of informers; and he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) hoped that the remarks which had been made on that subject in all parts of the House would sink deeply into the minds of hon. Members. The hon. and gallant Gentleman behind him (Colonel Alexander) had made some most proper observations upon this case; he had insisted that the House of Commons had a perfect right to revise and discuss such cases. He was very glad to see a Member of the Conservative Party so anxious to preserve to the House its character as a Court of Revision, which it could not be denied was one of its privileges; and, finally, he would refer to the statement of the Prime Minister that the House was properly jealous of injury to individuals. But there had been other cases of injuries to individuals brought before the House which, equally with the present, demanded reconsideration; and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would show himself correspondingly sensitive with regard to them.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Bulwer) had made some strictures on courts martial in general, and had referred to his (Sir William Harcourt's) experience of those tribunals. He did think it right to remain silent after the depreciatory and condemnatory remarks which his hon. and learned Friend had made, because it so happened that he had appeared before both military and naval courts martial in very important cases; and, although it was perfectly true that the procedure differed very considerably from that with which hon. Gentlemen were familiar in ordinary Courts of Law, he felt it would be a great evil if the impression went abroad that the tribunals in question did not administer

    1443
    real and substantial justice. His experience was that there were no tribunals more careful in the administration of justice than courts martial, or more willing and able to administer it.
    MR. BULWERsaid, he hoped the House would not do him the injustice to suppose he had intended to reflect upon the officers who constituted these tribunals, who, he was sure, were actuated by a sincere intention to administer justice, and did administer it. His observations applied to procedure, which he said was not satisfactory; because witnesses whose evidence was tainted, as in the present instance, were not adequately cross-examined.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, as he represented the borough in which the court martial was held, and in which it caused a great deal of excitement, he must make an appeal to the Prime Minister. While he was delighted with the result of the discussion of that evening, and the fact that Commander Heron would have a chance of getting his case revised, he asked that when the revision took place the Law Officers of the Crown would also look into the ease of Fitzgerald, whose friends had appealed to him alleging that he had not been properly tried, and that his dismissal in a degrading manner from the Service was unfair. He expressed no opinion upon that; but he could not but think that Fitzgerald was as much entitled to consideration as Commander Heron, because he was tried by the same court martial. Therefore, he trusted that the case might be sifted by the Law Officers of the Crown, and the same justice accorded to him as to Commander Heron.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Remaining Resolution agreed to.

  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL.
  (Mr. Attorney General, Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Solicitor General.)
  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL.

    [BILL 244.] CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, there was some doubt as to whether the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule, which prohibited the consideration of contested Bills after that hour, applied to the Reports of Standing Committees. He would not,
    1444
    on that occasion, raise the question whether they could proceed with the Bill then or not; but would assume, for the purpose of not placing the House in a wrong position with reference to this Order, that the Half-past Twelve Rule did apply, and ask that it be taken tomorrow.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be considered To-morrow."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had an appeal to make to the hon. and learned Attorney General not to proceed with the Bill that Session. He was quite aware that the Bill had been before a Standing Committee; that the Committee gave great attention to it; argued it very fully, and came to certain conclusions with regard to it. When the Bill had passed the Standing Committee it was reported to the House, but not for several weeks afterwards, because the Committee had been for some time considering the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences Procedure) Bill. The scope of the Bill had been very materially altered in Committee; but it was not until the 6th of August that the Attorney General was induced to restore it to its original form. He said that on this ground Members interested in the Bill had just cause of complaint if it was to be pressed forward that Session. He sympathized very much with the hon. and learned Gentleman, who had taken such pains with the Bill, and who, he was quite sure, would have brought it on shortly after it came from the Standing Committee, had it not been for the pressure of Government Business. He was bound to say that the hon. and learned Gentleman had done everything he could to bring the Bill forward. The delay which had occurred was through no fault of the Attorney General; but he would ask the House whether they thought it practicable, at that period of the Session, with the Prorogation of Parliament to take place on Saturday next, that a Bill of such great importance could be passed? Was the Bill to remain in the form in which it was originally brought forward, or was it to be passed in the extended form in which it left the Standing Committee? That, in itself, was one of the great questions which could only be decided by a full debate in the House. The Bill would

    1445
    have to be discussed in "another place" after it had left them; but it was absolutely impossible that it could be discussed properly in that House. They could not obtain the opinion of the Law Lords upon it, because they were absent, nor the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice, who was in America; and, under those circumstances, the Bill, if it were passed, would only be scrambled through the House. It was in no hostile spirit that he once more asked the Government not to proceed with the Bill; but, perhaps, the best course would be to let it stand over, and to ask the Government at Question time to-morrow whether they did not think it impossible that the Bill could be properly discussed that Session, either in that House or in the House of Lords; and whether the Government were not prepared to abandon it for the present Session?
    MR. DODDSsaid, he hoped the Attorney General would not listen to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to drop the Bill, which had taken up so much time. It was not for them to consider how it would be dealt within "another place;" and, so far as that House was concerned, he thought there was ample time for its consideration. Notwithstanding the absence of the Judges, he was of opinion that they should deal with the Bill, and send it to the House of Lords in the usual way.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he regarded the argument of the hon. Member for Stockton as a most conclusive reason why they should not proceed with the Bill. The hon. Member said it had taken up a great deal of time. No doubt it had; it required a great deal of time to deal with a question so difficult and thorny. Notwithstanding the time so spent, hon. Members were not all satisfied with the Bill; and, exhausted as they were, they considered it unreasonable to proceed with it at the fag end of the Session. If there were more time before them, he would say let the Bill go forward; but it would be an absolute mockery to do so in existing circumstances. He thought the Judicial system of the country, the Appellate system of the country, and the honour of the country, were too important to play such tricks with; and, therefore, he hoped the measure would not be proceeded with.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEreminded the Government that by requiring the
    1446
    House to pass the Bill in the form proposed by the Attorney General they would strike the heaviest possible blow at the system of Grand Committees. It had been propounded by the Prime Minister that that system was one by which the House devolved on a Committee the consideration of matters with which a small Committee could deal; and now the Attorney General proposed, by restoring this Bill to its original form, to undo the work of the Standing Committee. He repeated that to do so would be to strike a great blow at the system of Standing Committees.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (FISHING BOATS) BILL [Lords].
  (Mr. Chamberlain.)
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (FISHING BOATS) BILL [Lords].

    [BILL 288.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
    MR. WARTONsaid, he had given Notice of opposition to this Bill some time ago; because, having read over the evidence on which it was founded, he was of opinion that it did not properly meet the requirements of the ease in two respects. First, he thought the masters of ships ought to retain the power of arresting at once seamen who deserted; and, secondly, he considered that certificates ought to be granted to persons engaged in fishing who could show that they were thoroughly acquainted with the navigation at the fishing stations. On consideration, he thought it right to withdraw his opposition to the Bill.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINthanked the hon. and learned Member for Bridport for removing his Notice of opposition to the Bill. He could assure the hon. and learned Member that the Bill was founded entirely upon the recommendation of the Committee, and would point out that Clause 40 did provide that a certificate should be granted to experienced skippers and second hands who had a knowledge of the sea. Although the Bill did not provide for the old power of arrest, it provided facilities which would, to a large extent, meet the case of the difficulties between owners and their hands,

    1447
    to which the hon. and learned Gentle-man had alluded.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  PROVIDENT NOMINATIONS AND SMALL INTESTACIES BILL.— [BILL 264.]
  (Mr. Stuart-Wortley, Mr. Burt, Mr. Albert Grey, Mr. Northcote.)
  PROVIDENT NOMINATIONS AND SMALL INTESTACIES BILL.— [BILL 264.]

    CONSIDERATION OF LORDS AMENDMENTS.
    Lords Amendments considered and agreed to, as far as Clause (A).
    Clause (A), the next Amendment, read a second time.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, the fact that this clause had been inserted was a matter of mystery to the public, inasmuch as it had not been reported in a single newspaper. It was really not safe, in his opinion, to embark in this new clause at the very end of the Session; and he begged to move that the House disagree with the Lords in the Amendment.
    Motion agreed to.
    Lords Amendment disagreed to.
    Subsequent Amendments agreed to.
    Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to The Lords for disagreeing to Clause (A):"—Mr. STUART-WORTLEY, Mr. WHITLEY. Lord RICHARD GROSVENOR, Sir FARRER HERSCHELL, and Mr. EDWARD CLARKE:—To withdraw immediately; Three to be the quorum.

  WAYS AND MEANS.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
    Resolution [August 18] reported, and agreed to.
    Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament.
    And, That Sir ARTHUR OTWAY, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. COURTNEY do prepare and bring it in.
    Bill presented, and read the first time.

    CONTEMPTS OF COURT [STAMP DUTY].
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the imposition of a Stamp Duty upon any vesting or other order, having the effect of a conveyance, release, or assurance of any real or personal estate, or whereby any interest, claim, or
    1448
    demand, in or to any property, shall be released, which may be made under any Act of the present Session for amending the Law as to Contempts of Court.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Second Report—Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. [No. 206.]
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Parliamentary Registration (Ireland)* (204); Local Government Board (Scotland)* (207); Medals* (208); Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland)* (205); Public Works Loans* (209).
Second Reading—Education (Scotland) (199); Expiring Laws Continuance* (197).
Committee—Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) (189); Labourers (Ireland) (183), deferred; Bankruptcy (195–211); National Debt* (196–212).
Committee—Report—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9)* (125).
Report—Isle of Wight Highways* (191); Local Government Provisional Order (No. 2)* (203); Patents for Inventions* (201); Cholera Hospitals (Ireland).* (193).
Third Reading—Electric lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1)* (157); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6)* (159); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7)* (160); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5)* (173); Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8)* (174), and passed.
Royal Assent—Companies Acts Amendment [46 & 47 Vict. c. 28]; Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) [46 & 47 Vict. c. 27]; Supreme Court of Judicature (Funds, &c.) [46 & 47 Vict. c. 29]; Payment of Wages in Public-houses Prohibition [46 &47 Vict. c. 31]; Greenwich Hospital [46 & 47 Vict. c. 32]; Companies (Colonial Registers) [46 & 47 Vict. c. 30]; Railway Passenger Duty, &c. [46 & 47 Vict. c. 34]; Irish Reproductive Loan Fund Act (1874) Amendment [46 & 47 Vict. c. 33]; Diseases Prevention (Metropolis) [46 & 47 Vict. c. 35]: Parochial Charities (London) [46 & 47 Vict. c. 36]; Mersey River (Gunpowder) [46 & 47 Vict. c. clxxxiv].

TREATY OF BERLIN—ARTICLE X.— THE VARNA RAILWAY.

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I wish to ask, Whether the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary, to whom I have given Notice of the Question, can give any further information with respect to the fulfilment of the 10th Article of the Treaty of Berlin in relation to the claims of British subjects on the Bulgarian Government with regard to the Varna Railway? A Question was asked on the subject some months ago, and the matter was said to be then under the consideration of the Bulgarian Government. I should be glad if the noble Earl can give any information on a subject which interests the British people to a very great extent.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the noble Earl on the 24th of July, excepting that on the 27th of that month Mr. Lascelles reported that M. Zancoff had assured him that the question was occupying the serious attention of the Bulgarian Government, who were fully alive to the necessity of arriving at a satisfactory solution.

MADAGASCAR—ACTION OF THE FRENCH AT TAMATAVE—THE CASE OF THE REV. MR. SHAW.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYasked the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he could give any information with respect to the case of Mr. Shaw, a missionary, who had been mixed up in recent incidents in Madagascar, and appeared to have suffered a good deal, perhaps not altogether from his own fault?
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, in answer to questions which I put to M. Waddington as to what were the charges against Mr. Shaw, whether that gentleman was informed of them, by what tribunal he would be tried, and whether he would have full facilities for his defence, he told me that he was informed by the French Government that when the French Consul left Tamatave, Mr. Shaw's case was still under consideration. The charges against him were complicity with the enemy and hostile action respecting the French colours. They did not yet know the result of the inquiry. He was not in prison, but on board one of the French ships, where the French Consul saw him walking up and down. The French Government said the prisoner must have been informed of the charges against him, the Code for the Navy making this necessary. He will be tried by a court martial formed according to the Rules laid down by the said Code, and he has the right of appeal before a Court of Revision. There is no reason whatever for supposing that he will not have every facility for preparing his defence. M. Waddington added that the letter addressed by the Governor of the Mauritius to Admiral Pierre received a courteous reply.

PRIVATE BILLS.
Standing Orders Nos. 1, 26, 33, 39, 61, 62, 64, 66, 99, 113, 114, 128, 150, 153, 154, and 155: Considered and amended; and to be printed as amended. (No. 210.)
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
(The Lord President.)
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  (NO. 199.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL), in moving that

  1311
  the Bill be now read the second time, said, that its main object was to remedy several defects in the Scotch Education Act, which had been pressed upon the notice of the Education Department by various School Boards in Scotland, and which he believed all the friends of education in that country admitted that it was desirable to cure. They related principally to the subject of school attendance, and the means of securing that attendance in a satisfactory way. At present those means were in some respects imperfect, and were not the same as in England. He would describe, in a very few words, the effect of the principal clauses. The 3rd clause was intended to increase the facilities for having school board cases tried. These cases, at present, could only be heard before the Sheriff Court, and that appeared very often to be a matter of great inconvenience and difficulty from the distance which the parties had to go. The clause, therefore, provided that such cases might be heard not only in the Sheriff Court, but by the Sheriff when he went on Circuit for the determination of small-debt cases, and also by the Police Courts of the burghs. By Clause 4 it was proposed to amend the corresponding clause of the Education Act of 1872, by requiring that a parent should not only provide an elementary education for his children—which, as the law now stood, might be satisfied by sending the child to a very inefficient or unrecognized school—but that the parent in future should provide efficient elementary education. It also extended the time of compulsory attendance from the age of 13 to the age of 14. As things now stood—very absurdly—although under the Factories Acts a child could not be employed until he was 14 years of age, the power of sending him to school compulsorily ceased at the age of 13. It was desirable that such an anomalous state of things should be put an end to. By Clause 5, enactments were made which would put an end to doubts in the law, the effect of which was, according to certain decisions, that the parents of a child were able without much difficulty to evade the compulsory provisions of the law by simply sending the child to school at the time when prosecution took place, although he had not been attending school for months beforehand. The rest of that clause extended the
  1312
  power of payment for poor children, as the former clause extended the compulsory attendance from 13 to 14. Clause 6 was of some importance, being intended to put labour in Scotland on the same footing as in England. At present, under the Factory Acts in Scotland, a child could work in a factory or workshop as a half-timer from 10 years old, provided that he then went to school. The child was not required, as in England, to have passed any examination under the Standards whatever; so that in many cases the parent did not begin to send his child to school until he was 10 years of age. That was quite contrary to the spirit of the Acts. Clause 9 greatly improved the means of enforcing school attendance precisely upon the lines of the English Act. At present, in Scotland, the parent could only be prosecuted for gross and habitual neglect in sending his children to school—which were very wide words indeed, and had given rise to great difficulty in the Scotch Sheriff Courts. There were no bye-laws, as in England, by which they could require the attendance of a child unless there was some reasonable excuse; but under this clause the Court might make an order which would have the same effect as the bye-laws of English School Boards. Clause 11 defined what reasonable excuse should be. Clause 12 allowed other persons, such as the School Inspectors, to put the school board in motion in these matters. Under Clause 13, provision was made for another matter which was very much desired in Scotland—namely, the power of requiring school boards in certain cases to combine for the formation of a joint board. There were cases in which parishes adjoined, and where there was a very small number of children in each—there might be a dozen—and yet for some reason or other, which could not be a good reason, they declined to join in a common school board, and in having a common school. He trusted their Lordships would accept the Bill, because these changes would effect a real improvement in the Scotch Education Act.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord President.)
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he had not seen the Bill before coming down to that House; but he had very great confidence in the judgment

  1313
  of the Scotch Education Department, especially in the knowledge with regard to Scotch matters which was possessed by Sir Francis Sandford. Yet there were certain things in this Bill which struck him as being rather strong. According to the 6th clause, a child under 10 could not be employed unless he had passed the Third Standard. It was not a provision that such a child should not be taken on full time, but that he should not be employed at all. He ventured to say that that was really impracticable. Farmers would now and then employ children to dig potatoes and do light farm work; but what means had they of knowing whether the child had passed the Third Standard or not? That seemed to be over-legislation.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that the law already prohibited the employment of such children, except in factories and workshops; and the Bill proposed to extend the prohibition to factory and workshop labour.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he could assure his noble Friend that if the law now was that a farmer could not employ a child under 10 years of age, it was a law which was not much observed. The only other part of the Bill which struck him as being rather strong was the 13th clause, where the Education Department had absolute power of their own discretion, and without remonstrance from anybody, to require that school boards should be what the Education Department required them to be. That clause had some bearing on another measure which was about to come before their Lordships—namely, the Local Government Board (Scotland) Bill. He was not, perhaps, so much in favour of that scheme as some of his noble Friends; still, there was much to be said in favour of the improved management of Scotch Business; but he might say he felt sure that, whatever improvement was made in the local government of Scotland, the people of that country were extremely desirous—desirous almost above all things—that the new powers which were about to be given to the new body should include education. As to what was now called the Scotch Education Department, he believed that he himself had long had the honour of being a Member of it; and he did not
  1314
  recollect having ever been summoned to attend on more than one occasion during a considerable number of years. The practical result was, that the Scotch Education Department were the officials of the Privy Council Office. It was true that good work had been done through the exertions of eminent educationists interested in Scotland; but it did not follow that the system would continue to work well under different circumstances. Therefore, the Department were to have absolute power, without consultation with any Scotch body, to require the junction of school boards with surrounding or contiguous districts. He thought there should be an appeal to somebody in Scotland in regard to that power, as it might operate inconveniently in some places. As at present advised, he thought that was a stronger power than should be conferred on the central authority in London.
  LORD BALFOUR, speaking from his own experience as Chairman of a school board, said, that the provisions of the Bill were really very much required in the interests of education in Scotland, more especially that provision which enabled school boards to keep back children at school until the age of 14. By a curious anomaly in the Factory Acts and the Education Act, when read together, they could prevent a child from working full time above the age of 13 and below the age of 14; but they could not keep that child at school. He believed that the school board of which he was Chairman was, if not the first, at least one of the first, to bring this anomaly to the knowledge of the Department. He was glad it was now in a fair way of being cured. He quite agreed with the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) that the law as to the employment of young children was not very rigidly enforced; but perhaps that was a part of the law which was best left to the discretion of the local authorities. But this he must say from experience, and from the evidence laid before the Factory Commission some years ago—that it was of the utmost importance, in the interests of the child, that he or she should be well grounded before going to work. If the child went to work half time without any education at all, the half time attendance at school was practically useless to the child. If he had been well grounded before going to

  1315
  work, half attendance was nearly as good as whole time. He should be very much pleased to see this Bill passed through Parliament, and he believed it would have the very best possible effects upon Scotch education.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.—(No. 189.)
(The Earl of Northbrook.)
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.—(No. 189.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Earl of Northbrook.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that his view of the particular provisions of this Bill was much modified by the fact that the measure would come to a termination in December of next year. There were many controverted points connected with it, and points as to which they might naturally feel doubtful; but on the whole he thought that, as the Bill was to come to an early termination, the wisest plan would be to allow it to go forward very much as it was, reserving to themselves entire freedom, when it came to be renewed, or to be made a permanent measure, to move any Amendments which experience might dictate.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he wished to invite the attention of the noble Earl who had charge of the Bill to a point of much importance to certain parts of Scotland. He believed that by this measure the conveyance of voters to the poll was made a corrupt practice, and that it put an absolute prohibition on candidates paying the expense of conveying voters to the poll. He now expressed no opinion as to the general expediency or wisdom of that provision; but he would mention that in the West of Scotland, and especially in some of the Islands, where the voters were of a comparatively poor class, it would amount to their practical disfranchisement not to allow them to be conveyed to the poll; and if such a prohibition
  1316
  were enforced the Government would be bound to establish a much larger number of polling places.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, that Clause 47 provided for the conveyance of voters by sea, where they could not reach their polling places without crossing the sea, or an arm of the sea.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, he was aware of that clause; but the difficulty was, how voters were to be conveyed, perhaps, 18 or 20 miles to the polling places? In such cases there was scarcely the least chance of the voters going to the poll at all. He himself would have to go 23 or 24 miles to the poll. The result would be the disfranchisement of a great number of voters, and to give the towns a great advantage over the rural populations.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the number of polling places was to be increased under Clause 46, by which, so far as practicable, every elector would have a polling place within a distance not exceeding three miles of his residence if there were 100 electors in the district. With regard to the point as to prohibiting the conveyance of voters to the poll, Clause 14 expressly provided that electors might combine together for the purpose of being conveyed to the poll.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that, in order to get a real expression of the opinion of the constituency, it was necessary to secure the attendance of a great number of electors at the poll; but that was incompatible with very narrow restrictions as to expenditure. He thought the multiplication of polling places would entail great additional expense upon candidates. He could not help thinking that the prohibition of conveyance would be a virtual disfranchisement of the poorer classes of the rural population.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he hoped the Bill would not have the effect anticipated. The expenses of providing polling places would be reckoned outside the maximum.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he believed the only real remedy for the difficulty which had been raised was one which had been always popular in that House, but unpopular in the other—namely, voting papers. He did not think there was any other way out of the difficulty without great expense. He imagined the result of the Bill would be very likely to show that there was very

  1317
  considerable disfranchisement in the less populous places, and that this would supply political force enough to bring about the introduction of a system of voting papers.
  Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received To-morrow.

PUBLIC OFFICES SITE BILL.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is intended in the present year to proceed to operations under the Public Offices Site Act, said: My Lords, it is not in Order to accelerate the operations of the Government under the Public Offices Site Act that I have put this Notice on the Paper. My aim is wholly different. Let me remind your Lordships how the question stands at present. According to the declaration of the Government last Session, until plans have been delivered to the Houses, no new building will commence. No such plans are yet before us. But the Act empowers the Government to destroy Spring Gardens and the Admiralty. At the same time, they are not bound to take any course under the Ac; and until the Treasury permit they are not qualified to do so. My Lords, there are many reasons why the Treasury should be slow to grant the latitude in question. The arguments against the Bill were wholly unreplied to. It was opposed to the utmost by the Institute of Architects. It is not by trampling on architectural opinion that any capital has ever been embellished. Although upon the face of it adopted, the Bill has never had the virtual sanction of the House, as no Division was resorted to—erroneously perhaps—and it is far from certain that a Division would have led to the Bill being carried. Its only pretext was economy, which cannot shelter it, however, as there is not the slightest definition of the outlay it may possibly accumulate. But there is one circumstance which last Session quite escaped the House, and I reproached myself for not having adverted to it. It is the mode in which the Bill would operate if carried out on the quarter made up of Carlton Gardens and Carlton House Terrace. As I am not one of its inhabitants, or likely to become so, I refer to this part of the case with greater freedom
  1318
  and with more impartiality. During a long course of years their view of St. James's Park—the particular advantage they have bought and paid for dearly—will be—if the Bill goes on—a view of dust, of dirt, of beams, of ladders, of demolition and confusion. When the result is gained, a new, a vast, and possibly a hideous edifice will stand on what is now an area of verdure and tranquillity. There can be no doubt whatever that the value of these houses will be considerably lowered. No family of ordinary prudence would think of choosing that locality while such a course of building was going on, and such an end might be anticipated. The unfortunate proprietors will not be able to escape without heavy loss, and not be able to hold on with any decency or comfort. But there is something else to be remembered. As far as I am able to inform myself, these houses are held under leases from the Crown. It naturally is so, as they are well known to have been placed, some 50 years ago, on the site of a Royal Palace. The holders are entitled to look to the Crown for protection from disturbance, so far, at least, as the Crown is qualified to give it, having purchased from the Crown with a security that no disturbance would arise. The Crown, however, could do nothing to protect them by itself, unless in the form of legislative veto on the Bill, which does not fall within the practice of our age, however just it would have been upon its merits. But what the Crown cannot do by itself the Treasury, which represents the Crown in some of its financial attributes, which has gradually become the first Department of the State and central force of the Executive, may take upon itself with perfect regularity and perfect order to accomplish. The extraordinary outlay which the country has incurred in Egypt, and which could not be foreseen when the Bill was carried, would fully justify prohibitory conduct upon their part. It could not be resented even by the supporters of the Bill, and it would deserve the gratitude of all who value beauty in the capital. The Treasury would merely imitate a function of the Supreme Court in the United States—that of arresting Bills by which a fundamental principle is violated. My Lords, I put the Question which stands in my name on the Paper.
  LORD THURLOW: In reply to the Question of the noble Lord, I beg to say that the Chief Commissioner of Works proposes very shortly to invite the competition of architects for the new buildings for the War Office and Admiralty to be erected on the Spring Gardens site; but I am to add that no building will be erected or commenced until the next financial year, when a Vote for the purpose will be presented to Parliament, and opportunities will be given for a full discussion of the merits of the scheme. In regard to the Parliament Street site, I may also add that it is determined by the Office of Works to widen Parliament Street in the manner that has been proposed; and the site, when it is clear—and it will probably be some time before that happens—will be exclusively devoted to the erection of such buildings as banks and clubs and insurance companies' offices, and other noble buildings of that kind, with fitting architectural elevations, which will have to be approved by the Office of Works as suitable to the surroundings of the neighbourhood. Before that is done, ample warning would be given for a further discussion of the subject. That is all the information I am at present able to give. I may take this opportunity of stating, in reference to a Question asked the other night by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss), that there could not be found in the Office of Works any trace of the model of the buildings proposed to be erected in Parliament Street when Mr. Layard was First Commissioner, and there is no knowledge at the Office as to what has become of it.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, that the model cost £500, and was worth £1,500. He would suggest that a further search should be made for it.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, that in a short time proposals from architects would be received for the erection of a new War Office and Admiralty on the site already sanctioned, and money would be required for that purpose next Session. Before, however, money was asked, he hoped Parliament would have full opportunity of passing an opinion on the selected architect's designs. He confessed he was sorry to hear the conclusion at which the Government had arrived with regard to the widening of
  1320
  Parliament Street. He did not want clubs, banks, and hotels there. Such plans would be extremely injurious in a variety of ways. Now that Public Offices were in immediate contiguity to Parliament Street, he had hoped that other Public Offices would be erected, so as to be in the immediate neighbourhood of the Houses of Parliament. The proposal of the Government was an extremely injurious and unfortunate one.

LABOUREES (IRELAND) BILL.
(The Earl of Dunraven.)
LABOUREES (IRELAND) BILL.

  (NO. 183.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENasked that their Lordships should allow this Bill to pass through Committee to-day. He had several Amendments; but as they were of an unimportant character, and were not yet in print, they could be taken, he thought, on the Motion for the third reading to-morrow.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Earl of Dunraven.)
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he must enter his protest against what he though was an objectionable course in regard to a most questionable Bill. The more he looked at the measure the more he disapproved of it, and the more dangerous did it appear to him. He had very great objection to the power contained in it of erecting cottages being placed in the hands of the Boards of Guardians, who might erect cottages in districts already congested. There was a very great tendency on the part of Irish legislators to assent to any measure which involved an advance from the Treasury for expenditure in Ireland. He supposed there was a general idea that it was a good thing for money to be laid out like this, and that it was a good thing to allow interest to get into arrear, so that it might eventually be wholly or partly forgiven. He protested against Amendments being taken on third reading, contending that ample time should be given for the consideration of the new proposals. Amendments to Bills of this kind were discussed with much greater advantage when the noble and learned Earl the Lord Chancellor was not in the Chair.
  LORD VENTRYsaid, he had some small Amendments to propose; but he was prepared to postpone their consideration till the third reading of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he hoped that their Lordships would not allow Bills to be treated in the way proposed by the noble Earl (the Earl of Dunraven). He supposed the Amendments would be moved, and then the third reading. It was bad enough to have Bills coming to their Lordships' House so late in the Session; but they were asked practically to have no Committee on this Bill, but to reserve the Amendments to a later stage. He thought this was treating the legislation of that House with the greatest possible contempt. He should object to the Bill going through Committee on that occasion.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, there was no Amendment of any importance whatever of which Notice had yet been given. The Amendments of the noble Lord (Lord Ventry) were purely verbal, and those of which he himself had given Notice were not calculated to take up any time in their consideration; and he hoped their Lordships would allow the third reading to be taken to-morrow.
  On Question? Resolved in the negative: House to be in Committee Tomorrow.

BANKRUPTCY BILL.—(No. 195.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
BANKRUPTCY BILL.—(No. 195.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, " That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD FITZGERALD, in presenting a Petition against the Bill being passed into law during the present Session, said, he did not concur in the prayer of the Petition, as it would not be desirable, or for the public benefit, that the Bill should be thrown over to another Session, although he could have desired more time to consider it. It was a Bill that appeared to have been prepared with great care, and made most efficient provision for the immediate protection and realization and distribution of the
  1322
  properties of bankrupts, from which he hoped for very great advantages. He would, therefore, although presenting the Petition, humbly recommend their Lordships to pass the Bill.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he was not in the House when the Bill was read a second time, though he should have felt it his duty, if he could, to have rendered assistance to their Lordships; but he knew he could be of no use, because he could not say that the Bill was a good or a bad one, as he had not had an opportunity of reading it. He knew the second reading would pass, because the Bill was introduced by the Lord Chancellor, and because their Lordships knew that a Grand Committee had been for two months "cutting and carving it," which he believed was the right expression to use towards an honest attempt to improve a Bill. He could show their Lordships a string of Amendments that he had had sent to him, and he had himself made 67 notes and queries of things he would like to have had an explanation about; but he should not trouble the House with any one of them, as he knew it would be utterly hopeless. The clause relating to disclaimer he really could not understand, though, if he was sitting in their Lordships' House when the matter came there for decision, he should be under the necessity of coming to some conclusion upon it. He could not but think it was altogether wrong and unreasonable that the Bill had not been placed before their Lordships in such a way and at such a time that those of their Lordships who were competent to speak on the matter should have been heard. He was not opposed to the Bill; he believed it to be a good Bill, and it would be a great pity if it did not pass through Parliament this Session; but it was a most alarming and improper thing to pass a Bill in the hope that in some future time they might be able to amend it. Its severity was most wholesome, and he hoped it would have the effect contemplated, of deterring people from the fraudulent and reckless bankruptcies which were now only too common.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he would remind the House of a proposal he made a few weeks ago, that Bills might, be postponed from one Session to another, with the possibility of taking them up again at the point where they

  1323
  were left. The position in which the House was placed was, that either they must reject the Bill, because they had not time to consider it, and so nullify a great deal of hard work in "another place," or they must accept the Bill on the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor. The latter was the course they were to adopt, and it was the right course under the circumstances; but surely it would be much more dignified if, when Bills of this magnitude and importance came up at so late a period of the Session, their Lordships had power to postpone the consideration of them until the commencement of the next Session. It was derogatory to the dignity of the House that it should be entirely cut out from the consideration of the Bill. It was not a Bill which excited much political feeling, while, at the same time, it was one which some of their Lordships were very well qualified to discuss. Their Lordships would be well occupied in the beginning of next Session in hearing the answers to the 67 notes and queries of the noble and learned Lord who had last spoken.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he was very much struck by a remark of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brarnwell) when the Bill was read a second time in that House. He said he felt it a positive humiliation to do so. That was a very strong expression. They must remember, however, that some Acts, notably the Settled Land Acts, had been passed by that House with even less consideration, from the technical nature of the subject, than they were giving to this Bill; and they ought also to bear in mind the great length at which the whole Bill had been discussed by the Grand Committee, under the able Presidency of Mr. Goschen. Under these circumstances, they might fairly be satisfied with the competency of the hands it had passed through. Although some noble Lords had expressed irritation at the impossibility of considering the Bill, yet none of them had expressed serious objection to any of the principles of the Bill. There would be a serious responsibility on the part of the House, and one which he would not be willing to share, if they were to throw out the Bill, which had taken so much labour in "another place," without their Lordships having very good reasons for its rejection. There was only one provision which, he
  1324
  regarded with dislike, and that was of great political importance. He alluded to the immense patronage conferred upon the Board of Trade. He did not approve of placing such enormous patronage in the hands of the Executive for the time being. The Board of Trade would appoint the administrative staff—that was to say, the Official Receivers of debtors' estates all over the country; and they would not be attached to the Court of Bankruptcy, but would come under the superintendence of the Board of Trade. Thus the Board would have a larger amount of patronage than any other Department of the Government. He did not wish to move any Amendment in this matter; but was it absolutely necessary that the appointment of the Receivers, who held a most important office under the Bill, should be in every part of the country taken out of the hands of the local authorities and placed in those of the central authorities? He remembered, when he was at the Post Office, there was a large amount of patronage there; but the minor appointments were practically in the hands of the Treasury, and the more considerable ones were distributed strictly on the principle that they were rewards for good service. In this case, however, the appointments might be used to reward electoral services.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he was sorry the noble Duke had not proceeded beyond a protest, and either moved, or given Notice of moving, an Amendment to the Bill in the very salutary direction in which his speech had pointed. Undoubtedly, one of the greatest dangers to the Constitution was that of permitting the American maxim, "that the spoils belonged to the victors," to become acclimatized here; and the enormous patronage which the Bill conferred upon the Board of Trade might, unless carefully watched, work in that direction. Thirty years ago, or more, statesmen of this country were very much alarmed at this danger, and they introduced a system of competitive examinations for the purpose of guarding against it. He had no doubt whatever, notwithstanding what had been said against that system, it had been very effective for that purpose, and had entirely divested those smaller appointments, in a great number of Departments of the State, of any political or electioneering character. But they were now about to create a very large series of

  1325
  valuable appointments which were above the level of competitive examinations. Therefore it was obvious it would have to be very carefully provided that they did not become rewards for merits of an electioneering character in the various parts of the country where they existed. The very fact that they were spread all over the country would make them all the more valuable for rewarding services of a Parliamentary and electioneering character. He confessed that he should very much prefer that the precedent set in respect of another kind of office—namely, that of a Revising Barrister, should be followed in this instance. His appointment was in the hands of a Judge of the Crown. There was no reason why these appointments should not be placed in the hands of either the Judges or County Court Judges, or some non-political or permanent officer whose judgment in such matters would not be affected by any political considerations. He could not now, without Notice, move in Committee the institution of any such change in the Bill as that; but, certainly, if he found the opinion of the House encouraged him in moving an Amendment in that direction he should be disposed to move it upon Report.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he thought that the discussion which had just taken place quite justified the comments which he had made on the second reading of the Bill. There were some six pages of doubtless valuable Amendments about to be moved by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack. Now, during the present Session the House had enjoyed the advantage of the services of a body of Legal Authorities of, he believed, an eminence and judicial experience unequalled at any former period; and he could not help thinking that in all probability some one or other of those high Legal Authorities might also have suggested some Amendments of considerable value. He hoped that the public would consider that for any defects in the working of the Act, the management or mismanagement of the Government—they best knew which—in sending up that Bill for consideration in detail in the third week of August would be responsible.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNobserved, that that Bill bade fair to become law without having been examined in either House of Parliament. Discussion was deprecated in the other House on the
  1326
  ground that the Bill had been fully considered by a new Institution called a Grand Committee; and now in this House, because the Commons had accepted it, their Lordships were practically asked to give up all their rights and privileges to a Grand Committee of the other House, and to abdicate the function which the Constitution vested in them. It seemed to him doubtful whether they had any moral right thus to forsake their duty.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, that if they did not pass the Bill through Committee it would be equivalent to throwing it out for this Session; and, for his part, he thought the Bill ought to be thrown out, and allowed to come up at a reasonable period next Session.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that, complaints having been made as to the circumstances under which that Bill came before their Lordships, he wished to notice a few of the particular criticisms which had been offered in the course of that discussion. The noble Earl who spoke last but one had referred to the formidable array of Amendments on the Paper, consisting, as he said, of six pages. Those Amendments were only formidable in appearance. The draftsman of the Bill had performed the useful function of revising the form and expression of the measure in its last stage; and nearly the whole of the Amendments in those six pages were merely intended to give greater precision of expression, without altering the substance. There were, indeed, a few Amendments to which that remark did not strictly apply; but these were framed only to clear up some points of detail, without altering any principle of the Bill. With regard to the question of patronage, the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) was under a mistake in respect to the Official Receivers. If the Board of Trade were to appoint all over the country the persons who were from beginning to end to deal with the property of bankrupts and to administer it, it would, no doubt, be a serious matter; but the functions of the Official Receiver were of an entirely different character from that. The creditors were to have the right to appoint their own trustees, as they did under the present law; but during the short interval that might elapse between the initiation of proceed-

  1327
  ings and the choice of the trustee, in order that the estate might not suffer, those officers, the Official Receivers, were to be appointed to protect the interests of the general public in regard to fraudulent and reckless trading, and also to protect the interests of the creditors at an early stage of the proceedings, by providing them with the information without which they would be helpless, and which experience showed that they could not obtain for themselves. Those officers were to be ad interim receivers pending the appointment of the trustee and the manager by the creditors. The other officers were only that portion of the existing staff who discharged what were called administrative duties. With respect to the alleged severity of the Bill, he would point out that it did not make any new misdemeanours. Those acts of fraudulent bankruptcy which were punishable as misdemeanours remained, in substance, as they were. The Bill did, undoubtedly, enumerate various acts discreditable to a debtor, which might be—but not necessarily must be—a ground for refusing his discharge. He was very sorry indeed that there should be anything to prevent himself and their Lordships from having the assistance of those who were so well qualified to give it as his noble and learned Friends opposite, and other noble and learned Lords not present. He did not think it would be profitable to enter into any explanation now of the causes which, whether in that House or in "another place," had contributed to prevent the Bill from coming earlier before their Lordships. One of those causes was the great care and pains taken with it in the Grand Committee of the other House, and also, subsequently, in the other House itself. He could very much wish that this and other Bills also had reached their Lordships sooner. With all the important legislative Business which the Government had to transact, and with the encroachments on the time, limited as it was, which was at its command, he should be very glad if, by any greater economy or better distribution of time, it would be possible to bring important Bills at an earlier date before their Lordships. But he did not think it would be a wise course for their Lordships to throw out all Bills of importance which came up to them after
  1328
  they had been carefully considered elsewhere, and had been, on the whole, approved by the best authorities on the subjects with which they dealt. He did not think it would be wise to reject this Bill in the hope that it would be possible to legislate better on the subject in a future Session; and with regard to the suggestion of his noble Friend (Lord Balfour) that Bills might be taken up in a future Session at any stage which they might have reached before Prorogation, there were two considerations to be borne in mind if that question should ever come before their Lordships—first, the enormous accumulation of Bills in various stages, which might then be expected to arise from Session to Session; and, in the next place, the great temptation that would arise to introduce Bills of a character which their Lordships might not think deserving of encouragement, and to throw out other Bills by postponing their stages, in order that they might be taken up in another Session. However, those questions were not now under consideration. All he could say was that, as their Lordships were aware, the greater part of this measure was the re-enactment of former laws, without any alteration in those points which experience had shown did not require alteration; and, with regard to those points in which alterations had been made, those were matters which had not been done in a corner, for they had been for a long time subjects of consideration by the mercantile community, and by both Houses of Parliament. This Bill had been prepared after great deliberation and consultation between the Government and all those officers of the Bankruptcy Courts and County Courts on the one hand, and of the Board of Trade on the other, who were best able to bring valuable information to bear upon the subject; then it passed into the form in which it had been introduced in the other House, and it was then referred to the Grand Committee on Trade, by whom no Amendment of importance was introduced without full time being given for its consideration. Therefore, their Lordships had all the guarantees before them upon the subject which could be given. He would not presume to say there were no points in the Bill which experience of its operation might prove to require amendment; but he could say con-

  1329
  fidently that few measures had ever been presented to their Lordships upon which more care had been bestowed.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that, with regard to the point of patronage which had been raised, it was very natural that Parliament should be extremely jealous of vesting any large amount of patronage in any Department of the State. He had been expecting to hear from the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack some very strong reasons for vesting patronage of this kind in a Department of the State, instead of Courts of Law or local authorities. These receivers would be a kind of interim officers of the Court; but the noble and learned Earl had not pointed out why they could not as well be appointed by a Court of Law. He thought the importance of their duties was a reason for giving this patronage to the Courts. The Board of Trade had power, not only to appoint these officers, but to remove them. He hoped that on a future stage of the Bill the House would have some further explanation on this point.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly: Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received on Wednesday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 211.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.