Sitting of 7 May 1885

MINUTES.
SuprLY—considered in Committee —ARMY ESTIMATES.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee —£13,315,334, Consolidated Fund.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee —Ordered —First Reading —Burial Grounds*[164].
First Reading —Water Companies (Regulation of Powers)*[161]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Public Health Act) (No. 1)* [162]; Federal Council of Australasia*[165].
Committee — Report —Registration (Occupation Voters) (re-comm.) [140–163]; East India Unclaimed Stocks* [125].
Report —Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders*[123]; Gas Provisional Orders (No. 1)*[126]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 1)* [128].
Considered as amended —Registration of Voters (Scotland) [151].

QUESTIONS.

  WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT—INCIDENCE OF TAXATION.
  MR. R. H. PAGETasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will be good enough to lay upon the Table a Return embodying the details of the four groups of figures (between the years 1858 and 1885) introduced by him into his Budget Speech, to institute a comparison of the incidence of taxation on "Articles of Consumption" and on "Property" respectively?
  MR. HIBBERT(who replied) said: My right hon. Friend will be happy to lay on the Table a Return as desired by the hon. Member.

  VACCINATION—HOSPITAL ATTENDANTS.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIRasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, in the case of officers and servants for the service of the Metropolitan Asylums Board Hospitals, a proper interval is always allowed to elapse between their re-vaccination and their entering on their duty; and, whether it is the fact that certain officers or servants at the Fulham Small Pox Hospital have entered on their duties without re-vaccination?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL(who replied) said: We have made inquiry, and find that in the cases of the North-Western, South-Eastern, and Southwestern Hospitals an interval is allowed to elapse between the re-vaccination of the officers and servants and their entering on their duties. In the first mentioned hospital the interval is stated to be 48 or 72 hours. As regards the Eastern Hospital, it has been the custom to re-vaccinate the officers and servants on the day of arrival at the hospital or the day following. At the Hospital Ships no interval elapses betweeen the re-vaccination and exposure to small-pox infection. At the Western or Fulham Hospital the officers and servants are usually re-vaccinated on the day of their entering on their duties. There have, however, since May, 1884, been two instances in which the re-vaccination was not performed until some days after the assistants had commenced discharging their duties, and this was in consequence of an omission to report the cases to the Medical Superintendent.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (SCOTLAND) —THE SHOTTS SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the allegations contained in The West Lothian Courier of April 25th, that public houses were engaged, and "free tables" established, for the promotion of the interests of certain candidates at the recent election of the Shotts School Board, and that "as much as five shillings was offered to certain voters for their votes;" and, whether, in view of the numerous complaints as to bribery and treating at School Board elections that have recently appeared in the

  1829
  Scotch Press, he will consider the propriety of extending the provisions of the Corrupt Practices Acts to School Board elections at as early a date as possible?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR.): I have seen the letters in The West Lothian Courier. On inquiry I can find no confirmation of the statements that public-houses were engaged and free tables established in the interests of the candidates, and I have not learned of any instance in which money was offered for a vote. The only foundation for the last statement which I have been able to trace is that in the case of two miners who were asked to assist one of the candidates in his election, 1s. or 2s. were given to the children of each of them. It appears, however, that certain of the candidates treated the voters to drink. The instances which have recently been brought to light appear to me to establish the necessity for extending the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Acts to School Board elections in Scotland; and, as I think I have already mentioned, a Bill is in preparation which will extend those Acts to such elections, as well as to municipal elections. We cannot hope to pass the Bill this Session; but the School Board elections will not recur for three years.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1884—RETURNS UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked Mr. Attorney General, If his attention has been drawn to the form of a Return under the provisions of "The Representation of the People Act, 1884," which has been issued by the Parochial Authorities of the Metropolis, requiring Returns to be made, as follows, under a penalty of forty shillings: —
  Form of Return.
  1.
  Property in respect of which the Person making the Return is rated [or liable to be rated, or occupied].
  2.
  Situation or description of every Dwelling House, as defined by the Representation of the People Acts, forming part of the property in the first column.
  3.
  Surname and other name of every Man who was, on the 15th day of July last, and has been up to the date of the Return, an inhabitant occupier of any Dwelling House in the second column.
  whether he has considered how far it is likely that an ordinary ratepayer or occupier is in possession of sufficient information as to the meaning of the Legislature to enable him to fill up the first column; whether there is any clear and precise definition of a Dwelling House in the Representation of the People Acts which would enable him to fill up the second column; and. if there is, whether the ratepayer or occupier is to have recourse to the Acts for that definition, or whether the Parochial Authorities should not themselves supply it to him under some authoritative and legal definition; and, whether some guidance should not also be furnished to the person having to make the Return in the third column as to who is an "inhabitant occupier," and as to the circumstances and conditions under which the "inhabitant occupier of any Dwelling House" is entitled under that description to be entered upon the Return?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, he had seen a form of Return in the Representation of the People Act of last year, which had been issued by the Parochial Authorities to the ratepayers of the Metropolis. This form was enjoined by the Act. When it was being discussed in the House the view of the Government was to leave the drawing up of the form to the authorities; but the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope) expressed a strong wish that a form should be placed in the Schedule, and after consideration this form was adopted and inserted. He admitted the difficulty ratepayers would experience in understanding the form; but he had that morning received from the Vestry Clerk of St. Marylebone an instruction which had been issued along with the form, and which appeared to make the matter much more clear. He (the Attorney General) would suggest that in the Registration Bill now before the House a provision might be inserted in the Schedule enjoining upon the overseers the issue of a similar instruction. He would confer with the right hon. Gentleman opposite on the question.
  MR. HEALYexpressed the hope that the Attorney General would confer with the Irish Attorney General, in order that Ireland might participate in any benefit from the conference.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)intimated his readiness to do so.

  PARLIAMENT—PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—WESTMINSTER HALL (RESTORATION).
  MR. R. H. PAGETasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether with reference to the Report of the Select Committee on Westminster Hall Restoration, and in view of the indefinite recommendation of the Committee that they
  "Suggest for consideration, that the wall of the two storied building should be somewhat lowered, and that a plain coping should be substituted for the battlemented parapet,"
  he will be good enough to have elevations prepared, showing accurately the proposed treatment of the west front of Westminster Hall, and its general effect in combination with the existing buildings of the Houses of Parliament; whether he will further direct plans and sections to be prepared, showing the proposed Committee Rooms to be constructed, with an explanatory memorandum, setting forth the means of access to such Committee Rooms, the provisions for their lighting, warming, and ventilation, and the uses to which it is proposed to devote them; and, whether he will afford ample opportunity for consideration of such plans, sections, and elevations and memorandum before presenting to the House any vote for carrying out the recommendations of the Committee?
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE(who replied) said: Mr. Pearson has reported that the models on the side of Westminster Hall, being only of canvas, are already in such a state that it is necessary to remove them without delay; and the Department cannot go to the expense of erecting further models to show the exact elevations. But the Appendix to the Evidence of the Committee will contain a drawing by Mr. Pearson showing the modifications which he proposes to make to meet the views of the Committee. The evidence and plans laid before the Committee will supply all the information required as to the rooms in the gallery proposed to be erected under the buttresses. These rooms are not intended as Committee Rooms for the use of the House; but will be available for conference or deputation rooms, or for such other purposes as may be ultimately found desirable.
  In reply to Mr. R. H. PAGET and Mr. MITCHELL HENRY,
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that an alternative design had been laid before the Committee by Mr. Pearson as to the restoration of Westminster Hall, and was now under consideration.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—VISITATION OF MOUNTJOY PRISON.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How often Mountjoy Prison was visited in 1883 and 1884 by the visitors appointed for that purpose by the Lord Lieutenant; and, whether, as recommended by the Royal Commission on Irish Prisons, full Reports in writing as to the condition and discipline of that prison for the above years were presented to the Lord Lieutenant?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: It appears that when the term of office of the Visitors of the Dublin Prisons expired at the close of 1882 their appointment was not renewed, nor were new appointments made. This appears to be entirely due to an inadvertence, so far as I can see. Last year the Royal Commission was sitting, and no appointments of Visitors were made pending their Report. They have reported strongly in favour of such Visitors; and His Excellency, who fully concurs, has appointed five Visitors for the Dublin Prisons—namely, Viscount Powerscourt, Sir James Mackey, Mr. Joshua Pim, Mr. Robert Warren, and my hon. Friend the junior Member for Dublin City (Dr. Lyons). I understand they visited the prisons last month, and made observations in the books provided for the purpose; but their formal Report will not be presented until the end of their year of office. If the hon. Baronet will be good enough to move for it, I shall be happy to lay on the Table a copy of the letter of appointment and instructions given to these gentlemen.

  EGYPT—THE SOUDAN—MILITARY OPERATIONS—THE SUAKIN-BERBER RAILWAY.
  SIR BERNHARD SAMUELSONasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether, in view of the reported destruction of the wooden sleepers on the Suakin-Berber Railway, directions will be given to employ metal

  1833
  sleepers in future, the latter having been found serviceable on the Indian Government Railwavs and elsewhere?
  LORD EUSTACE CECILasked whether the construction of the Suakin-Berber Railway was to be continued at all?
  MR. BRAND: The noble Lord asks me to prophesy, which I must decline to do. In answer to the Question of the hon. Baronet, I have to say that the relative advantages of metal and wooden sleepers were carefully considered before shipments were made for Suakin. Upon the advice of the contractors and their engineers it was decided to use wooden sleepers in the first instance, on the ground that they were best adapted to the rapid construction of a temporary line; they were ready to hand, while steel sleepers must have been specially manufactured, and would not have been so useful in completing cargoes. Under the circumstances which were sure to prevail at Suakin during the pressure incident to the disembarkation of troops, transport, animals, and stores, it was thought that the use of wooden sleepers, which could be floated on shore, would greatly facilitate the difficult process of unloading, while for rough and uneven ground they would offer great advantages in making a more secure road. A limited supply of metal sleepers has been sent out for use in watercourses; and in the event of a continuation of the line, or of the permanent completion of the part now constructed, under circumstances offering less difficulty, both in respect of the delivery of cargoes and of the rate of construction, metal sleepers would no doubt be preferred.
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: Is the report true which has reached me, that a portion of the railway plant has already been shipped homewards?
  MR. BRAND: No, Sir; I am not aware that there is any truth in the report.

  SUGAR BOUNTIES—PROPOSED CONFERENCE.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Belgian Government have recently proposed that a Conference should be held on the subject of Sugar Bounties; what answer has been given by Her Majesty's Government; and
  1834
  whether he can lay any Papers upon the Table on this subject?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: An invitation to attend this proposed Conference was conveyed to Her Majesty's Government in December last by the Belgian Minister. Baron Solvyns was informed, in reply, that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, any active steps for the relief of the sugar industry must be taken by the countries whose duties and bounties have placed this industry in an artificial position. Her Majesty's Government, before accepting the invitation, wished to know whether the Governments of the countries which grant bounties had expressed their intention of being represented at the proposed Conference. An answer was shortly afterwards received to the effect that the proposal was postponed. I will consult the President of the Board of Trade, whose Department deals with the general question, as to the presentation of the Papers on the subject to Parliament.

  SPAIN—THE ZAMORA WATERWORKS COMPANY.
  MR. J. R. YORKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government can state what is the present position of the proceedings for enforcing payment of the amount duo from the Municipality of Zamora, in Spain, to the Zamora Waterworks Company; whether it is the fact that whereas the Spanish Government at one time used their powers so as to compel the municipality to pay, they have now not only ceased to do so but are placing difficulties in the way of the creditors; and, if there are any papers on the subject which can be produced?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The real estate of the Municipality of Zamora was put up for sale on October 16 last, but there was no bidder, The Company then applied for a second sale at a reduction of 25 per cent on the upset price. In consequence of the action of the Spanish Home Office on the subject, Her Majesty's Minister felt obliged to address a protest to the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs, who promised to insist on the property being at once put up again for sale at the reduced price. Nevertheless, the property was again offered for sale without any reduction, with the same result as before.

  1835
  There is reason to fear that the Spanish Home Office contemplate a revaluation of the property, which would entail a further delay of many months. Her Majesty's Government hope, however, to effect a speedy settlement of the case. They are in communication with the German Government, whose subjects are also interested. I cannot undertake at present to say whether Papers can be laid on the Table or not.

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS— THE JAPANESE VILLAGE —CONSTRUCTION AND MEANS OF EXIT.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether it is a fact that the condition of the Japanese Exhibition had been brought to the notice of the Metropolitan Board; if so, what action was taken; and, whether, if it is true that the premises are to be rebuilt, he will guarantee that sufficient protection will be afforded to the public against fire, both as regards the construction itself and also for proper means of exit?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: In reply to my hon. Friend, I beg to inform him that the attention of the Metropolitan Board was called, at the end of January last, to the state of the building in which the Japanese Exhibition was held, and that previous to that time communications had taken place between the Board's Superintending Architect and the District Surveyor on the subject. In the result, the owner of the hall was summoned by the District Surveyor before the magistrate, in order to obtain an amendment of certain irregularities in the construction of the hall, and the magistrate made an order that the works should be amended in accordance with the requirements of the District Surveyor. This order was not, however, complied with; and subsequently the Board was informed that the owner had obtained a licence for music from the Justices of Middlesex, although the Board had not issued a certificate that the building had been completed in accordance with their regulations, as required by the Building Act of 1878. Proceedings were accordingly taken to recover penalties against the proprietor of the Japanese Exhibition, and the case was heard at the Westminster Police Court on April 23; but at the bearing the owner of the hall
  1836
  put himself forward as, in fact, responsible for keeping open the entertainment, and, under these circumstances, the magistrate dismissed the summons. I may add that the Board had prepared a series of requisitions for remedying the structural defects of the building, which would have been served in a few days but for the recent fire, which has shown conclusively that the Board has throughout been right in its contention that the building, until amended in accordance with the requirements, was totally unsafe and unfit for a place of public entertainment. With regard to the latter part of the Question, I can assure my hon. Friend that, in the event of the premises being rebuilt, the Board will spare no effort to secure proper protection for the public, both as regards construction and exit.

  SECRET SOCIETIES (IRELAND)—USE OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS FOR MASONIC MEETINGS — THE COURT HOUSE, MARYBOROUGH, QUEEN'S CO.
  MR. LALORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that a Freemason Lodge was held in the County Court House, Maryborough, on the 14th of April last; and, if this is the usual place for meetings of this Society; and, if so, have the Freemasons any special right to make use of this building, erected by the ratepayers of the Queen's County for public purposes?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: I am informed that the Freemasons use this Court House in common with other persons. The control of the Court House is vested in the Grand Jury, and the Government have no power to interfere in the matter.
  MR. SEXTON: Would the right hon. Gentleman be in favour of a branch of the National League holding its meetings there?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: I have no power one way or the other.
  MR. LALOR: Who are the other persons who meet there?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: I have no knowledge on the subject.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS, MALLOW.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,

  1837
  Whether the Returning Officer and the Mallow Board of Guardians have refused Mr. Thomas Barry, candidate for the poor law guardianship of the Clemor electoral division, permission to examine the claims lodged by landowners for property votes in the said division; and, if so, whether the Local Government Board will direct that facilities be given to Mr. Barry for the purpose of testing the legality of these votes; and, whether in view of the charges made by Mr. Barry that the votes cast against him by Lord Doneraile, Mr. W. Johnson, and Mr. B. V. Mackay were bogus property votes, and that two men named Hunter and Nagle, having three votes apiece, and having filled up their voting papers in Mr. Barry's favour, were intimidated into tearing up the papers, a sworn inquiry into the circumstances attending the election will be ordered?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: I understand the Guardians have passed a resolution to the effect referred to, and they were within their right in doing so. It is, of course, open to Mr. Barry to appeal to the Local Government Board. If he does so, and furnishes particulars of his objections, the Board will take the matter into consideration.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND) — SUNDAY DELIVERY IN CO. MAYO.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Postmaster General, Why the Sunday Post established last year between Ballandine and Irishtown (county Mayo), on a numerously subscribed Memorial from the inhabitants of the district, has been discontinued; and, whether, having regard to the fact that the district served by the Sunday delivery contains three thousand persons, and that, under the present arrangement, letters arriving at Ballandine at twelve o'clock on Saturdays are not distributed until nine o'clock on Monday mornings, to the great inconvenience of trade in the district, arrangements will be made to reestablish the Sunday delivery at Irish-town?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension in stating that a Sunday post was established to Irishtown last year, and has since been discontinued. There never has been a post on Sundays; but the late Mr. Fawcett pro-
  1838
  mised that the accommodation should be afforded if applied for in accordance with the rule by persons receiving two-thirds of the letters for the district. No such application has yet been received; but when it is I shall be glad to give it my best consideration.

  POST OFFICE—SUNDAY DELIVERY IN THE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT.
  MR. SMALLasked the Postmaster General, Whether he could not take steps to have even one delivery of letters on Sundays in the Metropolitan district, and thus obviate the inconveniences of the present system to dwellers in London?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: There does not appear to be any such general demand for a Sunday delivery in London as to justify me in making any change in the existing arrangements.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—ARMS LICENCE-NENAGH PETTY SESSIONS —CASE OF GEORGE NAPIER.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that on the 20th ultimo, a young man named George Napier, of Roscrea, was charged before the magistrates at Nenagh with having, on the 6th of the same month, "presented a revolver at a number of children;" whether several witnesses deposed to his having gone through the streets of Nenagh shouting "for the north," and calling the people "papists and rebels," and saying that he would "put a bullet through a Catholic or a rebel;" whether he was discharged without punishment on the occasion, and on what grounds; whether Major Waring, R.M., in giving the decision of the Bench, said—
  "The magistrates who gave the defendant license to carry arms did not use discretion in doing so, and that he handled the weapon in a manner he ought not to have done;"
  whether it is the custom with the magistrates of Roscrea to grant largely licenses to carry arms to persons of the same class as George Napier; and, whether the Government will make inquiry into the manner in which these licenses have been granted as well as into the decision of the magistrates in this case?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will be good

  1839
  enough to repeat this Question on Monday, by which time I hope to have a written Report of the case which is on its way, but has not yet reached me.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS—ESKER DIVISION, EDENDERRY UNION.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will cause inquiry to be made into the circumstances under which Mr. Bor, clerk of the union and returning officer for the Esker Division of the Edenderry Union, failed to send a voting paper to one Luke Dunne, and afterwards, at the casting up of the votes, rejected the voting paper of Dunne, on the ground that he had not applied for it on the 20th March; whether, in fact, Dunne applied on the 19th March at the workhouse for the voting paper in question, and filled it up under the direction of Mr. Bor himself, to whom he then and there delivered it; and, whether the Local Government Board have already had cause to complain of the conduct of this officer in similar matters?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It appears the clerk made a mistake in allowing Dunne to vote on the wrong day, and on an objection being made to the vote on this ground, he felt himself compelled to disallow it; but this did not affect the result of the election. The Local Government Board had some reason to complain of the manner in which this clerk discharged his duties last year; but this proceedings have been more satisfactory at the recent election.

  SEED SUPPLY (IRELAND) ACT — EXTENSION OF TIME FOR REPAYMENT OF LOANS.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he would extend by a year the time allowed the Unions to collect Seed Rate; and, if this extension can be legally granted by an order of the Local Government Board or the Treasury, or if special legislation would be requisite?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: There does not appear to be any necessity for this extension of time, which would require legislation. It is open to any Board of Guardians desiring additional time to make application to the
  1840
  Board of Works, who, I believe, usually accede to any request of the kind made on reasonable grounds.

  INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—THE ULSTER CANAL.
  DR. LYONSasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether My Lords will consent to stay the sale of the Ulster Canal until further evidence be taken as to the bearing and influence which this important link of connection in the inland waterways of Ireland may possibly exert in facilitating the transport of the materials and products of an extended system of industries in that part of the United Kingdom?
  MR. HIBBERT: The Question of my hon. Friend affords me the opportunity of explaining the position of the Government with respect to this matter. The primary object of the Government throughout has been to do what seemed the best for the interests of the locality concerned, so far as could be done consistently with our duty to consider the pecuniary interests of the general taxpayer. As far as it was possible to ascertain it, the opinion of the districts through which the Canal passes was, and is, unanimously in favour of its retention as a water communication. There is also a general desire that the Canal should be improved, so as to make it more available for traffic; and my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) thought that he had secured both these objects with terms favourable to the interests of the locality and fair to the public by the scheme which is embodied in the Bills of the last and present Sessions. The local opinion appears to be in favour of this scheme, subject to certain amendments with respect to details, which have been accepted by the Government; but I have gathered, greatly to my surprise, that, although the opinions of the localities are favourable, the feeling amongst the Irish Members is adverse to it. The objections of hon. Members seem to rest mainly on financial grounds; but they could be remedied by modifications in the scheme.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Does that mean that the Government will withdraw the Bill?
  MR. HIBBERT: No; but that they will consider what modifications could be made in it.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— SLIGO HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS— MEMORIAL FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR REPAYMENT OF LOAN.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If the Treasury will grant the prayer of the Memorial of January last from the Sligo Harbour Commissioners, for extension of time for repayment of loan, postponement of instalments of principal, and lowering of rate of interest?
  MR. HIBBERT: A full Report of this case has recently been received for consideration. I have already told the hon. Member that the interest on existing loans is based on the lowest rate legally possible, and therefore cannot be reduced. The decision as to prolonging the period of repayment of the present loans must depend on the willingness of the Harbour Commissioners to improve the securities which they have offered by a re-adjustment of the tolls.

  EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)—SUPPLIES FOR THE TROOPS AT SUAKIN.
  MR. DIGBYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that fresh mutton from Now Zealand has been refused and beef from Russia accepted for British troops at Suakin; and, if so, whether it would not be possible to give a preference to Colonial meat, which would, in certain eventualities, probably become a matter of necessity?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The requirement of the Commissariat at Suakin was live cattle. The supply from New Zealand consisted of dead meat, frozen, and unsuited for use at the front. If Colonial live stock could be delivered at a price not greater than that paid for the produce of other countries, there would be every desire to give it the preference.

  THE PAPAL SEE—DIPLOMATIC COMMUNICATION WITH THE VATICAN —MR. ERRINGTON.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is true that, with the concurrence of Her Majesty's Government, Mr. Errington has been making endeavours at Rome to prevent the ap-
  1842
  pointment of a particular ecclesiastic to the See of Dublin?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, I am desired by Earl Granville to state, on his behalf, that I have no further information to give in addition to the statement which I have already made.

  EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)— HEALTH OF THE TROOPS ON THE NILE.
  VISCOUNT LEWISHAMasked the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been called to the letter published by their Cairo correspondent in The Standard of May 5th, from an officer in the camp at Kurot, near Debbeh; and, if the statements therein made, that the huts will not be completed till August, that seven men have died of enteric fever in the last twelve days, that, although the camp was only begun to be formed five weeks ago, there are already 150 sick, are correct; if so, and it is determined to keep the troops in that pestilential climate, if nothing can be done to alleviate their sufferings?
  COLONEL DAWNAYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the following extract from the letter of an officer in the camp at Kurot, near Debbeh, on the Upper Nile, in The Standard, of Tuesday, May 5th:—
  "We are all in miserable bell tents, the huts cannot be finished till August. The temperature is now 120 degrees:
  "Every day is 24 hours of physical torture:
  "Seven of our men have died of enteric fever in the last twelve days, and although we only began to form our camp here five weeks ago, we have already 150 sick. It is a disgrace to keep us in such a fiendish country; nothing can excuse it:
  "The food is bad, we are still in rags, as no clothing has come up yet:
  "If they keep the troops here all the summer none will be left worth a straw:
  "Now the correspondents are gone everything is concealed, and there is no one to say a word for the soldier;"
  and, whether, considering that Lord Wolseley has left that country before the real hot season commenced, the British force on the Nile will be brought back, or is it decided to retain them there under the condititions above stated?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have asked Sir Redvers Buller for information on this matter, and, by a tele-

  1843
  gram, dated from Dongola, this morning, he reports as follows: —
  "Hutting not yet finished at Kurot, Tani, or Merawi; should be this week. But troops have had day shelter for more than three weeks. Principal medical officer reports percentage sick, 71. Health of troops not so good, but not materially worse than at the date of last returns—viz., loth April. Doctors report health at Dongola, Abu Gus, Tani, Merawi as good; at Shabadood, Kurot, and Fatmeh as fair."
  With regard to the latter part of the noble Viscount's Question, I can only say that the statements made in Parliament have been sent to Lord Wolseley. We have been since that time in communication with him as to the measures to be taken upon them; and I expect that in the course of a very short time— probably in a day or two—I shall be in a position to inform the House that orders have been issued in accordance with the intentions stated to the House.
  COLONEL DAWNAY: Are we to understand from the noble Marquess that the troops are still living in bell tents on the Upper Nile?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I presume that, at stations where the hutting has not been completed, they are; but, as stated by Sir Redvers Buller, day shelter during the great heat has been provided in all those stations for the troops for a considerable time.
  VISCOUNT LEWISHAM: Can the noble Marquess tell us what kind of hutting it is?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: No, Sir; I cannot describe it accurately; but I presume it is in the nature of shedding.
  MR. O'KELLYasked upon whose authority the noble Marquess made the statement that the troops were hutted? Last year the noble Marquess made a statement in that House that the troops were hutted on the Nile at a time when all the troops in the Valley of the Nile were living under canvas.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have already stated that what I have said is on the authority of Sir Redvers Buller, who is the officer commanding at Dongola.

  LAW AND POLICE—THE FOLKESTONE ABDUCTION CASE.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that the
  1844
  woman Johnson, sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment for the alleged abduction of the daughter of the widow of a labouring man named Hearnden, of Acrise, in the parish of Folkestone, is about to leave prison; and, whether he has ordered any steps, and, if so, what, to be taken, in order to trace out the still missing child?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: With regard to the first part of this Question, I am informed that the prisoner will not be discharged till July. Every effort has been made by the police to find the missing child, both at home and abroad, but without success. The police are not of opinion that a reward should be issued.

  INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—THE RIVER BARROW.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Commission appointed early in the year to inquire into the Barrow Drainage has yet proceeded to work, and if he can say where and when it is proposed to take evidence, and what (if any) further surveys are considered necessary; and, whether they have yet been directed, and how long they are expected to take?
  MR. CAMPBELL -BANNERMAN: My hon. Friend has asked me to answer this Question. The Secretary of the Commission informs me that they held their first meeting last month, and adjourned until they got the valuation, which is being made. This they expect to get in a few days, and they will then at once arrange for local sittings. No further surveys will be necessary.

  ARMY (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT) — THE MARTINI-HENRY CARTRIDGES.
  SIR FREDERICK MILNERasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, What the Government intend to do with the large stock of Boxer cartridges to which he alluded on Monday; and, whether he will endeavour to arrange that they shall be used only for target practice, and not for purposes of war?
  MR. BRAND, in reply, said, he had answered this Question the other day; but for the information of the hon. Gentleman he would repeat his answer. Those cartridges would be issued for purposes of practice to the Auxiliary Forces.

  INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—THE KILKENNY DRAINAGE DISTRICT SCHEME.
  MR. MARUMasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the case of the arterial drainage scheme in the Goula and Erkina district, extending over portions of Tip-perary, North Kilkenny, and the Queen's County for a distance of over twenty miles; that the land occupiers, mainly the tenant farmers of the locality, promoted this scheme, and subscribed a considerable sum out of their own resources to have the necessary surveys, maps, plans, and specifications executed by the county surveyor of Kilkenny, and further to have the same lodged with the Board of Works; that in due course, and during last autumn, the Inspector of the Board of Works, Mr. H. Barrington, C.E., inspected the drainage district and made his Report thereon, which was of a most favourable character, showing that it would highly improve the lands in the locality, and yield a considerable percentage upon the proposed outlay, besides exhibiting advantages of a sanitary nature, and further calculated to afford considerable employment in an impoverished district; that the summer period of the year is now at hand, when not only the proposed works can be executed with facility, but the labour market of the locality can be largely and beneficially availed of; and, whether the Board of Works, taking all these circumstances into favourable consideration, is prepared to carry out the undertaking of his predecessor in the office of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, by forthwith giving effect to the long-continued and expensive efforts of the promoters of this important and desirable drainage operation?
  MR. HIBBERT: I fancy that this is the same district as that about which a Question was asked me on February 24. If so, I can only say that the Government have every willingness to help this work forward. But there is no power under the present law to overrule the objections of the owners, which, apparently, are the sole obstacles to the completion of the Provisional Order. A Bill giving us that power is before the House, but it is blocked by the hon. Member for Cavan; and if the hon.
  1846
  Member could induce his hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar) to allow that Bill to proceed, this defect might be remedied.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CASE OF MRS. ELIZA COLGAN.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he can state his decision in the case of the trust money of Eliza Colgan, appropriated by an Irish Crown Solicitor?
  MR. HIBBERT(who replied) said: In accordance with his promise, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has considered this question, and has reviewed all the facts and circumstances of the case, dating back to 1852. He has come to the conclusion that Mrs. Colgan may properly receive a further sum of £250, in addition to the amount already given, and payment of this sum was made to her on April 30.
  MR. HEALY: On behalf of this poor woman I beg to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for looking into her case after she has been for 20 years in vain seeking justice from Dublin Castle.

  LUNACY LAWS—MR. HILLMAN'S CASE.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the decision of the Court of Appeal, in the Lewes lunacy case just concluded, in which, owing to a difference of opinion among the Judges on the Law, Mr. Hill-man, who was unlawfully placed in an asylum, has to pay all the costs; whether it is true that the Lord Chief Justice of England decided in favour of Mr. Hillman, while two other Judges held opposite views; and, whether he will cause the Law regarding the confinement of persons alleged to be insane to be so altered as to be intelligible to those who have to administer it?
  MR. GRANTHAMasked, Whether it was not a fact that Sir James Hannen and Lord Justice Lindley held in the Court of Appeal that Mr. Hillman had been lawfully placed in an asylum, and that there was no justification for the suggestion that the magistrates had acted in the slightest degree in any improper manner, or had not made a proper examination of Mr. Hillman before signing their certificate?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, that considering that the Court of Appeal had decided that Mr. Hillman was not unlawfully placed in an asylum, he did not see how he could interfere- It was, however, to be borne in mind that the judgment of the Court was not unanimous, and no doubt the Lord Chancellor would keep this case in view when dealing by legislation with the whole subject.

  EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)— HEAD MONEY.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has observed a statement, which appeared in a letter addressed to The Times by Mr. Wilfred Blunt, and which was published by that journal last Monday, that rewards had been given to any person belonging to the "friendly tribes," in the vicinity of Suakin, who brought in a human head; and, whether he will cause inquiry to be made, in order to learn whether there is any foundation for this report; and, if true, who is responsible for this barbarity?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No such information has been received; and until some evidence is adduced in support of Mr. Blunt's statement it does not appear necessary to make any inquiry on the subject.

  CENTRAL ASIA—THE AFGHAN BOUNDARY COMMISSION—SIR PETER LUMSDEN.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Under Secretary of State for India, When was Sir Peter Lumsden appointed on the Afghanistan Boundary Commission; what were the terms and tenure of his appointment; is his appointment over by his recall to London; what is the date of the letter or telegram summoning him to London; when Sir Peter Lumsden and Colonel Stewart leave Afghanistan, will any of their subordinate English officers remain; and, if so, what is to be their office and function; and, what is to become of the troops employed to escort Sir Peter Lumsden's Mission? He also wished to ask whether the Earl of Dufferin approved of the recall or withdrawal of Sir Peter Lumsden?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE(who replied) said: Sir Peter Lumsden's
  1848
  formal appointment bears the date of the 25th of August last, and nominated him as Her Majesty's Commissioner for the demarcation of the North-West boundary of Afghanistan. The instruction sent to him does not cancel his appointment, but requests his presence in London. It was despatched by telegraph on the 4th instant. Colonel Ridgway will remain in charge of the Commission, with Captain Yate and other officers as his assistants. Their office will be to examine and trace on the spot the details of the line of frontier under the conditions agreed upon in London. With regard to the future employment of the escort nothing is yet definitely settled.
  MR. GIBSON: Has Sir Peter Lumsden been summoned to London to assist Her Majesty's Government on the question of the frontier?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No, Sir. The facts have already been stated by the Prime Minister.
  MR. ONSLOWasked, Whether the escort which accompanied Sir Peter Lumsden will remain on the frontier of Afghanistan, or will at once return to India; what officers will remain to deliminate the frontier with the Russian Commissioner; and, whether the Ameer is to be represented on the new Commission; and, if so, whether his Representative will have an equal voice with the English and Russian Commissioner in the settlement of the frontier line? The hon. Member desired also to ask the Prime Minister, Whether the initial step for the withdrawal of Sir Peter Lumsden came from this country or from Sir Peter Lumsden; and if from the latter, how long ago had he tendered his registration to Her Majesty's Government?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No time has yet been fixed for the return of the escort to India. A portion of it will, in any case, remain to attend Colonel Ridgway and Captain Yate, who will carry on the work of the Commission. There will be no change in the position of the Ameer's Representative.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Has any explanation been received from the Russian Government as to the reasons which prevented General Zelenoy from meeting Sir Peter Lumsden?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The hon. Member in putting the Ques-

  1849
  tion is attempting to anticipate the information which will be in possession of the House when Papers on the subject are laid on the Table.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: When will the Papers be laid on the Table?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I cannot give the exact date; but I will present the Papers as soon as possible.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, the noble Lord had stated that there had been no change in the position of the Ameer's Representative; but the House had never been informed what the position of the Ameer's Representative was. Perhaps the noble Lord would now explain what the position was?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMATTRICE: I believe this subject has been fully explained to the House.

  "THE SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND."
  MR. HEALYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Did he officially authorise the letter, published on the 22nd inst., signed by his secretary, apologising for having addressed the Protestant Synod as "the Synod of the Protestant Episcopal Church of Ireland," and consenting to address that body as "the Synod of the Church of Ireland," if so can he state under what circumstances the latter title has been officially given, is he aware that the Government have always hitherto refused to the Disestablished Church the title it claims, that in the draft charter which the Government was asked to sanction they struck out the words "Church of Ireland," inserted by the representative body, that as in the Marriage Act of 1870, members and clergymen of this church are designated "Protestant Episcopalians," the Irish Registrar General, acting under the advice of the Law Adviser, Dublin Castle, directed clergymen of the disestablished religion to enter their church in the marriage register as the "Protestant Episcopal Church of Ireland;" that the Lord Lieutenant, in the recent order as to precedence, published in The Dublin Gazette of April 3rd, styles its bishops "Protestant Episcopalians;" that at the last Census members of this denomination numbered only 639,574 as against 3,960,891 Catholics, 470,734 Presbyterians, and 103,107 persons of other persuasions, and do the Home Office intend officially to style the
  1850
  Disestablished Church by a title calculated to give offence to other religious bodies in Ireland, while the Irish Government avoids the title complained of?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have not an intimate acquaintance with this matter—indeed, I never heard of it until I saw this Question on the Paper. This Question comes within the Heraldic Department of the Home Office, and, like all questions of nomenclature — especially ecclesiastic nomenclature—it is a very complicated question. However, I may tell the hon. and learned Member that I will consult the Irish Government as to the practice in the matter, as whatever is the practice of the Irish Government, it ought to be followed by the Home Office. The matter will be cleared up, so that in the Home Office and the Irish Office the Government might use some practice in the matter.
  MR. GIBSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman, or the person in his Department who will consult the Irish Government, also look into the various Acts of Parliament relating to the matter, beginning with the Church Act, and see that they all recognize the title of "the Church of Ireland?"
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: What is the Heraldic Department of the Home Office? Who is the Head of it? I never heard of it.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: These heraldic questions are extremely complicated questions, as are mostly all questions of changes of name when other people object to have the name changed. The question was dealt with by those of the Department having to do with the styles and titles, proceedings of which I am not very fond.
  MR. HEALY: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can state whether the letter signed by his Secretary, apologizing for calling this Body the "Protestant Episcopal Church," was written without his authority, because this was a matter that created a great sensation in Ireland?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am not sure when the letter was written. I am aware of the importance attached to these matters, and I can assure the hon. and learned Member that this matter will be carefully considered.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that when a

  1851
  short Bill was passed after the Church Act, and when it was proposed to call the Church "The Church of Ireland," it was called "The Disestablished Episcopal Church in Ireland?"
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am not aware of that; but I see that I will have to get up this subject.
  MR. SEXTON: Would the right hon. Gentleman have any objection to consulting the Irish Government as to whether there could be any reason in calling a certain Church "The Church of Ireland," when everybody knows the Church of Ireland is another Church altogether?
  [No reply.]

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— M. OLIVIER PAIN.
  MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHYasked the Secretary of State for War, If there is any truth in the following statement from the Cairo Correspondent of The Daily Telegraph, dated Cairo, March 23rd, and appearing in The Daily Telegraph of April 3rd: —
  "You have already heard that Olivier Pain, the Communist, is 'wanted,' and efforts are being made to capture him on his way down country. Whether he has had enough of the Soudan, and wishes to avoid spending the summer there, or has been sent north on a mission by the Mahdi, is much in doubt. The official information about him is meagre; simply that he was seen near Debbeh with a small retinue, making his way on camel-back down country. The following is the official notification:—'£50 Reward. The above reward is offered to anyone producing Olivier Pain (and his papers) dead or alive. He left Debbeh on a camel on the 13th March 1885. His description is as follows: Pair, with light hair and beard, about 5 feet 7 inches high, blue eyes, slight build, thin compressed lips, with a cruel looking face, reticent in speech and manner. He is very probably disguised as an Arab. His blue eyes should betray him. G. F. Wilson, Capt. R.E. Commandant, Sarras, March 16th 1885.' I knew of Pain's efforts to get down country at Dongola, but because of official interposition could not wire about him at that point;"
  and, whether the alleged action has been sanctioned by the Government?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, that he was not aware that the facts were as stated with regard to M. Pain, or with regard to the reward said to have been offered. The proceedings had not received the attention of Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. JUSTIN HUNTLY M'CARTHYasked whether the Government would hold an inquiry into the case?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONreplied, that no information had been received from Sir Evelyn Baring on the subject, and that no instructions had been given by the British Government to countenance the arrest of M. Pain.
  MR. O'KELLYasked whether the noble Marquess would undertake to give orders that the offer of the reward should be withdrawn?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I am not aware that the reward has been offered. If the hon. Member wants any information on the subject he had better give Notice of a Question to the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with regard to it.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether any such reward as this could be paid out of the Army Fund, or whether it would be paid out of the Secret Service money?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he did not think that any such payment could be made a charge against the Army Fund.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— ARKLOW HARBOUR WORKS.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the failure of Arklow Harbour Works, and the preliminary Report sent to the Treasury, which was alleged to be most re-assuring, Whether the preliminary Report has been borne out by the Report of Mr. Manning, Engineer in Chief to the Board of Works in Ireland, just laid upon the Table, in which the following statements are made:—
  "On the 4th January a Report was received from the Superintendent of the works that on the previous day he observed cracks in the parapet of the sea wall, and that some of the face blocks had moved out. The principal Assistant Engineer was at once despatched to the Harbour, which he visited on the 5th, and reported that for 90 feet in length (of the 458 feet constructed) the face blocks had moved out from 2 inches to 20 inches, and had sunk a few inches, and that the sand had been scoured away from along the sea face of the Pier…
  "I visited the work myself on the 6th of February, when it was in the same state as reported by Mr. Greene, and although it was to be regretted that any damage whatever had been done, still the amount of it was comparatively little, and its repair presented no difficulty, but it was obvious that the sand foundations had been scoured out…on the 3rd March fresh subsidence was re-

  1853
  ported. On the 9th March, Mr. Henry Keating, Assistant Engineer, was sent to Arklow to make a survey, but the weather was not sufficiently moderate to enable him to take soundings till the 14th and 16th of that month. This survey shows that for about 130 feet in length the sea slope had been more or less damaged, and that the sand foundations had been scoured out by the sea, forming a trench parallel with the Pier from 40 to 50 feet wide, and of an average depth of about 6 feet under the previous level of the bed of the sea.
  "I need not here enter into more detail; it is sufficient to say that the damages described are to be entirely attributed to the scouring out of the sand already described, and which extended under the foundations of the storm wall for its entire width of 19 ½ feet;"
  whether he has noticed the following in Mr. Manning's Report:—
  "It has been stated that the mode of construction adopted at Arklow was objected to by the members of a local committee; I have only to state in reply, that for the nine years during which I have been engaged on the subject of the design and erection of Harbour Works at Arklow, I have never upon any occsion received any suggestion of the kind from anyone;"
  whether in consequence of this statement he will lay upon the Table the protest and objections submitted to the Board of Works by the local committee of Arklow; and, whether he will put a stop to the works until the opinion of a competent engineer is obtained as to what is best to be done under the circumstances?
  MR. HIBBERT: The hon. Member's quotations from the Parliamentary Papers are accurately given so far as they go; but I do not know whether he disputes the statement which he omits to quote— that the local objections related to the general design, not to the method of execution. As the Question only appeared on the Paper this morning, I have not been able to look over the Papers bearing on this point; but I will obtain copies of them from Ireland, and show them to the hon. Member. The suggestion regarding the suspension of the works at the present moment seems to me inadvisable, as it would involve the loss of the favourable summer weather and incur the risk of exposing the works in an unfinished state to another winter's storm.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked whether, having regard to the fact that the official who reported was an employé of the Board of Works, and consequently interested in screening that Board, the
  1854
  Treasury would consent to the appointment of an independent engineer to give a Report on these works?
  MR. HIBBERT: I would be glad to consider such an application if the Local Authority bore the expenses of it.
  MR. PARNELL: With regard to the matter, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to consider again the desirability of sending over from this country some distinguished English engineer, so as to see how the Board of Works executes these undertakings.
  MR. HIBBERT: I will consider the question of sending over an independent engineer to report on the matter.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked, did not General Sankey make a special inspection of the works, and why was not his Report published?
  MR. HIBBERT: General Sankey's Report is not considered of any great importance; but if the hon. Member wishes to get it it will be given.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: If an independent engineer is appointed, why should the locality be asked to bear the expense, seeing that the whole thing has arisen from the failure of the Board of Works' officials?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  [No reply.]

  INLAND REVENUE—STAMP DUTY ON FOREIGN BONDS.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Stamp Duty of 10 per cent. upon bonds to bearer is to be levied upon all existing bonds to bearer of Foreign States, the coupons of which are paid in London; and, if so, how this Stamp Duty is to be levied in the case of bonds the interest of which is paid, either in England or abroad, at the option of the holder?
  MR. HIBBERT: The rate in question is 10s., or one-half per cent, not 10 per cent. It will not apply to existing bonds of the nature referred to.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN).— ALLEGED PROCLAMATION OF LORD WOLSELEY.
  COLONEL DAWNAYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Her Majesty's Government is prepared to support Lord Wolseley's proclamation that our troops would remain a hundred years, if necessary, in the Soudan

  1855
  in order to recapture Khartoum; and, if they are not prepared to abide by this declaration, what steps they intend to take to defend the friendly tribes from the fatal consequences of trusting to these assurances?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I am not aware that Lord Wolseley ever issued any Proclamation in the sense of the Question. I have seen a report of a speech said to have been made by Lord Wolseley to some Black troops of General Gordon in which there is some expression to the effect stated; but I do not think that Lord Wolseley ever issued a Proclamation containing any statement of that kind. As I have stated already, we hope very shortly to be able to make a statement as to our intentions with regard to the troops in the Soudan; and I cannot say more upon this occasion except that I have not the smallest doubt that, on the movement of the troops in the Soudan, the officers in command will make as good arrangements as possible for the protection of persons who stand in need of protection.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked whether the noble Marquess would be in a position to make the statement to which he referred before the discussion on Monday?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I doubt whether I can make that statement to-morrow; but on Monday, before the discussion, I shall probably be able to state what orders have been given.
  MR. O'KELLYasked whether the noble Marquess would take into consideration the desirability of issuing orders to the General commanding at Suakin to stop the attacks on the Arabs until the Government had made up their mind what they were going to do in the Soudan?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I do not think that Question arises out of the Question on the Paper.

  CENTRAL ASIA—THE AFGHAN BOUNDARY COMMISSION.
  MR. MONTAGU SCOTT (for Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the complete text of the Despatch from M. de Giers, which contains the following words:—
  1856
  "It is impossible for us not to trace back the cause of the present situation to the military aspect with which the English Government thought it their duty to invest their Boundary Commission," and "we cannot pass by the fact that the loudly proclaimed interview between the Amir and the Viceroy, and its bellicose surroundings, must certainly have emboldened the Afghans to the point of committing such acts of provocation as could not be tolerated by the Russian military authorities;"
  whether there is the slightest foundation for the charges thus made by M. de Giers; whether the Russian Government have asked for the withdrawal of Sir Peter Lumsden and other British officers; and, whether the return of Sir Peter Lumsden to London is in consequence of such representations?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The hon. Member will receive the information which he desires from the Correspondence which will shortly be laid before the House.

  EGYPT—SUPPRESSION OF THE "BOS PHORE EGYPTIEN."
  MR. MONTAGU SCOTT(for Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT) asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Her Majesty's Ministers will lay upon the Table the words of
  "The expression of regret to the French Republic, in which Her Majesty's Government associated itself with that of Egypt;"
  and, whether it is true that The Bosphore Egyptian is shortly to re-appear?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The words used by Earl Granville to the French Ambassador were recorded in a despatch to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, which will be laid before Parliament. I am informed that the owner or editor of the paper has announced that it will appear in a few days. I have no reason to believe that this will be the case.
  SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the Prime Minister had stated that the Papers could not be laid upon the Table until the unknown future had been rather more unrolled. He should like to know when they were to have Papers laid on the Table relating to matters as far as they had gone, and down to what date the Papers would go?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman has substantially conceived the Question in a proper manner, and conveys it very properly in his own poetical phraseology.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) BILL—THE NEW DIVISIONS OF COUNTIES—ALTERNATIVE NAMES.
  MR. FRANCIS BUXTONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, considering the necessity for clearness and concise definitions in all matters connected with the Redistribution of Seats and the registration of great numbers of new voters, he will recommend on Consideration of the Redistribution of Seats Bill that no alternative names shall be given to the new divisions of counties, but that every such division shall be known solely and always by one single name?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I have frequently expressed my dislike for double names; but, looking to the most recent decisions of the House, I doubt if the House would agree to strike out all double names.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN—THE RUSSIAN ATTACK ON PENJDEH—THE PROPOSED ARBITRATION.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What steps have been taken to inform the Ameer of Afghanistan of the agreement recently arrived at between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Russia on the subject of arbitration on the unprovoked aggression of General Komaroff on Penjdeh; and, whether the Viceroy of India has signified his approval of the recent decisions of Her Majesty's Government?
  MR. HEALYrose to Order. He wished to know whether the words "unprovoked aggression" ought to be allowed to appear upon the Paper; and whether it was not an insult to a Foreign Power on a very delicate matter?
  MR. SPEAKER: I understand that the Question of the hon. Member alludes to an expression previously used, and that the words are referred to as a quotation.
  MR. GLADSTONE: If the expression referred to is intended to be a repetition of a phrase expressive of my own opinion it is nothing of the kind, and, moreover, it is not an accurate quotation. What I said was as follows:—Upon the very first day, I think, of the arrival of the
  1858
  first telegrams from Sir Peter Lumsden, having gone through all the material parts, or what we judged to be the material parts, of these telegrams as they had arrived, I stated that upon the face of those Papers what had taken place appeared to be an unprovoked aggression. I never presumed at that moment to qualify or to describe the incident in conclusive terms, because I knew very well that the information which we had received was partial; and, in point of fact, it was within 24 hours, or certainly within a very short time after the receipt of those telegrams, that very important qualifications of the information they conveyed were received from Sir Peter Lumsden himself. So much for this expression; and I will only observe that there is now a constant practice of inserting in Questions, as if they were matters of course, matters which do not touch the point of the Questions, but involve assumptions of the utmost consequence, and that these assumptions are sometimes made—as in the present instance—with very slight regard to accuracy. As to the substantial part of the Question, I am bound to say that this expression had escaped my attention, because it does not belong to the main issue of the Question. The Viceroy of India has arranged with the Ameer the basis upon which the British Government is proceeding; and if any further communication on the subject with the Ameer should be requisite he will make it. To that Question the hon. Member adds the inquiry whether the Viceroy of India approves the decisions which Her Majesty's Government have come to? I do not see that it would be any part of my duty to answer such a Question. The Viceroy of India must be taken to approve these decisions; and when the proper times comes the hon. Member will have plenty of information—perhaps a little more than he may like—as to what the Viceroy does think on the point.
  MR. ONSLOW: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Viceroy, in the speech he made after his return from Rawul Pindi, also made use of the words.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, on the point of Order arising out of your ruling a moment ago, whether, if an expression is used in the course of a debate in this

  1859
  House, it will afterwards be in Order if quoted in a Question?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is putting an utterly strained interpretation on my words.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is not the case that the Viceroy of India, in a speech at the Durbar, in presence of a large number of Natives, described the attack of the Russians on the Afghans as an "unprovoked aggression," without any of the qualification which the Prime Minister now seeks to introduce?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have not before me the exact words of the Viceroy on the occasion. [Ironical cheers and laughter.] I am not surprised at that demonstration; but I must enter my protest against it on behalf of the dignity and the traditions of the House. To me, personally, it is a very small matter that such demonstrations should be made; but to this House, and the future of this House, it is a very grave matter. ["Order!"] I am not out of Order. I have not the smallest doubt that the expressions used by the Viceroy have been perfectly warranted by the circumstances.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I shall put the Question to the right hon. Gentleman to-morrow.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN—THE RUSSO-AFGHAN FRONTIER—THE BATTLE AT AK TEPE— COLONEL ALIKHANOFF.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the letter in The Daily News of Tuesday, from a Correspondent who was present at the battle of Pul-i-Khisti, in which it is stated that Colonel Alikhanoff ordered his Sarik Turcomans to attack Captain Yate's party; whether Captain Yate was deputed by Sir Peter Lumsden to watch the course of affairs at Penjdeh; whether Captain Yate had taken any part in the engagement of March 30th, or in any way transgressed the limits of his Commission; and, whether Colonel Alikhanoff is one of the gallant Officers whose conduct is not to be inquired into?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Question of the hon. Member is in four parts, and I
  1860
  shall reply to them as they are stated. With regard to the first statement, as far as the Russian Government is concerned, the report has been repudiated by them in the strongest terms. As far as we are concerned, I am not aware of any foundation for the report except rumour. I have not seen the letter referred to. As to the second part of the Question, Captain Yate was deputed by Sir Peter Lumsden to watch the course of affairs at Penj-deh. With regard to the third paragraph, so far as we are informed, Captain Yate took no part in the action, and did not transgress the limits of his commission with regard to it. With regard to the fourth paragraph, Colonel Alikhanoff, as I presume, stands relatively to the agreement in exactly the same position as all the other officers on both sides who were concerned in directing the operations.

  EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN).
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can make any statement with regard to the policy they intend to pursue in the Soudan in the event of a peaceful settlement of the present controversy with Russia?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, perhaps he will allow me to put another Question on the same subject. I must apologize for not giving due Notice; but the point is one of great and immediate urgency. My Question is, whether it was in accord with the policy announced by the right hon. Gentleman in presenting the Vote of Credit that what was called the "brilliant engagement" of May the 5th took place when an encampment of Bedouins, their women and children, and their flocks, were attacked by General Graham, and 150 men killed, although it is alleged by eye-witnesses that they never made any serious defence?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In regard to the first Question, I am not about to make any statement on the subject. With respect to the second Question, I think my hon. Friend would do well to put this Question to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War, to whom it belongs, to receive information on the subject.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: May I ask the noble Marquess the Question now?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have received nothing but a very short telegram from Lord Wolseley, containing a very short account indeed of something that appears to have been in the nature of a reconnaissance by General Graham yesterday. If I had thought the Question would have been put, I would have brought down the telegram and read it to the House. As far as my recollection serves, it does not con-firm the particulars the hon. Member refers to as contained in the telegram of one of the correspondents. The hon. Member asks whether such an operation is consistent with the terms made use of when the Vote of Credit was laid on the Table. As far as my recollection serves me, what my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) said with regard to the Suakin Railway was that it was not intended to prosecute it for military purposes to Berber; but that it would be continued to such a point as the Government might consider expedient after consulting with the Military Authorities, and that, in the meantime, further proceedings with regard to the railway would be considered. Under these circumstances, I do not think it is inconsistent with that statement that the railway should be continued till such progress has been made as may be desired by the Military Authorities. While any progress is being made by the railway, of course adequate protection must be given, and measures of the kind referred to may be found necessary by the Commander-in-Chief.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: May I ask the noble Marquess whether he is aware that the telegram from Lord Wolseley has been communicated by the War Office to the evening papers, and that, so far from the operation being a reconnaissance, the words used are, "Graham made this morning a most successful raid?" I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether, in the course of the evening, he will despatch orders to Suakin absolutely prohibiting the repetition of such aimless and purposeless raids?
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: Is the noble Marquess aware that a great number of sheep and cattle were driven off, that the village was burnt, and that the wells were blown up with gunpowder?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: May I ask whether the noble Marquess is aware that not only one correspondent, but two, have confirmed the report? I am told that even three have done so. It is confirmed in strong terms by the correspondent of The Morning Post.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have no doubt the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) is correct in regard to the description that is given of the operation by Lord Wolseley. It appears to me to be a matter of very little importance whether it is described as a "raid" or as a "reconnaissance." No doubt there was a military movement, and no doubt some fighting took place. In regard to the other Questions, hon. Members appear not to be aware that a body of troops, or more than one body of troops, under Osman Digna are still threatening, not only the advanced posts held by our troops, but would also threaten Suakin itself. Until a decision has been arrived at entirely to abandon the further construction of the railway, I consider that the General Officers are entitled to take such measures as they may consider necessary for its protection.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I beg to give Notice, in consequence of the answer of the noble Marquess, that I will put the Question on the Paper for to-morrow, in order to enable the noble Marquess to give all the information in his power.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I ask the Prime Minister, considering that the House is occupied in voting money for the Soudan, and considering the slaughter that is going on in that part of the world, how soon he expects to be able to make a statement on the subject?
  MR. GLADSTONE: My noble Friend has already stated that on Monday he expects to be able to convey to the House the instructions which have been sent to the military officers in the Soudan, and I think it is too soon to make any statement on the subject generally. It is not usual, when one great subject of public policy is locked up with another, and dependent upon the conclusion of another, to make any statement in regard to it.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was or was not a statement of policy when, in presenting the Vote of Credit,

  1863
  he told us that, as to the Soudan, it was the intention of the Government not to prosecute further offensive operations?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Most certainly that was a statement of policy, I conceive, of the utmost importance; but the Question put to me by the hon. Gentleman asks me to make a statement with regard to the policy we intend to pursue in the Soudan in the event of a peaceful settlement of the present controversy with Russia. I think I ought not to be called upon to say when I will make a further statement.

  CENTRAL ASIA —RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN —THE RUSSO-AFGHAN FRONTIER.
  MR. MONTAGU SCOTT(for Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT) asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government have offered to allow the Russian Government to retain Ak Tépé and the Penj-deh oasis; and, whether an arbitrator has yet been found to adjudicate upon the breach of the sacred covenant?
  MR. GLADSTONE: That is a Question with regard to particular communications now going on between the two Governments with respect to the Afghan Frontier, and I cannot enter into explanations while these negotiations are in progress.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Commission for the Delimitation of the Afghan Frontier is still in existence or has been dissolved by the recall of Sir Peter Lumsden and Colonel Stewart; if it is still in existence why it is considered desirable, as stated by the First Lord of the Treasury on Tuesday, that these officers should come home to London forthwith; whether the settlement in London of the main points of the Afghan Frontier will be postponed until the arrival of Sir Peter Lumsden; whether the date of Sir Peter Lumsden's recall was prior or subsequent to the departure of Mr. Condie Stephen for England; and, whether such date was prior or subsequent to the receipt of Russia's acceptance of the proposal of arbitration?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think it has already been stated by my noble Friend, as to the first head of this Question, that the Commission of Sir Peter Lumsden is still in existence. With regard
  1864
  to the second head—if the Commission is still in existence, why it is considered desirable that these officers should come home to London forthwith?—the fact is this, that as negotiations are to be carried on here, and only details are to be examined on the spot, it is not considered that the examination of details is a proper employment for Sir Peter Lumsden, a functionary who was despatched to that country for a purpose of a much higher order, and that is the cause of the change which has taken place in the instructions to Sir Peter Lumsden with Colonel Stewart to repair to this country. In reply to the third head of the Question—whether the discussion of the main points will be postponed till the arrival of Sir Peter Lumsden?—there is no such intention. We are in full communication with Sir Peter Lumsden, and I am not aware that there is any necessity for a postponement. In regard to the fourth Question, the dates, I believe, are as follow:—The telegram requesting Sir Peter Lumsden to come to England was sent on the 4th; the acceptance by Russia of the reference proposed to a friendly Sovereign was received on the 3rd. As regards the priority between the instructions to Sir Peter Lumsden and the information from Sir Peter Lumsden about Mr. Stephen, that information made us aware that Sir Peter Lumsden had directed Mr. Stephen to come home. It did not state the date when the direction to Mr. Stephen was given; but the information to us was despatched on the 22nd, and I have no doubt that the direction to Mr. Stephen must have been either on the same date or a date immediately antecedent to it. I have no doubt that the latter gentleman left about the same date.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the House may entertain the hope that the permanent presence of some Consular or Diplomatic Agent at Herat will form part of the contemplated arrangement with regard to the settlement of the Afghan north-western frontier, to whom the Russian Government may apply in case of any local disputes arising in connection with the frontier, and who will be in a position to advise Her Majesty's Government as to their merits?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I take this Question to be in the nature of a friendly suggestion, which might well deserve

  1865
  consideration; but I think the hon. Gentleman will see that it would be too early to make any Parliamentary statement on the subject.

  EGYPT (THE SOUDAN)—MILITARY OPERATIONS NEAR SUAKIN.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: With respect to the answers of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for War in regard to these statements in The Times, I would really ask the Prime Minister, Whether he himself has read, or will read, what is stated by The Times' Correspondent; and, whether some communication will be made at once to General Graham, or the other officers commanding, to tell them that these acts are not in accordance with civilized warfare'—that villages being looted and burned, and women and children being fired upon—
  MR. SPEAKER: This is an argument, not a Question.
  MR. GLADSTONE: With regard to the first part of the Question, it will be my duty, in conjunction with my noble Friend, to get the most authentic information of what has taken place; and my hon. Friend may rely upon it that any orders it will be our duty to give will be in strict conformity with the pledges we have given.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE REGISTRATION OF VOTERS BILLS.
  MR. PARNELLwished to ask, Whether there would be any objection to take the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill first to-morrow, on the understanding that on the Motion for the Speaker leaving the Chair on going into a fresh Committee the question of the payment of registration expenses should be raised by an Amendment, and that the result of the debate and division on that Amendment should be held to decide the question of the payment of such expenses with regard both to Ireland and England?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, when he was informed yesterday that the question which had been decided on Tuesday by a small majority was about to be raised again in Committee on the Registration of Voters (England) Bill, he felt it necessary, especially in the absence of many Members of the Government, to reserve the matter for consideration. With re-
  1866
  gard to the course of Business, on reflecting on it, it appeared quite evident upon the face of it that when it was desired and intended to raise again a question which had been settled in a House of nearly 500 Members that that was rather what might be called a serious intention. It was an intention to challenge the House at large, and the Government were of opinion that there ought to be sufficient Notice to Members of the de-bare and division which would take place. That being so, the Government could not propose to take that debate to-morrow. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) has proposed that the Irish Bill should be taken first. There was no very great question of convenience in point of time as between the two Bills. Both were admitted to be urgent; but as the English question was much the larger, and was that upon which the House had already been called upon to give its opinion, the view of the Government was that they ought to proceed with the English Bill first. That was the appropriate method to give hon. Members the means of again raising the point. They had before them the Registration Bills, the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, and the arrangement made with regard to the Vote of Credit. What the Government proposed was this—that they should make an effort to finish what remained of the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill to-morrow; and he thought —considering the importance of that question, and the relations of different portions of the House to one another with regard to it, and the general desire there was to close it without associating it with contested questions—what he hoped was that if it should be found that it could not be finished to-morrow, the House would not, for once, grudge meeting on Saturday for that purpose. There was no reason to suppose that there would be any large residue of Business after tomorrow. He sincerely hoped it would be finished to-morrow; but if a small residue were left, he gave Notice, without asking any pledge from the House, that the Government would think it their duty to propose that course. With regard to the Registration Bills, which were undoubtedly urgent, what the Government thought was that they should take those Registration Bills on Monday,

  1867
  if hon. Gentlemen opposite were disposed to allow the debate on the Vote of Credit, which had been fixed for that day, to stand over until Tuesday. He should, however, have no power to secure Tuesday for that purpose by any right of the Government; but he thought he could undertake to try it if the arrangement were agreeable to hon. Gentlemen oppposite. If, however, hon. Gentlemen opposite attached importance to keeping their hold on Monday for the Vote of Credit, the Government would take Tuesday for the Registration Bills.
  MR. GORSTasked whether, if the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution') Bill was finished to-morrow or Saturday, the Prime Minister would on Monday make his promised Statement as to the legislation contemplated for the remainder of the Session?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the pressure upon the Government had been so great that he was not certain that he could make that Statement fully; but he would make a Statement sufficient for the convenience of the House, and consider what might remain. If the Business proceeded as was expected, he should make the whole announcement in the course of next week.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, it had been thought convenient to have the question on the Registration Bills decided before the end of the week; but if the right hon. Gentleman thought the other course more convenient, the Opposition were, he believed, disposed to take the arrangement he proposed. But what was more important than the question of redistribution, or registration, or anything else, was that they should have, as early as possible, a fair opportunity of hearing, and as soon as possible afterwards of discussing, the statement promised by the Secretary of State for War, because they felt it was becoming urgent—namely, an explanation of the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the Soudan. He should be extremely sorry to consent to any arrangement for putting off the debate on Monday, which would deprive them of that opportunity. Were they to understand that in the event of the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill being finished this week and the Registration Bill put down for Monday, that the latter would be preceded by a state-
  1868
  ment of the character they had reason to expect from the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, his noble Friend had given the engagement with respect to Monday with every disposition to keep it; and he hoped his noble Friend would be in a position to keep it in the letter and the spirit. But it was really in the discretion of hon. Gentlemen opposite to determine what the course of Business should be on Monday and Tuesday as between the Registration Bills and the debate on the Vote of Credit. What he thought would be an inconvenient arrangement would be that they should nominally fix the Registration Bills for Monday, and then spend it on a debate on the statement of his noble Friend.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEthought that the arrangement proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would be satisfactory. They understood that they were to have the statement of the noble Marquess on Monday, and that the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to get Tuesday for the discussion of the Vote of Credit. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Yes.] There seemed to be some misunderstanding, if they had the statement of the noble Marquess on Monday, whether they would not run the risk of losing the opportunity of discussing the Registration Bill.
  MR. GLADSTONEreplied that the Government had the arrangement of the Orders, and, that being so, they could provide against that.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, as the matter in controversy was raised first on the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill, and as it was proposed by the Government to insert a clause in that Bill which they did not propose to insert in the Registration of Voters (England) Bill, it would not be more convenient that the question should be discussed on the Irish rather than on the English Bill? Gentlemen on his side had no desire to raise the same question twice, and they would be content to take the vote of the House on the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that as the House, with a very large attendance and upon good Notice, had previously decided the point in reference to the English Bill, he hoped that they would proceed on that footing.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that Members in. his part of the House did not understand how any assurance could be given that there would be no debate upon the statement of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War on Monday, even if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite raised none.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that if he might be allowed to state his opinion, the best and the clearest course would be if his noble Friend made his statement on Tuesday.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he hoped that favourable consideration would be given to the suggestion that the noble Marquess would make his statement to-morrow.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he could not give an undertaking to the House, because the communications that were going on might not be complete. He might not be able to give a full statement to-morrow.
  MR. PARNELLput it to the Prime Minister whether it would be fair to allow the question as to registration expenses to be decided, and the discussion taken on the Irish Bill, in view of the fact that, practically, there had been no debate on the merits of the question so far as the Irish Bill was concerned. When the question was raised and decided the other night, it was done in a very thin House, and almost without debate.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the argument of the case, as he was at present advised, was quite the opposite to that indicated by the hon. Member.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.

    SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    (1.) £58,100, Divine Service.
    (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £38,000, he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Administration of Military Law, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886."
    MR. HEALYsaid, he wished to put a question to the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) in regard to a case which had been mentioned in the American
    1870
    newspapers, of the alleged deportation to this country of a soldier who had been formerly a piper in a Highland regiment. It appeared that the man had deserted, and had gone to America. After residing for some years in the United States he was decoyed into Canadian territory, under the pretence of finding him employment, whereupon he was arrested, put in irons, and brought in that condition to England. It was further stated that the American Consul had interfered on behalf of the man, on the ground that he was an American subject; and that his case had been tried before a military tribunal and dismissed, on the ground that the original charge against him was unfounded. He thought the whole matter was one which required explanation.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he had never heard of the case until that moment; and he regretted that the hon. and learned Member had not made it the subject of a Question, put after Notice, in the ordinary manner, before the commencement of Public Business. If the hon. and learned Member had taken that course, he would have been able to make inquiry, and give the hon. and learned Member full information. As the matter stood, he was not able to give any details; but if the hon. and learned Member would put a Question to-morrow, he would give the information asked for.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he would adopt the suggestion of the noble Marquess.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he had to complain that the information supplied with regard to Army administration was very meagre; and he thought there ought to be an annual Report presented to Parliament.
    LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, that he had last year pointed out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General (Mr. Osborne Morgan) that it was advisable to give some idea to the Committee of the character of the offences for which trials by courts martial had taken place, and punishments had been awarded. He was under the impression that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had promised that, in another year, information should be supplied. He had looked carefully over the Return presented to Parliament for their approval; but he could not find out that it contained any fur-

    1871
    ther information with regard to crimes and punishments. He thought it would have been interesting to have had such a Return in connection with the troops now serving abroad in the Soudan. The system of military punishments had now been entirely changed, and it would be of advantage if hon. Members were able to form some conclusion as to the results of the change, as shown by the nature of the crimes, trials, and punishments in connection with courts martial. In the present state of the information, it was impossible to say whether the misconduct of the troops had been great or small. Then, again, they were unable to say under what conditions the men were kept in prison—whether they were detained in custody at Cairo, Alexandria, or elsewhere, or whether they were sent home to serve their sentences. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to give the Committee a full account of all that had been going on in the course of last year, so that the Committee might be able to form for themselves some information as to the merits or demerits of the system of punishment now adopted as compared with that which formerly prevailed.
    GENERAL ALEXANDER, in moving the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £2,000—the salary of the Judge Advocate General—said, he desired at the outset to disclaim all feeling of hostility towards the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Osborne Morgan) who now so pleasantly and ably discharged the duties of Judge Advocate General in that House. His business that night was not with the present or any past holder of the Office, but simply with the Office itself and its duties. He maintained, although he might be wrong, that there were no duties connected with the Office, or, at any rate, none which could not be equally well discharged by the subordinates in the Department of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. What, to begin with, were the duties of the Judge Advocate General in that House? His principal duty was either to pilot the Army (Annual) Bill in its several stages through the House—work which could not be said either to be very onerous, or of a very important character. His next duty in the House of Commons was to do that which he was now doing —namely, to be present at the discus-
    1872
    sion of the Army Estimates, and more especially of the particular Vote now before the Committee. In the third place, it was his duty in the House to answer any Questions which might be put to him in connection with the Department; but, as far as he (General Alexander) remembered, such Questions were very few indeed. As a matter of fact, no Minister of the Crown in that House was less troubled with Questions than the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General. With regard to his duties outside the House, the first and most important was to attend Her Majesty, and, having previously read and ascertained the legality of the proceedings of all general courts martial, to submit them to Her Majesty the Queen for revision and confirmation. He had seen paragraphs from time to time in the newspapers, stating that the Judge Advocate General had had an audience of the Queen, and had submitted to Her Majesty the proceedings of certain courts martial; but by far the most onerous duty connected with the Office of Judge Advocate General, outside the House, was the revision of the proceedings of many thousands of district courts martial. Mr. O'Dowd, the permanent Judge Advocate, said to the Committee which sat to consider this subject in connection with the Mutiny Act in 1878 that there were between 7,000 and 8,000 district courts martial held annually. He understood that since that time the number had very largely increased. There could be no doubt that the revision would be laborious indeed if it involved the consideration of many abstruse legal points. But everybody who had served in the Army, and especially those who had discharged the duties of adjutant to a regiment, would know that that was by no means the case, and that the proceedings of most of the courts martial were of the very simplest possible character, involving no questions of law whatever. Even if there were any difficult points of law to be considered, it would not speak much for the system of examination to which the officers of the Army were subjected if they could not be dealt with by the officers themselves, as they had to pass a very strict examination in Military Law. He might mention that the sort of eases which came before the Judge

    1873
    Advocate General for his revision were cases in which men had been tried by district courts martial for desertion, in which a difference arose between the Judge Advocate General and the court as to whether the offence amounted to desertion, or the minor offence of absence without leave. That was the sort of case which, as a general rule, came before the Judge Advocate General for revision, and there were very few even of those cases. He submitted that such cases of law, as did from time to time occur, might very well be disposed of by the permanent Judge Advocate and his assistants in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Department. Mr. O'Dowd told the Committee in 1878 to which he (General Alexander) had just referred that he, or one of his military subordinates, was in the habit of reading over the proceedings of every court martial; and he (General Alexander) inferred from what Mr. O'Dowd told the Committee that the Judge Advocate General of the day was not in the habit of reading those proceedings himself. The custom in that respect might have changed in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's time, because he (General Alexander) understood from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he was in the habit of reading the proceedings of all these courts martial himself.
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN): Not all of them.
    GENERAL ALEXANDER: Well; a considerable portion of them.
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN): Only those in which questions of law are involved.
    GENERAL ALEXANDERcontinued: Of course, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have a right to read the proceedings of any of the courts martial he liked; but he (General Alexander) maintained that the work was a very unnecessary work, and that to perform duties of that kind was very much like attaching a fifth wheel to a coach. Mr. O'Dowd was perfectly competent, with his two military subordinates, who received £700 a-year each, to discharge all the duties connected with the revision of the proceedings of the district courts martial. A further point was that, in revising the proceedings of the district courts martial, the right hon.
    1874
    and learned Gentleman had nothing to do with the severity of the sentences, and had no right to interfere in that respect. Mr. O'Dowd told the Committee that it was not desirable the Judge Advocate General should be able to interfere with the severity of the sentence, as that would be, to a certain extent, an interference with discipline; and His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, who appeared before the Committee, expressed a similar opinion. But Mr. O'Dowd further stated that the Judge Advocate General used a kind of backstairs influence in order to secure a mitigation of the sentence, whenever he considered it desirable. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had friends in the Department of the War Office, and when, occasionally, he thought that a sentence passed by a district court martial was too severe, he made a representation with regard to it, and it need scarcely be said that his representations were generally attended to. Then there was another very important point to which he (General Alexander) desired, for one moment, to call the attention of the Committee, and it was this—that the judgment of the Judge Advocate General was not a final judgment. It might be referred—and it had been referred—to the Law Officers of the Crown. Mr. O'Dowd mentioned a case which occurred in November, 1872, in which the Law Officers of the Crown reversed the decision of the then Judge Advocate General. In that particular case the War Office had appealed from the decision of the Judge Advocate General to the Law Officers of the Crown, and the Law Officers reversed the decision arrived at by the Judge Advocate General. The Law Officers of the Crown, in reversing the decision, were of opinion that the Judge Advocate General was not so much a Judge as an Assessor, and he (General Alexander) thought it was just as well that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should not be a Judge; because he believed that a great evil might arise from having Judges sitting in the House of Commons. He believed there was only one exception to that rule, and that was the case of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder of London (Sir Thomas Chambers), who was at present a Member of the House. Perhaps the strongest proof of all of the inutility of the Office was the circum-

    1875
    stance that for two years and four months the Office actually remained vacant. From April, 1871, after the death of Mr. Davidson, until August, 1873, the Office was not filled up, and during the whole of the interval Mr. O'Dowd, the present permanent Judge Advocate, discharged the duties of the Office of Judge Advocate General.
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN): Oh, no! The duties were discharged by Sir Robert Phillimore.
    GENERAL ALEXANDERsaid, he was aware that Sir Robert Phillimore had been nominally Judge Advocate General; but he had been under the impression that he did not actually discharge the duties.
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN): That is a mistake; Sir Robert Phillimore discharged the duties.
    GENERAL ALEXANDERsaid, he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he would make inquiries, would find that Mr. O'Dowd virtually considered himself Judge Advocate General at the time, and he stated to the Committee that he had been discharging the duties of Judge Advocate General for a considerable period. Certainly, in the interval which elapsed from the death of Mr. Davidson in April, 1871, until the month of August, 1873, the Office of Judge Advocate General was not filled up. But, even admitting the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be correct, that Sir Robert Phillimore, who was also at the time Judge of the Admiralty Court, filled the Office, it showed that it was not absolutely necessary, under any circumstances, that the Judge Advocate General should have a seat in the House of Commons; and if the Office could be kept vacant for two years and four months, it certainly appeared to him (General Alexander) that there was no very great necessity for filling it up at all. He wished to call the attention of the Committee to anotherpoint—namely, that the Navy and Royal Marines were not represented by the Judge Advocate General in that House, and that when any question arose in reference to courts martial in the Navy, the Secretary to the Navy was always ready to answer it. As a matter of fact, the Secretary to the Navy answered far more ques-
    1876
    tions on such subjects than the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General. With regard to the remuneration of the Office, it appeared to him that the salary was very high compared with that of the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whose work was much more onerous. The Financial Secretaryship to the War Office was an appointment instituted by Viscount Card-well, and that officer was certainly very inadequately paid compared with the Judge Advocate General, although his duties were far more onerous and difficult than those of the Judge Advocate General. He (General Alexander) was bound to add that since he came into the House he had heard that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had, temporarily at any rate, taken upon himself this additional appointment—namely, that formerly followed by Mr. Clode as Legal Secretary to the War Office. He was told that on good authority; but, of course, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman denied it, he would at once accept the denial, and would only say that the denial would make his case all the stronger, because, if the Judge Advocate General did not perform the additional duty he submitted that he had made out a clear case why the Office of Judge Advocate General in that House should be discontinued. It appeared to him that the Office was one of those which were maintained merely for the purpose of muzzling independent Members who might prove inconvenient. They all knew the great talent and ability of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and that before he was appointed Judge Advocate General his voice was frequently heard in that House. It was now no longer heard, and he (General Alexander) was quite certain that it would be of advantage to the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself if he would give up the post he had so well filled for the last five years, and seek from the Government, as he had a right to do, an appointment upon altogether higher lines. He did not propose to trouble the Committee by going to a division, if he could obtain any satisfactory information from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He certainly did not expect to get much support from either side of the House —either from those who had, or those who hoped to fill this position. He felt,

    1877
    however, that it was only by appealing to the House, and thoroughly ventilating questions of this kind, that they could eventually hope to get rid of what he must call, without intending any disrespect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, a useless excrescence. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £2,000, the salary of the Judge Advocate General.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £36,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Administration of Military La w, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886."— (General Alexander.)
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, it was quite unnecessary for the hon. and gallant Member (General Alexander) to apologize for having brought the Motion forward. Personally, he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) was much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for having done so, because he was glad to have this opportunity of clearing up some most extraordinary misconceptions which prevailed with regard to the duties of the Office he had the honour to hold— misconceptions not only on the part of the hon. and gallant Member, but shared by many other hon. Members. The duties of the Judge Advocate General were two in number. In the first place, as the Committee knew, Her Majesty administered military law by virtue of Her Royal Prerogative; and, of course, it was necessary that she should be advised by some responsible Minister in doing so. That was the reason why the Judge Advocate General, who advised Her Majesty from a legal standpoint in regard to the proceedings of all general and district courts martial, was required to have a seat in the House of Commons. The hon. and gallant Member could hardly know how deeply he was cutting into the Constitution of the country when he suggested that the Judge Advocate General should not have a seat in that House. The Judge Advocate General was not only the direct Adviser of Her Majesty on all questions of Military Law, but he was called upon to answer a considerable number of Questions in the House of Commons. His first and, perhaps, most important duty, although it was not the most difficult duty he had to perform, was therefore to revise, from
    1878
    a legal point of view, the proceedings of all general and district courts martial. The proceedings of regimental courts martial were not, in the first instance, sent to the Judge Advocate General, even in the case of these proceedings; but the military officers could and did appeal to the Judge Advocate General if a question of law did happen to arise.
    GENERAL ALEXANDERsaid, that he had only referred to district courts martial, and not to regimental courts martial.
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, that no man could have a higher opinion than he had of the sense of justice which animated officers when sitting upon courts martial; and he believed that in 19 cases out of 20, perhaps in 49 out of 50, or even in 99 out of 100, the conclusions at which they arrived were perfectly right and just. The cases with which they had to deal were generally simple cases; but, unfortunately, all cases were not simple cases. He wished the hon. and gallant Gentleman would call upon him at his Office and see the proceedings, sometimes 300 or 400 pages long, involving intricate questions, such as cases of embezzlement, or questions affecting the honour of officers, and other most important matters. He would then see whether the Office of Judge Advocate General was a sinecure or not. While he gave the very highest credit to the officers who sat upon courts martial for the sense of justice by which they were animated, it was undoubtedly the fact that now and then they would convict a man who had been legally found guilty of no offence whatever, perhaps upon hearsay evidence, or upon the evidence of an accomplice, in which case it became essential that some trained legal mind— a mind accustomed to sift and to weigh evidence—should go through all the evidence, not in order to decide whether the sentence, if legal, was, or was not, too severe, but whether any offence had been committed at all. What the Judge Advocate General had to do, in such a case, was to see whether there was any real case to go before such a tribunal. Whenever a case was found which ought not to have been tried, it was the duty of the Judge Advocate General to step in and reverse the proceedings. He had now held Office for five years, and he would

    1879
    give the Committee some statistics to show the number of cases with which he had had to deal in four of those years— namely, 1881, 1882, 1883, and 1884. In the year 1881, the number of courts martial that came before the Judge Advocate General was 7,474; in 1882, 6,513; in 1883, 6,026; and in 1884, 6,108; making altogether 26,121 for the four years. The proceedings of every one of these courts martial was read over by one of the Deputy Judge Advocate Generals; and whenever any question of law or evidence arose, the matter was at once referred to him (the Judge Advocate General) personally, and he did not hesitate to say that, on the average, at least three or four such cases were every day brought before him. In order to show the hon. and gallant Member how constantly occupied the Office was in endeavouring to do justice, he might state that in 1881, out of 7,474 courts martial, 246 were set aside upon the ground of want of evidence, or for some other reason—that was to say, that 246 persons who, if this contemptible office did not exist, might have wrongfully suffered penal servitude, or imprisonment, had been set at liberty, or had had their sentences reduced. He maintained that if the Judge Advocate General did nothing more than save those 246 presumably innocent men from undergoing a punishment they had not legally incurred, he would have done his duty, and justified the retention of the Office. He did not suppose, for one moment, that the hon. and gallant Member, or any other Member, would wish that those 246 persons should have been punished unjustly. But he wanted to know who could have prevented the punishment of these innocent men if the Office of Judge Advocate General—the only individual who had the power of revising such cases—had been abolished?
    GENERAL ALEXANDERsaid, he proposed that that work should be done by the permanent Judge Advocate General.
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested that the duty should be performed by the permanent Judge Advocate General; but the permanent Judge Advocate General did not possess a seat in the House of Commons. He was not, therefore,
    1880
    able to answer any questions that might be put in the House of Commons, and he would not be responsible to the House; and he took' leave to doubt whether, but for the inducement of a place in the Government, any really competent man would be found to undertake the duties for the salary attached to the Office, to say nothing of the additional weight which such a position and a seat in the House gave to the Judge Advocate General in dealing with the Military Authorities. Every one of these eases had come before him (the Judge Advocate General) as a matter of course, and in many of them the most complicated questions of law which could be conceived had been involved. He did not mean to say that the Judge Advocate General in that House was always, though he ought to be, an expert lawyer. On the contrary, he deeply felt his own deficiencies in that respect. He only wished he was more capable; but he had done his best, and the result had been that, in the course of five years, something like 700 or 800 persons had been saved from undergoing what was, presumably, an unjust sentence. The hon. and gallant Member told the House that the Judge Advocate General had no power to interfere with the severity of a sentence if it was legal. That was quite true; but when he (the Judge Advocate General) discovered a sentence which he believed to be unduly severe, he took the opportunity of mentioning the matter in the proper quarter, and in every case, or in nearly every case in which he had made such a representation, the sentence had been remitted altogether, or reduced. He might tell the hon. and gallant Member one thing. The hon. and gallant Member must be aware that the courts martial in the Navy, to which he had referred, had frequently been brought before the House, and commented upon; but, although the proceedings of at least 30,000 military courts martial had passed through his hands, in not a single one of the cases dealt with by him had the decision arrived at in his Office been challenged in the House of Commons. The hon. and gallant Member said that very few Questions were put to the Judge Advocate General in the House itself; but he (the Judge Advocate General) constantly received letters from Members of the House calling attention to certain proceedings. As a

    1881
    rule, he invited the hon. Member who communicated with him to wait upon him at his Office; and in the same way he was prepared to invite the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (General Alexander), if he wished for information respecting any case, when he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) would be prepared to produce all the documents in his possession to show that substantial justice had been done. Now, the House would see that the number of courts martial set aside for irregularity had been decreasing year by year. In 1881 the number of courts martial set aside was 246; in 1882, 154; in 1883, 116; and in 1884, 100. Therefore, in the four years from 1881 to 1884, no less than 616 presumably innocent men had been saved from unjust punishment; and it would be further seen that the number of courts martial set aside for irregularity in 1884, as compared with those set aside in 1881, had been nearly 150 per cent less. It might be asked what had caused the diminution? Probably the hon. and gallant Member was not aware that many of the difficulties which undoubtedly did arise in 1879, 1880, and 1881 had been got rid of by the simplification and codification of the law in 1881. Last year a book revised by the Judge Advocate General was published by the War Office, entitled A Manual of Military Law, in which each of the decisions of the Judge Advocate General were given in the form of notes to the Army Act of 1881. He was afraid that the hon. and gallant Member could not have examined that book. Certainly, he could not know the amount of labour the revision of the book had entailed in merely putting the decisions into shape. Probably, if he had been acquainted with these facts, the hon. and gallant Member would not have made his present proposal. But even that work was not considered enough, and the Office was now engaged in bringing out a pocket edition, containing everything that it was necessary for officers in the field to know. The result of their simplifying the law, and codifying it, had been to correct many of the errors into which officers presiding at courts martial had been previously led; and, instead of 246 wrong decisions in the year 1881, they were reduced to 100 last year. This, however, was only one of the duties of the Judge Advocate General. In ad-
    1882
    dition to the duties connected with the revision, from a legal point of view, of the proceedings of courts martial, the Judge Advocate General had another duty to perform—namely, that of advising the Horse Guards and War Office on legal questions, many of which involved considerations of a most difficult and delicate nature. The hon. and gallant Member had referred to the retirement of the Legal Secretary to the War Office. He would explain exactly how that matter stood. Mr. Clode, who held the office of Legal Secretary to the War Office, retired in 1881. His right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers), who was then Secretary for the War Department, asked him if be thought it was not possible to effect an economy by throwing the greater part of the duties previously performed by Mr. Clode on the shoulders of the Judge Advocate General. Of course, he said that he was only too happy to perform the duties without salary, although they involved a very large addition to his labours, and the consequence was that he had effected a saving in the Army Estimates of £1,600 a-year — £1,500 in the salary of the Legal Secretary to the War Office, and £100 per annum for certain allowances. Therefore, since that date, he had saved the country something more than £6,000 in four years. Reference had been made by the hon. and gallant Member to the duties performed by the deputies in the Office. He was glad to be able to say that another piece of economy would shortly be effected in reference to those officers. He found that he would be able to get on with three Deputy Judge Advocates instead of four, and by abolishing the fourth Deputy Judge Advocate a saving would be effected to the country of £456 a-year, making altogether £2,056, or £56 in excess of his salary. In every transaction connected with the Office strict economy was studied. He had pointed out to the hon. and gallant Member how entirely he was mistaken if he fancied that the duties of Judge Advocate General were confined to the revision of the proceedings of courts martial. There were always matters arising which demanded the personal attention of the Judge Advocate General. A consider-ible number of questions were raised in the course of last year which concerned

    1883
    important legal points in reference to the Military Department, and all of them involved a considerable amount of responsibility. He might inform the hon. and gallant Member that, in the course of a single year, something like 800 Minutes and letters were written by the Judge Advocate General in which a legal opinion was expressed; and he would like to know what his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) would say if he found it necessary to write 800 legal opinions in the course of a single year. If the Office of Judge Advocate General were abolished a substitute must be provided, and surely it was far better to have a Judge Advocate General with a seat in the House of Commons directly responsible to the House itself than to have an officer altogether without responsibility to Parliament. He did not think it was necessary to say more. He thought he had shown that the Office of Judge Advocate General was not a sinecure; but that it was one in which a vast amount of work was carried on. He had pointed out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman what he (the Judge Advocate General) had done since he had filled the Office. He had given the hon. and gallant Gentleman a number of statistics, and he would be happy if the hon. and gallant Member would call at his office to give even further information, and to point out to him the complex nature of the proceedings in connection with some of the courts martial of which the hon. and gallant Member had spoken so lightly. He believed the hon. and gallant Member had made this Motion under an entirely mistaken view of the duties of the Office of Judge Advocate General, and he thanked him for having afforded him an opportunity to give this explanation. With regard to the questions put by his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir George Balfour) and the noble Lord opposite (Lord Eustace Cecil), he was sorry that they had only the Returns from the Home Army for 1884 to go by; but, as far as those Returns went, he might say that there was an unquestionable improvement on the year 1883 in the number of courts martial held. This was particularly satisfactory, seeing that in 1883 the number of courts martial amounted only to 76 per 1,000 men, which was the lowest number they had
    1884
    ever had; and he might mention that in 1868 the number amounted to 144 for every 1,000 men, so that they had dropped down to little more than one-half that number. He had carefully compared the Returns from the War Office for 188? and 1884, as far as they went, and he found that the improvement which took place in 1883 was still being maintained. The number of courts martial held in the Home Army in 1884 were 10,040, whereas they were 10,703 in the previous year. As to the punishments inflicted, they were 6,899 in 1884 against 7,209 in 1883, thus showing a considerable reduction. There had also been a great diminution in the number of non-commissioned officers who had been tried by courts martial. That was a very satisfactory fact, because he had always held that it was of the highest importance to get good and well-conducted non-commissioned officers. In 1883 the number of courts martial on non-commissioned officers in the Home Army were nearly 10 per cent, while last year they were under 8 per cent, showing a substantial decrease. There had been a remarkable decrease, too, in the punishments for drunkenness. In 1883 the number of men fined for drunkenness amounted to 102 per 1,000; but last year they were only 84 per 1,000. He had no desire to conceal the shady side of the question; but, at the same time, these figures were encouraging, and showed that there had been a considerable decrease both in the trials and punishments. He regretted that the Returns in his possession did not enable him to give the number of crimes which had been dealt with among the troops serving abroad. He had, however, noted all the proceedings of courts martial sent to him from Egypt up to a certain date — namely, since the 1st of November up to the present time, and he thought the result was highly encouraging. The total number of courts martial in Egypt and the Soudan between the 1st of November, 1884, and the present time—namely, May, 1885—hadonlybeen 171, and of that number there had only been two general courts martial. That, as far as it went, was, in his opinion, a very satisfactory result. He did not know exactly how many men there were in Egypt; but he believed the number was somewhere about 13,000; and that, among so many men, there should

    1885
    have been only 171 courts martial, of which only two were general courts martial, in six months, was, he thought highly satisfactory. With regard to severe punishments —? speaking from memory — he did not think there had been many. He was sorry that he could not give a more complete answer to the question of the noble Lord the Member for West Essex (Lord Eustace Cecil); but it was not his fault, but arose from the fact that the information he had to give, so far as it was derived from official sources, was limited to the Home Army.
    LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he had listened with great attention to the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and he did not wish to enter into the merits of the case, so far as the Office of Judge Advocate General was concerned. He would only say that he did not quite take the same view as the hon. and gallant Member behind him (General Alexander). At the same time, he could not quite understand why the business of the War Office should not be done very much in the same way as the business of the Navy. In the case of the Navy, there was no Judge Advocate General at all. He would not say whether that was a better or a worse system; but he believed that in the Navy the proceedings of courts martial were brought under the notice of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and if the First Lord found any occasion to question the accuracy or the justice of the decision conveyed to him he had the Report cancelled. He (Lord Eustace Cecil) had never hoard that the business of the Navy was not done satisfactorily. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that some changes had been introduced into the Office, and into the duties of the Office as originally constituted. It appeared that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers), when Secretary of State for War, evidently thought that the Judge Advocate General had not enough to do, because when Mr. Clode retired from the position of Legal Secretary to the War Office, which, as he (Lord Eustace Cecil) happened to know, involved very laborious work, it was thought that the Judge Advocate General might very well do his own work and that which Mr. Clode had performed also. As far as he (Lord Eustace Cecil) was acquainted with the duties of the Legal Secretary to the
    1886
    War Office, they were quite enough for one person to discharge, seeing that, in the course of a single year, something like 800 cases came before him upon which he was required to give 800 legal opinions, or from two to three per day. Under the present circumstances, he did not think that the Committee would say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had enough to do for the salary he received; but that, he thought, hardly touched the point. As to the duties of the Judge Advocate General before, it was clear there was not enough work; and that had been the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when Secretary of State for War. He (Lord Eustace Cecil) only threw that out as a hint; he was not going to support the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend; but he would suggest for the consideration of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, and the House of Commons generally, whether the practice which had hitherto succeeded with regard to the Navy might not also be carried out in the War Department. If it were necessary to have a Gentleman of the standing and rank of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, let the Office, at all events, not be an honorary one. That, however, was a point which he did not wish to go into, or to press upon the Committee at that time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had shown that he did a large amount of laborious work which appertained to another Office, and he had also managed to dispense with the services of one of the Deputy Judge Advocates General in his own Office; and that he (Lord Eustace Cecil) thought was in itself a proof that he had not originally enough to do. He (Lord Eustace Cecil) should be the last person to wish to disestablish the right hon. and learned Gentleman of the Office which he, no doubt, so ably filled; but he thought, without any desire to interfere with vested interests, that, should promotion happen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or should there be any change, it should be a matter for the consideration of the Secretary of State for War whether the honorary Office of the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not be, in some way, arranged for, and the duties of the Office performed in the same manner as in the Navy, and whether the onerous office of Counsel to the War Office could not be otherwise pro-

    1887
    vided for. There was a portion of the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman which his hon. and gallant Friend near him desired him to touch upon. That was the statement that 246 innocent men had been saved from punishment by the revision of the proceedings of courts martial. He (Lord Eustace Cecil) could quite understand the sense in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken; but the manner in which he had stated the fact gave the impression that the men were innocent men, and ought not to have been tried at all.
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN): I intended to say legally innocent men.
    LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House understood perfectly what the right hon. and learned Gentleman meant; but coming from a Gentleman of legal attainments, who they knew always used the right word, his sentence might be interpreted to mean that the men were innocent and ought not to have been tried. He was glad, however, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had explained. With regard to the point in connection with the Army, about which he (Lord Eustace Cecil) desired further information, the right hon. and learned Gentleman last year engaged to give that information, or else that he would make a statement on the subject when the Vote came on. He was afraid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not able to make that statement, or to fulfil his engagement; but he understood that he now engaged that the information should be forthcoming in future.
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN): I am told that this cannot possibly be done before a month, or two months, have elapsed; but I am in hope that next year it will be in time for the Army Estimates.
    LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, it was necessary that the Committee should have the fullest information before it passed that Vote, and it should have information not only with regard to the conduct of the Army at home, but with regard to that portion of it which was abroad. He took notice, in passing, of the increased number of desertions from the Army; they were certainly larger now than they were last year. The
    Lord Eustace Cecil
    1888
    number for the present year, according to the Return which he held in his hand, was 4,300, as against 3,700 last year. He was at a loss to account for that very large increase in the number of desertions; but he observed that the two arms of the Service in which desertions were most frequent were the Cavalry and the Artillery; and the fact might be due to the excessive amount of work thrown upon those corps. He was also struck with the circumstance that a very large number of courts martial had taken place in the Artillery as compared with other corps; he believed that in the Artillery last year there were 1,268 courts martial—a very large number as compared with the Cavalry, for instance, in which there were only 740. Without making any reflection on that gallant corps, the number appeared so disproportionate that it seemed to him to demand an explanation, because it should be borne in mind that these were district, and not regimental, courts martial. He pointed out these and similar matters in passing; and he could not help recurring to the main idea—that Returns of this kind were most useful, because they gave the fullest information to the Committee and the public, and because they more or less formed a check on the appointment of unnecessary courts martial. He recollected that, in the time of the Crimean War, there were a large number of badly-conducted soldiers in the ranks, and that when they came home there used to be courts martial daily. That was a state of things which, for his part, he very much deplored; but now that education had so much extended in the Army, now that out of 84,000 soldiers at home all but 3,000, as it appeared by the Return, could read and write, he thought it was time that courts martial for grosser crimes should diminish; and he was greatly in hope, with the steps now being taken in the direction of not giving the men unnecessary work, and not harassing them either at home or abroad, with the steps taken towards dealing with offenders summarily, and not by court martial, that a better state of things would shortly prevail. But he again impressed upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War that it was most important for the interests of the Service that the fullest

    1889
    information with, regard to the conduct of the Army at home and abroad should be laid upon the Table of the House.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, he thought it was not necessary that there should be a Parliamentary Judge Advocate General. The War Department had three other Representatives in the House, while the Board of Trade and the Admiralty had only two. But he would like to know whether this question had not really been dealt with in another way than that in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (General Alexander) proposed to deal with it? The hon. and gallant Gentleman proposed that the Vote should be reduced by the sum of £2,000, the amount of the salary of the Judge Advocate General; but he (Mr. Heneage) understood that already the War Office had reduced the Vote in another way by the sum of £1,600, and that the amount of the Vote was also to be reduced by £45(5, the amount of the salary of one of the Deputy Judge Advocates General; so that, as a matter of fact, the Vote was to be reduced by the sum which the hon. and gallant Gentleman proposed. The only questions that remained were as to whether the right thing had been done, and whether it would not be better to abolish—not his right hon. and learned Friend—but the Office of Judge Advocate General. He did not think the duties were very onerous, either of the Judge Advocate General or of the Solicitor to the War Office, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman, having, as he stated, done the work of the latter for over a year, had been able to compile a book.
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN): I beg pardon; I said I had revised the book.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that he had volunteered to take upon himself the duties of Solicitor to the War Office, and that he had there by saved the country £1,600 a-year. It was public-spirited on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to take over the duties of the Solicitor to the War Department; but he (Mr. Heneage) would like to know whether, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman were promoted to another Office, those duties would be left to his successor? The Committee
    1890
    had heard much about the legal knowledge necessary to the Office; but was it not a fact that, in former times, it had been held by Gentlemen who had not the slightest knowledge of Criminal Law? If that were so, he thought it followed that a knowledge of Criminal Law was not necessary for the Office of Judge Advocate General. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman divided the Committee he should vote with him.
    MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, he was unable to perceive how they could abolish the Office of Judge Advocate General without altering the whole constitution of the Army. The practice at the Admiralty was that the proceedings of courts martial came before the First Sea Lord, who, in case there was any doubt with regard to them, referred them to the counsel to the Admiralty. He had no doubt that, practically, the proceedings came before the First Lord, and that he gave an opinion upon them. But he thought it was hardly possible to proceed in the same way with regard to Army courts martial; and as the right hon. and learned Gentleman had shown how heavy were the duties of his Office, and how well he earned the salary which he received, he hoped the Committee would not adopt the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (General Alexander).
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he certainly thought that great credit was due to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for undertaking the duties of Legal Adviser to the War Office without any additional salary. No doubt, the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were perfectly aware that there was an opportunity of making an economical arrangement by adding those duties to the duties of the Judge Advocate General. His hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) had drawn attention to one point on which it was desirable that the Committee should have some information; he had asked whether the arrangement under which the right hon. Gentleman had taken upon himself the duties of Legal Adviser to the War Office was of a permanent character? He (Mr. Rylands) knew it was quite permanent, so far as the present holder of the Office was concerned; but he wished to be informed whether, in the unfortunate event of the present Government going out of

    1891
    Office and a new Government coming into power, it would be practicable not only to fill up the Office of Judge Advocate General, but also to refill the Office of Legal Adviser to the War Office?
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN): It is a permanent arrangement.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, his right hon. and learned Friend said it would be a permanent arrangement. Well, he thought that was a fair reply to the very important inquiry made by the hon. Member for Grimsby. He recollected that it had once been asked in that House whether the Judge Advocate General was a General in the Army, and the reply was that he was neither a Judge, an Advocate, nor a General. No doubt, the Deputy Judge Advocate General performed very important duties towards the State—was there any Department of the State the permanent officers of which did not perform important duties? He was disposed to believe that the present Judge Advocate General brought to the Office not only great zeal, but great ability. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Eustace Cecil) had alluded to a very serious matter—namely, the desertions which took place from the Army. Now, he (Mr. Rylands) went entirely with the spirit of the noble Lord's remarks. He thought it of the greatest possible consequence that they should make the condition of the soldiers as comfortable as possible, and also such as was consistent with their own self-respect, and free from unnecessary interference—that they should treat the soldier in such a way as would encourage him to like his corps, and not in a spirit calculated to induce him to desert. But punishments were necessary, and in that respect he thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman filled a position of great responsibility; it was a position which, in his (Mr. Rylands's) opinion, he had no right to delegate to any deputy. The right hon. and learned Gentleman stood there as the administrator of justice in the Army, and it would be quite right for the House to hold him responsible if any failure of justice occurred. Under the circumstances, he should not be willing at the present time to see the Office in question abolished. If any inquiry should be made hereafter into the various branches of the Military Service, he
    1892
    should think that then possibly the Office of Judge Advocate General might be put into the crucible; but for the present he should certainly not support the Amendment before the Committee.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he must question the policy of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayrshire (General Alexander) in moving this Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member generally took an enlightened view of military matters, over which he believed he was anxious to establish the control of the House. He (Colonel Nolan) would be altogether against the abolition of the Office of Judge Advocate General, not only because they had in that Office a very able and courteous Gentleman, but because he believed that the abolition of the Office would be a great injustice to the private soldier, and that the morale of the Army would be thereby very seriously impaired. Those would be great evils. He did not think that ordinary General Officers could know anything about CriminalLaw. Sir Edward Ward was an exception, because he was a barrister, and had practised in Court; but the majority of Generals proceeded only on red-tape ideas, and as to looking into the evidence to see that it fully established the charge, that was a matter about which they knew very little. He thought it absolutely necessary that the Army should have a real lawyer to supervise the proceedings of courts martial, and he believed that they had a very efficient one at the present moment. It might be said that there were now three or four barristers in the Army, and that one of them might discharge the duties of the Office. He believed that that proposition had received a certain amount of support; but his own opinion was that it would be a very dangerous experiment, because those officers would be entirely under the influence of the Commander-in-Chief. If the Office of Judge Advocate General were abolished, he supposed that a barrister would be employed; and that, in his opinion, would be extremely wrong from a military point of view. The position of the Army would be totally changed if there was no Judge Advocate General. At the present moment a private soldier could ask the opinion of the Judge Advocate General upon any point of Military Law. A private soldier who knew nothing about Common Law or Military Law

    1893
    could write to a Member of Parliament concerning any point of Military Law in which he was interested, and that Member could go to the Judge Advocate General, who would set him right, and show whether there was any foundation for the complaint the soldier might have. If the Office were abolished, who was the Member of Parliament to go to? He would have to go to the Secretary of State for War, who, perhaps, would know much less about the law than the Member himself; for it was not the business of the Secretary of State to know anything about the law. Therefore, as he had said, if the Office were abolished, the Member of Parliament would have no means of obtaining any redress desired except by going to the Commander-in-Chief, or refusing Supply. He (Colonel Nolan) thought the present plan a very good one. Of course, the Navy was very different to the Army. The Navy was generally afloat. In the whole of his Parliamentary experience, he never received a letter from a sailor with respect to a point of law; whereas he had received hundreds of letters from soldiers. Our Constitution taught us to be extremely jealous of the Army, but not of the Navy. The Army was a very Constitutional one; but it might take power into its own hands. It was very necessary, therefore, that people should be jealous of the Army, and keep the control of it in their own hands. Through the Judge Advocate General, Members of Parliament could exercise a very strict and Constitutional control over the Army, not only in a general way, but in matters of detail, and particularly in respect to the administration of justice in the Army. They would commit a great mistake if they abolished the Office. It was true they would not pay the salary of £2,000 a-year; but they would be required to pay large sums for counsel's opinions, and they would lose that control which, in the interest of the Army and the country, it was very desirable Parliament should exercise.
    MR. JOHNSONsaid, that, of course, they knew the Judge Advocate General had very important cases to look into; but he should like to know how trivial cases, such as one which had come under his (Mr. Johnson's) notice, came under the Judge Advocate General's judgment? Some time ago he was at Chatham Station, waiting for the train, and there
    1894
    he met some officers with whom he fell into conversation. He asked them where they came from, and they told him they came from Maidstone, where they had been serving on a court martial; and it came out, as a matter of joke, that they had travelled considerable distances, at the public expense, to try a wretched boy—a boy who had only been a few hours in one of the Militia regiments— for not having sufficiently washed himself. It appeared that the boy, who had just been taken from the plough, was not over fond of soap and water; he was reprimanded by his lance corporal, who, possibly, was only a minute and a half his senior, the boy told him to go to Bath or something of the kind, and was reported to the Colonel. He (Mr. Johnson) was not conversant with Military Law; but he should have thought that a reprimand from the Colonel, or confinement to barracks for an hour or two, would have met the justice of the case. Instead of that, however, a court martial was ordered. Three or four officers were brought from Canterbury to Maidstone, at something like an expense to the country of from £5 to £10, merely to try this boy. "Mony a mickle makes a muckle," and £5 and £10 soon mounted up to large sums; and therefore he thought that if some means could be found of settling such trivial cases like that, without putting the country to expense besides taking three or four officers from their duties, a great step in advance would be made.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, he had noticed, since he was elected a Member of the House, a great disposition on the part of hon. Members to make a great ado about very small sums of money; while they offered no opposition whatever to very lavish expenditure for very unworthy purposes. He had noticed this disposition very strongly marked in hon. Members who sat below the Gangway opposite and called themselves Radicals. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had expressed the extreme indignation which he felt that the management of affairs in this country allowed the Judge Advocate General to receive a salary of £2,000 a-year. When the Vote was askedfor£l 1,000,000 sterling, hon. Members, like the hon. Member for Burnley, had very little to say, either about the advisability of the expenditure of that money, or as to the

    1895
    lack of economy, on the part of the Government, which allowed such expenditure to be made. It was extremely irksome to listen to debates carried on by men who were supposed to be sensible men, and to have some degree of common sense—it was extremely irksome to listen to such debates as that which had just taken place. None of the speeches delivered that night had contained a single bit of information; they were mere dry repetition, and so far as he could see the only object that hon. Members had in delivering them was to waste the time of the Committee. If the hon. Members who had taken part in the debate had been Irish Members, the Committee would have howled at them, and very possibly to-morrow they would have been accused by the English Press of wilful Obstruction. But, as those hon. Members were not Irish Members, he supposed that all the twaddle which had been talked that evening would be put down by the English Press to the great solicitude which was felt by the hon. Members of the House that the affairs of the country should be managed as economically as possible. He did not care very much whether the Office of Judge Advocate General was abolished or not. He was not very much interested in the matter; but having listened to the debate—he regretted that he had allowed himself to listen to it instead of going to dinner long ago—he certainly felt——
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's remarks concerning other Members of the House are not proper. It is forbidden by the Rules of Parliament for an hon. Member to use language which is calculated to be offensive to his brother Members.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, he was sure the Chairman would believe him when he said he had not the slightest intention of being offensive in any way. He had no intention whatever of being unnecessarily offensive, or offensive at all, to any hon. Members of the House; and if he had been so, he should endeavour, in the few remarks which he wished now to address to the Committee, not to offend again. He merely rose for the purpose of saying that, in his opinion, it was absolutely absurd for hon. Members to come down to the House, and object, upon the score of economy, to a hard-
    1896
    working official getting a salary of £2.000 a-year, while they offered no objection to expenditure of millions of money for the most unworthy purposes. He did not know whether the Committee would go to a division; but if they did he should certainly vote against the Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (General Alexander).
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he wished to ask what steps had been taken to apply the Military Law to a series of outrages committed by soldiers a few nights ago in the town of Downpatrick? He put a Question last week with regard to the manner in which these men were billeted in the town. Some time ago the Government gave £1,000 for the tenant right of a piece of land in Downpatrick, and in the town itself there were a sufficient number of unoccupied houses to give accommodation to all the men. In the exercise of their judgment, the Government had billeted the men in the vicinity of the town. He believed that the men were Protestants, and that they had been mostly billeted on Catholics. Now, Downpatrick was a place where religious feeling influenced political feeling; and it might have been foreseen by the authorities that the system of billeting which had been adopted would lead to undesirable results. When he put the Question last week, the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) said it was not usual to camp men out before the 1st of May, and there were not sufficient unoccupied houses in the town to accommodate them. (He (Mr. Sexton) had learned since that the latter statement was not correct. Anyhow, last week there were horse races near the town, and it was very desirable that care should be taken to keep the men apart from the general body of the people. They were, however, allowed on the racecourse, and they seemed to have partaken of a considerable quantity of liquor. They were allowed to go about as they pleased, and the consequence was that at 8 o'clock on Thursday night of last week, about 40 of the battalion, accompanied by three or four privates of the Devonshire Regiment, commenced an irregular march through the town. They were headed by a couple of civilians, whose names he had not ascertained, who pointed out the houses of the Catholics. The men broke the

    1897
    windows of these houses; they went through the streets indulging in the most offensive and provocative Party cries they could invent; and they wound up their evening by rushing into the licensed premises of a Catholic and making most violent assaults with their waist-belts upon the waiters and everybody in the place. When a cry of police was raised, they ran away, but not before they had broken all the glasses they could find in the house. The result was riot and excitement, and there had been the greatest confusion and indignation in the town in consequence. He was told the other day that no complaint had been made with regard to the system of billeting the men in the town. As a matter of fact, the clergy made complaints on the subject, and he had letters in his possession complaining in the very strongest manner of the probable effects of the system. He believed that the day following these extraordinary outrages an inquiry of an informal nature was held, at which Major Stewart, an officer of the battalion and the resident magistrate of the district, was present. He wished to know what was the result of that inquiry; whether any trial of the men had been held; and, if not, how soon one would be held; whether communications had been held with the Civil Authorities; whether, by the machinery of the Crimes Act, an endeavour had been made to ascertain who were the two civilians who led the marauders and pointed out the houses occupied by Catholics? It was very desirable that persons concerned in promoting outrages should be punished, and it was equally desirable that the soldiers should be withdrawn from the town at once. There was a camping ground outside the town; why not put the men into tents? He could only say that if they were not withdrawn, but allowed to go on committing these outrages night after night, the probability was that if the people of the town had not the spirit to resent such proceedings, the people of the surrounding districts would come in and clear the military out of the town.
    GENERAL ALEXANDERsaid, that, as the general feeling of the Committee appeared to be against the Amendment, he should be glad to ask leave to withdraw it. In doing so, he wished to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Osborne Morgan) for the
    1898
    very valuable book he had laid on the Table. He was also glad that the Amendment had afforded the right hon. and learned Gentleman an opportunity of justifying the retention of his Office.
    MR. CALLANsaid, the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), in the course of some observations which perhaps were not quite pertinent to the question before the Committee, made a sneering allusion to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the present Judge Advocate General for having written a book. The greatest enemy of the hon. Member, however, would never be able to accuse him of having written or even revised a book. He (Mr. Callan) rose on this occasion to bring before the Judge Advocate General a point concerning Military Law. He did not desire to bring it before the right hon. and learned Gentleman because he had written a book, but because he had a greater acquaintance with Military Law than the ordinary run of Judge Advocate Generals. He wished to put a question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman concerning a proceeding that had lately taken place in Ireland—a proceeding connected with the embarkation at Kingstown for Suakin of the Royal Irish Lancers. Some months ago the portion of the regiment told off for foreign service left the Royal Barracks at an early hour of the morning under the command of Colonel Chichester. The senior colonel, Colonel Vandeleur, saw them leave the barracks, but remained in charge of the depot and of that portion of the regiment under orders to proceed to Dundalk. Now, the 5th Lancers arrived at what was called the jetty at Kingstown a few hours afterwards; but the steamer which was ordered for their embarkation was not ready to receive them, the consequence being that when the time for leaving arrived 20 or 30 of the men failed to appear. The jetty belonged to the town—the people had every right to it; indeed, no military order could exclude them from it. The troops remained there for some hours, and in course of time a large number of persons assembled to see them leave. He believed there was considerable confusion; but he was informed not more than always attended the embarkation of troops — not more, for instance, than occurred when the Guards were em-

    1899
    barked on the Thames. When the facts became known, Colonel Chichester was recalled from the Soudan. He (Mr. Callan), however, was not at all concerned with Colonel Chichester. Colonel Chichester was in command of the troops; he was an Englishman, and he (Mr. Callan) would leave it to other people to take up the cudgels in that officer's defence. But Colonel Vandeleur was an Irishman; he belonged to one of the oldest families in Ireland—a family which had given heroes to the English Army. He was a near relative to one occupying an honoured position in the House of Commons. Colonel Tandeleur was the senior colonel of the regiment, and he handed over his command in obedience to the orders of the War Office—he handed over his command to Colonel Chichester at the Royal Barracks. In the course of the afternoon, Colonel Vandeleur, as was very natural, went to Kingstown to bid farewell to those who had for so many years been under his command; he went out unofficially and without any responsibility; he went to Kingstown, simply out of feelings of kindliness and as a mark of old friendship, to see his brother officers away. And he believed that for the same reason Lord Clarina, who was in command of the Dublin district, also went to Kingstown. Well, Colonel Vandeleur had been suspended. Colonel Vandeleur, who relinquished his command, or rather the command of the troops taken from him, that morning, had been suspended on account of what happened at Kingstown, while Lord Clarina went unscathed. If Colonel Vandeleur, who was not in command, who had no responsibility whatever attaching to him, was to be suspended, or have his conduct inquired into, because of the confusion which occurred in the embarkation at Kingstown, surely Lord Clarina, who was in command of the district at the time, who had relinquished none of his authority, should be similarly treated. It occurred to him (Mr. Callan) that Lord Clarina was much more censurable than Colonel Vandeleur. It was alleged that the War Office had suspended Colonel Vandeleur from motives which were anything but creditable. Whether that was so or not, the treatment dealt out to this gallant officer was not such as ought to be dealt out to a British officer,
    1900
    or a British gentleman. He was sorry the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General had left the House. He had paid the right hon. and learned Gentleman a compliment, hoping to enlist his sympathies; he supposed that the Judge Advocate General took the compliment, and had now gone to take his dinner. Perhaps the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) would give him the information he desired. He wished to know how it came to pass that Colonel Vandeleur, who handed over his command at the Royal Barracks early in the morning, who might have remained in Dublin, and who by mere accident went down to Kingstown, was to have his conduct inquired into, while the commander of the Dublin district was to escape unscathed? The whole of the difficulty— that was to say, the negligence which led to the occurrence to which he was referring, arose in the Quartermaster General's Department. He wished to know whether it was not the duty of the Quartermaster General's Department, when the steamer was alongside the jetty in Kingstown Harbour, to have had it ready for the troops, when they arrived at the appointed hour? If the steamer had been ready the troops could have been put on board; they would not have been subjected to temptation, and these irregularities would not have occurred. Was it not the duty of the Quartermaster General's Department to have the ship ready for the reception of the troops at the hour appointed; and when an officer handed over his regiment, or a portion of it, for foreign service to an officer named by the War Office, to command it, did not his responsibility cease, and did not the fact of his being present accidentally, when irregularities took place amongst the men, relieve him from all blame? He would call the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General to the exact rules respecting the embarkation of troops, and ask whether the fault did not lie with the Quartermaster General's Department?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I am sorry I was not here when the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Callan) commenced his observations; but to so much of them as I did hear I am able to say a

    1901
    few words in reply. It is true, as the hon. Member has stated, that a Court of Inquiry has been held for the purpose of reporting on the circumstances of the embarkation of two squadrons of the 5th Lancers for Kingstown some weeks ago. That Court has concluded its inquiry; but the decision of the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief has not been promulgated; and, therefore, it is impossible for me at present to state what that decision is, and it is also impossible for me to enter into the argument of the hon. Gentleman. I desire, however, to controvert two or three statements made by the hon. Member. I understood him to say that Colonel Vandeleur, having handed over the detachment to Colonel Chichester, could not be held responsible for what took place afterwards. But, in the first place, Colonel Vandeleur was responsible for the state in which that detachment was handed over to Colonel Chichester; and so long as any part of that regiment was within his reach, and under his cognizance, he, as its commanding officer, could not absolve himself from responsibility. Colonel Vandeleur thought it necessary, or part of his duty—and I do not suppose that any hon. Member will be surprised at it—to go down to Kingstown to see the embarkation of the detachment, though not in command of it. He was in uniform, and was present during the irregularities, which took place within his knowledge, and for any orders which were given or not given Colonel Vandeleur could not possibly be held as not responsible. The doctrine of the hon. Member is one which no military officer in the House, or outside it, will countenance— namely, that a commanding officer can, under any possible circumstances, be held as not responsible for what takes place under his very eye. The hon. Member asks whether the Quartermaster General's Department is not responsible for the arrangements of embarkation? The hon. Member is quite correct in supposing that that Department would be responsible for these arrangements, and I cannot say whether the irregularities that occurred were caused or exaggerated by the difficulties of embarkation. But, even if there were such difficulties, they cannot excuse the un soldier like conduct of the detachment on the occasion, or do away
    1902
    with the responsibility of the commanding officer. It is impossible, until the decision of the Commander-in-Chief is promulgated—which I believe will be in a few days—to add anything further on the subject. All I can do now is to protest against the doctrine that Colonel Vandeleur, in handing over the command to a subordinate officer, can be held to be not responsible for what took place under his cognizance. If any further information is required, I shall be very happy to give it to the hon. Member.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he would take advantage of the invitation of the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess had said that Colonel Vandeleur was responsible for all orders given or not given on the day of the embarkation; and the noble Marquess, he was sorry to say, had mentioned in a tone of aggravation or justification that Colonel Vandeleur, when the irregularities took place, was in uniform—which would lead the public to suppose that he attended the embarkation officially and in the performance of his duty. He (Mr. Callan) wished to ask if it was not a fact that Colonel Vandeleur—whether in uniform or not—was not under any obligation to proceed to Kingstown? Colonel Chichester took the troops over in Dublin, and it was for him to take charge of the embarkation; and if Colonel Vandeleur was held responsible for any irregularities, as being the senior, why was it that Colonel Vandeleur's senior, Lord Clarina, the General commanding the district, was not held responsible? If Colonel Vandeleur was to be held responsible for orders given and orders not given at Kingstown, because he was the Colonel commanding, was Lord Clarina, the General commanding, not even more responsible—was he to go scatheless?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The General commanding would be held responsible for the failure of any arrangement he made. What I have said is this—that no orders to any other officer could absolve the commanding officer of a regiment from responsibility for the good conduct of that regiment where he was in its presence.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that, with all respect to the noble Marquess, what he wished to know was whether Colonel Vandeleur, having handed over command of the men to Colonel Chichester,

    1903
    was under any obligation to be present at the embarkation at Kingstown; and, next, if there was any failure of the arrangements—and no one would deny that there was a failure—and it was the fault of the Quartermaster General's Department, whether the General commanding the district was not to be held responsible? There had been no demand made for any explanation from Lord Clarina, though, by the Queen's Regulations, he might be held responsible for any irregularities which might happen in his district. For what more could he be held responsible than the conduct of his troops during an embarkation for foreign service?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONI am sorry I did not answer the hon. Member's question. Colonel Vandeleur was under no obligation to go down to see the men off, and I do not say that he would have committed an offence for which he could have been censured or tried by court martial if he had not gone down to see the embarkation. But there are many circumstances in connection with the management of troops which must be decided by the superior officer present. Colonel Vandeleur was not compelled to be present at the embarkation; but, being present, he could not absolve himself from responsibility. As for the Quartermaster General's Department, there was an inquiry, and it was shown that the arrangements made for the embarkation were perfectly well known. Many statements were made by the men as to what took place on the march, and so on.
    MR. SMALLsaid, he had heard no answer given from the Treasury Bench to the complaint made by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), as to the conduct of the Royal Irish Rifles and the men of the Devonshire Regiment at Downpatrick the other day. He (Mr. Small) trusted the Treasury Bench would consider the serious character of the hon. Gentleman's complaint, and the very serious consequences which would ensue if that complaint was not attended to. He (Mr. Small) possessed knowledge in the matter that his hon. Friend had not had. Party feeling ran very high in the town of Downpatrick, and the result was that matters of a Party character sometimes caused breaches of the peace there. He held in his hand a report taken from The Belfast Morning News of
    1904
    the 2nd of May, which gave a circumstantial account of what occurred. This report said—
    "Last night, shortly after 8 o'clock, a number of the recruits of the 5th Battalion Royal Irish Rifles, at present undergoing their annual training in this town, accompanied by a few privates of the Devonshire Regiment, a detachment of which is stationed here for the purpose of guard duty at the new convict prison, conducted themselves in a most disorderly manner, parading part of the town, shouting, yelling-, and making use of Party expressions. On their way through John Street several windows were smashed, and the occupants put in terror of their lives. On arriving at the lower end of Stream Street a halt was made, and, as if by pre-arrangement, a most deliberate and cowardly attack was made on the public-house of Mr. John Grilmore. On entering the premises, with belts in their hands, the rioters commenced a fearful onslaught on the customers, some of whom were severely assaulted. The waiters of the establishment were overpowered, and one of them, a man named Nelson, was knocked down and trampled upon. On. a shout of "police" being raised, a stampede was made for the outside, the rioters smashing more large panes of glass in the front of Mr. Gilmore's premises on their way. Word having been sent to the barracks, a large force of police were afterwards on the scene; but, before their arrival, no trace of the rioters was to be seen."
    It was evident, therefore, that however gallant these warriors might have been, there was, at any rate, something of prudence left in them; because, directly the cry of "police" was raised, they made off. None of them were caught or discovered. It would be an easy matter, however, for the commanding officer of the military in Downpatrick to ascertain which of the men were in that part of the town in which the disturbance occurred that night. He could scarcely imagine that the Military Authorities would fail to recognize the importance of this matter; because it would be most deplorable if a chronic state of ill-feeling were to arise between the military and the inhabitants of Downpatrick. Downpatrick was a peaceable town; but he thought there could be little doubt that it would not remain so long, unless punishment were meted out to the men guilty of the outrage, and unless they were removed to some other place where they would, perhaps, conduct themselves better. He understood it was alleged that no complaint had been made by any person as to the conduct of the military on the occasion to which he referred; but he held in his hand a copy of a letter from the

    1905
    Rev. Robert Headley, in which he said—
    "Unless the existing arrangements are immediately changed, by which 190 men are scattered through the town at night, I have grave reason to apprehend that serious rioting will be the consequence. A strong feeling of just indignation prevails in the district through which these men passed, which is bound to manifest itself in retaliation, unless a collision is prevented by your men being placed under restraint."
    It had been alleged that there was not proper accommodation for the men in the town, and that it had been necessary to billet them by twos and threes in the houses of Catholics; but, as a matter of fact, Downpatrick was a declining place, containing a great many empty houses, and it would have been easy for the Military Authorities to have got accommodation for their men in those buildings. Their men, so situated, could be kept under better control than when scattered in twos and threes in the town. He considered it highly unsatisfactory that no reply had been given to the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) by any occupant of the Treasury Bench. After the hon. Member had brought this matter forward, another case had been mentioned by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan). and an answer had been vouchsafed to that hon. Member, although as yet the hon. Member for Sligo had received no reply. He hoped that this silence on the part of the Treasury Bench, to whatever it was due, would not be persevered in. He trusted to hear from the noble Marquess, or from some other Member of the Government, that this regiment would be removed from Downpatrick.
    MR. BRANDsaid, that it was through no intentional discourtesy to the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) that he had not answered him before. As a matter of fact, he had been about to answer the hon. Member when the hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth rose to address the Committee. As to the billeting of this regiment, inquiries had been made of the General Officer commanding the district. He had been asked whether the statement made in the question addressed to the Government on this subject was in his knowledge correct; and he had replied that, in the first place, there was not a sufficient number of unoccupied houses in the town in which to billet the men:
    1906
    and, secondly, that the men had been billeted in the usual way. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Small) had said that Protestant soldiers were billeted in the houses of Roman Catholics; and his (Mr. Brand's) reply to that was that they were billeted in the usual way. He could not imagine for a moment that any selection of Catholic houses for Protestant soldiers had been made; and he could only hope that religious feeling did not run so high in the town that a Catholic would refuse shelter to a man simply because he was a Protestant. [Mr. SEXTON: I made no point of that.] He had stated the other day that the men would be properly encamped on the 1st of May; and he had not understood from the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Small) that that was not the case. At any rate, he (Mr. Brand) had been given to understand by the Military Authorities that the men would be encamped on the 1st of May. It had been said that the clergy had made a complaint to the Military Authorities as to the way in which the men had been billeted; but no such complaint had reached the Military Authorities.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the rev. gentleman referred to had made a complaint to the Military Authorities in the first instance, and that not only were his suggestions unattended to, but the Military Authorities did not even vouchsafe him a reply.
    MR. BRANDsaid, he would undertake to have the matter inquired into. Then the hon. Gentleman referred to a riot which had taken place on Thursday in last week. He had said that a certain number of men belonging to a battalion stationed in Downpatrick had marched through the town in a disorderly manner, breaking the windows of the houses of the Roman Catholic inhabitants. These were very serious charges, and he had no hesitation in saying that if they were true the proceedings could only be described as disgraceful. Inquiries, however, would have to be made before the statements which had been put forward in regard to the conduct of those soldiers could be absolutely accepted. He could say that within the past few hours some information had reached a branch of the War Office with regard to these proceedings, and that inquiry was to be

    1907
    made of the General Officer commanding the district. Of course, if it could be shown that this disturbance had taken place, and if the General Officer commanding the district could ascertain the men who were guilty of taking part in it, the authorities would do everything in their power to bring them to punishment.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that if the allegations he had made to-night were found on inquiry to be correct, he would ask that these men should be sent to some other part of the country; because, even if they were left in encampment in the neighbourhood of the town, their presence must be a source of irritation to those people who had had their windows broken and their houses injured by them. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Brand) had said that no complaints had been made by the clergy of the district. Here was a letter written by the Rev. Robert Headley—
    "Parochial House,
    "Downpatrick, May 1st, 1885.
    "Sir,—A large number of your men—40, I believe—were guilty of riotous conduct last night. They marched in a body through a district of the town, and wrecked a number of houses on their way. The houses upon which these cowardly assaults were made are occupied by Catholics, and it seems they were specially pointed out for attack by two civilians belonging to the town, who accompanied the Militia. I respectfully ask, have you taken steps to have the offenders duly punished, and also to preserve the peace to-night and the following nights? Unless the existing arrangements are immediately changed, by which 190 men are scattered through the town at night, I have grave reason to apprehend that serious rioting will be the consequence. A strong feeling of just indignation prevails in the district through which these men passed, which is bound to manifest itself in retaliation unless a collision is prevented by your men being placed under restraint.—I am, your obedient servant,
    "Robert Headley.
    "Major Stewart,"5th Battalion Royal Irish Rifles,
    "Downpatrick."
    He (Mr. Sexton) trusted that notice having been taken of this matter in the presence of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, it would have the double effect of getting these men removed from Downpatrick, where they were a danger to the place, and of bringing about an application of the Civil Law to those guilty of disorder.
    MR. SMALLsaid, he understood from the hon. Gentleman the Sur-
    1908
    veyor General of the Ordnance (Mr. Brand) that an inquiry would be at once instituted into the alleged outrages. He wished to ask what kind of inquiry would be held? Would it be a purely military inquiry, made in private, or would it be a public inquiry held by civilians? If it was to be a military inquiry sitting with closed doors, he thought it would be of very little use.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the usual inquiry as to what had taken place would be made by the commanding officer, who was responsible for the conduct of his battalion. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Small) would see that the question was not purely a military one, and the War Office had no power to hold any inquiry except a military inquiry. In any matter which arose which ought to come before the Civil Authorities, it would not be necessary for the War Office to have a military inquiry; but he apprehended that there would be an investigation conducted before the magistrates.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that on the Report of the Vote he should expect to find that this officer had been taken away from the district. He hoped that the War Office would facilitate the holding of a civil inquiry, so that the compensation to be awarded to the people of Downpatrick for their broken windows might be awarded.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he could not promise that.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that all the facts had been published in the newspapers, and they were of such a character that it was necessary the regiment should be taken away from the town.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that in justice to the regiment he could not undertake to state what steps would be taken.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he thought that an inquiry might be made into the conduct of the officer in command, in order to ascertain whether he had misconducted himself. He certainly trusted that the inquiry would be extended not only to the alleged riotous conduct of the men, but also into the conduct of Major Stewart, the commanding officer, who, having received a courteous letter complaining of the conduct of the men, and asking for assistance from the officers, had contemptuously ignored it,

    1909
    and had not had the courtesy to forward a reply. He (Mr. Callan) wished to know whether, in the opinion of the (Secretary of State for War, that was proper conduct on the part of an officer in Her Majesty's Service; and whether the matter was not one which ought to be made the subject of a special inquiry?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, it was impossible for him to say whether Major Stewart might not have some explanation to offer in regard to the course he had pursued. He could not pretend to judge Major Stewart upon a mere ex parte statement.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he could not understand why Major Stewart had not answered the courteous and proper letter he had received. No ingenuity on the part of the Secretary of State for War would justify such conduct, and he must say that if the men were riotous the officers were ungentlemanly; and, under such circumstances, orderly and proper conduct on the part of the men could hardly be expected. It was another verification of the old adage—"Like officer like man."
    SIR FREDERICK FITZ-WYGRAMsaid, that at Aldershot and the Curragh there were great complaints on the part of the men of the arduous nature of the camp fatigue duties and the onerous burdens thrown upon their shoulders. He believed there were something like 200 military prisoners at Aldershot; and he would ask whether it would not be right and fair, in order to lighten the burdens of well-conducted men, to employ these 200 prisoners in camp work?
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he thought there was a great deal in the appeal which had been made by his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Frederick Fitz-Wygram); and he hoped that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War would cause some inquiry to be made, in order to see whether some arrangement might not be carried out in the direction of the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, so that these prisoners might be utilized in the performance of the general camp fatigue duties. Such an arrangement, he was satisfied, would relieve the men generally from the hard duties they had now to perform. He had not risen, however, for the sole purpose of supporting the appeal of his hon. and gallant Friend;
    1910
    but he wished to make an appeal on his own account to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General to give him some information as to whether he had satisfied himself of the position in which the Army stood as regarded the employment of Colonial troops in the field, acting in conjunction with our own Regular Forces? He believed there had been some doubt as to what their position was, and as to what their status would be from a military point of view when they came to be under Military Law. He believed it to be the fact that the Military Law was not the same in all of the Colonies, though the Colonies had their own Military Law. With regard to the men now serving in the Soudan, he believed that though they were under their own Colonial law, that law, except in one particular, was the same as the Military Law of the Regular Forces with which they were serving. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had been good enough to say that he would look into the question. It was evident that it was not quite so simple a matter as it was at first supposed to be; but that it would require careful consideration. He would not press for any long statement, or, indeed, for any definite statement now; but he wanted to be sure that the question had not escaped the attention of the Government, because it was one which might become of considerable importance at any moment. There was another point which he also wished to mention. He believed there had been some desire expressed that a Return should be given, as in former years, in regard to the discipline of the Army. The matter had already been the subject of conversation in the House. He did not attach extravagant value to such a Return; but, nevertheless, he thought it would be important in enabling the Committee to make a comparison between the state of the Army now and at former periods. At one time attention was devoted to this matter; but, for some reason or other, the publication of the Return had been discontinued since the time he had had the honour to hold the Office of Secretary of State for War. If the Return could be given without disadvantage to the Public Service, he thought the details would be of considerable value. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General

    1911
    would be able to make a statement on the subject.
    THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, be would answer the question of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman as far as he was able. He believed that the Colonial Forces now serving with Her Majesty's troops were placed under English Military Law, except in regard to certain matters. They were, for example, not to be subjected to corporal punishment; but that exception was of no consequence now. In the case of some of the Colonies, it was also provided that the men should not be tried by any court martial except one composed of their own officers. It seemed to him of great importance that troops serving under the same flag should be subjected to the same discipline and law; and therefore, inregard to the New South Wales troops, he had suggested that a short Act should be passed to place the men unconditionally under Imperial Military Law. [Colonel STANLEY: A Colonial Act.] Of course, it would be a Colonial Act, and it would place the men under our Military Law. He believed that the suggestion would be accepted by the Colonial Governments, and it was a matter which at present was under consideration. With regard to the suggestion which had been made by the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Sir Frederick Fitz-Wygram) that prisoners should be employed in the discharge of camp duties, he thought it was one that was deserving of careful consideration hereafter, and he was much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for having called attention to the subject. He believed that there had been one or two small misapprehensions on the part of the Committee in regard to the statement he had made; but he would only say one thing in reference to the distinction between the Army and the Navy. No doubt, the Navy stood on an entirely different footing from the Army. In the case of the Navy all the proceedings of courts martial came under the supervision of the Board of Admiralty, to which the powers of the Crown were delegated; but in the case of the Army it was essential that there should be a separate Minister who should be responsible for these matters, and he believed that it was better to have an officer with a seat in the House of Commons, rather than to have a permanent
    1912
    official. He begged to thank the hon. and gallant Member opposite (General Alexander) for the manner in which he had spoken of him. He would again remind the hon. and gallant Member that Military Law was administered by the Queen herself, and that there must be some Minister in the House responsible for the action of Her Majesty. It would, therefore, be seen that, as a matter of fact, there was a wide difference between the administration of law in the Army and in the Navy.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, that a very important question indeed had been raised by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), who had brought before the Committee the conduct of the Militia in the North of Ireland, and who had described the troops as acting in a very undisciplined and offensive manner. The remarks of his hon. Friend raised the whole question of billeting. There was no doubt that the billeting of English troops in Catholic districts in Ireland was a very great evil indeed; and he had himself heard many complaints, both from clergymen and from others occupying a position of authority, in regard to this question of billeting. In the South of Ireland, he believed, there was no objection entertained to the billeting of Militia regiments. On the contrary, he knew that in some districts in the South of Ireland the people of the towns where the regiments were assembled were very glad indeed to get what money was to be procured for the housing of soldiers for whom there was no room in the barracks. But the men so billeted were of the same religion and of the same habits as the people with whom they lodged, and, consequently, no disorder or evil arose from the billeting of Militia regiments in the towns of the South of Ireland; but the billeting of English troops fresh from England in the houses of Catholic people, who might entertain Nationalist opinions, was a very great evil indeed. He himself remembered, not very many years ago, a striking incidence of this evil which occurred in the town of New Ross, in the county of Wexford, and which was at the time referred to by the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. J. Redmond), who brought the matter under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers), who was then Secretary

    1913
    of State for War. It was almost a similar instance of disorderly conduct to that which had been related by the hon. Member for Sligo that night. The troops stationed in New Ross got a little drink in the course of the evening, and, not being located in the barracks at the time, they behaved in the most grossly insulting manner to the people. They went round the town shouting—"To Hell with the Pope," and, meeting respectable people coming from church, several of these drunken soldiers ridiculed, in a highly offensive and sacrilegious manner, the observance of the rites of the Catholic Church. One man, outside the gates of a Catholic chapel, pretended to be a priest; and he and his drunken comrades mocked, as far as they could, the sacrament of penance as administered in the Catholic Church. He (Mr. W. Redmond) simply mentioned this circumstance to show that the story told by the hon. Member for Sligo in regard to the billeting of English Protestant troops indiscriminately in Catholic districts was not a solitary instance. Nor did the story told by his hon. Friend, and the one he had just narrated as having happened in the county of Wexford, stand by themselves, because he could enumerate at least a dozen instances in which similar riots had occurred in consequence of the action of the troops. What he would like to have from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General—and he was perfectly sincere in making this appeal, having received representations from a great many priests and other persons as to the evils which arose from the quartering of Protestant troops upon the Catholic population of Ireland—was an undertaking that, as far as possible, troops, especially when they were fresh from England, and unaccustomed to the habits of the people of Ireland, should not be billeted out in Catholic towns upon Catholic people. Of course, the barracks in many of the garrison towns of Ireland were extremely small, and were not capable of affording the necessary accommodation for the large number of troops Her Majesty's Government now considered it necessary to maintain in Ireland; but if the barracks were not large enough there was hardly a garrison town in Ireland where it would not be possible to ob-
    1914
    tain some unoccupied building, which might be used as a substitute for barracks. A great deal of the evil and mischief arose from the indiscriminate billeting of English Protestant soldiers upon a Catholic population. He knew of instances in the South of Ireland where the greatest possible trouble had been occasioned owing to the abuse of the present system of billeting. Soldiers had been lodged in houses where there was a lack of accommodation; and in more than one case, when they had procured more drink than was good for them, they had grossly outraged the feelings of the people on whom they were billeted. He could mention several cases where acts of impropriety had taken place between these drunken soldiers and the people of the houses in which they had been billeted. He could assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Judge Advocate General that he was not drawing upon his imagination, but that he was simply narrating the representations which had been made to him. He believed it would give a great deal of satisfaction indeed to the people of Ireland, and especially to the clergy of that country who had charge of the morals of the people, if the Judge Advocate General would be good enough to say that in any case where it was at all possible a Protestant soldier should not be billeted in Ireland upon a family which professed a different religious creed, but that unoccupied buildings should be made available for the purpose of barracks.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the question of billeting was one which hardly arose on the question of the administration of Military Law. It would more properly be raised on a subsequent Vote; but he might remark that it was extremely unusual to billet troops at all. They were placed in barracks wherever it was possible; but when it was found necessary to resort to billeting, the allocation of the billets was not a matter which was left to the Military Authorities. The Quartermaster General had to make the arrangements with the Civil Authorities. He did not think it would be desirable to draw such distinctions as the hon. Member desired between Catholics and Protestants. He would, however, make inquiries into the matter, and see whether it was

    1915
    desirable to make any different arrangement.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, he was obliged to the noble Marquess for his reply. He had not intended to raise the question of billeting upon that Vote; but after the attention which had been directed to certain proceedings in the North of Ireland by his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) he thought that he was in Order in calling attention to this matter. In regard to drawing a distinction between Catholic and Protestant, he had no desire, personally, to do so; and he would point out to the noble Marquess that it was neither himself nor any other Member of the House who had drawn the distinction, but the soldiers themselves, who went about crying out "To Hell with the Pope."
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he could assure the noble Marquess that this question of billeting was one which gave rise to very general complaint. He had himself heard complaints of the same kind from the county of Cavan.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member had better defer any remarks upon the question of billeting until the Vote to which that subject relates is reached. I should have stopped the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. William Redmond), if I had not thought that he was going to connect his observations with the proceedings at Downpatrick. There is a Vote to be taken later on upon which this question can be more conveniently and. appropriately raised.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he had only wished to corroborate the statement made by his hon. Friend. As to the administration of Military Law, he agreed with the remarks which had been made by his hon. Friends. At Mallow, on a recent occasion, a military officer, who had been in charge of certain troops there, was allowed to give evidence in favour of Mr. Carr, an Inspector of Police, when, in point of fact, the military officer in question was himself open to the same charge as Inspector Carr. He thought that such a proceeding was highly irregular, and that it ought to have been avoided. In regard to the question which had been raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayrshire (General Alexander), as to the Office of Judge Advocate General, he had
    1916
    listened with great attention to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Osborne Morgan) in defence of that Office; and he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been placed in an unfortunate and somewhat unfair position in being required to defend the Office at all. He thought that some of his Colleagues upon the Treasury Bench ought to have defended the Office for him, and that it was not reasonable to ask a Gentleman whose Office was attacked to defend himself. Some of the permanent officials of the Office could have supplied notes to the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, or some other military official, so that the personal question might not have been allowed to intervene. He thought if the right hon. and learned Gentleman was right in his contention, he had really proved too much, because the personal experience of hon. Members was that they saw the Judge Advocate General about the House from 4 o'clock every afternoon until 1 or 2 in the morning; and it was perfectly impossible, if he had serious duties to perform in connection with a judicial Office, that those duties could be properly discharged. His own opinion was that there were too many polical officials in the House. It was notorious that all the work of the Public Offices was done by the permanent officials. At the present moment, there were four military Representatives in the House, which he (Mr. Biggar) thought, at least, two too many. The War Office ought to be satisfied with two Parliamentary Representatives, who should be able to defend the action of those permanent officials, who, from many points of view, were much preferable to political Representatives in the House of Commons. If a lawyer were permanently employed in the War Office to supervise the legal part of the business, he would, as a matter of course, be a thoroughly competent and efficient official, well versed in all matters connected with Military Law, and his services would be of value to the country. But if they were to have a Judge Advocate General, who was to be a political supporter of the Government, occupying the greater part of his time in the House, and selected, not because he was efficient in Military Law, but because he was a more or less import-

    1917
    ant political Member of Parliament, it seemed to him that such a Minister had all his business to learn after he went into the Office, and that he was by no means as well qualified to discharge the duties as a permanent official would be. Upon this matter the distinction between the Army and the Navy was very great, although the difference between the nature of the cases that were dealt with in the two branches of the Service was purely of a technical character. The hon. and gallant Member (General Alexander) had complained of the decisions that were sometimes given in Admiralty cases; but he (Mr. Biggar) believed that the decisions given by the Admiralty were much more satisfactory to the sailors than the decisions given in the Army were to the soldiers. His own opinion was that these matters were much better managed in the Navy than in the Army. Whatever might be said as to the importance of the Office of Judge Advocate General, the fact still remained that the country paid a substantial salary to a political Gentleman, who spent three-fourths of his time, not in the performance of the duties of his Office, but in waiting in the House of Commons to give a Party vote. The official duties discharged by the Judge Advocate General in the House of Commons consisted in his attendance for a few hours while the Army Votes were being passed, and while the Army (Annual) Bill was under consideration. He did not think that that was a business-like way of managing any Office connected with a great Public Department, and the sooner the whole matter was revised the better and the more easily would the work be done. Any difficult question arising out of the business of the Office would be much better attended to by a permanent official at the War Office than by a political Representative in the House of Commons, who was usually supplied with written answers to the Questions put to him by permanent officials connected with his Department.
    GENERAL ALEXANDERsaid, that in withdrawing the Motion he wished only to say one word. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Osborne Morgan) had misunderstood what he had said. What he had said was that the discussion had given the right hon. and learned Gentleman an opportunity,
    1918
    not of magnifying the Office, but of justifying its retention.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (3.) £320,500, Medical Establishment and Services.
    DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, he must be allowed to express an opinion that the Medical Officers were thoroughly satisfied with the way in which the Department was worked. Dr. Crawford, the Director General, was one of the most able officers who had ever presided over it. He merely wished to point out very shortly one matter in connection with Army medical practice in Egypt and elsewhere upon which it was desirable to have an explanation. He wanted to know what was the precise connection which existed between the National Aid Society and the Army Medical Department? He did not wish to make any suggestion in derogation of the excellent work done by the Society; but he thought some of the misconception which had sprung up might be removed by an explanation as to the precise relations between the National Aid Society and the Army Medical Department. What he wanted to know was, who, in the case of a campaign like that in Egypt, was primarily responsible for the care of the sick and wounded? There was a danger that the idea might get abroad that the soldiers there were starved, and that it was necessary to supply them with necessaries and luxuries by outside aid. He thought that was a total misconception, and that not only were necessaries, but even superfluities, supplied to soldiers in the camp, in the field, and in the hospital. All their wants were carefully and liberally attended to; and what the National Aid Society did was to step in and supplement, by means of their organization, the operations of the actual Medical Departments in the field. All he wished to know was what the precise connection was that existed between the two Departments, and if one was altogether independent of the other?
    LORD EUSTACE CECILasked what provision was made for Militia surgeons in connection with Militia regiments when embodied? Were surgeons found from the Staff of the Army, or had the regiments to depend upon the assistance given by their own officers? It was

    1919
    rather an important question, and he hoped to receive a reply to it. He would like to have an explanation as to the reduction of £6,000 in the item relating to these officers.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, he had received several letters from Militia surgeons, complaining of their grievances. At present they were not entitled to pensions, no matter what the attendance was which they gave in the discharge of their duties in connection with the Militia regiments. Now, it was a well-known fact that Militia surgeons had to give up many opportunities for private practice; and he thought it was extremely hard that those gentlemen, after lengthened periods of service, received nothing at all in the shape of pension or other compensation for the time they had devoted to the requirements of their regiments. He knew that Militia surgeons, in some parts of Ireland especially, had very severe duties to perform—that they had to do their work with very great inconvenience to themselves, and that they had to forego all chance of receiving pensions—
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERrose to Order. The hon. Member, he thought, would be more in Order if he brought forward the question of pensions on the Pension Vote.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, if the hon. Gentleman had heard him to the end of his sentence, he would have found that he was leading up to the point. These Militia surgeons did not receive any pension; no matter how long they served, they should receive a little more pay, and be entitled to a pension. In case he received a reply from the hon. Gentleman that there was no provision made for them, his intention was to produce facts, and move an additional sum for the purpose. If the hon. Gentleman would tell the Committee now whether there was any intention of meeting the grievance of Militia surgeons—because there were many of them who had that grievance and he knew of half-a-dozen cases in his own county—if the hon. Gentleman would say how the matter stood, there might be no necessity for moving an increase of the Vote.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must point out that it was not within the competence of hon. Members to make Motions for additions to Votes; and he doubted whether it would be in Order
    1920
    for the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the War Department to reply upon the question of pensions, because they were provided for in a subsequent Vote.
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, the National Aid Society was doing very good work in Egypt. With regard to the first question of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson), he had no hesitation in saying that the Army Medical Department was not only primarily, but entirely responsible for the care of the sick and wounded. In saying that, he wished to add that they all recognized the generous and charitable aid rendered by the Society in the form of medical comforts and clothing for the men; and further that this was not regarded as in any way relieving the Army Medical Department of responsibility. Then the hon. Member asked him whether there would be any clashing between the authority of the Army Medical Department and that of the Charitable Aid Society—that was to say, whether the Society would be responsible to the Army Medical Department? He had the authority of the Director General to say that the officers who, at the instance of the National Aid Society, went to Egypt, had received instructions in all cases to defer to the authority of the Army Medical Officer on the spot; he need hardly point out that the officers of the Society would not be allowed in the camp at all, unless they recognized the supremacy of the Military Authorities there. Therefore, in case of any question arising between the doctors of the two Services, there would be a reference to the Military Officer in command. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Eustace Cecil) had asked him for an explanation with regard to the foot note at the bottom of page 4, relating to a decrease of £6,000 in the amount paid for Medical Officers of Militia. The decrease of £6,000 for those officers was accounted for by the fact that there had been no new appointments of surgeons to the Militia since the establishment of the Medical Department in 1877. In case a Militia regiment was sent away from its headquarters, a Medical Officer would be appointed to it by the Department.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked if the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to reply on the general question

    1921
    he had raised? If he would do so, it would obviate the necessity of bringing forward the question on another Vote.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, before the hon. Baronet answered that question, he would like to point out that the item for the pay of Militia Surgeons was only for £10,000, as against £16,000 in last year's Estimate, and £20,000 in the year before. This continuous diminution of the amount of the Vote from £20,000 to £10,000 for the present year, was very remarkable. They were only asked for one-third of what was voted the year before last, and as such an alteration suggested an entire change of the system which had until recently existed with regard to Militia Surgeons, he asked the hon Baronet whether it was proposed to abolish those officers altogether and get their work done by other persons, or whether the extraordinary diminution of the amount of the Vote was merely accidental? As the matter appeared on the face of the Estimates, it was impossible for the Committee without further information to avoid the conclusion that it was the intention of the War Office Authorities to get rid of Militia Surgeons. Then with regard to the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. W. Redmond) as to the position of Militia Surgeons, he considered that subject to be very pertinent to the present Vote; and he asked the hon. Baronet if he would explain fully the present system, and indicate such alterations as the War Office Authorities might chose to make in it?
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, he had already answered the question of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), as to whether the diminution in the item for pay of Militia Surgeons was accidental, to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Eustace Cecil). It was the intention of the War Office that the Militia Surgeons should cease to be appointed. They would be replaced, as he had stated before, by Regimental Surgeons, who took charge of the Militia when they were at the depots. The decrease was not only in the number of Militia Surgeons, but also in the number of Civilian practitioners, all of whom were superseded by the officers of the Army Medical Department. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. W. Red-
    1922
    mond) when the Pensions Vote came forward, he should be in a position to reply.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, as one who took a great interest in the Medical. Department, and particularly with regard to the efficiency of subordinates, he wished to know how many lady nurses, who added so much to the efficiency of the Medical Service in the Army, had been appointed in order to carry out the recommendation of Lord Morley's Committee? He would also be glad to know the number employed in India? Having several times called attention to this on the Army Estimates, when the hon. Member in charge had not been able to give the number, he trusted that the hon. Baronet would now be in a position to take notice of his observations on the subject.
    MR. LEAHYsaid, it was stated that small-pox was present at Manchester, and it would therefore be apparent to the Committee that the removal of troops from that city to the Curragh Camp involved some danger. He asked the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, whether he had seen a communication from a Board of Guardians remonstrating against the removal of troops from Manchester to the Curragh Camp under the circumstances? He said it would be a serious thing if troops were sent there from a place whore there was infection.
    MR. BRANDpointed out that this sub-head of the Vote under discussion only provided for medicine and medical comforts for the sick.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he had no information on the subject alluded to by the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Leahy). No doubt, if it were known to the Military Authorities that small-pox was present at Manchester, in a manner likely to affect the health of the troops, it would be mentioned to the Quartermaster General, and the removal would probably not take place.
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, in reply to the first question of the hon. and gallant General (Sir George Balfour), £3,000 had been added to provide 40 additional lady nurses in order to carry out the recommendation of Lord Morley's Committee. He did not think that any charge in respect of the other

    1923
    matter referred to by the hon. and gallant General could appear on the Estimates.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, the charge used to appear on the Estimates.
    Vote agreed to.
    (4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £526,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Pay and Allowances of a Force of Militia, not exceeding 136,175, including 30,000 Militia Reserve, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886."
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, upon this important Vote he should like to ask the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, what steps had been taken, or what steps were being taken, to fill up the Militia? On looking through the Returns, he found that the number of officers proper for the Militia was 3,754; at the last training, however, there were only 2,484 officers out, the deficiency in respect of absentees being 1,270. He also found that of non-commissioned officers and men the number voted was 132,421, while the number actually out was 95,794. Now, having regard to the aspect of affairs all over the world at the present time, and looking to the Vote of Credit which had been given to the Government, he should be particularly glad to know what steps Her Majesty's Government were going to take, or had taken, to make the Militia as efficient a Force as it ought to be? He thought that no one would deny the great advantage to the country of the Militia. Nor would anyone deny the great services they had rendered in times past, and for his own part he was quite certain that those services would be repeated on future occasions. But he was bound to say that, with all the other Services, the Militia had been badly treated, and he believed that that bad treatment had led to the present state of affairs. Whatever it might cost to put the Militia into a state of efficiency, he held that no expenditure would be too great to put the Militia as well as all the Reserve Forces into an efficient condition, particularly at the present moment. He did not wish to labour this point, because these were plain
    1924
    facts, and he believed that the noble Marquess would see for himself that the state of things which now existed ought not to be allowed to continue, and that he should do everything in his power to raise the Militia from its present condition. With the permission of the Committee, he would refer for one moment to an Order which he saw by The Times of that morning had been issued with respect to Militia officers. The Order stated that Militia officers were accepted to serve now in the Line, and that they were to be appointed to regiments, and to fill the vacancies now existing in the Line regiments. He was particularly desirous of ascertaining from the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War what would be the status of the Militia officers in the regiments to which they were to be appointed. Was it proposed that they were to join the Line regiments temporarily only, or that they were to be permanently appointed if their services were found to be efficient? He thought the question was one which deserved serious consideration at the hands of the noble Marquess. If they were to be permanently appointed in the way he described, which he could hardly believe, he thought the noble Marquess might go a step further. There were many men which had passed an excellent examination, although, unfortunately for them, they were not amongst those who obtained the highest number of marks, and had been passed by. Now, he thought that there should be some recognition of the trouble and expense those gentlemen had incurred; it should certainly be taken into account, and he thought they might also have some chance of getting appointments at the present time. Another point that he wished to mention in connection with the Militia was the case of a very small number of Militia quartermasters. He referred to those quartermasters who had been promoted from the Line, and who had served 21 years, and had risen to be sergeant majors or to some other high grade of non-commissioned officers. There were but few of those men—they were 16 in number—who would think they would be badly treated if something were not done for them. They were men, who having served 21 years as sergeant majors or quartermaster sergeants, drew their pensions, or be-

    1925
    came entitled to them, took the appointment of quartermaster under the Royal Warrant of 1878, thereby forfeiting the pensions they had earned for their services in the ranks. Those officers were compulsorily retired at the age of 55, so that if they arrived at that age before they completed 10 years' commissioned service they were obliged to take a retiring pension of 7s. a-day, and were debarred from counting the rank service or drawing the pension they had earned. For those 16 men a special case should be made, so that if they attained the age of 55 before they completed 10 years' service as quartermaster, they should be allowed to remain on their appointment, so as to complete the full 10 years, and then retire on the maximum pension of £200 a-year and honorary rank. He would say no more upon the subject than that he considered it was a case deserving of serious consideration at the hands of the noble Marquess, because the persons in question were men of the highest character and with the best testimonials, several of them having seen Crimean and Indian Mutiny service as well. He knew very well promotion was wanted for men of the Line regiments; surely then they ought to take into consideration these old soldiers who had done their duty so well to their country.
    LORD EUSTACE CECILbegged to endorse what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Baronet. He (Lord Eustace Cecil) had several times put a question to the noble Marquess on the subject, and he had understood from him that he was going to make an explanation on this Vote, and tell the Committee what steps he proposed to take to increase the men up to the establishment, which was 24,000 below the number voted by Parliament, and also, what was still more important, that he would tell them something about the subject his hon. and gallant Friend had touched upon—namely, the number of officers, which was still below what it ought to be. But there was another point. He was sure the Committee and the country would be of opinion that the Militia, the old Constitutional Force of the country, should be in a state of the highest efficiency; but he was bound to confess, from what he had seen in the papers and had heard from some commanding officers, that the state of the
    1926
    equipment of the men was far from what it should be. He had been told by the commanding officer of one of the Bedfordshire regiments, that most of the belts were rotten, the knapsacks were worn out, and that they had no pouches or water bottles. All these matters should be attended to. The Government had an opportunity now which did not fall to every Government. They were going to get a large amount of money in the shape of a Vote of Credit, and that would afford a good opportunity for putting the Militia into a thoroughly efficient condition. The complaints which were made with regard to this Force were most time honoured; they had been made time after time, year after year. He (Lord Eustace Cecil) had sat in this House a great many years, and he declared that every time the Army Estimates had been discussed the same complaints had been made. That was the case, notwithstanding that the Militia was the Force which ought to receive the very first attention, for the reason that before the Regular Army was thought of, the Militia, or what served for a Militia in old times, was the Force that the country had to depend upon in case of an invasion. That subject spoke for itself, and, therefore, there was no reason for him to enlarge upon it. If the noble Marquess would be good enough, in the explanation he was about to give them on this Vote, to tell them what conditions he was going to offer, and what he proposed to do to fill up the ranks of both the men and the officers, now that he had armed the Militia with the Martini-Henry rifle, to put the Force in an efficient state to take the field if necessary, he should be glad, and he was sure such a statement would be received by both the Committee and the country with satisfaction.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) made some observations as to the number of Militia officers; other attention was also called to this subject, and I am very glad that it has been raised, because it gives me an opportunity of stating what are the facilities and what steps we are taking to enable Militia officers to obtain commissions in the Line. That opportunity is, I believe, one of the greatest inducements

    1927
    to young men to enter the Militia. I gave an answer on this subject on the 28th February; and since that time there has been a considerable increase in the number of Militia officers. On the 2nd May, the actual increase in the number of Militia officers was 88, besides 32 who had obtained commissions in the Line at that time; so that the actual increase in the number of Militia officers who had entered the Line was 120. The number of vacant commissions on the 28th February in the Militia was 797, and now it is only 685. That, I think, is satisfactory, and shows the efficiency of the men, and also that the inducements to join the Militia are now better understood, and that there is a better prospect, without violent measures, of the commissions in the Militia being filled up. The hon. and gallant Member also asked me about a Circular, which I have seen, as to the service of Militia officers being accepted for duty in the Line battalions. Of course, that was owing to a mere displacement during a period of pressure—to the great and unusual call upon the services of commissioned officers. Militia officers so joining would, of course, serve in the rank which they now hold; but the hon. and gallant Member will observe that no officer would obtain permanent promotion except through the ordinary channels, and that he would have to enter as lieutenant. Well, the hon. and gallant Member also referred to certain old Militia quartermasters. He cannot expect me to follow the technical grievance he expressed to the Committee, and I must confess I am not prepared to enter into details upon this matter. I have some recollection, however, that the case has been repeatedly brought forward—I think it has been repeatedly brought forward by memorial and representation to more than one Secretary of State for War, and that it has been referred to more than once in this Committee—and though I cannot refuse to look into the matter again, I must tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I think the case of these officers has been minutely inquired into, and that I cannot hold out any hope of arriving at any other conclusion, substantial justice having been done to them. The noble Lord the Member for West Essex (Lord Eustace Cecil) said he expected I would make some
    1928
    statement on the subject of the Militia. I am not aware that I held out any prospect that I would make a statement on this subject. I have informed the Committee of what has been done as to the officers of the Militia, and as to the special measures taken for increasing the numbers under the establishment. I am not aware that it is in our power to take any special measures, except to impress upon officers commanding districts to do everything in their power to obtain Militia recruits—to impress upon the officers to make the Service as popular as it can be made. The noble Lord speaks of the deficiencies in the ranks of the Militia as of something about which complaint has to be made.
    LORD EUSTACE CECIL: What I said was that I had heard it mentioned year after year.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The noble Lord is aware that, under the present arrangements, the establishment of many Militia regiments are larger than the districts are able to supply. However, with all the means now at work, and which cannot be said to be in complete order yet—with these means, when they have been thoroughly tested and tried, it will be found unnecessary and inadvisable to make any alteration in the establishment. I think I cannot do more than assure the Committee that the importance of this Force is fully appreciated by the Military Authorities, and that every effort is being made to raise the Militia and keep them up to a proper state of efficiency.
    LORD EUSTACE CECIL: The noble Marquess has not referred to the equipments of the Militia, with regard to which I made some observations.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I hope on that point the noble Lord will address his observations to the Surveyor General of Ordnance.
    COLONEL GUNTERsaid, that after the remarks of the noble Marquess and his expression of a desire to put the Militia into as good a position as possible, he (Colonel Gunter) would venture to put before him a matter which he thought it important to consider at this time. The point he wished to raise was as to the Army Reserve. Army Reserve men as a rule, enlisted at the age of 18, and left the Army at 30. When they had done their service in the Line and Army

    1929
    Reserve they were dismissed altogether. Would it not be well to adopt some plan whereby those men could be brought into the Militia, where their presence would be of the greatest value? They would be of the greatest service in forming a nucleus of steady soldiers, and adding stability to the Militia regiments. Such an arrangement would be extremely valuable for this reason—and he spoke upon this point with considerable knowledge —that when a Militia regiment was called on for its Reserve men, as it was in the case of the last Russian scare, it took the best men away, at any rate the best non-commissioned officers. In most Militia regiments the commanding officers made it a point of giving their best men the option of belonging to the Militia Reserve. If they did not do so, non-commissioned officers would give up their stripes and return to the ranks rather than lose the extra bounty given to them for being in the Reserve. Sometimes the fourth of a regiment belonged to the Militia Reserve, and when that fourth was taken away the commanding officers were deprived of their oldest and ablest and best men, and most of the ablest non-commissioned officers. If the noble Marquess could see his way to induce the men of 30 years of age, when they had done with the Army Reserve, to join the Militia, by giving them a larger bounty—say, an annual extra bounty of £1 a-year—when the Militia Reserve was called out the effect would be that, instead of the Line regiments denuding the Militia of all its best men, there would be in the Militia a largo number of men who had served in the ranks of the Regular Army to give stability and steadiness to the regiments. The men in the Militia Reserve were not expected to remain there after the age of 34 years; but then, on joining the Line regiment, they could be sent to any part of the world. On the other hand, if they could get back into the Militia Reserve, by a trifling increase of bounty, Linesmen who had done their service in the Line, they would be forming an excellent nucleus of steady soldiers. He ventured to bring this matter before the noble Marquess, because the last time the Militia Reserve was called out the best of his men and the best of his noncommissioned officers were taken away from him; and if his regiment had
    1930
    been called out and sent to the Mediterranean, he should have been unable satisfactorily to fill the places of those men. There was no means of getting at these men otherwise than by re-enlistment. He would ask the noble Marquess whether he could not see his way to increasing the bounty? Supposing £2 were given when the men came in, and an extra £1 a-year bounty whilst they served, avaluable class of men would be got into the Militia. At the present moment these men were thrown away, for after they had served about 12 years in the Line, notwithstanding they had become excellent and good soldiers, they ceased to have connection with the Army. He ventured to bring this matter under the notice of the War Office, because he believed it was a subject capable of being dealt with to the great advantage of the Army and to the country generally. There was another point upon which he ventured to touch. The noble Marquess had said he was anxious for the efficiency of the Militia, and he (Colonel Gunter) would therefore recommend that when the men came up on their enlistment, and for training in the barracks, they should be put under their own officers. At the present moment they were put with the soldiers of the Line. He knew very well the object of the arrangement at present adopted; it was to get the men who came into the Militia to go into the Line. That object was a good one, and he did not object to it; but what he asked was that the men, when they came up, should be put under their own adjutant, and in their own barrack-rooms. He wished to bring these matters under the notice of the noble Marquess, because probably they had not struck him before. He wished to recommend the plan, by which they could induce the Army Reserve men to serve in the Militia up to 45 years of age. If they could do that, they would be bestowing a great boon upon the country. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), he thought, had said he was very anxious to do everything he could for the good of the Service—everything in reason. Well, if he could venture to put it before the Government in a very humble way, he would suggest a means by which they could add greatly to the satisfaction of the men. They enlisted men, and told thorn they were to have free

    1931
    rations. Well, "free rations" was known in this country now—it used not to be in the olden time—to consist of three meals—namely, breakfast, dinner, and tea. Now, a man could not have breakfast and could not have tea unless coffee and sugar or tea was supplied to him. He (Colonel Gunter) had gone into this question, and he found that if they wanted to carry out the wording of the enactment which provided for "free rations," they must not make the charge at present imposed on the men of ½d. a-day, but should find them breakfast, dinner, and tea without any charge. It was impossible to say that a man had "free rations," when he had to put his hand into his pocket and pay for any of these things out of his own money. It would be a source of great satisfaction to the men, if they found their breakfast, dinner, and tea supplied to them, instead of having to put their hands in their pockets to pay this ½d. It might be said that ½d. was a very small amount; still, it was a consideration with the men, and it was only right that the Government should carry out the undertaking it entered into when the men enlisted, and give them free rations. He brought these matters before the War Office because he thought it was his duty to do so.
    GENERAL ALEXANDERsaid, that a few years ago the scheme of compulsory retirement on account of age was fixed for officers commanding Militia regiments, and it was found afterwards that the compulsory retirement was not applicable to officers commanding regiments of the Channel Islands Militia. He thought the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War had said he had no power whatever over this Militia, and that he had nothing whatever to do with the Channel Islands Forces, and that the ages of the commanding officers were not known. In order to test the case, he (General Alexander) had asked the noble Marquess to give him a Return of the ages of the officers commanding the Channel Islands Militia. That Return had been supplied, and he (General Alexander) now held it in his hand. He found that out of nine officers commanding regiments in the Channel Islands, three, if they had been commanding in England or Scotland, would have been disqualified by age; one of them was actually 77 years old.
    1932
    Surely that was too great an age for any officer commanding a regiment. He thought himself that the Secretary of State for War had gone too far in fixing compulsory retirement on account of age where it had been fixed in the case of the British and Irish Militia, because in that way they lost a great many officers who were still in the prime of life, and great difficulty was felt in filling their places. But he thought that whatever rule was applicable to the British Militia and the Irish Militia, it ought certainly to be applicable to the Channel Islands Militia. The object of the rule which had been adopted in the case of Great Britain and Ireland was, no doubt, to increase the efficiency of the Militia. He did not know whether or not that result was attained; and, therefore, to give an opportunity to the noble Marquess to reply to the question, and, if necessary, to raise a discussion upon the matter, he begged, as a matter of form, to move to reduce the Vote by £7,000, being the amount put down for the Channel Islands Militia.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £519,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Pay and Allowances of a Force of Militia, not exceeding 136,175, including 30,000 Militia Reserve, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886."—(General Alexander.)
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, that in reply to the hon. and gallant Member (General Alexander), all he had to say was that the Secretary of State for War had nothing to do with this matter. It was not in the power of the Secretary of State for War to fix the limit of age of commanding officers in the Channel Islands Militia. Service in that Force was compulsory, and the age of retirement for commanding officers, and everything else connected with the Force, was regulated by the laws of the Islands, and could not be altered by the Secretary of State for War.
    GENERAL ALEXANDERsaid, that nothing to that effect was stated last year, and the Return which he had moved for had been granted. However, he did not wish to press the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that with regard to the point

    1933
    raised by the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Gunter), the hon. and gallant Member would see that the subject had been brought forward in the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting this year. The Inspector General, in the figures he presented, showed that the number of men who had served 12 years in the Army, and had gone to the Reserves, had increased since 1883 from 893 to 1,652. He showed that the number of men whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite thought it desirable to obtain for the Militia, was increasing. The Inspector General had suggested that more liberal terms should be offered them.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £72,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Yeomanry Cavalry Pay and Allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886."
    MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, he wished to draw attention to a small grievance, which he thought was of some importance in connection with this Vote; it was a small one, but it militated against the whole Force. It had reference to a Regulation of 1862. He would refer the noble Marquess to page 66 of the Regulations, to the subject of grants for compensation, and it would be seen that a yeoman was entitled to compensation if his horse was killed in the field during drill. If, however, in attending troop drill, or permanent duty, his horse happened to meet with an accident on his way to or from the field, he was entitled to no compensation. He would like to quote a case in which some hardship had been inflicted on an unfortunate farmer in consequence of this Regulation. There was a trooper belonging to a Yeomanry regiment in Lancashire going to drill in the town of Rochdale—either going to it, or coming from it, he did not know which. That trooper happened, unfortunately, to meet with a detachment of the Salvation Army with its drums, trumpets, and tambourines. The consequence was that his horse, which was perfectly accustomed to military operations, not being accustomed to the operations of the Salvation Army, reared
    1934
    up and fell over, breaking its back. It was killed in the streets of Rochdale. A claim was made on the War Office for the small grant of £20—-an amount which, of course, did not by any means cover the value of the horse. There had been a great deal of correspondence on the subject, and the claim had eventually been refused, in consequence of the Regulation to which he had referred. Well, he ventured to think that the Regulations pressed very hardly on the yeomen. He could quote another case which was brought under his notice in connection with a regiment of Yeomanry with which he had been for some time connected, and in which he himself had served. In this case, a horse was attacked with pneumonia during permanent duty, and died a day or two after. No compensation was given by the Government, and in the result compensation had to come out of the troop officer's pocket. He had to pay £20, or whatever the sum was, the value of the horse, otherwise it would have been impossible for him to have kept his troop together. It might be said that the alteration of these Regulations might lead to abuse; but he believed it would be very easy to adopt safeguards to prevent the Regulations being abused, and to provide only for accidents to horses going to or coming from the field, as well as those engaged in field operations. Claims of this kind should be certified by the commanding officer or adjutant, or, if necessary, by the General Officer commanding the district. This was a small grievance, but it was one of the small grievances which conduced to the inefficiency rather than the efficiency of the Force. He commended it to the consideration of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington).
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, that he had almost allowed the Chairman to put the Question before rising, because he was waiting for the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Berkshire (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay) to rise. He fully expected the hon. and gallant Gentleman to express some opinion upon this Vote. He believed he was correct in saying that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who was an acknowledged authority upon questions of this kind, was not prepared to justify the present administration of this Vote, and he should have been very glad indeed if the hon.

    1935
    and gallant Gentleman had given the Committee the benefit — he hoped he would still give them the benefit—of his experience. He (Mr. Rylands) recollected perfectly well that for a great many years past this Vote had been received with a considerable amount of objection and criticism on the part of hon. Members. He recollected reading, before he was a Member of the House, the admirable speeches of the late Mr. Henry Berkeley, in which that gentleman ridiculed the various branches of the Yeomanry Service in different parts of the Kingdom, and in which he showed the Committee that the Yeomanry was an altogether absurd and inefficient Force. Of course, he (Mr. Rylands) could not speak with the authority of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay); but he could say that, in regard to the corps with which he was personally acquainted, and of which, in his early years, he was in the habit of seeing something—he meant the Cheshire Yeomanry, or, as they were popularly called, the "Cheshire Cabbage Cutters"— there was a general impression that that corps would not prove very efficient unless it was in cutting down cabbages. His objection to the Yeomanry Force was that it was altogether a sham Force. If there was any necessity to make any demand upon the Reserve Forces of the country, the Yeomanry Force would be found absolutely useless for fighting purposes. He did not doubt for a moment that some of the yeomen with their horses could limber up waggons, and do work of that kind; but that could be done without keeping up an establishment of this kind. If ever they were, unfortunately, in a position to require assistance in the Commissariat Department, there would be no difficulty whatever in getting the number of waggons and horses wanted. Military men, and, in fact, the Inspecting Officer of Yeomany himself, were distinctly of opinion that the Yeomanry in its present state was an unsatisfactory and inefficient Force. It did seem to him (Mr. Rylands), that at a time when they were called upon to pay large sums of money for the Military Services of the Crown, it was most ill-advised that they should persist in voting, year after year, a sum of £60,000 or £70,000 for a Force which was condemned by the very
    1936
    highest authorities. He did not grudge the Vote which was given to the Volunteers; he thought that, probably, in some respects that Vote might with propriety be increased. The Volunteers formed a Force of the most valuable description, and the money given to them was money well laid out. Not so with the Yeomanry; they were not worth the money the country spent upon them, and therefore he should certainly say "No" when the Vote was put.
    COLONEL O'BEIRNEsaid, that this Vote did not concern Ireland either directly or indirectly; indeed, it was very unjust that Ireland should have to pay even the smallest fraction of this Vote, or of any Vote for Volunteers, when it was not allowed to have Volunteer corps. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) that £70,000 was a most extravagant sum to give to a Force like the Yeomany, which did not even supply recruits to the Regular Cavalry. The country ought not to be called upon to supply the money, especially when they were required to meet large bills for military operations in all parts of the world, which up to this had not been very successful.
    SIR FREDERICK FITZ-WYGRAMsaid, the Reports of late years with regard to the Yeomanry regiments had been very favourable. There were, as the Committee were aware, two Inspecting Generals of Auxiliary Forces. All the Reports of these officers passed through his hands during his late period of office, and he found that the Reports made with regard to the Yeomanry were to the effect that that Force of late years had improved, and that they were still improving. That improvement was due to the establishment of a School for Auxiliary Cavalry at Aldershot; and up to 1882 that School was a great success. The Commandant-ship of the School was, up to that year, a five years' appointment. In 1882, for certain reasons, he believed connected with economy, it was decided to make it an annual appointment, and to give £100 to a captain who would take the place for a year. It was impossible that the School could be a success when the Commandant was changed every year. He believed that the appointment of a Commandant for five years was absolutely necessary for the success of the

    1937
    School. As a matter of fact, of late the Commandantship had been changed even more than once every year; he believed there had been three changes in the office during the last 12 months. A Yeomanry School was required as much, if not more, for non-commissioned officers as for commissioned officers, and for the very reason that of late years Cavalry had been largely engaged in scouting and reconnoissance duties; indeed, latterly, such duties had become almost the primary duties of Cavalry. Now, the Yeomanry sergeants were, for the most part, men who had been in the Cavalry for years, men who belonged to the Cavalry before the days when the new duties were much considered or taught. He, therefore, believed it was of the utmost necessity that a School should be open, say, six months in each year, for Yeomanry sergeants. For three months of the year, the School, under the same Commandant, could be open to officers. Now, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had attacked the use of the Yeomanry. He (Sir Frederick Fitz-Wygram) had seen a good deal of the Yeomanry and of the Cavalry too, and his own impression was that the Yeomanry formed a very useful portion of the Auxiliary Forces; and he believed from what he saw of them that, in the intelligence and zeal which they brought to bear on their duties, they would compare very favourably with any of the Volunteers of the country. He believed that if the necessities of the Empire required the employment abroad of a large portion of the Cavalry, the Yeomanry would be found very useful. Nearly all of them were men who could ride, men who knew how to get about, men very well suited for outpost and scouting duties, and he believed they formed as valuable a portion, if not the most valuable, as any of the Auxiliary Forces. He hoped this Vote would be given willingly, and that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War the Marquess of Hartington) would see that the School for Auxiliary Cavalry, which was absolutely necessary for the efficiency of the Yeomanry, should be placed on a proper footing, with a Commandant appointed for at least five years. He never wished to throw any burdens on the Estimates. If it was necessary that the Estimates should be kept down, he would suggest that one or two of the smaller and least efficient corps should
    1938
    be disbanded, so that they would be able to have all that was requisite for the efficiency of the Force. He felt that a smaller number of Yeomanry thoroughly drilled and taught, both with regard to officers and non-commissioned officers, would be far more useful than a slightly larger but less efficient body. He would willingly assent to a reduction of strength, in order to make the remainder as efficient as they could be made.
    MR. DIGBYsaid, he could not approach the experience of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Frederick Fitz-Wygram) who had just addressed the Committee; but he thought it would not be out of place if he, as a humble member of the Yeomanry, said a word or two in favour of that body. The Yeomanry had before now proved its usefulness, and he submitted that it was fully entitled to the small amount of money which the country allowed it. It had been said that it was not an efficient Force. Now, while a man in the Regular Cavalry regiments cost eight times what an Infantry man cost, a Yeoman cost only four times what a Volunteer cost. In the Yeomanry, therefore, the country obtained the services of a man and his horse for only four times the amount which a Volunteer cost the country, and, therefore, in proportion, the Yeomanry were only half as expensive to the country, per man, as the Cavalry were. It was quite news to him to hear the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) say that the Yeomanry were expected to do Commissariat work. He did think that farmers could be very usefully employed in their own counties as scouts, as eyes to the Army, if the Navy proved inefficient. It ought to be remembered that, at the present time, there were Yeomanry officers doing duty in the Regular Cavalry regiments.
    SIR ROBERT LOYD LINDSAYsaid, he must confess that there was nothing more invidious than for any hon. Member of the House to point out the shortcomings, or what any Member might suppose to be shortcomings, of any Force, and therefore far be it from him to say anything against the individuals who composed that old and much respected Constitutional Force, the Yeomanry. But, as his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had somewhat challenged him in a pointed way, he

    1939
    felt he could not do otherwise than express the opinions he held with regard to the Yeomanry Force. Now, he was of opinion that in England they might have the very finest Irregular Cavalry in the word. Englishmen were devoted to horsemanship, and they were shown to excel in rifle shooting, and it was this latter consideration which kept the Volunteers together. Rifle shooting and horsemanship might be said to be the genius of the English people, and the two combined were what, in his judgment, would make the finest Irregular Cavalry in the world, if, by any piece of good fortune, they could persuade their friends, the Yeomanry, to turn their attention to that mode of military training. Those hon. Members who could go back as long as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Rylands) and others, would remember that Mr. Cardwell deliberately stated in the House of Commons that it was intended to train in future the Yeomanry as mounted riflemen. From time to time, the desirability of doing what Mr. Cardwell wished to do had been shown in the House; Committees had sat to consider the question, and they had almost invariably recommended it should be done; but the Yeomanry had presented the most determined opposition to being trained in that way. He was not altogether astonished at that opposition, because the men who taught the Yeomanry their work were, in the first place, old men; they were captains or adjutants of Cavalry regiments, or old Dragoon sergeants, who had been trained under the old conditions of Cavalry services—tight trousers and spurs, entirely unsuited for the purposes of mounted rifles. They would rather perish than take up the teaching of rifle shooting. Their thoughts were bent in the one direction; and it was impossible to get these old Cavalry sergeants to take up Infantry duties which many of them regarded as less noble than Cavalry duties. It was vain, therefore, to hope that the Yeomanry could ever be turned into anything like efficient mounted riflemen. Some of the Yeomanry officers themselves — he might mention one, Colonel Edwards — were particularly anxious that the change should be made. Colonel Edwards gave evidence before a Committee of the House, and he had delivered lectures on the subject
    1940
    at the United Service Institution. General Hamley, writing on the subject, said he was only delighted to find it was recommended that the Yeomanry should be trained as mounted riflemen; he was pleased the recommendation came from the Yeomanry themselves, and he hoped that was a good augury that something would be done in that direction. But year after year had gone by, so it was evident that the change was not to be made. If, therefore, the Yeomanry were to be maintained, they must be used to the sword and not to the rifle. He was sorry that so many county gentlemen went into the Yeomanry, because he wanted to see them joining the Volunteers. He wished county gentlemen supported the Volunteers more than they did. As it was, they went into another Force, and did not give the Volunteers the assistance which it was so very desirable they should give. He should be very glad indeed if the Yeomanry were to become Mounted Rifles. An hon. and gallant Friend who sat near him said—"We should be very pleased if we could bring our Yeomanry to the butts; but we have not got rifle ranges." The Volunteers had rifle ranges, which were at the service of Mounted Rifles. The Volunteers had drill halls as well; therefore Mounted Rifles could be trained with the greatest facility, and very economically. If the proposed change were made, he (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay) felt sure they would have the finest Irregular Cavalry in the world, instead of having an Auxiliary Cavalry Force which he believed was the worst trained—he meant for useful purposes—and the worst armed in the world. The Yeomanry were not even armed. He believed it was intended to give them shortly a better arm; but at the present time they had not even got the carbine. Formerly there was at Wimbledon a competition for Mounted Rifles. It was a very interesting competition; but the Yeomanry now said that they could no longer come to Wimbledon, because they were beaten out of the field by the Mounted Infantry. Consequently, the competition had ceased—a fact very much to be regretted.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wigan (Mr. A. F. Egerton) had called attention to a grievance with

    1941
    respect to the compensation for the loss of horses. The hon. Member was quite right in saying that the grievance had been the subject of very prolonged correspondence between the War Department and the corps concerned. It seemed to him (the Marquess of Hartington) that the line must be drawn somewhere, and he believed that such claims were dealt with in a liberal spirit. But it was an altogether different thing if a horse was lost while it was going to or coming from duty. There must be a line drawn between the time when a horse was on duty and when it was off duty. The accident to which the hon. Member referred was one which might have happened to the horse when it was not in the service of the State at all; and, therefore, he did not think that any great grievance was made out. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Hampshire (Sir Frederick Fitz-Wygram) had called attention to the good service done by the School of Auxiliary Cavalry, and he had pointed out that more good service would be rendered by the School if the Commandant held his office for a longer period. He understood from his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Arthur Hayter) that under the present system there was considerable difficulty in obtaining competent officers to accept the appointment. The subject would be brought up again, and when that was done he would give it his best consideration. He did not think he need take up much time of the Committee by replying to the observations of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). He could not altogether congratulate his hon. Friend upon the opportunity he had taken to display his economical leanings. For many years past this Vote had been the chief object of attack from the economical Party, and, so far as he could see, his hon. Friend had not brought forward any novel argument against the Yeomanry. No doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Berkshire (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay) was a great authority upon Cavalry questions; but so was the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Hampshire, who had borne testimony to the substantial value, under certain circumstances, of the Yeomanry-Force. There might be a good deal of
    1942
    advantage in the Yeomanry Force being converted into Mounted Infantry as the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay) suggested. It was a fact that this Force was capable of producing the finest Irregular Cavalry in the world. There was a great passion for equestrian exercise, and for rifle shooting, and those conditions were extremely favourable for the formation of a Mounted Infantry Force. However, for one reason or another, which he could not now undertake to explain, Mounted Infantry had not been successful. At the present time, there was only one company of Light Horse Volunteers, numbering about 60 men. That fact alone showed that there was one reason or another which prevented the formation of Mounted Infantry. Parliament ought to be very careful before they attempted to get rid of the present Yeomanry Force, which, as had been said in the course of the debate, was of very considerable value—they ought to pause before they attempted to convert the Force into something which did not appear to be equally popular. If there was a disposition voluntarily shown to convert the Yeomanry into Mounted Infantry, the matter would be worth consideration. At the present time, the Yeomanry was extremely popular, while the popularity of Mounted Infantry was not great. He did not think it was wise that he should do anything to disturb the popularity of the Force, which, under certain circumstances, was calculated to be very valuable.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he was disposed to follow the recommendation of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) and not allow this Vote to pass without a division, unless they got a proper opportunity of getting some information in regard to the Antrim Militia. From the opinion he got from a good many military gentlemen, it appeared to him to be a waste of money to spend it upon the maintenance of Yeomanry Cavalry. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) had said that the Vote was criticized each year, but that there was nothing new said about it; but he (Mr. Biggar) did not think that was a strong argument in favour of the Vote. He heard, last Session, from an hon. Member who had come from a very

    1943
    remote part of England—the county of Chester—that the Yeomanry Cavalry were a very dangerous body of men, because they were so unhandy with their swords that there was considerable risk of their cutting each other's heads off. If that was an example of their skill, he thought it would be much better to give a grant of money to get rid of them altogether. The Yeomanry were supposed to be a Military Force, but they had no miltary training whatever, and if they were called upon to vote on the question, he should certainly vote against the Estimate. If the Yeomanry were properly trained they might become proper soldiers; but, in point of fact, the Force was so mismanaged at present that it would be better to get rid of it altogether. They never went on foreign service, or did any good whatever, and therefore it would be better to get rid of them.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, that notwithstanding the disparaging remarks of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington), he would venture to say a word in support of the argument of his hon. Friend (Mr. Rylands). Now, the noble Marquess had said this question was brought forward year after year without result; but he (Mr. Illingworth) was inclined to think that, by returning to the Vote, again and again, they would eventually bring conviction that this Force was altogether a useless one. He did not pretend to be a military man, but he was the Representative of taxpayers. Now, what had they heard from the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite the Member for South Hampshire (Sir Frederick Fitz-Wygram) and the hon. Member for Berkshire (Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay)? They had assured them that if this Force was made into something entirely different from what it was at present, it might be of some use to the country. That was the argument which had been brought forward year after year. There was a time when it had a use; when the Government of the day thought it might be badly treated at home; but, happily, such times had gone by now, and if it was to be made of any use at all, it would have to be made a part of our ordinary Military Service. But he would ask this question. Would any military authority in that House say that this Force, for a century past, or as it was likely to be in
    1944
    the future, could have been, or could be now, utilized for any kind of modern warfare? He ventured to say it could not; and, therefore, its existence was a sham, and the sooner it was wiped away the better. How was it possible that there could be anything like discipline or military knowledge acquired in one week's training a-year? It was true that young officers who had acquired a good deal of technical knowledge at training schools might obtain a little practical experience by means of this Force; but it was impossible that they could impart any efficiency or knowledge on military matters to the men. The whole Force was a bye-word and a laughing-stock from one end of the country to the other. Although the noble Marquess had defended the Force, he had not indicated how it could be made useful; and his (Mr. Illingworth's) conviction remained as strong as ever, notwithstanding what had been said—namely, that this was a wasteful and useless expenditure.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: —Ayes 80; Noes 27: Majority 53.—(Div. List, No. 159.)
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  REGISTRATION (OCCUPATION VOTERS) (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 140.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, Sir Charles W. Dilke, Mr. Hibbert, Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
  REGISTRATION (OCCUPATION VOTERS) (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 140.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 6th May.]
    [THIRD NIGHT.]
    MR. GLADSTONE: It may be for the convenience of the House if I state at once that, in consequence of a communication with the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote), Her Majesty's Government propose to make a certain alteration in the course of procedure on Monday and Tuesday, by exchanging the places of the Bills that were intended for those days. It is now proposed, therefore, to take the Consolidated Fund Bill for the purpose of the debate connected with the Vote of Credit on Monday, and to take the Registration of Voters (England) Bill on Tuesday.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper to move a new clause. He did not propose to move it as it appeared on the Paper, as he had placed it there somewhat hurriedly. He was more anxious to mention the difficulty, and if the Government were not satisfied with the wording of his Amendment he would be glad to alter it in any way they liked, so long as his object was attained. The difficulty which he sought to meet arose from Section 9 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, which was as follows:—
    "A person shall not be entitled to be enrolled as a burgess unless be is qualified as follows:—
    "(a.) Has been rated in respect of the qualifying property to all poor rates made during those twelve months for the parish wherein the property is situate."
    Some difficulties with regard to the construction of that clause having arisen in the minds of Revising Barristers, he thought the Government might take advantage of this Act to make it perfectly clear, and he therefore begged to move the clause he had referred to.
    New Clause:—
    "Section nine of 'The Municipal Corporation Act, 1882,' shall be read and construed as if Section nineteen of 'The Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869,' and Section fourteen of 'The Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act. 1878,' were incorporated with the former part of that Act,"—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read the second time."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)trusted the hon. Member would not press his clause. The law was perfectly clear, and they could not legislate against every mistake which a Revising Barrister was liable to make. He had looked carefully into the matter, and was satisfied that the law as it stood was perfectly clear, and therefore he trusted the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he would comply with the request of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and not press his Amendment.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  SCHEDULES.

    FIRST SCHEDULE.
    Enactments repealed.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in moving an Amendment, in page 12, line 4, to leave out "suspended," and insert "repealed," said, the Amendment was necessary in order to meet a mere clerical error in the Schedule. He saw that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Tomlinson) was struck with the same fact. The words should be "part repealed."
    Amendment agreed to; word substituted accordingly.
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

  SECOND SCHEDULE.
    INSTRUCTIONS AND FORMS FOR COUNTIES.

      INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERKS OF THE PEACE.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in moving an Amendment, in page 13, line 15, after"1,"to insert"33,"said, that it was simply an addition which was necessary to carry out the object which the clause had in view.
      Amendment agreed to.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved an Amendment, in page 13, line 18, at end, insert as a fresh paragraph —
      "In the year 1885 the clerk of the peace will omit so much of the precept as relates to the old lodgers list and the forms relating to that list."
      Amendment agreed to; paragraph inserted accordingly.
      Mode of making out Lists'.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was in receipt of a large number of resolutions from election agents and others in regard to this Schedule, as it appeared that the compilation of the lists of voters in alphabetical order gave rise to great difficulties. The overseers were compelled to pick out all the A's and B's from the street list, in the first instance, and put them in ordinary alphabetical order; and when a General Election came, the election agents were obliged to go through the lists again, and turn them back again into street order. The overseers' grievance, therefore, was that they were put to a great deal of unne-

      1947
      cessary trouble. It appeared to him that the arrangement at present involved double trouble. He was quite aware that Clerks of the Peace were in favour of the Bill as it stood; but he thought the Committee had also to consider the convenience of candidates and of their election agents in matters of this sort. The present system involved both expense and trouble; and he thought it would be well if they gave the Local Authorities power to dispense with the alphabetical list altogether, if they thought the existing street list would meet all the requirements. It was desirable they should have a decision on the question as to whether the list should be made out, as was proposed in this part of the Second Schedule, in undoubtedly alphabetical order, or whether, as would be more convenient in many districts, it should be made out in the order, numerical or otherwise, of the streets. His proposal, however, was to get rid of the hard-and-fast line in the Schedule, and leave it to the Local Authorities of the districts to adopt the most convenient course with regard to the list; and the Amendment he was about to move would raise the question whether there might not be districts in which it would be necessary to keep to the street order, and not break up the present arrangements by having the list of voters put alphabetically.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 18, line 18, before the word "each," insert the words "unless the local authorities otherwise determine."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir E. Assheton Cross) had touched upon a question, the determination of which was a matter of some difficulty, and upon both sides of which there was a good deal to be said. He would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Select Committee which considered the Bill had had before them all the evidence they could get on this subject, including that of Clerks of the Peace, and upon that evidence they had arrived at the conclusion that the lists of voters should be made out in alphabetical order. It was felt that there
      1948
      were insuperable difficulties in the way of using street lists. The Committee were told that the overseers had been accustomed to the alphabetical method, and that if they were to be required to change their system and make out street lists, it would add very considerably to the onerous duties which they had to perform. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that the representations made to him on this subject had not come from overseers. It was an election agent's question. The overseers had to do that which other people had to do— they had to do their duty, and part of that duty consisted in making out their own lists, which they had always done in alphabetical order; and, as he had said, after careful consideration, the Committee were satisfied that it would be better to have the alphabetical list. Then the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make the rule elastic—that was to say, to apply it to some districts and not to others, as the Local Authorities should decide. But they were met by this difficulty—that it would be impracticable to have two different systems working at once which would be necessary in the case of a district in which there were, say, 1,500 voters subject to the Local Authority and 500 county voters who were not. Therefore, he said it would be impossible to use different lists for different parts of the same districts which included both urban and rural voters. The question was how far the duties of the overseers could be fulfilled; and upon the evidence of those persons of practical experience who came before them, the Committee unanimously came to the conclusion that the balance of convenience was in favour of not disturbing the existing practice of having an alphabetical list.
      MR. BIGGARsaid, the only fault he had to find with the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir E. Assheton Cross) was that it did not go far enough. He could not agree with the argument of the hon. and learned Attorney General that it would be impossible to adopt anything but the alphabetical system in counties. As a matter of fact, in Ireland they had printed lists of electors that were in alphabetical order for every polling district in the counties. Those lists related to a great many different townlands, and the names of the

      1949
      voters were given in consecutive order as in the streets of towns. He might remind the Committee that the term parish represented in England an area similar in character to that of a town-land in Ireland. What occurred in Ireland was this — the rate collector or overseer in the rural districts had the names in consecutive order; but he had to go through the labour of putting them in alphabetical order, although it was much more convenient that they should be kept in the order in which they appeared in his book. It had been pointed out that it would be for the convenience of candidates if the overseers had a second list of names in the parishes, in rural districts, and in streets of towns and villages. But that was a plea which they could not admit at all; because, in their opinion, it would be much more convenient for the overseers, and also much more convenient for the candidates, to have the list made out at first in the order proposed. The argument of the hon. and learned Attorney General that the names should be copied out from the rate book in consecutive order appeared to him to be erroneous. If the Government wished to facilitate the work of the overseers and the candidates, they would do as the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman proposed—namely, make it a rule that the lists should be according to streets in rural districts, parishes, and townlands.
      MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he regretted his inability to follow the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) with regard to the practice in Ireland, although he could speak as to what occurred in England in connection with the lists of voters. For his own part, he thought the Committee would do well to follow the decision of the Select Committee, who, as they all knew, had considered this point very carefully. He had been much struck with the evidence given by one witness before the Committee; he was a gentleman able to speak on the matter; he had for many years acted as registration agent, and knew thoroughly well the practice in respect of overseers and Clerks of the Peace. In answer to a question put to him as to the best way of having the lists of voters made out by the overseers, he said, in effect, that if he spoke from the point of view of his own conveni-
      1950
      ence he should say—"Give me the street list;" but that having regard to the convenience of overseers and Returning Officers he should say—"Take the names in alphabetical order." He (Mr. Stanhope) held that the Committee ought to consult the convenience of the overseers and Returning Officers rather than the convenience of the election agents. Another reason for adopting the alphabetical system was that it enabled them to get rid of double entries, which it was much more easy to detect in an alphabetical list of names than in a list made out on the street system suggested by his right hon. Friend. For these reasons it appeared to the Select Committee that the list of voters would be best arranged alphabetically, and they accordingly came to the conclusion that the alphabetical system should be adopted for the purpose of the Bill. Therefore, knowing that the decision of the Select Committee was arrived at after careful consideration of the facts of the case, he trusted his right hon. Friend would not feel it his duty to press the Amendment to a division.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, when the Irish Bill came back, he should feel very strongly inclined to state his view of this matter in relation to Ireland. As far as the English Bill was concerned, he was bound to say that he was of the same opinion at that moment as he was before he moved the Amendment. It appeared to him that, in this question, three classes of persons were concerned. They had to consider the position of the overseers, the Clerks of the Peace, and the candidates; the latter especially under an Act which limited expenditure at elections, and he was sure that no one would join more readily than the hon. and learned Attorney General in a proposal which would have the effect of doing away with expenditure that was not absolutely necessary. So far as the overseers were concerned, he could not imagine that what his hon. Friend (Mr. Stanhope) had stated represented in practice the real state of the case; because, if he were rightly informed, the returns in populous places were usually made out in the order of streets. It would, therefore, be imposing a large amount of work on the overseer to make him cut up his lists and re-arrange them alphabetically; and he should think, under

      1951
      the circumstances, that it would be better for the overseer to take the lists of voters according to streets and hand them over to the Clerk of the Peace. He could understand that it would be more convenient for the Clerks of the Peace to have the lists printed alphabetically, and therefore he could not resist the opinion that the evidence given before the Select Committee was for the benefit of the Clerks of the Peace and not for the election agents. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James): No; the election agents.] There were a number of Clerks of the Peace called before the Committee, and amongst them the Clerk of the Peace in his own district, a most excellent officer, whose evidence, he must say, had caused him some surprise. The cost of converting the street lists, now in use in many places, into alphabetical lists would be considerable; but the expense of cutting them up again and reconverting them would be very much greater. It seemed to him absurd first to have street lists made out, then to put then into alphabetical order for the purpose of elections, and then for the practical purposes of the locality to put them back again into street order. He would take the town of Macclesfield —not the borough—and he did so because it was a large place, and because the name represented a number of towns which, as boroughs, used to return Members of Parliament, but which were now merged in the county. Now, the overseers of those towns would have first to make out street lists, then the moment an election came they would have to cut them up and put them in alphabetical order, and afterwards bring them back into street order. He did not wish to detain the Committee any longer; but he was obliged to express his opinion that the machinery that would be put in motion by the Bill was extremely cumbrous and, at the same time, perfectly useless.
      MR. HEALYsaid, he trusted that the convenience of other persons than Clerks of the Peace would be considered in this matter. Members of that House had been for years under the direction of the hon. and learned Attorney General endeavouring to cut clown election expenses. But here was an Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir
      1952
      R. Assheton Cross) which would tend in that direction, and they found the hon. and learned Attorney General opposing it—and on what ground? Because of the convenience of Clerks of the Peace. Not a word was said about the convenience of the 650 Members of that House, whose purses ought to be considered— and they, the Members of the House, had to deal with the Bill. He said that they ought to consider this question a little more from their own point of view, and not so much from the point of view of the Clerks of the Peace. For his own part, he was not in favour of allowing his own pocket to be mulcted for the purpose of making an arrangement that would save Clerks of the Peace a little trouble. He contended that nothing had actually been said against the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire, or in answer to the arguments with which he supported that Amendment. It was admitted, in the first place, that the rate collector had to deal with the list of parishioners in the order of streets and by areas; that the list had, so to speak, then to be boiled down into alphabetical order, and when that was done, that it had to be reconverted into a street list. Thus it would be seen that the operation had to be performed twice—once at the expense of the candidates, and then again at their expense. They contended that when this had been done once at the expense of the candidate, no further expense should fall upon them. Now, the hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench (Mr. E. Stanhope), in opposing the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire, had said that the alphabetical list would tend to prevent double entries. He (Mr. Healy) admitted that as the only argument in favour of the arrangement proposed in the Bill; he admitted that double entries were more possible under the street order system than they were under an alphabetical list. No doubt, it was a much easier process for Clerks of the Peace to detect double entries by that means. But when a man presented himself at the polling station, he could be asked the question—"Have you voted before?" And in his opinion the law against double voting was sufficiently stringent to deter people from committing the act, and

      1953
      besides, the agents of the candidates would be sure to look after the people who were likely to be guilty of double voting. As a matter of fact, in the Irish boroughs, they were not allowed the option of the street arrangement, as against the alphabetical arrangement, so that England had one reform which had not been made in Ireland; and for that reason, if the right hon. Gentleman went to a division, he should support him.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would take this matter into consideration before the Report, when he (Sir E. Assheton Cross) would again refer to it. It was a matter that ought not to be lost sight of, and, in the meantime, he would make further inquiries and communicate with the hon. and learned Gentleman. As he did not wish to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the point raised by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir E. Assheton Cross) had been brought very seriously under his notice within the last few hours. He found that the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out a blot on the registration system, and one could hardly suggest the amount of cost and trouble that the arrangement proposed in the Bill would cause. In the first place, the various organizations would have to provide copies of the Registers, and pay 10s. 6d. for them, a sum which would no doubt appear small in the eyes of highly salaried officials, but the cost appeared a heavy one to persons of a different class; and then the committees would have to go carefully through the Registers, and divide them according to streets, a work that would occupy a week or a fortnight at least. This was a Bill intended to facilitate the registration of voters, and yet the hon. and learned Attorney General proposed for that purpose the very worst arrangement possible—namely, that they should be put on the Register alphabetically. At that moment he could only express his regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire had allowed this matter to drop so suddenly; it was one of the points on which the Government would be ex-
      1954
      pected to yield, and he could promise the right hon. Gentleman that it was a point to be considered before the final stage of the Bill was taken; and, for his own part, he should certainly call attention to it again.
      MR. HEALY: Will the hon. and learned Attorney General give us the alternative system which prevails in England?
      MR. BIGGARsaid, he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Assheton Cross) had not carried this matter a little further, because, although the point was small, it was of great importance to candidates of moderate means, whose expenditure at elections would be considerably increased by the arrangement proposed in the Bill. But he supposed the right hon. Gentleman had an election agent who looked after his political interests, and thus he did not trouble himself about details. His (Mr. Biggar's) own experience, however, was that when a person became a candidate, and did not want to spend much money, he wrote out a list; in one case the candidate came and asked him to get people to vote for him, and what happened? When he set to work to ask the people for their votes, he found those he wanted scattered over all parts of the borough, and it was very difficult to get at them; but having got the list arranged according to streets, he found himself able to get through the list with the greatest ease and call on the electors one after the other in regular order. It seemed to him that not only was there a large extension of the franchise, but an extension of the difficulties in the way of candidates of moderate means in the form of expenses which only persons of large means could afford. The matter would not, on the whole, be felt so much in Ireland, because candidates of the Party to which he belonged would for the most part be returned without opposition; but where there was a contest the expenses would press very heavily on candidates of moderate means, because the number of electors being greatly increased, there must be a corresponding increase in all mechanical work connected with candidatures.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had promised to look very carefully into this matter before the Report, and he therefore trusted hon. Gentlemen would save the time of the Committee

      1955
      by agreeing to the withdrawal of the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he should like to call attention to the reason for moving the first of the Amendments next standing in his name. The Committee would see that the Government were in error as to the provision contained in Subsection (c) of Clause 13 of the Schedule, which was that the overseer should state the nature of lodger qualifications in the manner prescribed. It was not the duty of the overseers, but of the Clerks of the Peace to do this, and therefore he proposed to omit the sub-section in question.
      Amendment proposed, in page 19, lines 14 to 17, leave out Sub-section (c).— {Mr. Attorney General.)
      Amendment agreed to; words left out accordingly.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the same remarks as he had made on the Amendment just agreed to applied to the Amendment he was about to move. Clause 14 instructed the overseer as to the description he was to give of the property or source from which tithe rent charges and other rent charges issued, which constituted a voting qualification. In the same way, as with the lodger qualification, the overseer had nothing to do with this; it was not within his duty; and he therefore proposed to omit the instruction.
      Amendment proposed, in page 19, line 24, leave out from "tenant" to the second "and" in line 31.—{Mr. Attorney General.)
      Amendment agreed to; words left out accordingly.
      MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he had an Amendment which he had intended to propose at paragraph 31, page 24, of the Bill, the object of which was to enable people to obtain the lists of persons disqualified. It having been pointed out to him, however, that page 24 would not be the proper place at which to introduce the Amendment, inasmuch as no point as to date was involved, and that his proposal was not in the nature of a precept, but of an amendment of the
      1956
      law, he would not move it now, but bring it forward on the Report.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I think it should be done.
      On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments made:—In page 25, lines 37 and 38, leave out "lists of occupation voters," and insert "occupiers and old lodgers lists;" in page 27, line 2, after "August," insert "next;" and in page 30, line 17, leave out "on the 6th of December, 1884," and insert "in the register in force in the year 1884."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, there was often an unnecessary amount of expenditure for printing bills, and the next Amendment which he had to propose was for the purpose of saving the cost of printing in the present ease. The words he proposed to leave out were already in the form, and it would, therefore, be quite unnecessary to retain them here.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 30, lines 20 to 23, leave out "or division of the county of or as the case may be."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
      Amendment agreed to; words left out accordingly.
      On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendment made:—
      In page 31, after line 9, insert "overseers must insert in the foregoing list the name of the Parliamentary division in which their parish is situate."
      Amendment proposed, in page 33, line 20, add:—"Note.—In this form copy particulars from Register of Voters."—{Mr. Tomlinson.)
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought the suggestion of the hon. Member for Preston a very good one, and he was prepared to agree to it with a slight alteration of wording.
      Amendment amended, and agreed to.
      MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he wished to draw attention to page 33, lines 25 and 26; surely the words should be "in July last?" Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would take note of it?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, his Amendment on

      1957
      the Paper was at page 34, line 5, in the margin, to insert—
      "This form must be omitted in 1885 if the paragraphs of the precept referring to it are not sent."
      The Local Government Board had issued the form to the overseers this year too late for it to be acted upon.
      Amendment agreed to.
      MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he wished to move an Amendment in page 35, line 9, after "premises," to insert "wholly or partly." He thought that payment of the poor rate should apply to the whole of the property, and not to a part of it. He thought a difficulty might arise in this case unless his Amendment were agreed to.
      Amendment proposed, in page 35, line 9, after "premises," insert "wholly or partly."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he quite saw what was in the hon. Gentleman's mind; but he would point out that for voting purposes, with which alone they were dealing, they required that the premises should be wholly in the possession of a person; for instance, supposing 10 or 12 cottages belonged to a person, they must be wholly in his possession.
      MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment, and see if he could not, at a later stage, bring it up in a better form.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he wished with the Amendment he was now going to move, and with the next Amendment on the Paper, to alter the margin from the right to the left hand side.
      Amendment proposed, in page 35, line 33, insert at left hand side of column, "Margin for Objections by Overseers."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had been very anxious about the particular drafting of these forms; but it did not appear very important whether this were put in the right hand column or the left hand
      1958
      column. However, if there was an advantage one way over another, it would be in having the form drawn as it was in the Bill, for the reason that it was in accordance with the old form, to which the overseers were accustomed. To change it now would be to place unnecessary difficulty in the way of the overseers.
      MR. H. G. ALLENthought it would be very convenient to have the form in the way the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) proposed, because the name of the voter was always on the left hand of the description, and it was a great saving of trouble to have the objection entered close to the name. The Attorney General was quite mistaken in supposing the overseers' objections to be usually on the right side.
      MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he would urge upon the hon. and learned Gentleman the desirability of accepting the Amendment.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Committee would agree with him that it was desirable to give the overseers as little trouble as possible during the present year, seeing the vast amount of work they would have to do. He would rather, if he could, adhere to the old form, with which the overseers were familiar.
      MR. TOMLINSONsaid, in that case, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. TOMLINSONsaid, his next Amendment was to strike out the words "Cottage in," in line 15, these words being mere surplusage.
      Amendment proposed, in page 36, line 15, leave out "Cottage in."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that if the hon. Member opposite looked carefully at the matter, he would see how necessary it was that the words should be kept in. The object of the 4th clause was to distinguish the property qualification, and what they wanted to do was to show where a person was living. In this form, under the head of "descrip-

      1959
      tion of qualifying property" there was no street named, and there was nothing to guide them unless they adhered to such plan as this "Cottage in Lewes Road," or "Green Lane," or "Church Farm," or as the case might he. It was here necessary to have the words "Cottage in."
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. TOMLINSONsaid, his next Amendment was to insert in the form to which the Amendment referred, after "Brick Street," the word "Brighton." His object was to let people understand that they had to put in the whole address. He understood that in some cases letters got addressed without the name of the post town, so that they came back through the Dead Letter Office; if the post town name were put on there would be no fear of that.
      Amendment proposed, in page 37, line 20, after "Brick Street," insert "Brighton."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
      Question proposed, "That that word be there inserted."
      MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that it would be inconvenient to adopt the Amendment, as it would necessitate a great deal of printing and altering in the Bill; they would have to reprint the word "Brighton," or similar words, some thousands of times.
      MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he presumed the question had been considered since his Amendment had been put upon the Paper, so that it was not necessary for him to insist upon his proposal. He presumed, also, the propriety of inserting this word in other cases had also been considered, and that it would not be necessary for him to raise the point again.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was anxious to move an Amendment in this Form, "the Occupiers List—No. 2, Lodgers," and hon. Members, if they would look carefully at the matter, would see that what he proposed was necessary; it had been proposed to him by a gentleman intimately connected with these matters. They had in the 5th column, under the head "Name and Address of Landlord or other Person to whom Rent is paid," the name "William Johnson, High
      1960
      Street." William Johnson would have a different residence from the place where the lodger lived under the form as it stood; and he would, therefore, alter the words "High Street," to the words "51, Brick Street," which came in the 3rd column under the heading "Street, Lane, or other Place, and Number (if any) of House in which Lodgings situate." The Amendment would show that the landlord was living in the same place as the lodger; because the lodger franchise was given to persons living in the same place as the landlord.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 37, line 20, leave out "High Street," and insert"51, Brick Street."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
      Question, "That the words 'High Street' stand part of the Schedule, "put, and negatived.
      Question, "That the words '51, Brick Street' be there inserted, "put, and agreed to.
      MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he wished to move an Amendment in line 32, in order to prevent a difficulty arising as to persons not knowing what they signed. It often happened that people signed forms without knowing what they were doing. There were two distinct things to be done. In the first place, the claimant's signature had to be witnessed, and there was then the necessity of having someone to testify to the person who was put on the Register being a proper person to be so put on. He was told that a practical difficulty did arise on this matter, and that was why he brought forward the proposal. If the addition he suggested was accepted, he thought the difficulty would be got rid of. He proposed, in line 32, to leave out "at the date," to "correct" in line 33, a consequential Amendment being to insert in line 37—
      "Declaration of correctness of Claim. I am acquainted with A. B. of I have read his claim, and believe it to be correct. My means of knowledge are derived from my being (landlord, brother, &c.) of the Claimant. E. F. (State residence and calling of deponent.) Witness G. H. (State residence and calling of witness)."
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 37, line 32, to leave out from "at the date," to "correct," in line 33.—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the Form in the Bill was the old one to which the overseers were accustomed. It had been found to work very well, and he did not see any necessity for changing it.
      MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that if it was difficult for a man to define his place of lodging it showed that he was not a proper man to sign the deposition. If a man came forward and said that he was entitled to be on the Register, he should be able to explain where his cottage was. The subject had been brought under his (Mr. Tomlinson's) notice not now for the first time. It had often been mentioned to him that there was great ambiguity in the matter of this form, and that it frequently led to grave mistakes. He thought the sense of the Committee was in favour of his clause.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked whether the two signatures were obliged to take place on the same day?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): No.
      Question put, and agreed to.

  THIRD SCHEDULE.
    INSTRUCTIONS AND FORMS FOR BOROUGHS.

      INSTRUCTIONS TO TOWN CLERKS.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, there were a number of Amendments on the Paper with regard to Forms C and E, and certain numerical distinctions. These Amendments were proposed in consequence of what had been done in the Select Committee. When the Bill was before the Select Committee the Forms were altered so as to make them more clear; and as they could not go back and alter them in the precept he now desired to do it.
      Amendments, as proposed, agreed to.
      MR. PICTONsaid, he wished to move an Amendment in page 46, lines 9 and 10, to leave out all after "be," in order to insert—
      "Omitted in copying and printing the revised lists for the Parliamentary Register and Burgess Roll."
      1962
      The object of the Amendment was to remove a practical inconvenience of which he had heard a great many complaints by those who had to prepare the lists for voting purposes. It would be observed that there was a great difference between Parliamentary counties and Parliamentary boroughs. In Parliamentary counties all useless entries were to be erased, but in the boroughs they were to be retained; and not only were they erased in the Parliamentary counties in England, but in Scotland likewise they were erased; and in Burgess Rolls it was the same, according to the Municipal Act of 1882. He did not see why these useless entries should be retained in printing the lists of borough electors, as it certainly occasioned a great deal of unnecessary printing, which would involve unnecessary expense. The unnecessary printing would make the lists more bulky than was necessary, and, at the same time, would entail some danger of confusion.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 46, lines 9 and 10, to leave out all after "be," and insert "omitted in copying and printing the revised lists for the Parliamentary Register and Burgess Roll."—(Mr. Picton.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that this was a matter of a very practical character; and if the Committee would consider what the proposition was they would see the hon. Member (Mr. Picton) was justified, to a certain extent, in making it. The hon. Gentleman was right in saying that two systems prevailed—one in counties and one in boroughs. But the hon. Member did not suggest that they should get rid altogether of the asterisk in boroughs, and revert to the system of erasure in counties; but he proposed that the Revising Barrister in a borough should keep to the old system of the asterisk, and the Revising Barrister having made the asterisk against the double entry, and having returned the Register to the Returning Officer, the Town Clerk should have the right of erasing names. That could not, for one moment, be allowed. He (the Attorney General) would not enter now upon the merits of the two systems; but he

      1963
      thought the present was a very objectionable time to alter either system. All he could say was that the Government could not consent to give to a Town Clerk the power of striking out what names he pleased. He knew the Town Clerk of Leicester was a most intelligent man; but he did not think he would like to possess the power suggested. He trusted his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment.
      MR. A. M'ARTHURsaid, he hoped the Amendment of his hon. Colleague (Mr. Picton) would be accepted. The system by which double entries were made involved great trouble and expense, and was, at the same time, quite unnecessary. The hon and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had just stated that the adoption of the Amendment would place the power of erasing names in the hands of the Town Clerk. He (Mr. A. M'Arthur) was informed that that was not exactly the case. The Town Clerk of Leicester, writing upon the subject, said the Revising Barrister saw the great convenience of the proposed plan, and did not, therefore, press his objection to it. The matter was one in which a good many boroughs were interested, and he hoped that the Government would take it into consideration, and, if it was possible, make some alteration in the manner suggested.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Amendment negatived.
      On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments made: —In page 46, line 37, after "voters," insert "for the said parliamentary borough;" in line 38, after "said," insert "municipal;" in line 41, after "said," insert "parliamentary;" and in page 47, line 7, in the margin, insert "Omit (d.) where any reserved right does not exist."
      MR. TOMLINSONproposed, as an Amendment, to insert after "as a," in page 47, line 16, the word "parliamentary."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)assented to the Amendment.
      Amendment agreed to; word inserted accordingly.
      On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendment
      1964
      made:—In page 47, line 36, in margin, leave out "but no more are entitled to be registered as voters," and insert "are entitled to be registered as voters, but no more are so entitled."
      On the Motion of Mr. TOMLINSON, the following Amendments made:—In page 48, line 1, after "as a" insert "Parliamentary," and insert the same word in line 32 of the same page.
      On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments made:—In page 49, line 14, in margin, leave out "those rights do not," and insert "no reserved rights;" inline 36, after "months," insert "and during that time has not resided as above mentioned;" and in page 51, lines 17 to 20, leave out sub-section (e.).
      Amendment proposed, in page 57, line 23, to leave out "after the last day of July."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
      MR. H. J. TOLLEMACHEsaid, he noticed that the list of the scheduled people were to be omitted from the list of Parliamentary voters and from the list of burgesses. He understood, however, there was no intention whatever to disqualify these people from voting in municipal elections.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Amendment was proposed to make it clear to the overseers that they must provide against confusion.
      MR. H.J. TOLLEMACHEasked why the information was only to be given to the overseers in the year 1885?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)pointed out that there might be, in 1885, disqualifications under the Corrupt Practices Act.
      MR. H. J. TOLLEMACHEsaid, that supposing there was a municipal election in 1886, the names of the individuals who had been scheduled by the Commissioners in 1880 would not appear.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Clearly not; but, in the meantime, we cannot tell whether there will be other corrupt practices committed.
      Question put, and negatived; words left out accordingly.
      On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments made:—In page 58, line 2, insert in margin "Omit 'or is on the reserved rights list' where no reserved rights exist;" in line 4, leave out "the occupiers," and insert "any;" in line 4, after "burgess," insert "only;" in line 20, after "occupiers," insert "reserved rights;" in line 20, insert in the margin "Omit 'reserved rights' where no reserved rights exist;" in page 60, line 5, after "occupation," insert "as a ten pounds occupier;" in line 6, leave out "of the clear yearly value of ten pounds;" in page 63, line 15, leave out the second "borough;" and in page 65, in the margin, after "merged," insert "or altered."
      On the Motion of Mr. TOMLINSON, the following Amendments made:—In page 66, line 24, after "voters," insert "and burgesses;" in page 67, line 14, after "voters," insert "and burgesses;" in line 17, after "should," insert "if there is more than one list;" and in page 68, line 2, after "should," insert "if there is more than one list."
      On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments made:—In page 69, line 27, at end of page, insert—
      "In this form the particulars should be copied from the claims sent in;"
      and in page 70, after line 10, insert—
      "This list need not include the names of persons who claim, where the occupiers' list is made out in divisions, to be entered in division one of that list."
      MR. HOULDSWORTHproposed, as an Amendment, the insertion of a new Form, entitled—
      "Notice of Objection to be given to a person who is a Duplicate Voter."
      Question, "That that Form be inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.
      MR. BULWERsaid, that, before the Bill was finally disposed of, he would like to call the hon. and learned Attorney General's attention to a matter he had pressed on the attention of the House in Committee—namely, the position which the Isle of Ely bore to the county of Cambridge. Through the courtesy of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) he had been placed in posses-
      1966
      sion of the view of the draftsman of the Bill. He had looked at the Statutes which regulated the jurisdiction of the Isle of Ely, and he was not at all satisfied that the object contemplated by the promoters of the Bill had been carried out. Perhaps the hon. and learned Attorney General would take a list of the Statutes. There was the 7 Will. IV., which dealt with the Isle of Ely expressly, and stipulated that the Isle should be deemed and taken to be a division of a county. There was the 30 & 31 Vict. c. 52, which provided that the Justices of the Isle of Ely were to carry into effect the provisions of the sections of that Act of Parliament, so far as regarded the Isle of Ely—that was as regarded the settlement of polling places, and so forth. Then there was an early Statute of Victoria, which required that the Justices might pay all the expenses of registration incurred, not by the overseers, but by the Clerks of the Peace, so that, possibly, this difficulty might arise. They would have the Justices of Cambridgeshire requiring the Clerk of the Peace of Cambridgeshire to make out a list of voters in the Isle, where they had no jurisdiction, and the Justices of the Isle would have no voice in the matter, but would have to pay the expenses. Also, if the Justices of Cambridgeshire were empowered to do this, a portion of the business of the Clerk of the Peace of the Isle of Ely, and, therefore, a portion of his remuneration, would be taken away. He (Mr. Bulwer) did not know whether he was in Order in mentioning these matters; but he did so to avoid future complications. He trusted the hon. and learned Attorney General or the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department would consider the point.
      MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he was obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Bulwer) for calling attention to the Statutes he had cited, and he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) would take care they were properly inquired into. There was no doubt that under the Bill, as it stood, the Isle of Ely became a part of Cambridgeshire. The matter should be attended to before Report.
      Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 163.]

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 151.]
  (The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) moved the folio-wing new clause to be inserted in place of Clause 12:—
  (Separate valuations to be made by Assessor of Railways and Canals in Police Burghs.)
  "The Assessor of Railways and Canals shall value the lands and heritages belonging to Railway and Canal Companies, and to Water Companies, Gas Companies, and other Companies within Burghs having Commissioners of Police under any General or Local Police Act, in the same manner, and subject to the same conditions, as in Royal and Parliamentary Burghs, and the word 'burgh,' wherever it occurs in sections twenty to twenty-nine inclusive of the Act passed in the Session of the seventeenth and eighteenth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter ninety-one, intituled "An Act for the Valuation of Lands and Heritages in Scotland,' shall include any burgh having Commissioners of Police as aforesaid."
  "And section five of 'The Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Amendment Act, 1867,' is hereby repealed."—{The Lord Advocate.)
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Clause read a second time accordingly, and added to the Bill.
  Clause 3 (Power of Her Majesty in Council to prescribe forms. Publication, Variation, and effect of Order. Form of valuation roll).
  On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments made:—In page 1, line 23, leave out "sections," and insert "section;" leave out "four and;" in line 24, after "1861," insert "is hereby repealed, and section four of the said Act;" and in line 26, leave out from "repealed," to end of section, and insert—
  "In so far as those sections provide that the name of the person to whom the amount of few duty, ground, annual, or other yearly consideration payable as a condition of his right by any proprietor, is to be entered in the valuation roll."
  On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendment made:—At the end of the Clause add—
  "Provided, That the second column of the Valuation Roll, headed 'Description and situation of subject,' may be printed for any county without sub-division if the Commissioners of Supply of such county shall so determine."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Special provision as to voters in 1885).
  On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, line 22, after "occupier," insert "tenant."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Register in Parliamentary burghs merged in counties).
  On the Motion of The Lord ADVOCATE, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, line 36, leave out "as heretofore except," and insert "separately but."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Clause 12 struck out of the Bill.
  Clause 16 (Remuneration of collectors of poor rates).
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) moved, as an Amendment, the omission, in page 4, line 19, of the word "thousand," and the insertion of the word "hundred," instead thereof.
  MR. DICK-PEDDIEasked what was the object of the Amendment?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that under the various Acts the collectors of the poor rate were obliged to make certain returns; and as this was not a part of the regular duties of their office they were paid for it. The practice had been to pay the collectors for the making out of those returns at the rate of 6s. per 100. The work involved filling in three separate columns and a good deal of labour; and he certainly thought, from the examples which had been furnished to him, that the payment proposed was a very moderate one.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 18 (Double entries of voters).
  On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments made:—In

  1969
  page 4, line 37, after "same," insert "Parliamentary;" leave out line 38; in line 39, leave out "county or;" in same line, leave out from "burgh," to the second "the," in line 40; in page 5, line 12, after "one," insert "only;" in line 13, after "proprietor," leave out "and un objected to;" in line 15, leave out "none of the entries is," and insert "all or none of the entries are;" in line 17, leave out "and un objected to;" and in line 27, after "and," insert "both in counties and in burghs."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) moved, as an Amendment, to add at the end of clause, in page 5, certain new paragraphs, which, he said, required a few words of explanation. Hon. Members would have observed that there were many cases in which the first option was given under the Bill to the voter to make his selection; and if the voter failed to make a selection of the place he wished to vote in respect of, in the case of a double entry, there were directions given to the Sheriff, acting as Revising Barrister, as to which place he should retain and which he should strike out. It might happen that from error or other cause the Sheriff might fail to strike out the second entry, and the paragraph he now proposed to add to the clause was to provide for what should be done in that case.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he wished to point out that the clause was a Definition Clause, and to remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate that during a discussion on the English Registration Bill as to whether a definition should be entertained, it was understood that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would take into consideration the question whether all the definitions could not be brought into one clause, or one particular place in the Bill. In this case, they had a definition something-like one that was given in the English Bill; and he should be glad if the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would state whether any conclusion had been come to on the matter.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR), in reply, said, it was proposed to insert the definition he had moved at the end of the present clause, because it would come in more conveniently there.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 5, at end, add as new paragraphs:—"(4.) Where a borough is divided into divisions and, notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the name of a person is entered in the register of Parliamentary Voters of more than one division of the said burgh, and one of these entries is his place of residence, he shall be entitled to vote only in that division in which he is registered as a voter in respect of his place of residence, and shall not vote in respect of any other entry;
  "(5.) In this section the expression 'Parliamentary county' means a county returning or contributing to return a Member or Members to serve in Parliament; and, where a county is divided for the purpose of such return, means a division of such county."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.

  SCHEDULE.
  On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments made:—In second column, omit the word "and," insert the word "or," instead thereof; and in last column, omit the words "as adjusted on application or appeal."
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. PRESTON BRUCEsaid, he had a Notice on the Paper for the introduction of a new Schedule which had been passed over; and he wished to ask whether he should be in Order in bringing it on at that moment?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member had not risen at the time his name was called.
  MR. PRESTON BRUCEsaid, he had not heard his name called.
  MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid the hon. Member would not be in Order in moving it now.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 18SG, the sum of £13,315,334, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  BURIAL GROUNDS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman he directed to more the House, That leave he given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to Burial Grounds.
  Resolution reported: — Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, and Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 164.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Submarine Telegraph Cables)* (104); Burial Boards (Contested Elections)* (105).
Second Reading —Elementary Education Provisional Orders Confirmation (Birmingham, &c.)* (80); Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London)* (79); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Public Health Act) (No. 2) * (83); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 3) * (84); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) * (89); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 5) * (90); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 6) * (94); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 7) * (91); Industrial Schools (Ireland) * (95); Friendly Societies Act (1875) Amendment (77), negatived.

DOMINION OF CANADA—INSURRECTION IN THE NORTH-WEST TERRITORY.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that he wished to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the information respecting the two engagements which were reported in the papers was accurate; and, whether the noble Earl was in a position to give the House any further information as to what had taken place in Canada between the insurgents and the Colonial troops?
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I shall be happy to lay before your Lordships the information which I have received. One telegram is from the Marquess of Lansdowne, the Governor General, in these words, received at the Colonial Office, 2.25 A.M. May 7:—
"Colonel Otter has fought successful engagement with Indians west of Battleford. Middleton resumes advance against Riel tomorrow."
Another telegram, which has been addressed by Sir John Macdonald to Sir Charles Tupper, has been communicated to me, and it gives rather fuller details—
"Ottawa, May 7, 1885.—Otter's command attacked Poundmaker on Sunday, and demolished his camp. Our losses eight killed, 15 wounded. Indian loss, fully 100 killed and wounded."
THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he would like to know what all that was going on was about; and whether the Indians, who were contending for something, deserved relief or not? He thought that many persons were totally ignorant of the cause of the rebellion.
THE EARL OF DERBY: The Government of Canada is responsible for the internal administration of its own affairs, and the question of the relations between the Government of Canada and the Indian tribes is not one which has come, or can come, before the Colonial Office, except, of course, in the exceedingly improbable event of the Canadian Government not being able to deal with the insurrection by means of its own resources. The question, therefore, is not one on which I can give any authoritative information; but, if I may give such information as I have received, I believe that the Canadian Government themselves are very much in the same perplexity as the noble Earl at the Table as to what the real causes of this movement are.

SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND)— LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYasked, When the Report and the recommendations of the Scotch Fishery Board on Salmon Rivers and Fisheries would be presented to Parliament; and, whether, considering the demand and necessity for legislation, the Government intended to introduce a Bill dealing with the subject?
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE, in reply, said, the Report of the Scotch Fishery Board was presented last year on the 25th of July, and probably this year it would be presented about the same time, or possibly a little sooner. It was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill dealing with the matter.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Greville.)
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.

  (NO. 77.) SECOND BEADING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Beading read.
  LORD GREVILLE, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, its object was to prevent the existence of bogus and swindling Friendly Societies, which at the present time many people were induced to join under the misapprehension that because a Society was stated to be "registered under the Act of Parliament" it must be a sound and honest one. The Bill would not be retrospective, but would apply to all Friendly Societies to be henceforward formed; and he thought that in proportion as those Societies were made sound undertakings they would inspire confidence among the working classes, who would be thereby encouraged in habits of thrift, and induced to invest their savings. He had received letters from working men expressing a hope that the law would be amended as this Bill proposed; and the Rev. Canon Blackley, who had very great experience on this subject, wrote—
  "I hope and trust that this Bill may pass into law; I think it most highly desirable in order to protect the interests of those young men who may desire to join Friendly Societies."
  The object of the Bill was to amend the Act of 1875 with regard to the registration of these Societies. There were at present two kinds of Societies, those registered and those not registered; but under Ms Bill it would be requisite for those who formed a Society to obtain an actuarial certificate as to the tables of contributions and subscriptions and the rates of payments for relief before they were admitted to registration. If the Bill passed into law he thought it probable that many of the Societies against whom it was directed would become affiliated with the great Societies
  1816
  —such as the Foresters, the Odd Fellows, the Shepherds, &c.—some of which had over 500,000 members. He thought the Bill would be welcomed by the thoughtful and prudent working men of the country, who would look to their Lordships' House with feelings of gratitude for introducing a measure which would greatly conduce to their comfort and prosperity.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Greville.)
  LORD THURLOWsaid, he was sorry he was not able, on the part of the Treasury, to support the Bill. He thought the House would appreciate the motive of the noble Lord in bringing it forward. The object aimed at was undoubtedly a most excellent one. It was the diminution of insolvency among Friendly Societies, which, it was stated—he did not know with how much accuracy—was assuming considerable and increasing proportions. There could be no question of greater importance, because nearly every working man in the country was connected with them in some form or other. But, at the same time, this was a question on which legislation ought not to be rashly and inopportunely pressed forward. The Act of 1875, which the noble Lord sought to amend, was very carefully drawn and considered, and was the result of, and embodied, most, if not all, the recommendations of more than one Select Committee which considered the subject. The Treasury had recently considered the subject with great care, and with the assistance of those most entitled to speak with authority on the matter—namely, the Chief Registrar and Actuary of Friendly Societies—and both those gentlemen concurred that to take the step contemplated by the noble Lord's Bill would be to take a retrograde step, and to return to the course which was abandoned in the Bill of 1875. It would practically re-enact Section 13 of the Act of 1846, which, in like manner, made the certificate of an actuary the absolute condition of registration. The Act of 1846 was repealed four years after it was passed, as experience showed that it drove the Societies from seeking registration. Immediately before the Act of 1846, 2,101 Societies applied for registration, and of them 1,683 were admitted; but during the two years immediately following that

  1817
  Act 1,780 Societies sought registration, and only 423 were actually enrolled. This falling off was, according to the high authority of Mr. Tidd Pratt, entirely owing to that Act, which, it would be seen, had had a decidedly deterrent effect. The Chief Registrar opposed the Bill, because it would practically have the effect of undoing what had now been going on very satisfactorily since the passage of the last Act in 1875. Compulsory actuarial certificates did not insure the safety of Societies, but rather created a false sense of security, and the only effect of the Bill would be to reduce registration to a minimum. The existing Act was sometimes considered a weak one; but it was really a stringent one. The result of the Bill would be to throw on the State the moral responsibility for the well-being and solvency of these countless Societies; while, as a matter of fact, the provisions of the existing law as to making Valuation Returns to the Registrar practically achieved the object of the proposed measure. Under the circumstances, he ventured to assure their Lordships that this was not a question to be hastily or rashly approached by Parliament without much further evidence of the desirability of amending the Act of 1875. Probably their Lordships would concur in the view taken by the Treasury, that it would be unwise to attempt new legislation on this subject except after due consideration by a Committee of equal weight to the one on whose recommendations the existing law was mainly based. He therefore ventured to appeal to the noble Lord not to press the second reading of the Bill.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, he had had the privilege of knowing Mr. Tidd Pratt very well, and it was a curious circumstance that that gentleman had once pointed out to him the very blot which the noble Lord's Bill was intended to cure. He said there were a large number of Societies throughout the country supposed to be perfectly sound, and which were joined because they were registered; but which were, in reality, perfectly unsound, and he also said the fact of registration was no guarantee of the soundness of a Society. This Bill was intended to cure that defect, and to give some real guarantee that a Society, when registered, was a sound and well-constructed Society. That purpose was a very important one;
  1818
  and he rejoiced to hear that it would be taken into careful consideration by Her Majesty's Government, and that the purpose of this Bill would therefore probably, somehow or other, be carried into effect.
  LORD NORTONsubmitted that without a proper certificate of the tables there was no guarantee for the soundness of these Friendly Societies, many of which were admittedly unsound. Registration became a snare and a delusion to the people in the most essential concerns of thrift and savings. Without a guarantee of scientific calculation there was no use of registration at all, and it was simply a publication of names, not worth the cost of a Registrar. He suggested that if the Bill were rejected the subject should be referred to a Committee of Inquiry.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he had not looked very closely into the Bill; but the subject was a most important one. There was great force in the proposal of his noble Friend who had just sat down, that the Government should assent to its being referred to a Committee of Inquiry, as it was a matter on which there was a very serious and real grievance. A large number of the Societies which it would affect were insolvent, and yet poor subscribers were induced to join them. He failed, however, to see why the Bill was to be thrown out.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided: —Contents 32; Not-Contents 38: Majority 1.
  Resolved in the negative.

TURKEY—THE BOSPHORUS AND DAR DANELLES— CONVENTION OF PARIS, 1856, AND TREATY OF BERLIN, 1878.

  ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, I rise to move an humble Address to the Crown for the Protocols or Treaties which regulate the authority of the Sublime Porte to admit foreign ships of war into the Dardanelles. It is hardly necessary to refer to the circumstances which suggest a Motion of this character. In every society, young or old, grave or gay, political or private, they have recently been mentioned. It is true that on Monday last a new fact entered the discussion. I

  1819
  deferred, in consequence, the Motion on that day, and would have willingly postponed it altogether, unless reflection had convinced me that the official statement, although calculated to diminish, ought not to remove the public apprehension as to differences with Russia. Before sitting down, I may offer something in defence of that opinion. But it is first desirable to touch on the Conventions which explain the power of the Sultan in the matter now before us. My Lords, the Press at home and on the Continent is full of ambiguity regarding them, which can only be corrected by the documents I ask for united in a single view, and not dispersed in many volumes. We are always meeting statements that Germany or Austria, or some other Power, in the event of serious contingencies, will prohibit the Sublime Porte from admitting foreign ships of war into the Dardanelles. These statements are made with little reference to past occurrences, or past enactments on the subject. Journalists, in agitated times, are too much hurried to investigate. I will submit what seems to me a faithful outline of the question. In the beginning of the century there were, no doubt, Conventions to restrain foreign ships of war from going into the waters of the Sultan when he was at peace. So far hack as 1809, it is certain, on the authority of Calvo, the great master of public law, that they existed. In a Treaty of 1841 they are referred to, in those of 1856 they are repeated. But in 1871 they underwent a grave modification. At that time, as a counterpoise to the arrangements by which Russia regained the power of cruising in the Black Sea, taken away after the Crimean War, the Sultan was permitted, even without hostilities beginning, to invite into the Bosphorus the armed ships of friendly Powers when he deemed it for his own security to do so. The new authority was brought about by what was termed the Black Sea Conference in London. It has never been exerted; it has been absolutely latent during the burning questions of the Eastern Question, which have followed it. But such a fact, whether the result of chance, irresolution, or impolicy, leaves the power equally unquestioned. The Treaty of Berlin does nothing to correct the rules as left in 1871. It, on
  1820
  the contrary, embodies and repeats them. As regards that point, the Treaty has been recently and carefully examined under my direction. The whole matter, if I am not deceived, admits a summary expression. According to the Law of Nations, it is open to any State to give a passage over land or water it possesses to the military or naval force of a belligerent. But as regards the Straits within the Ottoman Empire, the Law of Nations has been disturbed and superseded by Conventions. Those Conventions have again, in 1871, been modified and widened. The upshot is, that prohibition falls not upon the Sultan, but on other Powers. No Power can despatch its Fleets without his sanction to the Dardanelles. But that sanction turns entirely on his judgment. His right over the waters on his territory is similar to that of Prance upon the Seine, of Russia, on the Neva, of Portugal, upon the Tagus. If this interpretation is erroneous, the Papers I demand will bring the true one into notice.
  Whenever the collision, so frequently anticipated happens, the facility of operating in the Black Sea is most important to this country. It is the only area in which Russia has ever been successfully encountered by Powers wishing to restrain her. Since she became a formidable member of the European system, there are but a few instances in which campaigns have been designed or organized against her. They may be all enumerated in a moment, and the lesson is most apposite. The earliest was that of the Swedish Monarch Charles XII., which was directed from the North to the South East, and ended fatally, at least disastrously, for him and for his Kingdom, at the well-known battle of Pultova. The next in order is that of the First Napoleon in 1812, of which the detail lives in the immortal pages of the Count de Segur. Advancing from the South to the North East, it culminated in the fire of Moscow, and the destruction of the Army which retreated from it. The third was our own attempt to threaten Cronstadt, in the Baltic, under Sir Charles Napier. Your Lordships know—as those times come back with force upon us— that while it succeeded as a defensive measure, or blockade, it failed no less completely as an effort of invasion. The

  1821
  Expedition to the shores of the Crimea was almost a simultaneous one. It is the only Expedition against-Russia which has had a brilliant, although, in some degree, ephemeral result. The Black Sea was its necessary channel. If the Black Sea is closed for her advantage, Russia is entitled, by the history of the past, to deem herself invincible. It is of practical importance to explore with accuracy all the diplomatic grounds on which the Sultan may be asked to grant her an immunity from the only danger which experience has taught her to consider as a grave one. My Lords, there is but one mode of thinking to which the Address would be obnoxious, and which it is therefore indispensable to guard against. It is the mode of thinking which rejects the possibility of war with Russia and counts upon a satisfactory adjustment. The announcement of the Government has, of course, done something to encourage that impression. The financial world has seized it with a natural, but yet, as it appears to me, unreasoning avidity. Let it be granted that the Government may smooth over the immediate questions on the Afghan Frontier. Let it be granted that arbitration may patch up the controversy between Sir Peter Lumsden and General Komaroff. But the movement on Herat which tends undoubtedly to war, on that point the voice of Professor Vambery is known to us, can scarcely be arrested so long as Russia has rare, immense, and previously unknown encouragements to prosecute it. It is worth while to glance at those encouragements before the Motion is rejected as an useless one. Those encouragements reside not in the intrinsic force or unity or resolution of that Empire, great as they may be, but in the peculiar circumstances both of Europe and Great Britain. The Holy Alliance is in avowed, in flagrant lately-renovated vigour. Had it been working for two or three years we might derive a slender hope from its exhaustion and satiety. Like individuals nations may grow tired of one another. As things now stand, it is well known at St. Petersburg that Germany and Austria can offer no assistance to this country. There is no drag-chain upon Russia from that quarter. In the Crimean War it was not easy to obtain it. It is impossible at present. It is seen that France is bitterly opposed to us, or she would hardly have resented
  1822
  the suppression of a malignant journal by the Khedive. The Sublime Porte is irrecoverable until our Ministerial position has been altered. It would be devoid of memory, of dignity, of prudence, unless it were so irrecoverable—without some kind of reparation and security— after the series of transactions by which it has been diligently alienated. Those who know Constantinople — amongst whom I cannot reckon many Members of the Government — are aware that when the Embassies of Russia, Germany, and Austria are united, the British Embassy is pulled down to utter insignificance. It may be that acting on this theory the Government have virtually closed it. The Earl of Dufferin has not been replaced. There is no Ambassador at present to attempt communication with the Sultan. If he excludes Great Britain from the Black Sea, Russia may attempt Herat with absolute impunity. If he admits Great Britain to the Black Sea, she is wholly unsupported in it. Do we forget how many nations were required in the Crimea? It was only by the solemn union of this country, of France, Sardinia, and the Porte, with Austria in the rear as a benevolent spectator, that after countless toils and tragical vicissitudes Sebastopol was taken. But there is something else to urge on Russia to adventurous persistence. My Lords, it is that our foreign policy is still directed by the very agency, which led in 1870 to the concessions she obtained, which took away Sir Henry Layard from Constantinople, which did her work in Montenegro, which organized, or tried to organize, an European Concert in her favour. In our day, the problem of diplomacy, to put it in its essence, is a contention between London and St. Petersburg for influence at Berlin. Who does not see to which the palm belongs, to which it has inevitably fallen? But it is not only incapacity or isolation seen in Great Britain which urges Russia to activity and enterprize. It is well known to her rulers that our Government are unavoidably affected by the consciousness of military failure. The same body which retired from South Africa because unable to redeem its pledges or hold its ground against barbarians, the same body which has failed egregiously to rescue General Gordon, the same body which is now disposed to give up Khar-

  1823
  toum, would have to undertake a task too great for the abilities of the First Napoleon, with recent laurels to inspire, with tributary Sovereigns to back, with conquered nations to fight under him. If nothing, according to the proverb, is so successful as past triumph, nothing is so calamitous as recent and profound humiliation. But there is something else to paralyze the Government and lead on Russia to the conflict. The movement on Herat can only be suspended or retarded, but never actually renounced, so long as Russia sees in Downing Street a First Minister—however subtle and ingenious —who encouraged the aggressive war of 1877, who opposed the Vote of Credit in 1878, who did not wish the Treaty of San Stefano to be attenuated to the Treaty of Berlin, who only the last autumn on the 1st of September, in his own name before his own electors, held up the keenest advocate of Russian despotism and of Russian conquest as the person to whom the British public ought to look for guidance and direction. So long as he remains, the temptation to advance we offer at St. Petersburg is wholly irresistible. It is imagined, feebly and erroneously, that a recent speech involves a metamorphosis which would no doubt be critically useful. In point of fact that speech blots out no passage of his conduct, since he invented the new faith in Russia as a civilizing Power to be followed. But if he underwent a moral revolution, a political convulsion—and he has traversed many— the old impression could not be immediately dispersed and superseded. The speech upon the Vote of Credit is a new encouragement to Russia, if only followed by concessions as it has been. It proves to Russia that his language may be safely disregarded, whatever colour it assumes. My Lords, in spite of any language he may hold, and even more of any views he may arrive at, the Russian leaders know that so long as he is our First Minister he shelters them from all the perils which might otherwise arrest them. So long as he remains it is impossible that the mass of European Powers should be arrayed against them. So long as he remains the Holy Alliance cannot be divided; the German Empire cannot be successfully appealed to; the Sublime Porte cannot be won back to common action
  1824
  with Great Britain. It must be also recollected by the statesmen at St. Petersburg that in the event of war Constantinople will be as much an object as Herat. When are they to reach Constantinople, so nearly grasped, so painfully relinquished, if not when the Western Powers are embroiled, and when the First Minister of Great Britain is unable to defend it without the sacrifice of something more than his professions and his policy? My Lords, that war with Russia is the consequence of retaining a First Minister who has, or only seems to have, an inclination to that Power does not stand on reason, probability, or theory, although they would effectually uphold it. A sad and not remote example has betrayed it. It is seen by all who accurately measure that transaction that the imputed partiality of the late Earl of Aberdeen for Russia produced the war which led us on to the Crimea, and that had Viscount Palmerston replaced him in 1853 the Danubian Principalities would not have been invaded. There is not wanting evidence to show that the Czar Nicholas was lured on to aggression by his dependence on the leniency and confidence with which the head of our Government apparently regarded him. The observation has been made a hundred times, but ought not to escape us when its conclusion is so vital. We do not come here to display originality at such a moment as the present. The situation is a clear one. An arrangement demonstrably calculated to bring on war with Russia in spite of pledges the most solemn was made in 1880. In 1885 for weeks that war has been impending. So long as the First Minister continues in his Office, so long as Russia keeps her eyes upon Herat, the cloud remains, although the storm. has been retarded. But while the cloud remains the storm is always ready to descend upon us. We are bound, therefore to look forward to hostilities. It is in the Black Sea alone we can pursue them with advantage. Until these Protocols or Treaties are collected, it will be doubtful how far that zone of operations is accessible. The research is insignificant, as I could easily convince the Government. As to the expense, it will not be considerable, and ought not to weigh with men who have prepared a gulf which only millions can bridge over.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Protocols or treaties by which the authority of the Sublime Forte to admit foreign ships of war into the Dardanelles is regulated."— (The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
  EARL GRANVILLE: Although I am not aware I gave any exaggerated expression with regard to any hope of peace, I am bound to say I do not share in the very gloomy views which the noble Lord has just expressed. He really reminds me of those who have enteredin to a certain place and are said to have left all hope behind them. I do not believe that war with Russia is perfectly unavoidable. I do not agree that if that war came we should wage it with every possible disadvantage against us, and with every advantage in favour of Russia. I deny that Her Majesty's Government are conscious of constant military failures. I deny that it is certain Russia will go to Herat. I also deny—at least I disagree with—the sketch the noble Lord has given of Mr. Gladstone, which is one he gives from time to time from the seat he occupies in this House. On the other hand, I am confident my noble Friend was perfectly accurate, so far as I followed him, in what he said of the Treaties to which he alluded. I believe he is quite right— and I shall be corrected by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) if I am wrong—that the Berlin Treaty confirms the Treaties of 1856 and 1871. And I may mention as important that during the Conference at Berlin the noble Marquess declared, as is recorded in the Protocols with regard to the obligations concerning the closing of the Straits, that Her Majesty's Government's obligations were limited to the engagement to respect the independent judgment of the Sultan according to the Treaties in existence. Count Schouva-loff made a declaration on the following day to the effect that, in the opinion of the Russian Government's Plenipotentiaries, the principle of closing the Straits is a European principle, and that the Treaties concluded in that respect in 1841, 1856, and 1871, and confirmed by the Treaty of Berlin, were binding on the part of all the Powers, in accordance with the spirit and letter of the existing Treaties. If I am not mistaken, I think the noble Marquess, in his despatch, explains one of his main reasons for making the statement he did; it was
  1826
  made in consequence of the delaration which had just taken place that Batoum should be a free port or a commercial depot. With regard to the production of the Treaties, I really think my noble Friend need not press for them. They have been often presented; and in 1877 and 1878 they were presented and printed for Parliament.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: The remarks of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs demand one observation upon my part. The language of despair which he imputes to me is not despair as to the resources of the country, when the peculiar burden of the Ministerial position is withdrawn from it, but as to its power of opposing Russia when artificially and wantonly deprived of all support in Europe. For the rest, the personal allusions of the noble Earl are thoroughly innocuous. They are the necessity of his position since he resolved to be the organ of the Premier. He holds his Office on the tenure of attacking those who have disputed the authority of the right hon. Gentleman. I repeat what I have urged before, after full inquiry, that these Protocols and Treaties exist in no collected form, and that until they do the prevalent obscurity as to the rights of entrance to the Dardanelles is likely to continue. I shall not be able, therefore, to withdraw the Motion.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I would make one observation with respect to the declaration to which the noble Earl referred. The object of the declaration which I had to make on behalf of Her Majesty's Government I understood to be to establish the principle that our engagements in respect of the Dardanelles were not engagements of a general, European, or International character, but were engagements towards the Sultan only; the practical bearing of that reservation being that if, in any circumstances, the Sultan should not be acting independently, but under pressure from some other Power, there would be no International obligation on our part to abstain from passing through the Dardanelles. Of course, that is a purely theoretical matter. I wish to point out that it was not merely with respect to Batoum, but with respect to any other matters which may arise calling for our presence in the

  1827
  Black Sea, that the reservation then made was made.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that if he found he was wrong with regard to the Protocols he should have no objection to present them.
  On Question? Resolved in the negative.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.